66858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

at §§ 2635.403(a) and 2635.803 as well

as appendixes A, B and C.

Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), as

Director of the Office of Government

Ethics, I find good cause exists for

waiving the general notice of proposed

rulemaking and 30-day delay in

effectiveness as to this further grace

period extension. The notice and

delayed effective date are being waived

because this rulemaking concerns a

matter of agency organization, practice

and procedure. Furthermore, it is in the

public interest that those agencies

concerned have adequate time to

promulgate successor provisions to

another their existing standards of

conduct regulations in these two areas

without a lapse in necessary regulatory

restrictions.

Executive Order 12866

In promulgating this grace period

extension technical amendment, the

Office of Government Ethics has

adhered to the regulatory philosophy

and the applicable principles of

regulation set forth in section 1 of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review. This amendment

has not been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under that

Executive order, as it is not deemed

‘‘significant’’ thereunder.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

As Director of the Office of

Government Ethics, I certify under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) that this rulemaking will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply

because this rulemaking does not

contain information collection

requirements that require the approval

of the Office of Management and

Budget.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2635

Conflict of interests, Government

employees.

Approved: December 14, 1995.

Stephen D. Potts,

Director, Office of Government Ethics.

Accordingly, pursuant to its authority

under title IV of the Ethics in

Government Act and Executive Order

12674/12731, the Office of Government

Ethics is amending 5 CFR part 2635 as

follows:

PART 2635—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 2635

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C.

App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978);

E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp.,

p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR

42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

2. The notes following both

§§ 2635.403(a) and 2635.803 are

amended by adding a new sentence at

the end of each to read as follows:

Note: * * * Provided still further, that for

those agencies listed in appendix C to this

part, the grace period for any such existing

provisions shall be further extended until

August 7, 1996 or until issuance by each

individual agency concerned of a

supplemental regulation, whichever occurs

first.

3. A new appendix C is added at the

end of part 2635 to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 2635—Agencies

Entitled to Another Further (Third)

Grace Period Extension Pursuant to

Notes Following §§ 2635.403(a) and

2635.803

1. Department of the Treasury

2. Department of Energy

3. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

4. Department of the Interior

5. Department of Commerce

6. Department of Justice

7. Federal Communications Commission

8. Securities and Exchange Commission

9. Office of Personnel Management

10. Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight

Board

11. United States Information Agency

12. Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission

13. Department of State

14. Department of Labor

15. National Science Foundation

16. Small Business Administration

17. Department of Health and Human

Services

18. Department of Transportation

19. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

20. Environmental Protection Agency

21. National Transportation Safety Board

22. General Services Administration

23. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System

24. National Labor Relations Board

25. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

26. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

27. National Archives and Records

Administration

28. Peace Corps

29. Tennessee Valley Authority

30. Consumer Product Safety Commission

31. Executive Office of the President

32. Department of Agriculture

33. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission

34. Agency for International Development

35. Social Security Administration

[FR Doc. 95–31280 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6345–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 923

[Docket No. FV94–923–1FR]

Sweet Cherries Grown in Designated

Counties in Washington:

Establishment of Minimum Size and

Maturity Requirements for Rainier

Variety Cherries

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Correction amendment.

SUMMARY: This docket contains a

correction to the final regulation which

was published Tuesday, June 21, 1994,

(59 FR 31917). The final rule established

a minimum size requirement of 11 row

size (61/64 inch diameter) and a

minimum maturity requirement of 17

percent soluble solids for Rainier variety

cherries that can be shipped to fresh

market outlets. The rule inadvertently

omitted some regulatory text, and this

action corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The correcting

amendments are effective December 27,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Britthany E. Beadle, Marketing

Specialist, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room

2523–S., P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

5127 or FAX (202) 720–5698; or Teresa

Hutchinson, Marketing Specialist,

Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit

and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA,

1220 S.W. Third Avenue, room 369,

Portland, OR 97204–2807; telephone:

(509) 326–2724 or FAX (509) 326–7440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulation that is the subject

of this correction inadvertently omitted

several paragraphs of regulatory

language which should be added. These

paragraphs were omitted from the June

21, 1994, final rule (59 FR 31917)

regulating minimum size and maturity

requirements for Rainier variety cherries

effective and resulted in an incomplete

text of the regulatory requirements for

the handling of cherries.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66859

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulation

contains errors which may prove to be

misleading and are in need of proper

clarification.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR parts 923

Cherries, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 923 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendments:

PART 923—SWEET CHERRIES

GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES

IN WASHINGTON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 923 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 923.322, paragraphs (f) (1), (2),

and (3) are added to read as follows:

§ 923.322 Washington Cherry Regulation

22.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) The shipment consists of cherries

sold for home use and not for resale;

(2) The shipment does not, in the

aggregate, exceed 100 pounds, net

weight, of cherries; and

(3) Each container is stamped or

marked with the words ‘‘not for resale’’

in letters at least one-half inch in height.

* * * * *

Dated: December 18, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–31278 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 966

[Docket No. FV95–966–1FIR]

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 generated 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, 1995, through

July 31, 1996.

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 941–299–4770.

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, 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 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

1995–96 fiscal period, which began

August 1, 1995, and ends July 31, 1996.

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 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 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

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.

Since the interim final rule was

issued, new information on the actual

number of producers and handlers was

received. There are approximately 90

producers of Florida tomatoes under

this marketing order, and approximately

75 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 1995–

96 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 7,

1995, and unanimously recommended a

1995–96 budget of $2,025,000, $190,000

less than the previous year. Budget

items for 1995–96 which have increased

compared to those budgeted for 1994–95

(in parentheses) are: Office salaries,

$319,100 ($297,300), depreciation,

$19,000 ($18,200), employee’s

retirement program, $50,500 ($46,600),

insurance and bonds, $8,000 ($7,000),

payroll tax, $22,150 ($20,000), supplies

and printing, $8,500 ($7,500), and

miscellaneous, $2,000 ($1,600), audit,

$3,750 ($2,500), and research expense,

$245,000 ($192,100). Items which have

decreased compared to those budgeted

for 1994–95 (in parentheses) are: Office