CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 21

Federal Resister / Vol. 51. No. 43 , Wednesday. March 5. 1986 /Rules and Reguiations 1549 

thiclmen. Also. omona may be shipped 

in 50, 40.25. and 2O-pound cartona. lIpOD 

approval of the committee. Such . experimental shipments ahaIl be exempt 

from paragraph (c) of this Rction but 

.hall be handled in a~rdance with the .... eguard proviaiona of 1959;54 and 

-paragraph (g) of thia section. The 

committee sball be notified of carton 

IJb:e and furnished a container manifest. 

and shippers must furnish the committee 

with outturn repo~ on such shipments. 

• • • • • 

Daled: February 28. 1986. 

Joeepb It.. Gribbin. 

Director. Fruit and Vegetoble Division. 

Ilgricu/lurol Marketing Service. 

(FR Doc. 86-41~ Filed 3-f-a6; 8:45 alll) 

III.JJMG COOlE ,. ....... 

Animal and Plant Health lnapectIon 

S0rYfce 

sa CFR Part 12 

(Docket "0.16-018] 

Specifically Approved States 

Authorized To Receive Mares 

Imported From CEM-Affected 

Countries 

r"{;[K.'t: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

AC',l(i!>!: Affirmation of intedm rule. 

OSUf.4MARY: 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 (CEM). This action is 

taken because the Deputy 

Administrator. Veterinary Services. 

Animal and Plant H::!altb Inspection 

Service. ha!! 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 ll'1eir 

freedom from CEM as required by the 

regulations. The amendment is 

necessary in order to avoid the 

imposition of unnecessary restrictions 

on importers of mares from counmes 

sffected with CEM. 

EFFECTIVE PAT£: March 5.1986. 

FOR F\lR"rn~R INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Allan A. Furr. Import-Export 

Animals Bod Products Staff. VS. APHIS. 

USDA. Room 846. Federal Building. 6505 

Belcrest Road. Hyattsville. MD 20782. 

301--436-8170. 

auPllUlllDlTMY tNFORMATION: 

~ 

Section 92.i(t) of the regulations in 9 

CFR Part 92, among other thinp. 

authorizes the importation of certain 

mares and stallion. over 131 days of age 

into the United States from countries 

affected with contagious equine metritis 

(CEM) when apeclfic requirements to 

prevent their introducing CEM into the 

United States are met. and the animalt 

Imported are moved into approved 

States for further inspection. treatment. 

and teating. 

A document published in the FNeral 

R.ter on December Z. 1965 (50 FR 

49344-49345). aet forth an interim rule 

amending I 92.4 of the regulations by 

adding Maryland and Ohio to the list of 

approved States authorized to receive 

such mare •. The addition of Maryland 

and Ohio to the li.t was based on the 

finding that they meet certain minimum 

standard. concerning treatment. testins. 

and handling. procedure. for these mares. 

The interim rule wae made effective 

upon publication. Comments were 

solicited for 60 day. after publication of 

the amendment. No comments were 

received. The factual situation which 

was set forth in the document of 

December 2. 1985. still provides a basis 

for the amendment. 

Executive Order 12.291 and 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 it 

review process required by Executive 

Order 12291. 

It is anticipated that fewer than 26 

mares from countries affected with CEM 

will be imported into the States of 

Maryland aild 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 

classes imported into the United States 

during that aame period. 

. UDder these circumstances. the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service bas . 

determined that this action will not have 

a .ignIfica1'lt economic Impact on a 

subatantial number of IIDall entities. 

Ex.ec:utive Order 12312 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is lubject to the 

provisionl of Executive Order 12372 

which requires intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

official •• {See 7 CFR Part 3015. Subpart 

V}. 

Ult of Subjects in • CFR Part 92 

Animal diseases. Canada. Imports. 

Liveratock and livestock products. 

Mexico. Poultry and poultry products. 

Quarantine. Tranlportation. Wildlife. 

PART 112-IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 

ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND 

CERTAIN ANIMAL AND POULTRY 

PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER 

REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 

MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND 

SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON 

Accordingly. the interim rule 

amending 9 ern 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. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306: 21 

U.s.c. 102-105.111. 134a. 134b. 134c. 134J. 

134f. and 135: 7 CFR 2.17. 2.51. and 3~1.2id). 

Done at Washington. DC. this 27th day of 

February 1986. 

G. J. Fichtner. 

Acting Deputy Administrator. Veterina:y 

Services. 

IFR Doc. 86-4a19 Filed 3-4-88: 8:45 am) 

IIIWNG COOf :H1o-34-11011 

OEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

c.n."", ........... nvotlon Program for 

Consumer Products; Appliance 

Standards 

AGENCY: Conservation and Renewable 

Energy Office. DOE. 

ACTION: Final rules; Removal. 

SUMMARY: Today's notice removes the 

U.S. Department of Energy rules 

regarding energy efficiency standards 

for kitchen ranges and ovens. clothes 
CE-CP-SPRM-NY001-STD-0023 COMMENT 21

7550 Feciolral Regist8i' I Vol. 51. No. 43 I Wednesday. Much S. 1981 I Rwes and Regulation. 

i~"Yel'!l, fumacea..centraI air 

. ndilioners. refrigerators and 

Jrigerator-freezen. freezers. water 

-beaters and room air conditioners and 

removes rulea granting petitions from 

five States requesting. in each case. that 

the State enersY efficiency .taudard for 

clothes dryers and/or kitchen rangea 

and ovens be exempted from 

preemption by the Federal 8tImdarda 

rules for these two products.' 

EFFEC'i'iYIE D&11I: March 5. 1986. 

FOA F\JATHfetlINFOAMATlON CONTACT: 

Micbael 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. (202) 252-9127 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel, 

Mail Station CE-12; Forrestal Bnild.i.ns. 

1000 Independence Avenue SW .• Washington, DC 20580, (202) 252-951:1 

SUPPLEMENT£RY INFORMATION: The 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products was established 

pursuant to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act [EPCA) {Pub. L 94-

163.87 Stat. 917}. as amended by the 

National Energy Congel'Vation Policy 

-t (l';"ECPA) (~lb. L 95-(319. 92 Stat. 

,6). which requires DOE to eatablish 

• ergy efficiency sialldards that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Section 3Z5 [a)(lJ 

and (c). The Act provides. however. that 

no standard is to be established if there 

is no test procedure for the product or it 

DOE determines by rule either that a standard would not result in significant 

conservation of energy or that a 

stll".ililrd is not t~hnologicany ~ea8ible 

or economically jIJs!ified. Section 3Z5[b). 

S~cUon J27 of the ,~ct addresses the 

"fiect of Fed~ral rulea concerning 

testing. labeling. and standardi on State 

laws or regulations concerning such 

matters. Generally. all iUlcb State lawa 

or regulations are superseded by the 

Federal rule. Section 327(a}. A rule by 

DOE that an efficiency !tandard is not 

technologically feasible. economically 

justified. or likely to save significant 

amounts of energy would be a rule that 

supersedes any Slate standard. Section 

325(b). A State whose energy efficiency 

standard would be superseded. 

hc'yever. may petition the Department 

for a rule that it not be superseded. 

~~ction 3Z7lb)(3). 

)/\ Ikcembt!r 15. 1982. DOE issued a 

31 rule with re!pect to two covered 

,..t'Oducts. c1ot):-,1:3 dryers. and kitchen 

range:! and ovens. 47 FR 57198 

(December Z2. 19fI2}. (Hereafter refemd 

to as the December 1982 rule.) With 

respect to both products. DOE 

detenniraed that a standard would not 

result ill significant coDlM!TVation of . 

energy and would IWt be economicaUy 

justified. The December 11182 rule alao 

established procedures governing 

petitions to DOE by Statn to obtain 

exemption from preemption of State of 

local energy efficiency ItandaniJ. On 

August 25, 1183, DOE iS8ued a fmaI rule 

with respect to 8ix further covered 

products: Refrigerator8 and refrigeratorfreezers, freezers. water heaters. 

furnaces, room air conditioners and 

central air conditioners. 48 FR 39376 

(August 30. 1983). (Hereafter referred to 

as the August 1983 rule.) For each of the 

six producl.l covered by the August 1983 

rule. except central air conditioners. 

DOE determined that an energy 

efficiency atandard would not result in 

signifh:.ant cOIJ8ervation of energy and 

would not be economically justified. 

With respect to central air conditioners, 

DOE found that an energy efficiem:y 

standBTd would re.u1t 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 dryers 

and/ or kitchen ranges and ovens be 

exempted from Federal preemption. 49 

FR 11764 [March 27. 1984}. 

nw December N82 and August 1963 

final rules were challenged in a lawsuit 

brought by the Natural Resources 

Defense 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 decision having now beCome 

final. the Department is removing these 

rules from the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Similarly. the Department 

is removil18 flIlsl rule. granting five 

Slatea exemption from two of the rule8 

which have bt!en set aside. 

In consideration of the foregoing. Part 

430 ef Chapter n of Title 10. Code of 

Federal Regulations. is amended as set 

forth below. 

Lm of Subjecta ia 18 CrR Part 4iO 

Administrstive practice and 

procedure. Energy coDNrvatlOR, 

Household appliances. 

Issued in Wutnn,ton. DC February 12. 

19118. 

Doana R.1'Itrfabk:l. 

Auistant Secretory. COMllrvotion and 

JiellllWflbitt EnerJy. 

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authOrity citation for Part 430 is 

revi8ed to read a8 follows: 

Authority: Energy Policy and Conservation 

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

Energy Conservation Policy Act. Title IV. Part 

2. (42 U.S.C. 6Z91~). 

2. Section 430.32 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ UO.32 Final energy efficiency 

standards. [Re .. rved) 

3. Section 430.33 i8 removed and 

reserved. 

§ 430.33 Preemption of State r.gulatiOns. 

[Reaerved) 

[FR Doc. 86-4808 Filed 3-4-86; 6;45 amJ 

.. WHO COOl 1450-0'''' 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Par1105 

[R.". 2. Arndt. 6] 

Standarcla of Conduct; Conflict of 

Interest 

AGENCY: Small Business Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMAR": 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 to 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 

Z04le, (WZ) &53-6381. 

SUPPLEMENTAJIIY tNf'OfUjIATlON: SBA is 

publishing this rule change,in final form 

since it relates only to Agency 

management and is. therefore. exempt 

from the ~uiremeDts of the 

Adminhrtrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 

551. et seq.). the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 001, t!!t seq.) and Executive 

Orders 12291.