Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17633

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of

April 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8616 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 918

[Docket No. FV95–918–1]

Suspension of Provisions of Marketing

Order 918; Fresh Peaches Grown in

Georgia

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Suspension order.

SUMMARY: This rule is a continuation of

a suspension order that suspends, for

two additional fiscal years, effective

March 1, 1995, through February 28,

1997, all provisions of Federal

Marketing Order No. 918 for fresh

peaches grown in Georgia (order), and

the rules and regulations issued

thereunder. This rule is the result of a

recommendation for continued

suspension made by trustees of the

Georgia Peach Industry Committee

(trustees). The trustees’

recommendation was based upon the

belief that a State program, which is

currently active in market promotion

and merchandising for the Georgia

peach industry, could provide the

quality, maturity, and size regulations

that were in effect under the Federal

order, and would result in more

efficient use of industry funds. The

trustees believe more time is needed to

study changes in the industry, and any

new developments which could affect

the need for, or status of, the order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Pimental, Southeast Marketing

Field Office, 301 3rd St., NW., suite 201,

Winter Haven, Florida 33883–2276,

telephone 813–299–4770, or Mark

Kreaggor, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2525–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone 202–720–

2431.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 918 (7 CFR part 918)

regulating the handling of peaches

grown in Georgia. The marketing

agreement and 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 suspension action is being

taken under the provisions of section

8c(16)(A) of 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 a continuation of a

suspension order than suspends,

effective March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1997, all provisions of the

marketing order and the rules and

regulations issued thereunder. 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 8c(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 as 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

action 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 20 handlers

of Georgia peaches and approximately

150 peach producers. 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. 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.

Marketing Order 918 has been in

effect since 1942. The order provides for

the establishment of grade, size, quality,

maturity, container and inspection

requirements. In addition, the order

authorizes production research and

marketing research and development

projects. It also provides for reporting

and recordkeeping requirements on

affected handlers. The production and

marketing season runs from early March

through late July.

The Georgia Peach Industry

Committee members met on November

14, 1992, and unanimously

recommended suspension of the

marketing order at the end of the 1992–

93 fiscal period. The recommendation

was made to eliminate the expense of

administering the marketing order. The

members’ recommendation was based

on the belief that the quality, maturity,

and size standards that were in effect

under the order could be implemented

under a State program that concurrently

conducted market promotion activities

for the Georgia peach industry. The

members believed that by transferring

all functions to a single program,

industry funds would be used more

efficiently. While the Federal order

authorizes marketing research and

development projects, these activities

had been carried out under the authority

of the State program for several years.

The order also authorizes container

requirements and production research,

but these provisions had been inactive

for many years.

The committee members

recommended suspension, not

termination, of the marketing order to

allow the industry an opportunity to

review the effectiveness of operating

under only a State program. If problems

developed, the committee members

wanted the industry to have the

alternative of reactivating the Federal

marketing order.

During the suspension period, all nine

committee members (not including

alternates) served as trustees for the

Georgia Peach Industry Committee.

The trustees met on November 17,

1994, and unanimously recommended

extending the suspension of the

marketing order for two additional

years. The trustees’ recommendation

was based on the belief that extending

the suspension for two more years will

provide the industry with further

opportunity to study changes and any

new developments which could affect
17634 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the need for, or status of, the current

order.

The trustees also voted for suspension

rather than termination, because they

wanted to avoid the complexity of

putting together a completely new

marketing order; as opposed to

amending the existing marketing order

should the industry find it in its interest

to resume the program.

In addition, the suspension will lower

the administrative and inspection costs

under the marketing order.

The industry will have the

opportunity to continue monitoring the

effectiveness of the State program,

without Federal marketing order

regulations in effect, an additional two

marketing seasons. A meeting will be

held prior to January 1997 to again

discuss reactivating or terminating the

marketing order. The current trustees

will continue to serve in their capacity

during the suspension.

Thus, it is determined that Federal

Marketing Order N. 918, and the rules

and regulations issued thereunder, do

not tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act. This rule suspends,

from March 1, 1995, through February

28, 1997, provisions of Federal

Marketing Order No. 918, and the rules

and regulations issued thereunder,

including, but not limited to, the:

(1) Provisions of the order dealing

with the establishment and

responsibilities of the committee and

the administration of the order;

(2) The quality, size, maturity, and

inspection requirements;

(3) The administrative rules and

regulations related to exempt

shipments; and

(4) Information collection and

reporting requirements [In compliance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), such

requirements have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget and

assigned OMB Control No. 0581–0135].

The Secretary has determined that,

during the suspension period, those

persons serving as committee members

prior to the suspension (not including

alternates) will continue to serve as

trustees to oversee the administrative

affairs of the order. The trustees are

responsible for safeguarding program

assets and holding committee records.

All such actions by the trustees during

the period of suspension are subject to

the approval of the Secretary. Those

designated as trustees are Mr. Robert

Dickey III, Mr. Jeff Wainwright, Mr.

W.H. Davidson III, Mr. Al Pearson, Mr.

Bobby Lane, Mr. Emory Alexander, Mr.

William W. Drew, Mr. Howard Lawson,

and Mr. Stephen C. Meyers. The trustees

shall continue in their capacity until

discharged by the Secretary.

When a final determination is made

regarding the order, any remaining

funds will be used or disbursed in

accord with the appropriate order

provisions.

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.

It is found and determined, upon

good cause, that it is impracticable,

unnecessary, and contrary to the public

interest to give preliminary notice or to

engage in further public procedure with

respect to this action and that good

cause exists for not postponing the

effective date of this rule until 30 days

after publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) This action suspends

restrictions on handlers by continuing

the suspension of the requirements

regulating the handling of peaches

pursuant to Marketing Order No. 918;

(2) handlers are aware of this action,

which was discussed and recommended

at a public meeting held by the trustees;

and (3) no useful purpose would be

served by delaying the continued

suspension of the marketing order.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 918

Marketing Agreements, Peaches,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, under the authority of 7

U.S.C. 601–674 (7 CFR Part 918), and all

provisions therein, is suspended

effective March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1997.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–8615 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 92

[Docket No. 95–014–2]

Horses From the United Arab

Emirates; 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 the United Arab

Emirates from the list of countries in

which African horse sickness exists. We

have determined that the United Arab

Emirates is free of African horse

sickness, and that restrictions on the

importation of horses from the United

Arab Emirates 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 the

United Arab Emirates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian, Import/

Export Products, National Center for

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, Suite

3B05, 4700 River Road Unit 40,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1228.

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.

On March 15, 1995, we published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 13929–

13930, Docket No. 94–014–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations by removing

the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from

the list of countries in § 92.308(a)(2),

which APHIS considers affected with

AHS.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 15 days ending March

30, 1995. We received three supportive

comments by that date. They were from

a horse transport company, a horse

industry association, and a

thoroughbred farm.

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule, we are

adopting the provisions of the proposal

as a final rule.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves

restrictions and, pursuant to the