11314 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

individual is not physically located in

the room where the briefing is received.

Example 2 to paragraph (d)(2)(ii): The

agency described in the preceding

example provides a briefing through a

videotaped briefing instead of through a

video conference link. The employees

viewing the videotape are provided with

a telephone at the training site and the

telephone number of a qualified

individual who is standing by during

and immediately following the training

to answer any questions. The briefing

fulfills the physical presence

requirement because the employees

receiving the briefing have direct and

immediate access to a qualified

individual.

Example 3 to paragraph (d)(2)(ii): The

physical presence requirement would

not be met if the facts of Example 2 were

varied so that the employees receiving

the briefing did not have immediate

access to the qualified individual, either

because there was no phone provided at

the training site or because the qualified

individual was not standing by to

respond to any questions raised. Merely

providing the phone number of the

qualified individual, without providing

access to that individual who is

standing by to answer questions raised

during the briefing, does not provide the

employees receiving the training with

the direct and immediate access to the

qualified individual necessary to satisfy

the presence requirement.

(iii) Exceptions. An agency may

provide the annual ethics briefing for

employees described in paragraph (b)(3)

of this section by means other than as

specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and

(d)(2)(ii) of this section only under the

following circumstances:

(A) Where the Designated Agency

Ethics Official, or his or her designee,

has made a written determination that

circumstances make it impractical to

provide the annual verbal ethics briefing

with a qualified individual present, to a

particular employee or group of

employees in accordance with

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this

section. In such cases, the annual ethics

briefing may be provided without the

presence of a qualified individual,

provided that a minimum of one hour

of official duty time is set aside for

employees to attend the presentation or

review the written materials, either by:

(1) Telecommunications, computerbased methods or recorded means; or

(2) Written means.

Example 1 to paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A):

The State Department has one public

filer (the Ambassador) in the American

Embassy in Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

Because of the difference in time zones

and the uncertainty of an ambassador’s

schedule, the designated agency ethics

official for the State Department is

justified in making a written

determination that circumstances make

it impractical to provide the annual

ethics training as a verbal briefing,

either with or without the presence of

a qualified individual. The required

annual ethics briefing can therefore be

provided by written means in

accordance with

§ 2638.704(d)(2)(iii)(A)(2). Note that an

initial ethics orientation provided in the

same calendar year in accordance with

§ 2638.703 of this subpart will meet this

annual written ethics briefing

requirement, provided the materials

meet the content requirements stated at

paragraph (c) of this section.

(B) In the case of special Government

employees who are covered employees

under paragraph (b)(3) of this section,

an agency may (without the presence of

a qualified individual) provide the

annual ethics briefing by written or

other means at the agency’s discretion,

provided that a minimum of one hour

of official duty time is set aside for

employees to attend the presentation or

review the written materials.

(3) Annual ethics briefings for all

other covered employees. (i) An agency

may satisfy the annual ethics briefing

requirement for covered employees

other than those described at paragraph

(b)(3) of this section for up to two out

of every three calendar years through

the distribution of a written ethics

briefing to those employees. In such

case, while not required to provide a

minimum of one hour of official duty

time, an agency must provide

employees receiving their annual ethics

briefings under this paragraph with

sufficient official duty time to review

the written materials provided. Note

that an initial ethics orientation

provided in the same calendar year in

accordance with § 2638.703 of this

subpart will meet this annual ethics

briefing requirement (as well as that of

§ 2638.704(d)(3)(iii) of this section),

provided the materials meet the content

requirements stated at paragraph (c) of

this section.

(ii) Except as permitted under

paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, the

ethics briefing for covered employees

other than those described at paragraph

(b)(3) of this section shall be presented

verbally at least once every three years,

either in person or by

telecommunications, computer-based

methods or recorded means. Employees

must be provided a minimum of one

hour of official duty time for this verbal

briefing. Unlike the annual ethics

briefing described at paragraph (d)(2) of

this section, for covered employees

described at paragraph (b)(3) of this

section, a qualified individual need not

be present during and immediately

following the verbal presentation

provided under this paragraph.

(iii) Exceptions. An agency can

provide covered employees receiving

their annual ethics briefings under this

paragraph (d)(3) with written briefings

only, in accordance with paragraph

(d)(3)(i) of this section, every year

without the verbal ethics briefing as

described at paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this

section at least once in any three

calendar year period, under the

following circumstances:

(A) Where the Designated Agency

Ethics Official, or his or her designee,

has made a written determination that

circumstances make it impractical to

provide an ethics briefing verbally once

every three calendar years to a

particular employee or group of

employees in accordance with

paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section;

(B) In the case of special Government

employees who are expected to work

fewer than 60 days in a calendar year;

(C) In the case of officers in the

uniformed services who serve on active

duty for 30 or fewer consecutive days;

or

(D) Where a particular employee or

group of employees are covered

employees solely because of agency

discretionary designation pursuant to

paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

[FR Doc. 97–6160 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6345–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 932

[Docket No. FV96–932–4 FIR]

Olives Grown In California;

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

establishing an assessment rate for the

California Olive Committee (Committee)

under Marketing Order No. 932 for the

1997 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal

years. The Committee is responsible for

local administration of the marketing

order which regulates the handling of

olives grown in California.

Authorization to assess olive handlers
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 11315

enables the Committee to incur

expenses that are reasonable and

necessary to administer the program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Kate Nelson, Marketing Specialist,

California Marketing Field Office, Fruit

and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA,

2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B,

Fresno, California 93721, telephone

(209) 487–5901, FAX (209) 487–5906, or

Tershirra Yeager, Program Assistant,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

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

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456,

telephone (202) 720–5127, FAX (202)

720–5698. Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

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

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456,

telephone (202) 720–2491, FAX (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as

amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating

the handling of olives grown in

California, hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘order.’’ The 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 olive 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 olives

beginning January 1, 1997, and

continuing 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.

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.

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 1,200

producers of olives in the production

area and approximately 4 handlers

subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) 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 olive

handlers may be classified as small

entities, while the majority of olive

producers may be classified as small

entities.

The olive 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 and handlers of California

olives. They are familiar with the

Committee’s needs and with 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 rate is formulated

and discussed in a public meeting.

Thus, all directly affected persons have

an opportunity to participate and

provide input.

The Committee met on December 11,

1996, and recommended 1997

expenditures of $2,159,265 and an

assessment rate of $14.99 per ton

covering olives from the appropriate

crop year. The vote on the assessment

rate was 13 in favor and 1 opposed, with

the opposing grower maintaining that

the assessment is not sufficient for the

industry’s needs. In comparison, last

year’s budgeted expenditures were

$2,600,785. The assessment rate of

$14.99 is $13.27 lower than last year’s

established rate. Major expenditures

recommended by the Committee for the

1997 fiscal year include $390,890 for

administration, $173,375 for research,

and $1,595,000 for market development.

Budgeted expenses for these items in

1996 were $388,350, $213,000, and

$1,999,435 respectively.

The order requires that the assessment

rate for a particular fiscal year apply to

all assessable olives handled during the

appropriate crop year, which for this

season is August 1, 1996, through July

31, 1997. The assessment rate

recommended by the Committee was

derived by dividing anticipated

expenses by actual receipts of olives by

handlers during the crop year. Because

that rate is applied to actual receipts, it

must be established at a rate which will

produce sufficient income to pay the

Committee’s expected expenses.

An interim final rule regarding this

action was published in the January 17,

1997, issue of the Federal Register (62

FR 2549). That rule provided for a 30-

day comment period. No comments

were received.

The recommended budget and rate of

assessment is usually acted upon by the

Committee after the crop year begins

and before the fiscal year starts, and

expenses are incurred on a continuous

basis. Therefore, the budget and

assessment rate approval must be

expedited so that the Committee will

have funds to pay its expenses. The

olive receipts for the year are 144,075

tons which should provide $2,159,684

in assessment income. Income derived

from handler assessments will be

adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

Funds in the reserve will be kept within

the maximum permitted by the order.

This action reduces the assessment

obligation imposed on handlers. The

assessments will be uniform for all

handlers. The assessment costs will be

offset by the benefits derived from the

operation of the marketing order.

Therefore, the AMS has determined that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The assessment rate established in

this rule 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.
11316 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Although this assessment rate is

effective for an indefinite period, the

Committee will continue to meet prior

to or during each fiscal year 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 1997 budget and those for

subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed

and, as appropriate, approved by the

Department.

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.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) The Committee needs to

have sufficient funds to pay its expenses

which are incurred on a continuous

basis; (2) the 1997 fiscal year began on

January 1, 1997, and the marketing

order requires that the rate of

assessment for each fiscal year apply to

all assessable olives handled during the

appropriate crop year; (3) handlers are

aware of this action which was

recommended by the Committee at a

public meeting and is similar to other

assessment rate actions issued in past

years; and (4) an interim final rule was

published on this action and provided

a 30-day comment period, no comments

were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

Marketing agreements, Olives,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as

follows:

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 932 which was

published at 62 FR 2549 on January 17,

1997, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–6203 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Part 111

[Notice 1997–3]

Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty

Amounts

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule implements the

Debt Collection Improvement Act of

1996 (‘‘DCIA’’), which requires the

Commission to adopt a regulation

adjusting for inflation the maximum

amount of civil monetary penalties

(‘‘CMP’’) under the Federal Election

Campaign Act of 1971 (‘‘FECA’’ or

‘‘Act’’), as amended. Any increase in

CMP shall apply only to violations that

occur after the effective date of this

regulation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, or Rita A. Reimer, Attorney,

999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20463, (202) 219–3690 or (800) 424–

9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission is publishing final rules

implementing the Debt Collection

Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–

134, section 31001(s), 110 Stat. 1321–

358, 1321–373 (April 26, 1996). The

DCIA amended the Federal Civil

Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act

‘‘Inflation Adjustment Act’’), 28 U.S.C.

2461 nt., to require that the Commission

adopt regulations no later than 180 days

after enactment of the statute and at

least once every four years thereafter,

adjusting for inflation that maximum

amount of the CMP’s contained in the

status administered by the Commission.

Explanation and Justification

A CMP is defined at section 3(2) of

the Interest Adjustment Act as any

penalty, fine, or other sanction that (1)

is for a specific amount, or has a

maximum amount, as provided by

federal law; and (2) is assessed or

enforced by an agency in an

administrative proceedings or by federal

law. This definition covers the monetary

penalty provisions administered by the

Commission.

The DCIA requires that these

penalties be adjusted by the cost of

living adjustment set forth in section 5

of the Interest Adjustment Act. The cost

of living adjustment is defined as the

percentage by which the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Consumer Price

Index (‘‘CPI’’) for the month of June of

the year preceding the adjustment

exceeds the CPI for the month of June

for the year in which the amount of the

penalty was last set or adjusted

pursuant to law. The adjusted amounts

are then rounded in accordance with a

specified rounding formula. However,

the DCIA imposes a 10% maximum

increase for each penalty for the first

adjustment following its enactment.

Part 111—Compliance Procedure (2

U.S.C. 437g, 437d(a))

Section 11.24 Civil Penalties (2 U.S.C.

437g(a)(5), (6), (12), 28 U.S.C. 2461 nt.

The Commission’s general CMP

provisions for violations of the FECA

are found at 2 U.S.C. 437g(a) (5) and (6).

They provide for a civil penalty not to

exceed the greater of $5,000 or an

amount equal to any contribution or

expenditure involved in the violation.

These amounts are doubled in the

case of a knowing and willful violation,

to $10,000 or an amount equal to 200

percent of any contribution or

expenditure involved in the violation.

In addition, the Act imposes CMP’s

on those who violate certain of its

confidentiality provisions. 2 U.S.C.

437g(a)(12). The penalty for violating

this section is a fine of not more than

$2,000 or $5,000 in the case of a

knowing and willful violation.

Sections 437g(a) (5) and (6) were

enacted in 1976. Pub. L. 94–283, sec.

109, 90 Stat. 475, 483 (May 11, 1976).

Section 437g(a)(12) was added in 1980.

Pub. L. 96–187, sec. 108.93 Stat. 1339,

1361 (Jan. 8, 1980).

The civil penalties established in

those sections have not subsequently

been revised. The Commission is

therefore increasing the amount of each

maximum CMP by 10%. As explained

above, neither the CPI formula nor the

rounding off formula applies to this

situation, since the Interest Adjustment

Act limits the first post-enactment

adjustment to 10%.

Accordingly, as of March 12, 1997,

the maximum civil penalties set forth in

2 U.S.C. 437g(a) (5) and (6) are increased

to the greater of the amount of any

contribution or expenditure involved in

the violation or $5,500. The maximum

penalty for a knowing and willful

violation is increased to the greater of

twice the amount of any contribution or

expenditure involved in the violation or

$11,000. The maximum penalty for a

violation of 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(12) is