6308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Department does not believe that a

minimum exemption is appropriate.

Further, based upon information in

another comment received concerning

the proposed rule, the committees have

revised the detail in the forms to be

used to further minimize the burden.

The second commenter, the manager

of the California Tree Fruit Agreement,

the body which manages the PCC and

NAC, supported the proposed rule,

stating that destination reports will help

in providing information for the

committees to make long-term decisions

designed to improve the marketing of

nectarines and peaches grown in

California. This commenter noted, as

well, the importance of requiring all

handlers to file destination reports. This

commenter also discussed requirements

for similar information in other

programs, the confidentiality of the

information submitted, and the need to

finalize this action as soon as possible.

The comment went on to state that the

NAC and the PCC have revised the

destination reports since the proposed

rule was issued to make it more simple

for handlers to complete. For example,

requested information concerning grade

and size has been removed, and zip

code information would be required

only if known by the handler. Reporting

‘‘CA Utility’’ quality fruit also would be

required. It was suggested that the

computer technology that is being used

in the industries may also assist

handlers in completing the destination

report in less time that it would take to

complete the report by hand.

The Department has revised its

estimate of the time it would take to

complete the destination report from

one hour to three-quarters of an hour.

The revised estimated total annual

burden to nectarine and peach handlers

is reduced from 1,200 hours to 900

hours.

Accordingly, appropriate changes

have been made to the rule as proposed,

based on this second comment. Finally,

this rule will be effective for the

beginning of the 2000 shipping season.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at the following website:

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

matters presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the committees 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

7 CFR Part 916

Marketing agreements, Nectarines,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

7 CFR Part 917

Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR parts 916 and 917 are

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

parts 916 and 917 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

PART 916—NECTARINES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

2. In § 916.160, paragraph (c) is added

to read as follows:

§ 916.160 Reporting procedure.

* * * * *

(c) Destination report. Each shipper

who ships nectarines shall furnish to

the manager of the Nectarine

Administrative Committee a report of

the number of packages of nectarines

shipped to each destination, and

whether the nectarines were yellowfleshed or white-fleshed, and whether

the nectarines were ‘‘CA Utility’’

quality. The destination is defined as

nectarine shipments to any domestic or

international market. Destination

information for domestic market

shipments shall include city and state,

and zip code, if known. Destination

information for international market

shipments shall include the country to

which shipped. This report shall be

submitted by the fifteenth of each

month following the month in which

nectarine shipments were made.

PART 917—PEACHES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

3. In § 917.178, paragraph (c) is added

to read as follows:

§ 917.178 Peaches.

* * * * *

(c) Destination report. Each shipper

who ships peaches shall furnish to the

manager of the Control Committee a

report of the number of packages of

peaches shipped to each destination,

and whether the peaches shipped were

yellow-fleshed or white-fleshed, and

whether the peaches were ‘‘CA Utility’’

quality. The destination is defined as

peach shipments to any domestic or

international market. Destination

information for domestic market

shipments shall include the city and

state, and zip code, if known.

Destination information for

international market shipments shall

include the country to which shipped.

This report shall be submitted by the

fifteenth of each month following the

month in which peach shipments were

made.

Dated: February 3, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–2978 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 985

[Docket No. FV–00–985–1 FR]

Marketing Order Regulating the

Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in

the Far West; Salable Quantities and

Allotment Percentages for the 2000–

2001 Marketing Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes the

quantity of spearmint oil produced in

the Far West, by class, that handlers

may purchase from, or handle for,

producers during the 2000–2001

marketing year, which begins on June 1,

2000. This rule establishes salable

quantities and allotment percentages for

Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil of

1,211,207 pounds and 65 percent,

respectively, and for Class 3 (Native)

spearmint oil of 1,033,648 pounds and

50 percent, respectively. The Spearmint

Oil Administrative Committee

(Committee), the agency responsible for

local administration of the marketing

order for spearmint oil produced in the

Far West, recommended this rule for the

purpose of avoiding extreme

fluctuations in supplies and prices, and

thus help to maintain stability in the

spearmint oil market.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing

Field Office, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220

SW Third Avenue, room 369, Portland,

Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326–

2724; Fax: (503) 326–7440; or George

Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6309

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, PO Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule is issued under Marketing Order

No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended,

regulating the handling of spearmint oil

produced in the Far West (Washington,

Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of

Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘order.’’ This 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 final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. Under the provisions of

the marketing order now in effect,

salable quantities and allotment

percentages may be established for

classes of spearmint oil produced in the

Far West. This rule establishes the

quantity of spearmint oil produced in

the Far West, by class, that may be

purchased from or handled for

producers by handlers during the 2000–

2001 marketing year, which begins on

June 1, 2000. 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. A

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.

Pursuant to the authority in sections

985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order,

the Committee recommended the

salable quantities and allotment

percentages for the 2000–2001

marketing year at its October 6, 1999,

meeting. With 7 members in favor and

1 member opposed, the Committee

recommended the establishment of a

salable quantity and allotment

percentage for Class 1 (Scotch)

spearmint oil of 1,211,207 pounds and

65 percent, respectively. The member in

opposition favored the establishment of

a lower salable quantity and allotment

percentage. The Committee

unanimously recommended the

establishment of a salable quantity and

allotment percentage for Class 3 (Native)

spearmint oil of 1,033,648 pounds and

50 percent, respectively.

This final rule limits the amount of

spearmint oil that handlers may

purchase from, or handle for, producers

during the 2000–2001 marketing year,

which begins on June 1, 2000. Salable

quantities and allotment percentages

have been placed into effect each season

since the order’s inception in 1980.

The U.S. production of spearmint oil

is concentrated in the Far West,

primarily Washington, Idaho, and

Oregon (part of the area covered by the

marketing order). Spearmint oil is also

produced in the Midwest. The

production area covered by the

marketing order currently accounts for

approximately 63 percent of the annual

U.S. production of Scotch spearmint oil

and approximately 93 percent of the

annual U.S. production of Native

spearmint oil.

When the order became effective in

1980, the United States produced nearly

100 percent of the world’s supply of

Scotch spearmint oil, of which

approximately 72 percent was produced

in the regulated production area in the

Far West. International production

characteristics have changed in recent

years, however, with foreign Scotch

spearmint oil production contributing

significantly to world production. The

Far West’s market share as a percent of

total world sales fell to a low of about

38 percent during the 1994–95 season.

Beginning with the 1996–97 marketing

year, the Committee has employed a

marketing strategy for Scotch spearmint

oil that is intended to foster market

stability and that would retain and

expand market share. Using this

approach, the Far West’s market share

has increased to approximately 43

percent of total world sales. The

Committee’s current recommendation

for Scotch spearmint oil could maintain

market stability by avoiding extreme

fluctuations in supplies and prices, and

would help the industry remain

competitive on an international level by

hopefully regaining more of the Far

West’s historical share of the global

market.

The order has contributed extensively

to the stabilization of producer prices,

which prior to 1980 experienced wide

fluctuations from year to year. For

example, between 1971 and 1975 the

price of Native spearmint oil ranged

from $3.00 per pound to $11.00 per

pound. In contrast, under the order,

prices have generally stabilized between

$10.50 and $11.50 per pound. During

the past year, however, the price of

Native spearmint oil has decreased

about $2.00 per pound despite the

Committee’s efforts to balance available

supplies with the demand for the oil.

Based on comments made at the

Committee’s meeting, factors

contributing to the low price could

include the relatively poor returns being

realized from other essential oils, as

well as the overall weak farm situation.

With approximately 90 percent of the

U.S. production located in the Far West,

and with nearly 80 percent of total

world sales originating in the Far West,

the Committee’s method of calculating

the Native spearmint oil salable quantity

and allotment percentage continues to

primarily utilize information on price

and available supply as they are affected

by the estimated trade demand.

The salable quantity and allotment

percentage for each class of spearmint

oil for the 2000–2001 marketing year is

based upon the Committee’s

recommendation and the data presented

below.

(1) Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil

(A) Estimated carry-in on June l,

2000—869,206 pounds. This figure is

derived by subtracting the estimated

1999–2000 marketing year trade

demand of 887,500 pounds from the

revised 1999–2000 marketing year total

available supply of 1,756,706 pounds.

(B) Estimated global sales for the

1999–2000 marketing year—2,082,500

pounds. This figure is based on

preliminary information the Committee

has compiled.

(C) Estimated Far West sales for the

1999–2000 marketing year—900,000

pounds.

(D) Approximate Far West percentage

of estimated total world sales in 1999–

2000—43 percent. This is down from

the 1980 level of approximately 72

percent, but up from the low of

approximately 38 percent during the

1994/95 marketing year.

6310 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(E) Total estimated allotment base for

the 2000–2001 marketing year—

1,863,396 pounds. This figure

represents a one percent increase over

the revised 1999–2000 allotment base.

(F) Recommended 2000–2001

allotment percentage—65 percent. This

figure is based upon recommendations

made at the October 6, 1999, meeting, as

well as at the five Scotch spearmint oil

production area meetings held during

September 1999.

(G) The Committee’s computed 2000–

2001 salable quantity—1,211,207

pounds. This figure is the product of the

recommended allotment percentage and

the total estimated allotment base.

(H) Estimated available supply for the

2000–2001 marketing year—2,080,413

pounds. This figure is derived by adding

the computed salable quantity to the

estimated June 1, 2000, carry-in volume,

and represents the total amount of

Scotch spearmint oil that could be

available to the market during the 2000–

2001 marketing year.

(I) Estimated trade demand for Far

West Scotch spearmint oil during the

2000–2001 marketing year—887,500

pounds. This figure is based upon

estimates provided to the Committee by

buyers of spearmint oil.

(J) Estimated carry-out on May 31,

2001—1,192,913 pounds. This figure is

the difference between the 2000–2001

estimated trade demand and the 2000–

2001 estimated available supply.

(2) Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil

(A) Estimated carry-in on June 1,

2000—64,602 pounds. This figure is the

difference between the estimated 1999–

2000 marketing year trade demand of

1,168,474 pounds and the revised 1999–

2000 marketing year total available

supply of 1,233,076 pounds.

(B) Estimated trade demand (domestic

and export) for the 2000–2001

marketing year—1,170,974 pounds. This

figure is based on the average of the

estimates provided at the four

production area meetings held in

September 1999.

(C) Salable quantity required from the

year 2000 production—1,106,372

pounds. This figure is the difference

between the estimated 2000–2001

marketing year trade demand and the

estimated carry-in on June 1, 2000.

(D) Total estimated allotment base for

the 2000–2001 marketing year—

2,067,296 pounds. This figure

represents a one percent increase over

the revised 1999–2000 allotment base.

(E) Computed allotment percentage—

53.5 percent. This percentage is

computed by dividing the required

salable quantity by the total estimated

allotment base.

(F) Recommended allotment

percentage—50 percent. This is the

Committee’s recommendation based on

the computed allotment percentage and

takes into account the recent sharp

decline in the Native spearmint oil

price.

(G) The Committee’s recommended

salable quantity—1,033,648 pounds.

This figure is the product of the

recommended allotment percentage and

the total estimated allotment base.

The salable quantity is the total

quantity of each class of spearmint oil

which handlers may purchase from or

handle on behalf of producers during a

marketing year. Each producer is

allotted a share of the salable quantity

by applying the allotment percentage to

the producer’s allotment base for the

applicable class of spearmint oil.

The Committee’s recommended

Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity of

1,211,207 pounds and allotment

percentage of 65 percent are based on

the Committee’s goal of maintaining

market stability by avoiding extreme

fluctuations in supplies and prices, and

thereby helping the industry remain

competitive on the international level.

The Committee’s recommended Native

spearmint oil salable quantity of

1,106,372 pounds and allotment

percentage of 50 percent are based on

the anticipated supply and trade

demand during the 2000–2001

marketing year. The salable quantities

are not expected to cause a shortage of

spearmint oil supplies. Any

unanticipated or additional market

demand for spearmint oil which may

develop during the marketing year can

be satisfied by an increase in the salable

quantities. Both Scotch and Native

spearmint oil producers who produce

more than their annual allotments

during the 2000–2001 season may

transfer such excess spearmint oil to a

producer with spearmint oil production

less than his or her annual allotment or

put it into the reserve pool.

This regulation is similar to those

which have been issued in prior

seasons. Costs to producers and

handlers resulting from this action are

expected to be offset by the benefits

derived from a stable market, a greater

market share, and possible improved

returns. In conjunction with the

issuance of this final rule, the

Committee’s marketing policy statement

for the 2000–2001 marketing year has

been reviewed by the Department. The

Committee’s marketing policy

statement, a requirement whenever the

Committee recommends volume

regulations, fully meets the intent of

section 985.50 of the order. During its

discussion of potential 2000–2001

salable quantities and allotment

percentages, the Committee considered:

(1) The estimated quantity of salable oil

of each class held by producers and

handlers; (2) the estimated demand for

each class of oil; (3) prospective

production of each class of oil; (4) total

of allotment bases of each class of oil for

the current marketing year and the

estimated total of allotment bases of

each class for the ensuing marketing

year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by

class, in storage; (6) producer prices of

oil, including prices for each class of oil;

and (7) general market conditions for

each class of oil, including whether the

estimated season average price to

producers is likely to exceed parity.

Conformity with the Department’s

‘‘Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and

Specialty Crop Marketing Orders’’ has

also been reviewed and confirmed.

The establishment of these salable

quantities and allotment percentages

allows for anticipated market needs. In

determining anticipated market needs,

consideration by the Committee was

given to historical sales, and changes

and trends in production and demand.

This rule also provides producers with

information on the amount of spearmint

oil which should be produced for next

season in order to meet anticipated

market demand.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this action on small entities.

Accordingly, the 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 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 7 spearmint oil handlers

subject to regulation under the order,

and approximately 119 producers of

Class 1 (Scotch) spearmint oil and

approximately 105 producers of Class 3

(Native) spearmint oil in the regulated

production area. Small agricultural

service firms are defined by the Small

Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR

121.201) as those having annual receipts

of less than $5,000,000, and small

agricultural producers have been

defined as those whose annual receipts

are less than $500,000.

Based on the SBA’s definition of

small entities, the Committee estimates

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6311

that 2 of the 7 handlers regulated by the

order could be considered small

entities. Most of the handlers are large

corporations involved in the

international trading of essential oils

and the products of essential oils. In

addition, the Committee estimates that

25 of the 119 Scotch spearmint oil

producers and 7 of the 105 Native

spearmint oil producers could be

classified as small entities under the

SBA definition. Thus, a majority of

handlers and producers of Far West

spearmint oil may not be classified as

small entities.

The Far West spearmint oil industry

is characterized by producers whose

farming operations generally involve

more than one commodity, and whose

income from farming operations is not

exclusively dependent on the

production of spearmint oil. Crop

rotation is an essential cultural practice

in the production of spearmint oil for

weed, insect, and disease control. A

normal spearmint oil producing

operation would have enough acreage

for rotation such that the total acreage

required to produce the crop would be

about one-third spearmint and twothirds rotational crops. An average

spearmint oil producing farm would

thus have to have considerably more

acreage than would be planted to

spearmint during any given season. To

remain economically viable with the

added costs associated with spearmint

oil production, most spearmint oil

producing farms fall into the SBA

category of large businesses.

This final rule establishes the quantity

of spearmint oil produced in the Far

West, by class, that handlers may

purchase from, or handle for, producers

during the 2000–2001 marketing year.

The Committee recommended this rule

for the purpose of avoiding extreme

fluctuations in supplies and prices, and

thus help to maintain stability in the

spearmint oil market. This action is

authorized by the provisions of sections

985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order.

Small spearmint oil producers

generally are not extensively diversified

and as such are more at risk to market

fluctuations. Such small farmers

generally need to market their entire

annual crop and do not have the luxury

of having other crops to cushion seasons

with poor spearmint oil returns.

Conversely, large diversified producers

have the potential to endure one or

more seasons of poor spearmint oil

markets because incomes from alternate

crops could support the operation for a

period of time. Being reasonably assured

of a stable price and market provides

small producing entities with the ability

to maintain proper cash flow and to

meet annual expenses. Thus, the market

and price stability provided by the order

potentially benefit the small producer

more than such provisions benefit large

producers. Even though a majority of

handlers and producers of spearmint oil

may not be classified as small entities,

the volume control feature of this order

has small entity orientation.

The order has contributed extensively

to the stabilization of producer prices,

which prior to 1980 experienced wide

fluctuations from year to year. For

example, between 1971 and 1975 the

price of Native spearmint oil ranged

from $3.00 per pound to $11.00 per

pound. In contrast, under the order,

prices have generally stabilized between

$10.50 and $11.50 per pound. During

the past year, however, the price of

Native spearmint oil has decreased

about $2.00 per pound despite the

Committee’s efforts to balance available

supplies with the demand for the oil.

Based on comments made at the

Committee’s meeting, factors

contributing to the low price could

include the relatively poor returns being

realized from other essential oils as well

as the overall weak farm situation.

With approximately 90 percent of the

U.S. production located in the Far West,

and with nearly 80 percent of total

world sales originating in the Far West,

the Committee’s method of calculating

the Native spearmint oil salable quantity

and allotment percentage continues to

primarily utilize information on price

and available supply as they are affected

by the estimated trade demand.

Alternatives to this rule included not

regulating the handling of spearmint oil

during the 2000–2001 marketing year,

and recommending either higher or

lower levels for the salable quantities

and allotment percentages. The

Committee reached its recommendation

to establish salable quantities and

allotment percentages for both classes of

spearmint oil after careful consideration

of all available information, including:

(1) The estimated quantity of salable oil

of each class held by producers and

handlers; (2) the estimated demand for

each class of oil; (3) prospective

production of each class of oil; (4) total

of allotment bases of each class of oil for

the current marketing year and the

estimated total of allotment bases of

each class for the ensuing marketing

year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by

class, in storage; (6) producer prices of

oil, including prices for each class of oil;

and (7) general market conditions for

each class of oil, including whether the

estimated season average price to

producers is likely to exceed parity.

Based on its review, the Committee

believes that the salable quantity and

allotment percentage levels

recommended will achieve the

objectives sought.

Without any regulations in effect, the

Committee believes the industry would

return to the pattern of cyclical prices of

prior years, as well as suffer the

potentially price depressing

consequence that a release of over a

million pounds of spearmint oil reserves

would have on the market. According to

the Committee, higher or lower salable

quantities and allotment percentages

would not achieve the intended goals of

market and price stability, with market

share maintenance and growth.

Annual salable quantities and

allotment percentages have been issued

for both classes of spearmint oil since

the order’s inception. Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements have

remained the same for each year of

regulation. These requirements have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under OMB

Control No. 0581–0065. Accordingly,

this action will not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

spearmint oil producers and handlers.

All reports and forms associated with

this program are reviewed periodically

in order to avoid unnecessary and

duplicative information collection by

industry and public sector agencies. The

Department has not identified any

relevant Federal rules that duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Finally, the Committee’s meeting was

widely publicized throughout the

spearmint oil industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend and

participate on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the October 6,

1999, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express views on this issue.

Interested persons were also invited to

submit information on the regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses.

A proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register (64 FR 238) on

December 13, 1999. A 30-day comment

period was provided to allow interested

persons the opportunity to respond to

the proposal, including any regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses. A copy of the

proposed rule was faxed and mailed to

the Committee office, which in turn

notified Committee members and

spearmint oil producers and handlers of

the proposed action. In addition, the

Committee’s meeting was widely

publicized throughout the spearmint oil

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend and participate on all

issues. A copy of the proposal was also

6312 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

made available on the Internet by the

U.S. Government Printing Office. No

comments were received. Accordingly,

no changes are made to the rule as

proposed.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at the following web site:

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

matter 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 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 985 is amended as

follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE

FAR WEST

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 985 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 985.219 is added to read

as follows:

[Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.]

§ 985.219 Salable quantities and allotment

percentages—2000–2001 marketing year.

The salable quantity and allotment

percentage for each class of spearmint

oil during the marketing year beginning

on June 1, 2000, shall be as follows:

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable

quantity of 1,211,207 pounds and an

allotment percentage of 65 percent.

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable

quantity of 1,033,648 pounds and an

allotment percentage of 50 percent.

Dated: February 3, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–2979 Filed 2–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. 98–043–2]

Field Study; Definition

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the Animal

Welfare regulations by clarifying the

definition of the term field study. We

will clarify that a field study cannot

involve an invasive procedure, harm the

animals under study, or materially alter

the behavior of the animals under study.

As worded prior to this final rule, the

definition of field study could be

interpreted to mean that a field study

may include one of these situations.

This action will help ensure the proper

use and care of animals used in field

studies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary

Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD

20737–1228; (301) 734–7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C.

2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to promulgate standards and

other requirements governing the

humane handling, housing, care,

treatment, and transportation of certain

animals by dealers, research facilities,

exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate

handlers.

The regulations established under the

Act are contained in title 9 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, chapter I,

subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Part 1

defines various terms used in parts 2

and 3.

As defined in § 1.1 of the regulations

prior to this final rule, field study meant

any study that is ‘‘conducted on freeliving wild animals in their natural

habitat, which does not involve an

invasive procedure, and which does not

harm or materially alter the behavior of

the animals under study.’’

We have always intended that field

studies not include any invasive

procedures, harm the animals under

study, or materially alter the behavior of

the animals under study. However, we

were concerned that the definition, as

worded above, could be interpreted to

mean that a field study could include

any one of these situations.

On July 31, 1998, we published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 40844–40845,

Docket No. 98–043–1) a proposal to

amend the definition of field study in

§ 1.1 of the regulations by defining field

study as any study conducted on freeliving wild animals in their natural

habitat. We also proposed to add the

provision that the term field study

excludes any study that involves an

invasive procedure or has the potential

to harm or materially alter the behavior

of the animals under study. This

proposed action was based on the need

to ensure that studies conducted in freeliving wild animals in their natural

habitat are correctly classified as field

studies based on the definition of field

study.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending

September 29, 1998. We received seven

comments. They were from universities;

animal welfare organizations; an

association representing birds; an

association representing fish, reptiles,

and amphibians; and an association

representing zoos and aquariums. Two

commenters supported the proposal as

written. However, one of these

commenters and the remaining

commenters had concerns that are

discussed below.

One commenter stated that the

previous definition of field study was

perfectly clear and unambiguous and

did not need to be amended. In

addition, two commenters stated that

the proposed change in the definition of

field study would exclude all projects

that involve invasive procedures. One

commenter requested that we delay the

change of the definition. Two

commenters stated that any study has

the potential to harm or materially alter

the behavior of the animals under study;

therefore, no study could be classified

as a field study.

We do not believe that the previous

definition was clear to everyone. For

instance, two commenters stated that

the proposed change in the definition of

field study would exclude all projects

that involve invasive procedures.

However, the previous definition of

field study always excluded studies that

involved invasive procedures, harmed

the animals under study, or materially

altered the behavior of the animals

under study. In addition, in the past,

some entities interpreted the definition

to mean that a field study may include

any one of these situations as long as it

did not include all of them. In our

proposed definition of field study, we

clarified that a study that includes any

one of the situations could not be

considered a field study.

As to the use of the word potential,

we agree that it is unnecessary;

therefore, we are removing the word