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

29529

Vol. 63, No. 104

Monday June 1, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. TB–97–16]

Tobacco Inspection; Growers’

Referendum Results

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains the

determination with respect to the

referendum on the merger of Clarksville

and Chase City, Virginia, to become the

consolidated market of ClarksvilleChase City. A mail referendum was

conducted during the period of April

27–May 1, 1998, among tobacco growers

who sold tobacco on these markets in

1997 to determine producer approval/

disapproval of the designation of these

markets as one consolidated market.

Therefore, for the 1998 and succeeding

flue-cured marketing seasons, the

Clarksville and Chase City, Virginia,

tobacco markets shall be designated as

and called Clarksville-Chase City. The

regulations are amended to reflect this

new designated market.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William O. Coats, Associate Deputy

Administrator, Tobacco Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United

States Department of Agriculture, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090–

6456; telephone number (202) 205–

0508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

was published in the April 20, 1998,

issue of the Federal Register (63

FR,19415) announcing that a

referendum would be conducted among

active flue-cured producers who sold

tobacco on either Clarksville or Chase

City during the 1997 season to ascertain

if such producers favored the

consolidation.

The notice of referendum announced

the determination by the Secretary that

the consolidated market of Clarksville

and Chase City, would be designated as

a flue-cured tobacco auction market and

receive mandatory Federal grading of

tobacco sold at auction for the 1998 and

succeeding seasons, subject to the

results of the referendum. The

determination was based on the

evidence and arguments presented at a

public hearing held in, Clarksville,

Virginia, on November 7, 1997,

pursuant to applicable provisions of the

regulations issued under the Tobacco

Inspection Act, as amended. The

referendum was held in accordance

with the provisions of the Tobacco

Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.

511d) and the regulations set forth in 7

CFR 29.74.

Ballots for the April 27–May 1, 1998,

referendum were mailed to 511

producers. Approval required votes in

favor of the proposal by two-thirds of

the eligible voters who cast valid

ballots. The Department received a total

of 131 responses: 100 eligible producers

voted in favor of the consolidation; 9

eligible producers voted against the

consolidation; and 22 ballots were

determined to be invalid.

The Department of Agriculture is

issuing this rule in conformance with

Executive Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. The

final rule will not exempt any State or

local laws, regulations, or policies,

unless they present an irreconcilable

conflict with this rule. There are no

administrative procedures which must

be exhausted prior to any judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Additionally, in conformance with

the provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), full

consideration has been given to the

potential economic impact upon small

business. Most tobacco producers and

many tobacco warehouses are small

businesses as defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This action will not

substantially affect the normal

movement of the commodity in the

marketplace. It has been determined

that this action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 29

Administrative practices and

procedures, Advisory committees,

Government publications, Imports,

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and

recordkeeping procedures, Tobacco.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 29 is amended as

follows:

PART 29—TOBACCO INSPECTION

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 29, Subpart D, continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 5, 49 Stat, 732, as

amended, by Sec. 157(a)(1), 95 Stat. 374 (7

U.S.C. 511d).

Subpart D—Orders of Designation of

Tobacco Markets

2. In § 29.8001, the table is amended

by adding a new entry (ppp) to read as

follows:

§ 29.8001 Designation of tobacco markets.

* * * * *

DESIGNATED TOBACCO MARKETS

Territory Types of tobacco Auction markets Order of destination Citation

* * * * * * *

(ppp)Virginia ....................... Flue-Cured ........................ Clarksville-Chase City ...... July 1, 1998. ..................... (Insert Federal Register

citation.)
29530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 26, 1998.

Enrique E. Figueroa,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–14423 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

7 CFR Part 868

RIN 0580–AA54

General Regulations and Standards for

Certain Agricultural Commodities

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers

and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

is amending the regulations under the

Agricultural Marketing Act (Act) of 1946

to allow GIPSA and State cooperators to

use contractors to perform specified

inspection services. GIPSA has

determined that private firms,

institutions, and individuals, working

under contract with GIPSA field offices

and State cooperators, may be able to

perform some inspection services, at

certain locations, more effectively or at

less cost than if those services were

performed by Department or State

employees. Consequently, GIPSA is

amending the regulations to allow

GIPSA and State cooperators to contract

for service work and to license

individual contractors and those

employed by contractors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Wollam, USDA, GIPSA, Room

0623–S, Stop 3649, Washington, D.C.

20250–3649; FAX (202) 720–4628; or Email gwollam@fgisdc.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to

be nonsignificant for the purpose of

Executive Order 12866, and, therefore,

has not been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have preemptive effect with

respect to any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. This final rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. There are no

administrative procedures which must

be exhausted prior to any judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule

or application of its provisions.

Effects on Small Entities

GIPSA has determined that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as defined

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). GIPSA believes that

allowing contracts with private firms,

institutions, individuals, and others for

inspection work will foster more costeffective operations. Many users of the

inspection services do not meet the

requirements for small entities as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act. For example, the primary user of

pulse inspection services is the U.S.

Government. It is estimated that

between 80 and 90 percent of all

inspections are performed (directly or

indirectly) at the request of either the

USDA’s Farm Service Agency or Foreign

Agricultural Service, or the U.S. Agency

for International Development. The

action will allow GIPSA and the 13

State cooperators to use contractors to

perform specified inspection services.

Currently, contract samplers are used by

both GIPSA and State cooperators

which has resulted in reduced operating

expenses and, in many cases, quicker

services to applicants for services. It is

expected that this action would result in

similar benefits.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

In compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), the information collection

and recordkeeping requirements in Part

868 have been approved previously by

OMB and assigned OMB No. 0580–

0013.

Background

GIPSA is committed to carrying out

its statutory and regulatory mandates in

a cost-effective manner that best serves

the public interest. Concurrently, GIPSA

is constantly seeking ways to reduce the

cost of providing official services,

without reducing the quality of that

service. One measure that has proven

effective is the use of contract samplers

at outlying service points or during

periods of peak demand. By judiciously

using contract samplers, GIPSA field

offices and State cooperators have been

able to reduce their operating expenses

and, in many cases, provide quicker

service to their applicants for services.

GIPSA believes that contract inspections

may be equally beneficial in certain

situations; e.g., providing quality

inspections on an intermittent basis at

geographically isolated service points.

On January 15, 1998, GIPSA

published in the Federal Register (63

FR 2353) a proposal to amend the

regulations under the Act of 1946 to

allow GIPSA and State cooperators to

use contractors to perform specified

inspection services. The Act of 1946

provides authority to the Secretary of

Agriculture to enter into contracts and

agreements with States and agencies of

States, private firms, institutions, and

individuals for the purpose of

performing specified inspection

services. According to Section

868.1(b)(23) of the regulations, such

services may include ‘‘applying such

tests and making examinations of a

commodity and records by official

personnel as may be necessary to

determine the kind, class, grade, other

quality designation, the quantity, or

condition of commodity; performing

condition of container, carrier stowage

examination; and any other services as

related to commodities, as necessary;

and issuing an inspection certificate.’’

However, Section 868.80(a)(1) of the

regulations states that only persons

employed by a cooperator may be

licensed to inspect commodities or to

perform related services. Consequently,

GIPSA proposed to amend the

regulations to provide for GIPSA and

State cooperators to contract for quality

(grading) inspection services and to

license individual contractors and those

employed by a contractor.

Comment Review

During the 60-day comment period,

GIPSA received eight comments: One

from a Midwest bean export company;

one from a national association that

represents grain, feed, and processing

companies; one from a regional grain

exchange; one from an animal welfare

organization; and four from privatelyowned official inspection and weighing

agencies. Seven of the commenters

supported the proposed action, as

written. One commenter noted several

concerns, but did not object to the

proposed action.

Several of the commenters indicated

that private firms, institutions, and

individuals, working under contract

with GIPSA field offices and State

cooperators, would improve the

timeliness of service. One commenter

stated that allowing GIPSA to use

contractors ‘‘would eliminate time

consumed by mailing samples to the

field offices, which should result in

quicker turnaround and be more costeffective.’’ Another indicated that this

action ‘‘would greatly simplify and

speed up the process of exporting.’’