This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

40330

Vol. 62, No. 144

Monday, July 28, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[Docket No. FV97–922–1 NC]

Notice of Request for Extension and

Revision of a Currently Approved

Information Collection

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice

announces the Agricultural Marketing

Service’s (AMS) intention to request an

extension for and revision to a currently

approved information collection for

Apricots Grown in Designated Counties

in Washington, Marketing Order No.

922.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be

received on or before September 26,

1997 to be assured of consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS:

Contact Tershirra T. Yeager, Marketing

Order Administration Branch, F & V,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room

2523–S, Washington, D.C. 20090–6456,

Telephone (202) 720–2491 or Fax (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Apricots Grown in Designated

Counties in Washington, Marketing

Order 922.

OMB Number: 0581–0095.

Expiration Date of Approval: February

28, 1998.

Type of Request: Extension and

revision of currently approved

information collection.

Abstract: Marketing order programs

provide an opportunity for producers of

fresh fruits, vegetables and specialty

crops, in a specified production area, to

work together to solve marketing

problems that cannot be solved

individually. Order regulations help

ensure adequate supplies of high quality

product and adequate returns to

producers. Under the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937

(AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–

674), industries enter into marketing

order programs. The Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized to oversee the

order operations and issue regulations

recommended by a committee of

representatives from each commodity

industry.

The information collection

requirements in this request are

essential to carry out the intent of the

AMAA, to provide the respondents the

type of service they request, and to

administer the apricot marketing order

program, which has been operating

since 1957.

The apricot marketing order

authorizes the issuance of quality

regulations and inspection

requirements. Regulatory provisions

apply to apricots shipped within and

outside of the production area, except

those specifically exempt. The order

also has authority for marketing

research and development projects.

The order, and rules and regulations

issued thereunder, authorize the

Washington Apricot Marketing

Committee (Committee), the agency

responsible for local administration of

the order, to require handlers and

growers to submit certain information.

Much of this information is compiled in

aggregate and provided to the industry

to assist in marketing decisions.

The Committee has developed forms

as a means for persons to file required

information with the Committee relating

to apricot supplies, shipments,

dispositions, and other information

needed to effectively carry out the

purpose of the Act and order. Apricots

are harvested from late June through

mid-August, and these forms are

utilized accordingly. A USDA form is

used to allow growers to vote on

amendments to or continuance of the

marketing order. In addition, apricot

growers and handlers who are

nominated by their peers to serve as

representatives on the Committee must

file nomination forms with the

Secretary.

Formal rulemaking amendments to

the order must be approved in referenda

conducted by the Secretary. Also, the

Secretary may conduct a continuance

referendum to determine industry

support for continuation of the order.

Handlers are asked to sign an agreement

to indicate their willingness to abide by

the provisions of the order whenever the

order is amended. These forms are

included in this request.

The forms covered under this

information collection require the

minimum information necessary to

effectively carry out the requirements of

the order, and their use is necessary to

fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed

in the order.

The information collected is used

only by authorized representatives of

the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and

Vegetable Division regional and

headquarter’s staff, and authorized

employees of the Committee.

Authorized Committee employees and

the industry are the primary users of the

information and AMS is the secondary

user.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 0.3 hours per

response.

Respondents: Apricot growers and

handlers in the designated Counties in

Washington.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

430.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 0.304.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 39 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (3)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond, including

the use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to Docket

Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room

2525–S, Washington, D.C., 20090–6456.

Comments should reference the docket

number and the date and page number
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 1997 / Notices 40331

1The alleged violations occurred in 1989. The

Regulations governing the violations at issue are

found in the 1989 version of the Code of Federal

Regulations (15 CFR parts 768–799 (1989)). Those

Regulations define the violations that BXA alleges

occurred, and are referred to hereinafter as the

former Regulations. Since that time, the Regulations

have been reorganized and restructured; the

restructured Regulations establish the procedures

that apply to the matters set forth in this decision

and order.

2The Act expired on August 20, 1994. Executive

Order 12924 (3 CFR, 1994 Comp. 917 (1995)),

extended by Presidential Notices of August 15, 1995

(3 CFR, 1995 Comp. 501 (1996)) and August 14,

1996 (3 CFR, 1996 Comp. 298 (1997)), continued

the Regulations in effect under the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.A.

§§ 1701–1706 (1991 & Supp. 1997)).

3The Recommended Decision and Order

represents that BXA served the charging letter on

April 29, 1993, when in fact, the charging letter was

issued on that date and then served on February 23,

1996.

of this issue of the Federal Register. All

comments received will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

become a matter of public record.

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–19704 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Intergovernmental Advisory

Committee Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Intergovernmental

Advisory Committee will meet on

August 7, 1997, at the Double Tree Hotel

in Port Angeles, Washington. The

purpose of the meeting is to continue

discussions on the implementation of

the Northwest Forest Plan. The meeting

will begin at 8:00 a.m. and continue

until 3:00 p.m. Agenda items to be

discussed include, but are not limited

to: effectiveness monitoring and a series

of informational presentations on

activities on the Olympic Peninsula.

The IAC meeting will be open to the

public and is fully accessible for people

with disabilities. Interpreters are

available upon request in advance.

Written comments may be submitted for

the record at the meeting. Time will also

be scheduled for oral public comments.

Interested persons are encouraged to

attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this meeting may

be directed to Don Knowles, Executive

Director, Regional Ecosystem Office, 333

SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623,

Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 503–808–

2180).

Dated: July 21, 1997.

Donald R. Knowles,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 97–19726 Filed 7–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

Decision and Order

On April 29, 1993, the Office of

Export Enforcement, Bureau of Export

Administration, United States

Department of Commerce (hereinafter

‘‘BXA’’), issued a charging letter

initiating an administrative proceeding

against William A. Roessl, individually

and formerly doing business as Enigma

Industries (hereinafter collectively

referred to as ‘‘Roessl’’). The charging

letter alleged that Roessl committed

three violations of the Export

Administration Regulations (currently

codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774

(1997)),1 issued pursuant to the Export

Administration Act of 1979, as amended

(50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401–2420 (1994))

(hereinafter the ‘‘Act’’).2

Specifically, the charging letter

alleged that, on or about June 28, 1989,

Roessl exported a U.S.-origin Floating

Point Systems model 164 Array

Processor from the United States

through Canada to the Federal Republic

of Germany without the validated

license that Roessl knew or had reason

to know was required by Section

772.1(b) of the former Regulations. BXA

alleged that, by exporting commodities

to any person or destination in violation

of or contrary to the terms of the Act,

or any regulation, order or license

issued under the Act, Roessl violated

Section 787.6 of the former Regulations.

BXA also alleged that, by selling,

transferring, or forwarding commodities

to be exported from the United States

with knowledge or reason to know that

a violation of the Act or any regulation,

order, or license issued thereunder

occurred, was about to occur, or was

intended to occur, Roessl violated

Section 787.4(a) of the former

Regulations.

Furthermore, the charging letter also

alleged that, in connection with the

shipment described above, Roessl filed,

directly or indirectly, with the U.S.

Customs Service a Shipper’s Export

Declaration (SED) on which it was

represented that the goods described

thereon were being exported from the

United States for ultimate destination in

Canada when, in fact, as Roessl knew,

the goods were not intended for

ultimate destination in Canada. BXA

alleged that, by making or causing the

making of a false or misleading

statement of material fact, directly or

indirectly, to a United States agency in

connection with the preparation,

submission, or use of an SED, an export

control document, Roessl violated

Section 787.5(a) of the former

Regulations.

BXA has presented evidence that the

charging letter was served on Roessl on

February 23, 1996.3 After he was finally

served, the parties agreed, by stipulation

dated March 22, 1996, to an extension

of time, until May 24, 1996, for Roessl

to answer the charging letter. Roessl has

failed to file an answer to the charging

letter, as required by Section 766.7 of

the Regulations, and is therefore in

default. Thus, pursuant to Section 766.7

of the Regulations, BXA moved that the

Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter

the ‘‘ALJ’’) find the facts to be as alleged

in the charging letter and render a

Recommended Decision and Order.

Following BXA’s motion, the ALJ

issued a Recommended Decision and

Order in which he found the facts to be

as alleged in the charging letter, and

concluded that those facts constitute

three violations of the former

Regulations by Roessl, as BXA alleged.

The ALJ also agreed with BXA’s

recommendation that the appropriate

penalty to be imposed for that violation

is a denial, for a period of ten years, of

all of Roessl’s export privileges. As

provided by Section 766.22 of the

Regulations, the Recommended

Decision and Order has been referred to

me for final action.

Based on my review of the entire

record, I affirm the findings of fact and

conclusions of law in the Recommended

Decision and Order of the ALJ. As the

ALJ noted, Roessl has been difficult to

locate and has not cooperated with the

resolution of this matter—even after

agency counsel agreed to an extension

of time to file his answer to the charging

letter. A civil monetary penalty would

not likely be collected. Accordingly, a

period of denial of Roessl’s export

privileges is a more effective and

appropriate penalty.

Additionally, I agree with the ALJ that

the period of denial of export privileges

should be substantial. This case is

aggravated both by Roessl’s failure to

participate in the administrative

enforcement process and by the fact that

the case involves an exportation through