This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

64337

Vol. 65, No. 209

Friday, October 27, 2000

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AJ21

Prevailing Rate Systems;

Miscellaneous Changes in Certain

Federal Wage System Wage Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing a final rule to

add Jefferson County, Washington, as an

area of application to the Kitsap, WA,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage area. We are

also renaming the Champaign-Urbana,

IL, FWS wage area as the Central Illinois

FWS wage area; updating the name of

White Sands Proving Grounds in the El

Paso, TX, and Albuquerque, NM, wage

area listings to White Sands Missile

Range; and correcting a typographical

error in the wage area listing for the

Southern Colorado wage area.

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation is

effective on November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chenty I. Carpenter by phone at (202)

606–2838, by FAX at (202) 606–4264, or

by e-mail at cicarpen@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

9, 2000, the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) published an

interim rule (65 FR 48641) to add

Jefferson County, Washington, as an

area of application to the Kitsap, WA,

nonappropriated fund (NAF) wage area

and to make miscellaneous changes in

certain Federal wage system wage areas.

The interim rule had a 30-day period for

public comment, during which we

received no comments.

Jefferson County

The Naval Ordnance Center, Pacific

Division, Detachment Port Hadlock,

now has a small club in Jefferson

County. The club employs two NAF

FWS employees. Under section 532.219

of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,

each NAF wage area ‘‘shall consist of

one or more survey areas, along with

nonsurvey areas, having

nonappropriated fund employees.’’ The

Kitsap wage area consisted of one

survey county, Kitsap County, and one

area of application county, Clallam

County, WA.

OPM considers the following

regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.219

when defining FWS wage area

boundaries:

(i) Proximity of largest activity in each

county;

(ii) Transportation facilities and

commuting patterns; and

(iii) Similarities of the counties in:

(A) Overall population;

(B) Private employment in major

industry categories; and

(C) Kinds and sizes of private

industrial establishments.

Jefferson County cannot be defined as

a separate NAF wage area because the

county does not meet the regulatory

criteria to be a separate NAF wage area.

However, nonsurvey counties can be

combined with a survey area to form a

wage area. Therefore, we are defining

Jefferson County as an area of

application to an existing NAF wage

area.

The Naval Submarine Base, Bangor, in

the Kitsap survey area, is the closest

major Federal installation to Port

Hadlock. It is approximately 53 km (33

miles) from Port Hadlock. Commuting

patterns data for Jefferson County

indicate that 6 percent of the county’s

resident workforce commutes to work in

the Kitsap survey area. Transportation

facilities consist of major interstates and

highways. Residents of Jefferson County

who commute into Pierce and

Snohomish Counties must use a ferry or

drive around Puget Sound to reach

either of these counties. A review of

employment and kinds and sizes of

industrial establishments shows that

Jefferson County is closely similar to the

Kitsap survey area.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee (FPRAC), the national labormanagement committee that advises

OPM on FWS pay matters, reviewed and

concurred by consensus with this

change.

Miscellaneous Changes

FPRAC also reviewed the ChampaignUrbana, IL, FWS wage area and

determined that the wage area’s

counties are properly defined under the

regulatory criteria for defining FWS

wage areas. However, the Committee

agreed by consensus to recommend that

OPM rename the wage area as the

Central Illinois FWS wage area because

this name better describes the

boundaries of the wage area. FPRAC

reviewed the El Paso FWS wage area

and determined that the wage area’s

counties are also properly defined. The

Committee agreed by consensus to

recommend that OPM update the name

of White Sands Proving Grounds

because the Department of Defense now

refers to it as White Sands Missile

Range. White Sands Proving Grounds

was listed under the El Paso and

Albuquerque wage areas; therefore, we

have updated the name in the listing for

both wage areas.

On May 5, 2000, we published a final

rule (65 FR 26199) that redefined certain

counties in the Southern Colorado and

Denver, CO, FWS wage areas. FPRAC

agreed to redefine Pitkin County, CO,

from the Southern Colorado wage area

to the Denver wage area. Because of a

typographical error, Pitkin County

appeared under both wage area listings

in appendix C of subpart B of part 532

of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

We should have removed Pitkin County

from the Southern Colorado wage area

listing in the final rule. This final rule

corrects the previous final rule and

reflects FPRAC’s recommendation for

the county.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because they will affect only Federal

agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

Accordingly, under the authority of 5

U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule (65 FR

48641) amending 5 CFR part 532

published on August 9, 2000, is adopted

as final with no changes.

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