Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67319

Programs; RBS Loan, Grant, and

Guarantee Programs and the

Intermediary Relending Program; and

determinations of the Rural Housing

Trust 1987–1 Master Servicer.

(c) This subpart does not apply to

decisions made by parties outside an

agency even when those decisions are

used as a basis for decisions falling

within paragraph (b) of this section, for

example: decisions by state

governmental construction standardssetting agencies (which may determine

whether RHS will finance certain

houses); Davis-Bacon wage rates; flood

plain determinations; archaeological

and historical areas preservation

requirements; and designations of areas

inhabited by endangered species.

§ 1900.54 Effect on assistance pending

appeal.

(a) Assistance will not be

discontinued pending the outcome of an

appeal of a complete or partial adverse

decision.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (a) of this section,

administrative offsets initiated under

subpart C of part 1951 will not be stayed

pending the outcome of an appeal and

any further review of the decision to

initiate the offset.

§ 1900.55 Adverse action procedures.

(a) If an applicant, guaranteed lender,

a holder, borrower or grantee is

adversely affected by a decision covered

by this subpart, the decision maker will

inform the participant of the adverse

decision and whether the adverse

decision is appealable. A participant has

the right to request the Director of NAD

to review the agency’s finding of

nonappealability in accordance with 7

CFR 11.6(a). In cases where the adverse

decision is based on both appealable

and nonappealable actions, the adverse

action is not appealable.

(b) A participant affected by an

adverse decision of an agency is entitled

under section 275 of the Act to an

opportunity for a separate informal

meeting with the agency before

commencing an appeal to NAD under 7

CFR part 11.

(c) Participants also have the right

under section 275 of the Act to seek

mediation involving any adverse

decision appealable under this subpart

if the mediation program of the State in

which the participant’s farming

operation giving rise to the decision is

located has been certified by the

Secretary for the program involved in

the decision. An agency shall cooperate

in such mediation. Any time limitation

for appeal will be stayed pending

completion of the mediation process (7

CFR 11.5(c)).

§ 1900.56 Non-appealable decisions.

The following are examples of

decisions which are not appealable:

(a) Decisions which do not fall within

the scope of this subpart as set out in

§ 1900.53.

(b) Decisions that do not meet the

definition of an ‘‘adverse decision’’

under 7 CFR part 11.

(c) Decisions involving parties who do

not meet the definition of ‘‘participant’’

under 7 CFR part 11.

(d) Decisions with subject matters not

covered by 7 CFR part 11.

(e) Interest rates as set forth in agency

procedures, except for appeals alleging

application of an incorrect interest rate.

(f) The State RECD Director’s refusal

to request an administrative waiver

provided for in agency program

regulations.

(g) Denials of assistance due to lack of

funds or authority to guarantee.

§ 1900.57 [Reserved]

Done at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of

December, 1995.

Dan Glickman,

Secretary of Agriculture.

[FR Doc. 95–31397 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 51

[Docket No. FV–95–303C]

Removal of U.S. Grade Standards and

Other Selected Regulations

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Correction to interim final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the interim final rule

published on December 4, 1995, (60 FR

62172–62181). The document

concerned removal of U.S. grade

standards and other selected regulations

from the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eric Forman, Deputy Director, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, USDA, AMS, Room

2085–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone (202) 690–

0262.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As published, the interim final rule

removed most of the voluntary U.S.

grade standards and other selected

regulations covering a number of

agricultural commodities (dairy

products, tobacco, wool, mohair, fresh

and processed fruits and vegetables,

livestock, meats and meat products,

eggs, and poultry and rabbit products).

This includes all the standards except

those which are currently in the

rulemaking process, incorporated by

reference in marketing orders/

agreements appearing at 7 CFR Parts 900

through 999, or those used to implement

government price support. Those grade

standard regulations will continue to

appear in the CFR. Standards for

Applies (7 CFR 51.300–51.339), Applies

for Processing (7 CFR 51.340–51.354),

and Pears for Canning (7 CFR 51.1345–

51.1374) should not have been removed

because of requirements under the

Export Apple and Pear Act (7 U.S.C.

581, et seq.).

Correction of Publication

1. Accordingly, in the December 4,

1995, publication, on page 62174 of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in the

table titled ‘‘Administered by the Fresh

Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable

Division, 51.300–339, Subpart—United

States Standards for Grades of Apples,

51.340–354, Subpart—United States

Standards for Grades of Apples for

Processing, and 51.1354–1374,

Subpart—United States Standards for

Pears for Canning, should not have been

included. These three entities should

have appeared in the table on page

62176 as standards that are being

retained.

PART 51—[CORRECTED]

2. On page 62180, in the first column,

under part 51, the first 5 lines in

amendatory instruction 6 are corrected

to read as follows:

6. In part 51, § 51.100, §§ 51.355

through 51.464, §§ 51.495 through

51.556, §§ 51.810 through 51.869,

§§ 51.925 through 51.986, §§ 51.1030

through 51.1109, §§ 51.1375 through

51.1387, * * *

Dated: December 26, 1995.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–31515 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M
67320 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 95–074–1]

Validated Brucellosis-Free States;

Georgia

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

brucellosis regulations concerning the

interstate movement of swine by adding

Georgia to the list of validated

brucellosis-free States. We have

determined that Georgia meets the

criteria for classification as a validated

brucellosis-free State. This action

relieves certain restrictions on the

interstate movement of breeding swine

from Georgia.

DATES: Interim rule effective December

29, 1995. Consideration will be given

only to comments received on or before

February 27, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 95–074–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 95–074–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Arnold Taft, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

National Animal Health Programs, VS,

APHIS, suite 3B08, 4700 River Road

Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231,

(301) 734–4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Brucellosis is a contagious disease

affecting animals and man, caused by

bacteria of the genus Brucella. The

brucellosis regulations, contained in 9

CFR part 78 (referred to below as the

regulations), prescribe conditions for the

interstate movement of cattle, bison, and

swine.

Under the swine brucellosis

regulations, States, herds, and

individual animals are classified

according to their brucellosis status.

Interstate movement requirements for

swine are based upon the disease status

of the individual animal or the herd or

State from which the animal originates.

We are amending § 78.43 of the

regulations, which lists validated

brucellosis-free States, to include

Georgia. A State may apply for validated

brucellosis-free status when:

(1) Any herd found to have swine

brucellosis during the 2-year

qualification period preceding the

application has been depopulated. More

than one finding of a swine brucellosisinfected herd during the qualification

period disqualifies the State from

validation as brucellosis-free; and

(2) During the 2-year qualification

period, the State has completed

surveillance, annually, by either

complete herd testing, market swine

testing, or statistical analysis.

Breeding swine originating from a

validated brucellosis-free State or herd

may be moved interstate without having

been tested with an official test for

brucellosis within 30 days prior to

interstate movement, which would

otherwise be required.

After reviewing its brucellosis

program records, we have concluded

that Georgia meets the criteria for

classification as a validated brucellosisfree State. Therefore, we are adding

Georgia to the list of States in § 78.43.

This action relieves certain restrictions

on the interstate movement of breeding

swine from Georgia.

Immediate Action

The Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that there is good cause for

publishing this interim rule without

prior opportunity for public comment.

Immediate action is warranted to

remove unnecessary restrictions on the

interstate movement of swine from

Georgia.

Because prior notice and other public

procedures with respect to this action

are impracticable and contrary to the

public interest under these conditions,

we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553

to make it effective upon publication in

the Federal Register. We will consider

comments that are received within 60

days of publication of this rule in the

Federal Register. After the comment

period closes, we will publish another

document in the Federal Register. It

will include a discussion of any

comments we receive and any

amendments we are making to the rule

as a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This action removes the requirement

that breeding swine be tested for

brucellosis prior to movement interstate

from Georgia.

Swine herd producers in Georgia are

all small businesses (defined by the

Small Business Administration as

having annual gross receipts of less than

$500,000). Currently, these small

producers have about 50,000 adult

swine tested annually for brucellosis.

We are not able to determine exactly

how many of these tests are performed

for the purpose of certifying breeding

swine for movement interstate, but we

estimate the number to be very small.

Currently, swine are routinely tested

for pseudorabies and swine brucellosis

with the same blood sample at an

approximate cost to the producer of $5

per blood sample. Even though the

swine will no longer have to be tested

for swine brucellosis to move interstate

as a result of this change in the

regulations, they will still need to be

tested for pseudorabies. Therefore, this

change in the regulations will not create

or remove any costs for swine producers

in Georgia.

We anticipate, therefore, that this

action will have a minimal, if any,

economic impact on swine herd

producers in Georgia. The few small

producers that do move breeder swine

interstate will still have to pay for a

pseudorabies test for the swine.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

in conflict with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 67321

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 78 is

amended as follows:

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS

1. The authority citation for part 78

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–114a–1, 114g,

115, 117, 120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f;

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 78.43 [Amended]

2. Section 78.43 is amended by

adding ‘‘Georgia,’’ immediately after

‘‘Delaware,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

December 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–31415 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 701

Organization and Operations of

Federal Credit Unions

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Approval of Information

Collection Requirements.

SUMMARY: On June 3, 1994 (60 FR

29066), the National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA) published a

final Interpretive Ruling and Policy

Statement 94–1-Chartering and Field of

Membership Policy (IRPS 94–1) and a

final amendment updating the rules and

regulations on organizations and

operations of Federal Credit Unions. At

that time, Office of Management and

Budget approval for IRPS 94–1 was

pending and the preamble to the final

rule stated that it would be published in

the Federal Register upon receipt. The

information collection requirements in

the final rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget. The

control number assigned for this rule is

3133–0015, approved for use through

August 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Becky Baker, Secretary of

the Board, National Credit Union

Administration Board, 1775 Duke

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael McKenna, Attorney, Office of

General Counsel (703) 518–6540, at the

above address.

By the National Credit Union

Administration Board on December 22, 1995.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–31514 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–CE–28–AD; Amendment 39–

9472; AD 95–26–13]

Airworthiness Directives; The New

Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper

Aircraft Corporation) PA28 and PA32

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 76–25–06,

which currently requires replacing oil

cooler hoses on The New Piper Aircraft,

Inc. (Piper) Model PA28–140 airplanes,

and inspecting for a minimum clearance

between the oil cooler hose assemblies

and the front exhaust stacks and

adjusting if proper clearance is not

obtained. This action maintains the

clearance inspection and oil cooler hose

replacements, requires this inspection

and these replacements to be repetitive,

and extends the applicability to include

PA32 series and other PA28 series

airplanes. It also provides the option of

installing approved TSO–C53a, Type D

oil cooler hose assemblies as

terminating action for the repetitive

inspection requirement. Numerous

incidents/accidents caused by oil cooler

hose rupture or failure on the affected

airplanes prompted this action. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent these oil cooler

hoses from failing or rupturing, which

could result in engine stoppage and

subsequent loss of control of the

airplane.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Information that relates to

this AD may be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), Central

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 94–

CE–28–AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Juanita Craft-Lloyd, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, suite 2–160, College

Park, Georgia 30337–2748; telephone

(404) 305–7373; facsimile (404) 305–

7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an AD that would apply to

Piper Model PA28–140 airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

March 8, 1995 (60 FR 12714). The action

proposed to supersede AD 76–25–06,

Amendment 39–2788, with a new AD

that would retain the clearance

inspection and oil cooler hose

replacement for the Piper Model PA28–

140 airplanes, and make the inspection

and replacement repetitive for these

airplanes as well as other PA28 series

and the PA32 series airplanes. It would

also provide the option of installing

approved TSO–C53a, Type D oil cooler

hose assemblies as terminating action

for the repetitive inspection

requirement.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

One commenter states that the

proposal should take into account that

the affected airplanes could have oil

cooler hose assemblies installed other

than those manufactured from Piper.

The FAA concurs and has changed the

AD to reflect that the AD applies to

airplanes with oil cooler hose

assemblies that do not meet TSO–C53a,

Type D requirements.

This same commenter points out that

paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed AD

contains the words ‘‘oil cooler

assembly’’ when it should contain the

words ‘‘oil cooler hose assembly’’. The

FAA concurs and has changed

paragraph (b)(2) of the AD to reflect the

above-referenced language.

This commenter also believes that the

cost of the oil cooler hoses is too low

and that the FAA did not take into

account that each airplane has two oil

cooler hoses installed. The commenter

states that the price of an oil cooler hose

is between $122 and $279, and the FAA

estimates $110. The FAA will change

the economic paragraph of the final rule

to incorporate the upper end of the price

range for oil cooler hoses of $279 per

hose with two oil cooler hoses per

airplane ($558 per airplane for parts).

A commenter proposes that the FAA

clarify whether the date used to

determine the eight-year replacement