2 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

collecting assessments from some

handlers. To attempt to collect, the

committee must incur the added

expense of sending out additional

invoices and contacting each delinquent

handler by phone, in person, or by fax.

Nonpayment or late payment of

assessments hampers the operation of

the committee.

The authority to levy late payment

and interest charges on delinquent

assessments was added in 1973 to

address the failure of handlers to pay

their assessments promptly.

Consequently, in 1978 an informal

rulemaking change [43 FR 29764, July

11, 1978] was approved which

established a one percent interest charge

per month to address this problem.

However, the current interest charge

of one percent per month is not

sufficient to induce handlers to comply

with the assessment provisions.

Competition in the cranberry industry

has increased. The number of handlers

regulated by the order has increased,

and many of these additional handlers

have been more reluctant to pay

assessments in a timely manner. The

increase in charges on delinquent

assessments encourages these handlers

to pay their assessments more promptly.

Charges will not be imposed until the

end of the month if handler assessments

are invoiced up to the 15th of the month

and will be levied at the end of the

following month if the handler

assessment is invoiced later than the

15th of the month. Handlers have ample

time to pay their assessments and avoid

incurring the additional charges. Any

amount paid by the handler will be

credited upon receipt in the committee

office. These additional charges apply to

any unpaid assessments which become

due to the committee after the effective

date of this rule change.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on November 10, 1994 [59 FR

56007], with a 30-day comment period

ending December 12, 1994. No

comments were received.

Based on the above, the Administrator

of the AMS has determined that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

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 929

Cranberries, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 929 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 929 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN

STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS,

RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW

JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN,

MINNESOTA, OREGON,

WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

2. Section 929.152, is revised to read

as follows:

§ 929.152 Delinquent assessments.

There shall be a late payment charge

of five percent and an interest charge of

11⁄2 percent per month applied to any

assessment not received at the

committee’s office before the end of the

month in which such assessment was

first invoiced to the handler: Provided,

That if an assessment is first invoiced

later than the 15th of the month, no late

payment or interest charge shall be

levied if such assessment is received at

the committee office by the end of the

following month in which the

assessment was first invoiced to the

handler.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 94–32287 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 966

[Docket No. FV94–966–2FIR]

Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Expenses

and 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 that

authorized expenses and established an

assessment rate that will generate funds

to pay those expenses. Authorization of

this budget enables the Florida Tomato

Committee (Committee) to incur

expenses that are reasonable and

necessary to administer the program.

Funds to administer this program are

derived from assessments on handlers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1994, through

July 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Sue Clark, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2523–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone 202–720–

9918, or Aleck J. Jonas, Southeast

Marketing Field Office, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 2276, Winter Haven, FL 33883–

2276, telephone 813–299–4770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as

amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating

the handling of tomatoes grown in

Florida. The marketing agreement and

order are 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 is

issuing this rule in conformance with

Executive Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. Under the provisions of the

marketing order now in effect, Florida

tomatoes are subject to assessments. It is

intended that the assessment rate as

issued herein will be applicable to all

assessable tomatoes handled during the

1994–95 fiscal period, which began

August 1, 1994, and ends July 31, 1995.

This final 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 requesting 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 in

equity to review the Secretary’s ruling

on the petition, provided a bill in equity

is filed not later than 20 days after the

date of the entry of the ruling.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

the Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3

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

orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 250

producers of Florida tomatoes under

this marketing order, and approximately

50 handlers. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000. The majority of Florida

tomato producers and handlers may be

classified as small entities.

The budget of expenses for the 1994–

95 fiscal period was prepared by the

Florida Tomato Committee, the agency

responsible for local administration of

the marketing order, and submitted to

the Department for approval. The

members of the Committee are

producers of Florida tomatoes. They are

familiar with the Committee’s needs and

with the costs of goods and services in

their local area and are thus in a

position to formulate an appropriate

budget. The budget was formulated and

discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all

directly affected persons have had an

opportunity to participate and provide

input.

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived by dividing

anticipated expenses by expected

shipments of Florida tomatoes. Because

that rate will be applied to actual

shipments, it must be established at a

rate that will provide sufficient income

to pay the Committee’s expenses.

The Committee met September 8,

1994, and unanimously recommended a

1994–95 budget of $2,215,000, $467,000

less than the previous year. Budget

items for 1994–95 which have increased

compared to those budgeted for 1993–94

(in parentheses) are: Office salaries,

$297,300 ($276,000); depreciation,

$18,200 ($16,200); communications,

$12,000 ($10,000); employee’s

retirement program, $46,600 ($37,300);

insurance and bonds, $7,000 ($5,000);

office rent, $24,700 ($22,600); social

security tax, $20,000 ($19,000); supplies

and printing, $7,500 ($6,500); and audit,

$2,500 ($2,300); Items which have

decreased compared to those budgeted

for 1993–94 (in parentheses) are:

Research expense, $192,100 ($200,000);

and education and promotion expense,

$1,500,000 ($2,000,000). All other items

are budgeted at last year’s amounts.

The Committee also unanimously

recommended an assessment rate of

$0.04 per 25-pound container, the same

as last year. This rate, when applied to

anticipated shipments of 55,000,000 25-

pound containers, will yield $2,200,000

in assessment income. This, along with

$15,000 in interest and other income,

will be adequate to cover budgeted

expenses.

An interim final rule was published

in the Federal Register on November 3,

1994 (59 FR 55020). That interim final

rule added § 966.232 to authorize

expenses and establish an assessment

rate for the Committee. That rule

provided that interested persons could

file comments through December 5,

1994. No comments were received.

While this action will impose some

additional costs on handlers, the costs

are in the form of uniform assessments

on handlers. Some of the additional

costs may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs will be offset by

the benefits derived by the operation of

the marketing order. Therefore, the

Administrator of the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

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.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this action until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register (5

U.S.C. 553) because the Committee

needs to have sufficient funds to pay its

expenses which are incurred on a

continuous basis. The 1994–95 fiscal

period began on August 1, 1994. The

marketing order requires that the rate of

assessment for the fiscal period apply to

all assessable tomatoes handled during

the fiscal period. In addition, handlers

are aware of this action which was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and

published in the Federal Register as an

interim final rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966

Marketing agreements, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as

follows:

PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN

FLORIDA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 966 which was

published at 59 FR 55020 on November

3, 1994, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 94–32288 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–227–AD; Amendment

39–9114; AD 95–01–03]

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault

Aviation Model Mystere-Falcon 50

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Dassault Aviation

Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series

airplanes. This action requires

measurement of the clearance between

the electrical bundles in the left-hand

cabinet of the electrical panel and the

counterbalancing actuator of the

passenger door, and rerouting and

clamping the wire bundles, if necessary.

This amendment is prompted by a

report of damage of the wire bundles

between the actuator of the passenger

door and the left-hand cabinet of the

electrical panel. The actions specified in

this AD are intended to prevent an

electrical fire due to damage of the

electrical wire bundles.

DATES: Effective on January 18, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of January 18,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

March 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 94–NM–

227–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.