Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9609

obligation imposed in connection with

such order is not in accordance with

law; and requesting a modification of

the order or an exemption from the

order. Such person is afforded the

opportunity for a hearing on the

petition. After the hearing, the Secretary

would rule in the petition. The Act

provides that the district court of the

United States in any district in which

such person is an inhabitant, or has a

principal place of business, has

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s

ruling on the petition, provided that a

compliant is filed within 20 days after

the date of entry of the ruling.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has

considered the economic impact of this

action on small entities.

There are an estimated 145 handlers,

510 producer-packers, 8,300 producers,

and 350 importers who are currently

subject to the provisions of the Order.

The majority of these persons may be

classified as small agricultural

producers and small agricultural service

firms. Small agricultural producers are

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, which include importers, are

defined as those having annual receipts

of less than $5,000,000.

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980 [44 U.S.C.

chapter 35], and OMB regulations [5

CFR Part 1320], the information

collection and recordkeeping

requirements contained in this action

were submitted to the OMB and

approved under OMB control numbers

0581–0093 and 0505–0001.

On November 28, 1990, the Act was

amended by the Food, Agriculture,

Conservation and Trade Act of 1990.

One of the amendments to the Act

redefined the requirements for honey

that is exempted from assessments

under the Act.

Prior to the Act’s 1990 amendment, a

producer or a producer-packer who

produced or handled or produced and

handled less than 6,000 pounds of

honey per year or an importer who

imported less than 6,000 pounds of

honey per year were exempt from

assessment. Such producers, producerhandlers, and importers applied to the

Honey Board for a certificate of

exemption which would be presented to

the handler of the exemptee’s honey.

Reporting requirements for handlers

included listing those producers

claiming exemption.

Under the 1990 amendment to the

Act, however, producers, producerpackers, and importers who produce or

import during any year less than 6,000

pounds of honey are exempt from

paying assessments only if that honey is

(1) Consumed at home, (2) donated by

the producer or importer to a nonprofit,

government, or other entity that is

determined appropriate by the

Secretary, or (3) distributed directly

through local retail outlets (e.g., farmers

markets and roadside stands).

Since exempted honey may no longer

be sold through handlers, handlers are

no longer required to provide

information to the Board on exempted

honey. However, in the amendment to

the Order and rules and regulations

published as a final rule in the August

7, 1991, Federal Register [50 FR 37453],

conforming changes to sections 1240.50

and 1240.114 which incorporated these

changes to the Act were inadvertently

not made. As published, these sections

may be confusing and are in conflict

with the amended Order and rules and

regulations.

Section 13 of the Act provides that

whenever the Secretary finds that any

provision of any order issued under the

Act obstructs or does not tend to

effectuate the declared purpose of the

Act, the Secretary shall terminate such

provisions. Therefore, an interim final

rule deleted obsolete and confusing

language from paragraph (a) of section

1240.50 of the Order and from

paragraph (b) of section 1240.114 of the

regulations issued under the Order.

The interim final rule with request for

comments was published in the Federal

Register on May 2, 1994 (59 FR 22492).

The interim final rule erroneously stated

that comment were due on May 2, 1994.

Therefore, the Federal Register printed

a correction on May 10, 1994 (59 FR

24217) which stated that the comment

period ended on June 1, 1994. No

comments were received.

Based on the above, the Administrator

of the AMS has determined that the

issuance of this final rule will not have

a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented with regard to the

termination of provisions in the Order

and the rules and regulations as

hereinafter set forth, it is found that

these provisions no longer effectuate the

declared policy of the Act. Accordingly,

the interim final rule is finalized,

without change, as published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 22492, May 2,

1994).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1240

Advertising, Agricultural research,

Honey, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

PART 1240—HONEY RESEARCH,

PROMOTION, AND CONSUMER

INFORMATION

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 1240, which was

published at 59 FR 22492 on May 2,

1994, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: February 13, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Inspection Services.

[FR Doc. 95–4175 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. 93–122–2]

Animal Export Inspection Facilities

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock

for Exportation’’ regulations by

establishing additional standards for

export inspection facilities. This action

requires that all export inspection

facilities have running water and water

drainage systems and a telephone. This

action also requires facilities where

horses are inspected to have walkways

in front of stalls and 12 foot high

ceilings in areas where horses are

inspected.

We are also requiring that animals

intended for export be inspected within

24 hours of embarkation and making a

minor language change to the

regulations for the sake of clarity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Najam Faizi, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, Veterinary Services, ImportExport Animals Staff, 4700 River Road

Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231.

Telephone: (301) 734–8383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 91,

‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock

for Exportation’’ (referred to below as

the regulations), prescribe conditions for

exporting animals from the United
9610 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

States. The regulations state, among

other things, that all animals, except

animals being exported to Canada or

Mexico, must be exported through

designated ports of embarkation.

To receive designation as a port of

embarkation, a port must have export

inspection facilities available for the

inspection, holding, feeding, and

watering of animals prior to exportation

to ensure that the animals meet certain

requirements specified in the

regulations. To receive approval as an

export inspection facility, the

regulations provide that a facility must

meet the specified standards in

§ 91.14(c) concerning materials, size,

inspection implements, cleaning and

disinfection, feed and water, access,

testing and treatment, location, disposal

of animal wastes, lighting, and office

and rest room facilities.

On June 21, 1994, we published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 31956–31957,

Docket No. 93–122–1) a proposal to

amend the regulations to establish

additional standards in § 91.14(c) for

export inspection facilities. We

proposed to require that all export

inspection facilities have running water

and water drainage systems and a

telephone. We also proposed to require

that facilities where horses are

inspected have walkways in front of

stalls and 12 foot high ceilings in areas

where horses are inspected. Finally, we

proposed to require that animals

intended for export be inspected within

24 hours of embarkation.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending August

22, 1994. We received four comments by

that date. They were from animal

import/export businesses and from

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) veterinarians.

Three of the commenters generally

supported the proposal, but requested

that we require that animals intended

for export be inspected closer to the

time of embarkation than 24 hours. We

continue to believe, however, that

inspection within 24 hours of

embarkation is adequate to prevent

unhealthy or infected animals from

leaving the United States. Further, this

new requirement would not prevent

APHIS veterinarians from inspecting

animals closer to the time of

embarkation, if they preferred.

Also, three commenters objected to

the language regarding the new

requirement that facilities handling

horses have walkways in front of horse

stalls. Specifically, commenters objected

to language stating that walkways be

wide enough that APHIS personnel

could ‘‘monitor and inspect animals

without having to enter animal stalls.’’

One commenter felt that this language

implied that APHIS veterinarians

carried out animal health inspections

without handling animals. Another

commenter stated that, although his

facility has walkways in front of horse

stalls, a person would be unable to see

into the stalls from the walkway, as the

stalls have solid doors. A third

commented that we should specify a

minimum width for the walkways.

By proposing the requirement

regarding walkways, we had intended

only to ensure that APHIS personnel

would be able to inspect a dangerous or

wild horse without entering that horse’s

stall and risking injury. We agree that

our proposal implied that APHIS

personnel could carry out a health

inspection without handling the horse

concerned. That was not our intention

and, accordingly, we are revising the

language regarding the walkway

requirement, which we feel is still

necessary.

This final rule will require that

animal inspection facilities have

‘‘walkways in front of horse stalls wide

enough to allow APHIS personnel to

safely remove horses from the stalls for

inspection, if necessary.’’ Like the

original requirement proposed, this

revised requirement will allow APHIS

personnel to inspect horses when they

are unable to enter safely into horse

stalls.

Also as in the proposal, the revised

requirement does not specify a

minimum width for walkways. We want

to permit facilities to use a variety of

walkway sizes and configurations, as

long as they are wide enough to allow

APHIS personnel to safely remove

horses from the stalls for inspection.

Finally, one of the commenters

objected to several of the proposed

requirements as unnecessary for the

operation of an animal export facility.

His objections and our responses are as

follows:

Comment: The 12 foot ceiling height

requirement for facilities handling

horses is arbitrary. Our ceilings are 10

feet high at some points and we have

never encountered any problems.

Response: We had proposed to require

that ceilings be 12 feet high anywhere

horses are kept. However, since horses

in export facilities tend to rear up when

they are being handled (especially

during inspection), but usually not at

other times, we will modify the ceiling

height standard and require that ceilings

only need to be 12 feet high in areas

where horses are inspected. Again, we

are making this change because we

believe that horses are most likely to

rear up while being inspected, and,

therefore, this height requirement

allows for the safe handling of horses.

Comment: Requiring animal export

facilities to have storage areas for

equipment accompanying animals is

beyond the scope of the regulations,

which are intended to facilitate the

inspection of animals prior to export

and to prevent the export of diseased

animals.

Response: We agree that storage areas

are not necessary for these purposes

and, therefore, we are removing that

requirement from this rule.

Comment: The language of the

proposed requirement regarding

drainage systems is too vague, and

compliance, therefore, may be difficult.

Response: The language in this

requirement is intentionally general.

More specific language could limit

facilities to using only certain types of

drainage systems. We want to permit the

use of a variety of drainage systems, so

long as they meet the intent of the

requirement, ‘‘to control surface

drainage into or from the facility in a

manner that prevents any significant

risk of livestock diseases being spread

into or from the facility.’’

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule and in this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the proposal as a final

rule, with the changes discussed in this

document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866, and,

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., we have performed a Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, set forth

below, regarding the economic impact

of this rule on small entities.

This rule establishes additional

standards for animal export inspection

facilities by requiring all facilities to

have adequate running water, water

drainage systems, and a telephone. This

action also requires facilities where

horses are kept to have walkways in

front of stalls and ceilings 12 feet high

in areas where horses are inspected.

Except for a small number of facilities

that do not have water drainage systems

and one or two facilities that do not

have 12 foot high ceilings, to the best of

our knowledge, all of the facilities

currently approved for export

inspection already meet all of the other

additional standards proposed here. We

are only codifying, therefore, existing

industry practices. We anticipate that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 9611

this action will have a negative

economic impact on the few existing

export inspection facilities without

drainage systems or 12 foot high ceilings

in inspection areas for horses.

Information was not available to us

for determining the economic impact of

requiring that water drainage systems be

installed in facilities not already so

equipped. However, we are trying to

minimize any economic impact by

allowing these facilities 2 years from the

effective date of the final version of this

rule to install water drainage systems.

Allowing these facilities 2 years to

install the water drainage systems will

ease the economic impact of this new

standard, as affected facilities will have

additional time to shop for different

drainage system options and will be

able to spread out the costs of

installation. We did not receive any

comments objecting to our requiring a

water drainage system.

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

inconsistent 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 document contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91

Animal diseases, Animal welfare,

Exports, Livestock, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 91 is

amended as follows:

PART 91—INSPECTION AND

HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR

EXPORTATION

1. The authority citation for part 91

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 105, 112, 113, 114a,

120, 121, 134b, 134f, 136, 136a, 612, 613,

614, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 466a and 466b; 49

U.S.C. 1509(d); 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and

371.2(d).

§ 91.3 [Amended]

2. In § 91.3, paragraph (a), the third

sentence is amended by removing the

phrase ‘‘sound, healthy,’’ and adding

the word ‘‘healthy’’ in its place.

3. Section 91.14 is amended as

follows:

a. Paragraph (c)(2) is amended by

adding a new sentence at the end of the

paragraph to read as set forth below.

b. Paragraph (c)(4) is amended by

adding three new sentences at the end

of the paragraph to read as set forth

below.

c. Paragraph (c)(5) is amended by

adding the word ‘‘running,’’

immediately following the phrase ‘‘An

ample supply of’’ in the first sentence.

d. Paragraph (c)(11) is amended by

adding a new sentence at the end of the

paragraph to read as set forth below.

e. A new paragraph (c)(12) is added to

read as set forth below.

§ 91.14 Ports of embarkation and export

inspection facilities.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * * Facilities that inspect horses

must have ceilings at least 12 feet high

in any areas where horses are inspected.

* * * * *

(4) * * * All facilities must have

running water available to wash and

disinfect the facilities. On and after

March 23, 1995, facilities to be

approved must have a drainage system;

and, on and after March 23, 1997, every

facility approved before March 23, 1995

must have a drainage system. The

drainage system must control surface

drainage into or from the facility in a

manner that prevents any significant

risk of livestock diseases being spread

into or from the facility.

* * * * *

(11) * * * The facility must have a

working telephone.

(12) Walkways. Facilities where

horses are inspected must have

walkways in front of horse stalls wide

enough to allow APHIS personnel to

safely remove horses from the stalls for

inspection, if necessary.

§ 91.15 [Amended]

8. In § 91.15, paragraph (a), the phrase

‘‘within 24 hours of embarkation’’ is

added immediately following the phrase

‘‘shall be inspected’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of

February 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4177 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Part 92

[Docket No. 94–097–2]

Horses From Spain; Change in Disease

Status

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning the importation

of horses to remove Spain from the list

of countries in which African horse

sickness exists. We have determined

that Spain is free of African horse

sickness, and that restrictions on the

importation of horses from Spain to

prevent the spread of African horse

sickness into the United States are no

longer necessary. This action relieves

unnecessary restrictions on the

importation of horses from Spain.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian, Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Veterinary Services, Import/Export

Products, 4700 River Road Unit 40,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92

(referred to below as the regulations)

state the provisions for the importation

into the United States of specified

animals to prevent the introduction of

various animal diseases, including

African horse sickness (AHS). AHS, a

fatal equine viral disease, is not known

to exist in the United States. Section

92.308(a)(2) of the regulations lists

countries that the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

considers affected with AHS, and sets

forth specific requirements for horses

which are imported from those

countries. APHIS requires horses

intended for importation from any of the

countries listed, including horses that

have stopped in or transited those

countries, to enter the United States

only at the port of New York and be

quarantined at the New York Animal

Import Center in Newburgh, NY, for at

least 60 days.