CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 11

Federal RePter , Vol. 51. No. 43 , Wednesday. March S. 1986 'Rules and Regulations 1S-l9 .

[Docket No.I6-01SJ

ICFR Part 12

Animal and PIlInt Health lnlIpectlon

SGrvIce

Dated: February Z8. 18ee.

Joeeph A. Gdbbia.

DireclDr. Fruit andVttJgewbJe Divnion.

AgriculturoJMarkstill8 Service.

(FR Doc. 86-4721 Filed 3-+88; 8:45 am)

-.uNCi COOl! ........

PART 12-1MPORTATION OF CERTAIN

ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND

CERTAIN ANIMAL AND POULTRY

PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER

REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN

MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND

SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON

SUMMARY: Today's notice removes the

U.S. Department of Energy rules

regarding energy efficiency standards

for kitchen ranges and ovens. clothes

~OrderU3'7Z

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 1D.02S and il lubject to the

provisione ofExecutive Order 12312

which requires intergovernmental

coneultation with State and local

officials. (See ., CFR Part 3015. Subpart

V).

Ull ofSubjects in • CFR Part 92

Animal diaeases. Canada. Imports.

Liverstock and livestock products.

Mexico. Poultry and poultry products.

Quarantine. Transportation. Wildlife.

Accordingly. the interim rule

amending 9 CFR Part 92 which was published at 50 FR 49344-49345 on December 2. 1985. is adopted as a final

rule.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 16Z2; 19 U.5.C 1306: 21

U.S.C. 102-105. 111. 134a. 134b, 134c, 134J.

134f, and 135: 7 CFR 2.17. 2.51. and 371.2id).

Done at Washington, DC. this 27th duy of

February 1986.

G. J. Fichtner.

Acting Deputy Administrol.Or. Veterina."}'

Services.

IFR Doc. 86-4819 Filed 3-4-86; 8:45 am]

IIIWNG CODE 3410-34-11

i)EPARTMENT OF ENERGY ':::p""""'~:10 -bl<-,;

Office of Conservation and """C>~{o Renewable Energy

J1t-~~~w~ /11\ i SP/U1l -a'<.., Energy Conservatla'ii Program for CA '!.

COnsumer Products; Appliance """ 4-

Standards {)'''r'- J

AGENCY: Conservation Bnd Renewable

Energy Office. DOE.

ACTION: Final rules; Removal.

claSles imported into the United States

durina that l8JDe period.

.Underthese c:irc:uJnetance.. the

Adminitlrator ofthe Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has .

determined that thiI action wiD not have a .lipif'icant economic impact on a nbstantial number of Iman entities.

"""""'UYINFOIIIIATIOII:

Section tZ.Zp) ofthe replatione In 9

CPR Part 92, amODl other thlnga.

authorizes the importation of certain

mares and ataUiona over 731 daya of age

Into the United States from countries

affected with contagious equine metritis

(CEM) when apec:if.ic requirements to

prevent their introducing CEM Into the

United States are met, and the animal,

Imported are moved into approved

Statesfor further inspection. treatment,

andteltiJIS.

A document published In the Federal

Relister on December 2, 1985 (50 FR

f930H-t9345). set forth an Interim rule

amendina I 92.4 of the regu)atione by

adding Maryland and Ohio to the list of

approved States authorized to receive

ncb mares. The addition ofMaryland

and Ohio to the liit was based on the

finding that they meet certain minimum

Itandards conceming treatment, teatiDI,

and bandliDB.procedures for these mares.

The interim rule was made effective

upon publication. Comments were solicited for 60 days after publication of

the amendment. No comments were received. The factual situalion which was set forth in the document of

December 2, 1985, still prOVides a basis

for the amendment.

Executive Order 122910d Regulatory

flexibility Act

This rule is issued in conformance

with Executive Order 12291 and has

been determined to be not a major rule,

Based on information compiled by the

Department. it has been determined that

this rule will not have a significant

effect on the economy; will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers. individual industries.

Federal. State. or local government

agencies. or geographic regions; and will

have no significant adverse effects on competition, employment. investment,

productivity. innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export

markets.

For this action. the Office of

Management and Budget has waived its

review process required by Executive

Order 12291.

It is anticipated that fewer than 28

mares from countries affected with CEM

will be imported into the States of

Maryland alld Ohio annually. This

compares with approximately 3.340

stallions and mares (most of these were mares) imported intQ the United States

from countries affected with CEM during

Fiscal Year 1984 and with

approximately 36.000 horses of all

• • • • •

$peelfieally Approved States

Authorized To Receive Mares

Imported From CEM·Affected

Coun'rles

r:"(;[;(·'/: Animal and Plant Health

lnspection Service. USDA.

AC',fOH: Affirmation of interim rule.

gUf,llMARY: This document affirms the

interim rule which amended the

regulations by adding Maryland and

Ohio to the list of approved States

authorized to receive certain mares imported into the United States from

countries affected with contagious

equine metritis (eEM). This action is

taken because the Deputy

Admif,istrator. Veterinary Services.

Animal and Plant Health lnspection

Service. has determined that Maryland

and Ohio have laws or regulations in

effect to require the additional

Inspection. treatment. and testing of

such horses to further ensure their

freedom from CEM as required by the

regulations. The amendment is

necessary in order to avoid the

Imposition of UlUlecessary restrictions on importers of mares from countries

affected witl\ CEM.

EFFECTIVE DAT£: MarCh 5. 1986.

FOfll'UflTWlOR INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Allan A. Furr, Import-Export

Animals and Products Staff. VS. APHIS.

USDA. Room 846. Federal Building. 6505

Belcrest Road. Hyattsville. MD 20782,

Wl--436-8170.

thicJcnesa. Alao. OilioJUl may be shipped

In 50. 40.25. and zo.pollDcl carloDl, upoIl

approftl ofthe committee. Sacb . experimental ehqtmentllthaU be exempt

from paragraph (e) of this Rction but

IhaU be handled in a~rdancewith the

lIIlfeguard provlaione ofI 9S9.M and -paragraph (g) of this aection. The

committee thaD be notified of carton

Ib::e and fumiahed a container manifest,

and shippen must furnish the committee

with outturn repo~ on nch lhipmentll.
CAS-RM-78-110 COMMENT 11

1S6O F."ral Register I Vol. 51. No. 43 I WedDesd8y. March S. 1981 I Rules and Regulations

i------."Yers. fumacel,ceotnaJ air

ndilioners. refrigerators and

Jrigerator-freezera. freezers. water

'neaters and room air coDditioners and

removes rulea grantinB petitions fnmr

five States requestiq. in each case. that

the State energy emciency .taDdud for

clothea dryers andlor kitchen ranaea

and ovens be exempted from

preemption by the Fed.ratdmdarda

rules for these two products..

IEFFEC'iiVII DATI: March 5, 198&

FOR FURTHiR INFORMATlOil CONTACT:

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of

Energy. Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Buifding. 1000

Independence Avenue. SW•• Washington. DC 20585. (Z02) 252-9127

Eugene Margolis. Esq.• U.S. Department

of Energy. Office of General Counsel.

Mail Station CE-12; ForrestaJ Building.

1000 Independence Avenue SW••

Washington. DC 2058i. (202) 252-951:\

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATlON: The

Energy Conservation Program fO!'

Consumer Products was established

pursuant to the Energy Policy and

ConservaHon Act (EPCA) (Pub. L 94-

163,87 Stal. 917), as amended by the

National Ene;-gy Conp;ervation Policy

-t (:N"ECPA) (?1Jb. L 95-619.92 Stat.

J6j. which requires DOE to eltablish

,ergy efficiency siandards that are

desiglled to achieve the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and

economically justified. Section 325 (a)(1}

and (e). The Act proVides. however. that

no standard is to be established if there

is no test procedure for the product or if'

DOE determines by rule either that a

standard would not result in significant

conservation of energy or that a

stan.o:lord is not t!!Chnologically feasibll!'!

or econof"!cally jlls!ified. Section 325(b).

S~c1ion 327 of the ,4,(;( addresses the

"ffect of }'ed.~ral rulell concerning

testing. labeling. and standarda on State

laws or regulations concerning such

matters. Generally. all :w.ch State lawa

or regulations are superseded by the

Federal rule. Section 3Z7(a}. A rule by

DOE that an efficiency standard is not

technologically feasible. economically

justified. or likl'!ly to save significant

amounts of energy would be a rule that

supersedes any Slate Itandard. Section

325(b). A State whose energy efficiency

standard would be superseded.

hewever. may petition the Department

for a rule that it not be tuperaeded.

<!'!clion 3Z7(b}(3).

)1\ Di!ocember 15. 1932, DOE iuued a

.il rule wiih respect to two covered

",,·oducts. dotrals dryers. and kitchen

ranges and oven•. 47 FR 57198

(December zz,1MZ). (Hereafter referred

to 8a the December 1982 rule.) With

reapect to both products. OOE

determiDed that a .tandard would Dot

resuk ill Bipificant CODlIIlI'9atioa of .

eDe1'8Y and would not be economically justified. The December1_rule alao

establillbed procet:bues 8OVtIJ'DinB

petitiOll8 to OOB by Shltea to obtain

exempticm from preemption of State of

local en.., eRicienc:y atandards. On

August 25. 1183. DOE lIned. final rule

with retpf!Ct to aix further covered

products: Refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. water heaters.

furnaces. room air conditfonen and

central air conditioners. 48 FR 39376

(August SO. 1983). (Hereafter referred to

as the AU81J8l 1983 rule.) For each of the

six products covered by the Auguat 1983

rule. except ceDtral air conditioners.

DOE determiDed that an auergy:

efficiency 5tandard. would not result in

signifi~tconeervation of energy and

would not be economically justified.

With respect to central air conditioners.

DOE found that an energy efficiem:y

standard would result in a significant

conservation of energy but would not be

economically justified.

On March 15. 1984, DOE issued final

rules granting petitions from the States

of California. New York, Wisconsin.

Minnesota and Oregon. requesting. in

each case, that the State energy

efficiency standard for clothes dryel'$

andIor kitchen ranges and ovens be

exempted from Federal preemption. 49

FR 11764 (March 27.1964).

n. December 1962 and August 1983

final rules were challenged in a lawsuit

brought by the Namal Rell'OUfCes

DefeMe Council (NRDC) and others

against the Department of Energy. The

Court of Appeals granted NRDC's

petition and set aside DOE's December

1982 and August 1983 final rules. NRDC

v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir.

1985). That decilion having now beCome

final. the Department is removing these

rules from the Code of Federal

Regulations. Similarly. the Depanment

is removill8 fUlal rule. granting five

States exemption from two of the rules

which have been set aside.

In consideration of the foregoing. Part'

430 ef Chapternof Title 11). Code of

Federal Regulations. is amended as set

forth below.

Wt ofSubtem Ia 18en Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure. Energy conMl'Vati01l,

Household appliances.

IIIlII!d ill WuIdqtoD. DC February 12-

19l18.

IJoaDaR. I'ItIpaIllcL

Auistont!JecnItllTy. COllllervotion and

RenewrzbaEnwgy.

PARr 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for Part 430 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority. Energy Policy and Conservation

Act. Title III,Part B. as amended by National

Energy Conservation Pollcy Act. Title IV. Part

2. (42 U.S.C. 6291-Q(9).

2. Section 430.32 ia removed and

reserved.

§ 430.32 Final energy efficiency

atandarcla.IR...rved)

3. Section 430.33 is removed and

reserved.

§ 430.33 PreemptIon of Stat. regulation&.

[R• ..."edJ

[FR Doc. llll-4808 Filed 3-4-86; 8;4S amI

..LLIItQ COOl. _,..

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 105

[Rev. 2. Amell. 6)

Standards of Conduct; Conflict of

Intereat

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The internal organization of

the Agency, Office of General Counsel

has been altered by a reorganization. As

part of this reorganization. the

responsibilities of the Agency Standards

of Conduct Counselor and the Agency

Ethics Officer were transferred from the

Associate General Counsel for Financial

Law 10 the Deputy General Counsel. The

purpose of this amendment is to reflect

this transfer of dutie,s in the Agency's

regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 1986.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael F. Kinkead. Attorney. Small

Business Administration. Room 722.

1441 L Street NW~ Washington. DC

20416. (202)653-6381.

SUPPLEMENTARY INfIOlItMATlON: SBA is

publishing this rule change,in final form

since it relates only to Agency

management and is. therefore. exempt

from th:e requirement's of the

Adminilftrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

551. etseq.). the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601,.et seq.) and Executive

Orders 12291.