This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

13891

Vol. 60, No. 50

Wednesday, March 15, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 906

[Docket No. FV94–906–4FIR]

Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the

Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas;

Revision of Container and Container

Pack Requirements and Rules and

Regulations for Special Purpose

Shipments

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture (Department) is adopting as

a final rule, with appropriate

modifications, the provisions of an

interim final rule which revised

container requirements and added a

new container to those authorized for

use by handlers of Texas citrus. This

final rule continues a relaxation of pack

requirements by requiring containers to

have at least one-third Texas citrus by

volume, rather than 50 percent citrus by

count. This rule allows for more

efficient use of containers and provides

handlers with more flexibility in

packing mixed packs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles L. Rush, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, Room 2523–S, Washington,

D.C. 20090–6456, telephone: (202) 720–

2431; or Belinda G. Garza, McAllen

Marketing Field Office, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1313

East Hackberry, McAllen, Texas 78501;

telephone: (210) 682–2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 906 [7 CFR Part 906]

regulating the handling of oranges and

grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio

Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter

referred to as the order. The 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

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This 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 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 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.

There are approximately 15 handlers

of oranges and grapefruit regulated

under the marketing order each season

and approximately 750 orange and

grapefruit producers in South Texas.

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 these handlers and

producers may be classified as small

entities.

Section 906.40(d) of the order

authorizes the Secretary to fix the size,

weight, capacity, dimensions, or pack of

the container or containers which may

be used in the packaging, transportation,

sale, shipment, or other handling of

Texas oranges or grapefruit. Consistent

with this authority, § 906.340 of the

order’s rules and regulations specifies

the containers that may be used by

Texas citrus handlers. These containers

include cardboard cartons; mesh, poly,

and vexar bags; and a number of master

or bulk containers. Additionally,

experimental containers may be

approved by the Texas Valley Citrus

Committee (committee), the agency

responsible for local administration of

the order. The handling of each lot of

fruit in such test containers is subject to

prior committee approval and is under

the supervision of the committee.

The committee met on August 18,

1994, and unanimously recommended

that the container requirements be

revised. The recommended changes

were to (1) revise the inside dimension

specifications of two authorized master

containers; (2) eliminate certain

restrictions on the packing of mesh or

poly bags; and (3) add a new fiberboard

display bin to the list of approved

containers. These changes were

included in an interim final rule which

became effective December 9, 1994 [59

FR 63691].

Two of the containers authorized for

use prior to issuance of the interim final

rule were (1) closed fiberboard cartons

with inside dimensions of 20 inches in

length by 131⁄4 inches in width by 93⁄4

to 103⁄4 inches in depth, and (2)

fiberboard cribs with dimensions of 46

inches in length by 38 inches width by

24 inches high. These containers were

authorized, respectively, in

subparagraphs (iii) and (viii) of

§ 906.340(a)(1). They were used as

master containers for shipping bags of

fruit or for shipping fruit in bulk.
13892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

In recent seasons, handlers have used

experimental containers with different

dimensions than those authorized under

§ 906.340(a). The use of these containers

has been successful, and, thus, the

committee recommended that the

dimensions specified for these two

containers be revised to provide for

more flexibility in packing Texas citrus.

Specifically, subparagraph (iii) of

§ 906.340(a)(1) was revised to specify

inside dimensions for closed fiberboard

containers of 20 inches in length by

131⁄4 inches in width by 93⁄4 to 13

inches in depth. The revised

dimensions for the fiberboard crib

authorized by § 906.340(a)(1)(viii) are 46

to 471⁄2 inches in length by 37 to 38

inches in width by 24 inches in depth.

These revisions enable handlers to use

a wider variety of containers without

having to receive prior committee

approval or to use such containers

under the committee’s supervision.

Section 906.340 authorizes a number

of mesh, poly, and vexar bags that may

be used in packing Texas citrus, and,

prior to issuance of the interim final

rule specified the master containers that

can be used to ship these bags of fruit.

For example, mesh type bags having a

capacity of 10 pounds of fruit could

only be packed in closed fiberboard

cartons with inside dimensions of 20

inches by 131⁄4 inches by 93⁄4 to 103⁄4

inches. The committee recommended

that such restrictions be eliminated to

permit the industry to pack any

authorized bag in any approved master

container. This revision provides

handlers with additional flexibility in

packing oranges and grapefruit without

having to follow the procedures

governing the use of experimental

containers. This rule maintains the

revision to subparagraphs (iii), (iv), (vii),

(viii), (ix), and (x) of § 906.340(a)(1). The

committee’s recommendation that the

master containers utilized

experimentally during the past few

seasons become permanent was

implemented in the interim final rule.

The committee’s recommendation for

a new fiberboard display bin was added

to the list of approved containers and

continues in effect. The new fiberboard

display bin is being successfully used

by the Florida citrus industry. The highgraphic bulk bin works as an in-store

advertisement, increasing traffic and

volume movement in the produce

department. Because the bin is vented,

the fruit holds up better during

shipping. The bin can be shipped on

pallets or ‘‘slip’’ boards. By adding these

containers which were previously

approved for experimental use to the

permanent list of containers, there is no

longer a requirement that each lot of

fruit shipped in such containers receive

prior approval from the committee.

The interim final rule added

subparagraph (xi) to § 906.340(a)(1) to

authorize the use of this container.

Subparagraphs (ix), (x) and (xi) of

§ 906.340(a)(1) are redesignated,

respectively, as subparagraphs (x), (xi)

and (xii).

Section 906.42 authorizes the

Secretary to modify, suspend, or

terminate regulations based upon

recommendations and information

submitted by the committee, or other

available information pursuant to

§§ 906.34, 906.40, 906.45, or any

combination thereof, in order to

facilitate the handling of fruit.

Consistent with § 906.42, § 906.120 of

the order’s rules and regulations

provides that oranges and/or grapefruit

mixed with other types of fruit may be

handled exempt from container and

pack regulations, subject to certain

conditions. One of those conditions

prior to issuance of the interim final

rule, was that the oranges and/or

grapefruit constitute at least 50 percent

by count of the contents of any

container. The rule continues to allow

handlers to pack 1⁄3 Texas citrus by

volume rather than 50 percent by count

as authorized in § 906.120(c)(4)(ii). This

change provided handlers with the

flexibility to pack a variety of products

(e.g., pecans, jalapeno jelly, Washington

apples, avocadoes, etc.) in the mixed

packs. The committee recognized the

need to specify that mixed packs

contain at least 1⁄3 Texas citrus by

volume. The committee believes that the

change will allow the Texas citrus

industry to improve producer returns.

The Department’s opinion is that

specifying ‘‘Texas’’ is redundant. As a

result the Department did not include

the term in the revision of

§ 906.120(c)(4)(ii).

The interim final rule concerning this

action was published in the December 9,

1994, Federal Register [59 FR 63691],

with a 30-day comment period ending

January 9, 1995.

One comment was received from Ms.

Darlene Barter, manager of the

committee. Ms. Barter suggested that the

revision to § 906.120(c)(4)(ii) in the

interim final rule should specify ‘‘Texas

citrus.’’ The Department’s position is

that the industry will be better served by

stating ‘‘grown in the production area’’

rather than stating ‘‘Texas citrus’’. This

will encourage handlers to ship oranges

and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio

Grande Valley. While citrus is well

defined in the order, the Department

agrees that there is a need for additional

clarity in the order’s handling

regulations. The best way to improve

the clarity of the handling regulations is

by stating ‘‘grown in the production

area’’. While Ms. Barter’s request is not

accepted, a change in the regulation for

clarity will be incorporated.

The information collection

requirements contained in the

referenced sections have been

previously approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35

and have been assigned OMB number

0581–0068 for Texas oranges and

grapefruit.

There is no reporting burden on

handlers of oranges and grapefruit who

have been using experimental

containers because no application is

required.

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 906

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements and

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 906 is amended as

follows:

PART 906—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 906 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 906.120 Fruit exempt from regulations.

2. Section 906.120(c)(4) is revised to

read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) Oranges and grapefruit grown in

the production area may be handled

exempt from container and pack

regulations issued pursuant to

§ 906.40(d), under the following

conditions:

(i) Such oranges and/or grapefruit

grown in the production area are mixed

with other types of fruit;

(ii) Such oranges and/or grapefruit

grown in the production area constitute

at least one-third by volume of the

contents of any container, and any such

container is not larger than a 7⁄10 bushel

carton.

(iii) Such grapefruit grown in the

production area grade at least U.S. No.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13893

1, and such oranges grown in the

production area grade at least U.S.

Combination (with not less than 60

percent, by count, of the oranges in any

lot grading at least U.S. No.1).

* * * * *

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–6368 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–W

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. 92–158–2]

Animal Welfare; Licensing and

Records

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the Animal

Welfare regulations to require dealers,

exhibitors, and operators of auction

sales who apply for license renewal to

certify that, to the best of their

knowledge and belief, they are in

compliance with the regulations before

a renewal is issued. We are also

amending the regulations to require

dealers and exhibitors to use certain

forms to make, keep, and maintain the

animal identification records required

by the regulations, unless a variance has

been granted that would allow the use

of a computerized recordkeeping system

that has been determined by the

Administrator to meet the requirements

of the regulations. These changes will

help ensure that applicants for license

renewal are in compliance with the

regulations and that dealers and

exhibitors keep accurate and complete

records, thus promoting compliance

with the Animal Welfare Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Debra E. Beasley, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Regulatory

Enforcement and Animal Care, Animal

Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234; (301) 734–

7833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal Welfare regulations

contained in 9 CFR part 2 (referred to

below as the regulations) pertain to the

administrative and institutional

responsibilities of regulated persons

under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.

2131, et seq.) (the Act).

On December 28, 1993, we published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 68559–

68561, Docket No. 92–158–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations to require that

an applicant for license renewal certify

that, to the best of the applicant’s

knowledge and belief, he or she is in

compliance with the regulations and

standards and agrees to continue to be

in compliance upon issuance of a

renewed license. In that same

document, we also proposed to amend

the regulations to require dealers and

exhibitors to use Veterinary Services

(VS) Form 18–5, ‘‘Record of Dogs and

Cats on Hand,’’ and VS Form 18–6,

‘‘Record of Disposition of Dogs and

Cats,’’ to make, keep, and maintain the

information required by § 2.75(a)(1) of

the regulations. We also proposed to

add Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) form numbers in front

of the VS form numbers that appear in

several places in the regulations.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for a 60-day comment

period ending February 28, 1994. We

received 11 comments by that date. The

comments were submitted by a

scientific society, animal breeders and

distributors, humane and animal rights

organizations, and private citizens. We

carefully considered all of the

comments we received. They are

discussed below by topic.

Recordkeeping

Comment: The use of VS Forms 18–

5 and 18–6 should remain optional

since many facilities have accurate and

efficient computerized recordkeeping

systems. The forms that APHIS proposes

to require are cumbersome, repetitive,

and outdated and they do not provide

spaces for all the information that is

required by the regulations.

Response: We understand that many

dealers and exhibitors, especially the

larger operations, may be using

computerized systems to make, keep,

and maintain the records required by

§ 2.75(a)(1) of the regulations. Because it

would be difficult for some dealers and

exhibitors to switch over to a paper

system, we have added a provision to

the regulations that will enable a dealer

or exhibitor to apply for a variance from

the requirement to use VS Forms 18–5

and 18–6. If APHIS determines that a

dealer or exhibitor is maintaining a

computerized recordkeeping system that

is adequate to keep the required

information, a variance will be granted.

An appeal procedure is also included

for dealers or exhibitors who have had

their request for a variance denied. The

variance is an option only for those

dealers and exhibitors who are using a

computerized recordkeeping system; a

variance will not be granted for

alternative paper records. With regard to

the complaint that the forms are

outdated, APHIS is currently developing

updated forms that reflect the

requirements of the regulations. The

updated forms will be distributed as

supplies of the existing forms are

depleted.

License Renewal

Comment: The proposed certification

will be effective only if it supports

APHIS in denying the license renewal

applications of facilities not in

compliance with the regulations and

standards. Otherwise, the certification

will not encourage compliance any

more than the statement that applicants

are currently required to sign.

Response: The regulations in § 2.5

state that a license will be renewed if,

before the expiration of the license, the

licensee files an application for license

renewal, submits an annual report as

required by § 2.7, and pays the required

fees. There are no provisions in the

regulations for denying a license

renewal application as long as the

licensee has complied with those

requirements. However, as provided in

§ 2.1(f) of the regulations, a person who

fails to comply with any provision of

the Act or any provision of the

regulations and standards shall be liable

to having his or her license suspended

or revoked.

Comment: If a facility was in the

process of correcting a deficiency, it

would be unable to certify that it is in

compliance with the regulations and

standards until the deficiency was

completely corrected, which could take

up to 30 days or even longer. Similarly,

it would be difficult for a licensee with

more than one facility to be certain that

all his or her facilities were, at any given

time, in compliance with the regulations

and standards. The delays that could

result from having to be certain that all

the regulations and standards had been

satisfied could cause a facility to miss

its deadline for license renewal.

Response: If a licensee who had been

cited for a deficiency was actively

working to correct that deficiency,

APHIS would be aware—or could be

informed—that the licensee was

addressing the problem and was making

a good-faith effort to comply with the

regulations. Such a situation would be

no reason for a licensee to delay filing

a license renewal application. With

regard to the example of a licensee with

more than one facility, it is the

responsibility of a licensee, either

personally or through his or her