64338 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–27514 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 920

[Docket No. FV00–920–3 FIR]

Kiwifruit Grown in California;

Decreased Assessment Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as

a final rule, without change, the

provisions of an interim final rule

which decreased the assessment rate

established for the Kiwifruit

Administrative Committee (Committee)

for the 2000–2001 and subsequent fiscal

periods from $0.05 to $0.03 per 22-

pound volume fill container or

equivalent of kiwifruit. The Committee

locally administers the marketing order

which regulates the handling of

kiwifruit grown in California.

Authorization to assess kiwifruit

handlers enables the Committee to incur

expenses that are reasonable and

necessary to administer the program.

The fiscal period begins August 1 and

ends July 31. The assessment rate will

remain in effect indefinitely unless

modified, suspended, or terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

M. Aguayo, Marketing Specialist,

California Marketing Field Office,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721;

telephone: (559) 487–5901; Fax: (559)

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical

Advisor, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC

20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–2491,

Fax: (202) 720–5698.

Small businesses may request

information on complying with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, PO Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Order No.

920, as amended (7 CFR part 920),

regulating the handling of kiwifruit

grown in California, hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘order.’’ The marketing order

is effective under the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. Under the marketing order now

in effect, California kiwifruit handlers

are subject to assessments. Funds to

administer the order are derived from

such assessments. It is intended that the

assessment rate as issued herein will be

applicable to all assessable kiwifruit

beginning August 1, 2000, and continue

until amended, suspended, or

terminated. This rule will not preempt

any State or local laws, regulations, or

policies, unless they present an

irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any

handler subject to an order may file

with the Secretary a petition stating that

the order, any provision of the order, or

any obligation imposed in connection

with the order is not in accordance with

law and request a modification of the

order or to be exempted therefrom. Such

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After the

hearing the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district court of the United States in any

district in which the handler is an

inhabitant, or has his or her principal

place of business, has jurisdiction to

review the Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided an action is filed not

later than 20 days after the date of the

entry of the ruling.

This rule continues to decrease the

assessment rate established for the

Committee for the 2000–2001 and

subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to

$0.03 per 22-pound volume fill

container or equivalent of kiwifruit.

The California kiwifruit marketing

order provides authority for the

Committee, with the approval of the

Department, to formulate an annual

budget of expenses and collect

assessments from handlers to administer

the program. The members of the

Committee are producers of California

kiwifruit. They are familiar with the

Committee’s needs and the costs for

goods and services in their local area

and are thus in a position to formulate

an appropriate budget and assessment

rate.

The assessment is normally

formulated and discussed in a public

meeting. A public meeting was held on

July 11, 2000. Because a Committee

quorum (eight Committee

representatives) was not present at the

meeting, the Committee voted on the

budget and assessment rate by

telephone on July 13, 2000. Thus, all

directly affected persons had an

opportunity to participate and provide

input.

For the 1998–1999 and subsequent

fiscal periods, the Committee

recommended, and the Department

approved, an assessment rate that would

continue in effect from fiscal period to

fiscal period unless modified,

suspended, or terminated by the

Secretary upon recommendation and

information submitted by the

Committee or other information

available to the Secretary.

In the telephone conference call on

July 13, 2000, the Committee

unanimously recommended 2000–2001

expenditures of $81,575 and an

assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound

volume fill container or equivalent of

kiwifruit. In comparison, last year’s

budgeted expenditures were $83,800.

The assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.02

lower than the rate previously in effect.

The Committee voted to reduce 2000–

2001 budgeted expenditures and the

assessment rate to lessen the financial

burden on California kiwifruit handlers.

The following table compares major

budget expenditures recommended by

the Committee for the 2000–2001 and

1999–2000 fiscal periods:

Budget expense

categories

2000–

2001

1999–

2000

Administrative Staff &

Field Salaries ............ 52,000 56,000

Travel, Food & Lodging 9,500 7,500

Office Costs .................. 12,000 14,000

Vehicle Expense ...........

Account ......................... 4,000 2,300

Annual Audit ................. 4,075 4,000

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived by

considering the amount of funds in the

Committee’s operating reserve,

anticipated expenses, and expected

shipments of California kiwifruit.

Kiwifruit shipments for the year are

estimated at 2,704,545 22-pound

volume fill containers or equivalents of

kiwifruit, which should provide $81,136

in assessment income at an assessment

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64339

rate of $.03 per container, $439 less than

the estimated expenses. Income derived

from handler assessments, along with

$24,000 carry-in from the Committee’s

operating reserve, will be adequate to

meet budgeted expenses and to establish

an adequate reserve (estimated to be

$23,561 at the end of the 2000–2001

fiscal period). Reserve funds will be

kept within 1 fiscal period’s expenses,

the maximum permitted under § 920.42

of the order.

The assessment rate will continue in

effect indefinitely unless modified,

suspended, or terminated by the

Secretary upon recommendation and

information submitted by the

Committee or other available

information.

Although this assessment rate is

effective for an indefinite period, the

Committee will continue to meet prior

to or during each fiscal period to

recommend a budget of expenses and

consider recommendations for

modification of the assessment rate. The

dates and times of Committee meetings

are available from the Committee or the

Department. Committee meetings are

open to the public and interested

persons may express their views at these

meetings. The Department will evaluate

Committee recommendations and other

available information to determine

whether modification of the assessment

rate is needed. Further rulemaking will

be undertaken as necessary. The

Committee’s 2000–2001 budget and

those for subsequent fiscal periods will

be reviewed and, as appropriate,

approved by the Department.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule on small entities. Accordingly,

AMS has prepared this final regulatory

flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 400

producers of kiwifruit in the production

area and approximately 56 handlers

subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers are defined by the Small

Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201) as those having annual receipts

less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000.

None of the 56 handlers subject to

regulation have annual kiwifruit sales of

at least $5,000,000, excluding receipts

from any other sources. Ten of the 400

producers subject to regulation have

annual sales of at least $500,000; and

the remaining 390 producers have sales

less than $500,000, excluding receipts

from any other sources. The majority of

California kiwifruit producers and

handlers may be classified as small

entities.

This rule continues to decrease the

assessment rate established for the

Committee and collected from handlers

for the 2000–2001 and subsequent fiscal

periods from $0.05 to $0.03 per 22-

pound volume fill container or

equivalent. The Committee

unanimously recommended 2000–2001

expenditures of $81,575 and an

assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound

volume fill container or equivalent. The

assessment rate of $0.03 is $0.02 lower

than the previous rate. The quantity of

assessable kiwifruit for the 2000–2001

fiscal period is estimated at 2,704,545

22-pound volume fill containers or

equivalent. Thus, the $0.03 rate should

provide $81,136 in assessment income,

$439 less than the estimated expenses.

The estimated assessments of $81,136

combined with the $24,000 from the

Committee’s operation reserve will

allow the Committee to meet its

expenses and to establish an adequate

reserve (estimated to be $23,561 at the

end of the 2000–2001 fiscal period).

Reserve funds will be kept within 1

fiscal period’s expenses, the maximum

permitted under § 920.42 of the order.

The following table compares major

budget expenditures recommended by

the Committee for the 2000–2001 and

1999–2000 fiscal years:

Budget expense

categories

2000–

2001

1999–

2000

Administrative Staff &

Field Salaries ............ 52,000 56,000

Travel, Food & Lodging 9,500 7,500

Office Costs .................. 12,000 14,000

Vehicle Expense ...........

Account ......................... 4,000 2,300

Annual Audit ................. 4,075 4,000

The Committee reviewed and

unanimously recommended 2000–2001

expenditures of $81,575 which includes

decreases in administrative staff and

field salaries and office costs. The

Committee also unanimously

recommended lowering the assessment

rate from $0.05 to $0.03 to lessen the

financial burden on handlers.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the

Committee considered information from

various sources, such as the

Committee’s Finance and Assessment

Subcommittee. These groups discussed

alternative expenditure levels. The

subcommittee looked at maintaining the

assessment rate at its current level, but

determined that the handler financial

burden should be lessened. The

assessment rate of $0.03 per 22-pound

volume fill container or equivalent of

assessable kiwifruit was recommended

by the Committee and was derived by

considering the funds in the

Committee’s operating reserve,

anticipated expenses, and expected

shipments of California kiwifruit.

Kiwifruit shipments for the year are

estimated at 2,704,545 22-pound

volume fill containers or equivalents of

kiwifruit, which should provide $81,136

in assessment income, $439 less than

the estimated expenses. Income derived

from handler assessments, along with

the $24,000 carry-in from the

Committee’s operating reserve, will be

adequate to meet budgeted expenses

and to establish an adequate reserve

(estimated to be $23,561 at the end of

the 2000–2001 fiscal period). Reserve

funds will be kept within 1 fiscal

period’s expenses, the maximum

permitted under § 920.42 of the order.

A review of historical information and

preliminary information pertaining to

the upcoming fiscal period indicates

that the grower price for the 2000–2001

season will be approximately $12.32 per

22-pound volume fill container or

equivalent of kiwifruit. Therefore, the

estimated assessment revenue for the

2000–2001 fiscal period as a percentage

of total grower revenue is estimated at

0.2 percent.

This action continues to decrease the

assessment obligation imposed on

handlers. Assessments are applied

uniformly on all handlers, and some of

the costs may be passed on to

producers. However, decreasing the

assessment rate reduces the burden on

handlers, and may reduce the burden on

producers.

In addition, the Committee’s July 11,

2000, meeting was widely publicized

throughout the California kiwifruit

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Committee deliberations

on all issues. Like all Committee

meetings, the July 11, 2000, meeting was

a public meeting and all entities, both

large and small, were able to express

views on this issue.

Additionally, all attendees were

advised of the conference call to be

conducted on July 13, 2000. Finally,

interested persons were invited to

64340 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

submit information on the regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses.

This action imposes no additional

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on either small or large California

kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal

marketing order programs, reports and

forms are periodically reviewed to

reduce information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

An interim final rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on August 14, 2000 (65 FR

49472). Copies of that rule were also

mailed or sent via facsimile to all

kiwifruit handlers. Finally, the interim

final rule was made available through

the Internet by the Office of the Federal

Register. A 60-day comment period was

provided for interested persons to

respond to the interim final rule. The

comment period ended on October 13,

2000. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 920 which was

published at 65 FR 49472 on August 14,

2000, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: October 23, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–27618 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–CE–03–AD; Amendment

39–11946; AD 2000–21–14]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–12 and PC–12/

45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.

(Pilatus) Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes. This AD requires you to

perform a one-time inspection for

abrasion damage, distortion, and proper

clearance of the torque oil-pressure

tubes and py pressure pipe, and if

necessary, adjust and replace these

components. This AD is the result of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information (MCAI) issued by the

airworthiness authority for Switzerland.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to correct abrasive damage

from rubbing pipes and consequent loss

of engine oil.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on

December 15, 2000.

The Director of the Federal Register

approved the incorporation by reference

of certain publications listed in the

regulations as of December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service

information referenced in this AD from

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 63 19; facsimile:

+41 41 619 6224. You may examine this

information at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–CE–

03–AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas

City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC

20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4141; facsimile: (816) 329–4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

What events have caused this AD?

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland, recently

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Pilatus

Model PC–12 and PC–12/45 airplanes.

The FOCA reports that 3 airplanes had

rubbing pipes, 2 with consequent

leakage of engine oil. Inadequate

clearance caused these components to

touch and rub.

What are the consequences if you do

not correct the condition? This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in loss of propulsion during flight.

Has FAA taken any action to this

point? We issued a proposal to amend

part 39 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include

an AD that would apply to certain

Pilatus Models PC–12 and PC–12/45

airplanes. This proposal was published

in the Federal Register as a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on

August 18, 2000 (65 FR 50466). The

NPRM proposed to require a one-time

inspection of the torque oil-pressure

tubes and py pressure pipe; and adjust

and replace, if necessary, the torque oilpressure tubes and py pressure pipe.

Was the public invited to comment?

Interested persons were afforded an

opportunity to participate in the making

of this amendment. No comments were

received on the proposed rule or the

FAA’s determination of the cost to the

public.

The FAA’s Determination

What is FAA’s Final Determination on

this Issue? After careful review of all

available information related to the

subject presented above, we have

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor

editorial corrections. We determined

that these minor corrections:

• Will not change the meaning of the

AD; and

• Will not add any additional burden

upon the public than was already

proposed.

Cost Impact

How many airplanes does this AD

impact? We estimate that this AD affects

108 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on

owners/operators of the affected

airplanes? We estimate the following

costs to accomplish the inspection: