30498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

due date from February 5 to January 1.

As stated previously, the Department

has modified this date from January 1 to

January 5. The first acquisition report

currently shows the total quantity of

cranberries acquired and the total

quantity of cranberries handled from the

beginning of the reporting period

through January 31. The committee also

recommended that the January 31 date

be changed to December 31 to make the

report consistent with the new due date.

In addition, the Department is

modifying § 929.105(b) by listing each

one of the due dates. This will make the

section easier to understand as to when

each report is due.

The proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the April 22,

1996, Federal Register (78 FR 17586),

with a 30-day comment period ending

May 22, 1996. No comments were

received.

There was one error in the regulatory

text appearing in the proposed rule. In

§ 929.105(b)(2), the proposed rule

indicated that the certified report due

from handlers on January 5 show the

quantities of cranberries and cranberry

products held by the handler on

February 1. The latter date should be

January 1. This final rule corrects

§ 929.105(b)(2) accordingly.

Based on the above, the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This rule modifies language in the

cranberry marketing order’s rules and

regulations to change the first date by

which handlers must file their

acquisition reports from February 5 to

January 5 during each crop year. This

rule will provide more useful

production information to the cranberry

industry at an earlier time.

The information collection

requirements contained in the

referenced section have been previously

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–13) and have been assigned

OMB number 0581–0103.

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 929

Marketing agreements, Cranberries,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is amended as

follows:

PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN

THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS,

RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW

JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN,

MINNESOTA, OREGON,

WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 929 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 929.105 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 929.105 Reporting.

* * * * *

(b) Certified reports shall be filed with

the committee, on a form provided by

the committee, by each handler not later

than January 5, May 5, and August 5 of

each fiscal period and by September 5

of the succeeding fiscal period showing:

(1) The total quantity of cranberries

the handler acquired and the total

quantity of cranberries the handler

handled from the beginning of the

reporting period indicated through

December 31, April 30, July 31, and

August 31, respectively, and

(2) The respective quantities of

cranberries and cranberry products held

by the handler on January 1, May 1,

August 1, and August 31 of each fiscal

period.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–15093 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 1208

[FV–95–702FR]

Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut

Greens Promotion and Information

Order—Postponement of Payment of

Assessments

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a

rules and regulations subpart under the

Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens

Promotion and Information Order

(Order). The Order is authorized under

the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut

Greens Promotion and Information Act

of 1993. This rule implements a

provision of the Order concerning the

postponement of the payment of

assessments. This action establishes

procedures for the postponement of the

payment of assessments to the National

PromoFlor Council.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sonia N. Jimenez, Research and

Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable

Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456,

Room 2535–S, Washington, DC 20090–

6456, telephone (202) 720–9916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under the Fresh Cut Flowers

and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and

Information Act of 1993 [7 U.S.C. 6801

et seq.], hereinafter referred to as the

Act, and the Order.

This rule has been issued in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. It 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 § 8

of the Act, a person subject to the order

may file a petition with the Secretary

stating that the order or 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 an

exemption from the order. The

petitioner is afforded the opportunity

for a hearing on the petition. After such

hearing, the Secretary will make a ruling

on the petition. The Act provides that

the district courts of the United States

in any district in which a person who

is a petitioner resides or carries on

business are vested with jurisdiction to

review the Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, if a complaint for that purpose

is filed within 20 days after the date of

the entry of the ruling.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

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.

Only those wholesale handlers, retail

distribution centers, producers, and

importers who have annual sales of

$750,000 or more of cut flowers and

greens and who sell those products to

exempt handlers, retailers, or consumers

are considered qualified handlers and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30499

assessed under the Order. There are

approximately 900 wholesaler handlers,

150 importers, and 200 domestic

producers who are qualified handlers.

The majority of these qualified

handlers would be classified as small

businesses. Small agricultural service

firms have been defined by the Small

Business Administration [13 CFR

121.601] as those having annual receipts

of less than $5 million. Statistics

reported by the National Agricultural

Statistics Service show that 1994 sales

at wholesale of domestic cut flowers

and greens total approximately $559.6

million while the value of imports

during 1994 was approximately $382

million. The leading States in the

United States producing cut flowers and

greens, by wholesale value, are

California, which produces

approximately 49 percent of the

domestic crop, followed by Florida,

Colorado, and Hawaii. Major countries

exporting cut flowers and greens into

the United States, by value, are

Colombia, which accounts for

approximately 60 percent, followed by

The Netherlands, Mexico, and Costa

Rica.

The Act and the Order provide for the

postponement of assessments. This rule

establishes procedures for the

postponement of the payment of

assessments to the Council, which

lessens the regulatory impact of the

Order on large and small businesses

alike. Therefore, AMS has determined

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35], the information collection

requirements contained in the Order

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

OMB number 0581–0093 and have an

expiration date of January 31, 1997.

Background

The Act authorized the Secretary of

Agriculture (Secretary) to establish a

national cut flowers and greens

promotion and consumer information

program. The program is funded by an

assessment of 1⁄2 percent of gross sales

of cut flowers and greens which is

levied on qualified handlers. The

program is administered by the National

PromoFlor Council (Council) under the

supervision of the Department of

Agriculture (Department). Section

1208.55 of the Order provides for the

postponement of assessments.

The Council met on September 11,

1995, and recommended that, in order

for a request for the postponement of

assessments to be granted, the requester

should comply with the following: (1)

Submit a written opinion from a

Certified Public Accountant stating that

the handler making the request is

insolvent or will be unable to continue

to operate if the handler is required to

pay the assessment when due and (2)

submit copies of the last three (3) years’

federal tax returns. The Council stated

that these two requirements are needed

to verify that the qualified handler is

financially unable to make the payment

of the assessments due and that the

postponement of payment, if granted,

complies with the requirements set forth

in the Order. In addition, the requester

should submit to the Council a

completed application form

(‘‘Application for Postponement of

Payment of PromoFlor Assessments’’).

A proposed rule regarding the

Council’s recommendation was

published in the Federal Register on

November 27, 1995 [60 FR 58253]. That

rule contained a proposed new subpart

for rules and regulations under the

Order. In addition, it proposed the

establishment of procedures for the

postponement of the payment of

assessments to the Council.

The deadline for comments on the

proposed rule was January 26, 1996.

Two comments were received. One

comment was received from the

Council, and another comment was

received from a greenhouse operator.

The Council commented that the

proposal did not address the

consequences if a qualified handler does

not meet the 30-day deadline for

requesting the postponement of the

payment of assessments. The Council

stated that it should not be required to

consider requests that are made after the

deadline. However, the rule already

states that, for a request for

postponement of assessments to be

granted, the request must be in writing

no later than 30 days after the

assessments were due. Therefore, the

Council can not consider any late

requests.

The Council also commented that the

qualified handler should be required to

complete and sign a handler report for

each month the assessments are owed or

to list sales and assessments due for

each month in the form of a signed

statement. The second commentor also

commented that the reporting

requirement needs to be met so that the

Council can track what is owed. The

Department agrees that the qualified

handler should file a qualified handler

report for each month assessments are

due even though the postponement of

the payment of assessment has been

granted and has revised the procedures

accordingly.

In addition, the Council commented

that it should not be required to audit

a qualified handler who has gone

through the postponement process.

Section 1208.71 of the Order requires

qualified handlers to maintain and make

records available for inspection by

agents of the Council or the Secretary.

The Department believes that an audit

of the books of the qualified handler

requesting the postponement of the

payment of assessments may be

necessary in order to verify any

information provided and, if necessary,

pursue collection of past-due

assessments. Therefore, the Department

disagrees with this comment.

The Council further commented that

the number of extensions for the

postponement of the payment of

assessments be limited to one. The

second commentor stated that the

postponement should be open ended.

He commented that the business should

not have to pay until it recovers or goes

bankrupt.

The Department agrees that the

postponement of the payment of

assessments should not be indefinite. It

is the purpose of these procedures to

bring qualified handlers into

compliance as soon as practicable after

giving them the opportunity to recover

from a financial difficulty. Accordingly,

the comment recommending that the

postponement period be open ended is

denied, and the Council’s comment on

limiting extensions of the postponement

periods is granted.

The proposal has been revised to state

that one extension of the postponement

of the payment of assessments may be

granted covering the same period

previously requested. The extension of

the postponement may not exceed six

(6) months. If an individual requests

that another period be postponed, that

person must file another application for

the postponement of the payment of

assessments of the second period. The

qualified handler may request the

postponement of the payment of

assessments for a maximum of two

periods only. Each period postponed

could include a maximum of six (6)

months. The payment of assessments for

the second period of postponement, if

granted, may not be extended. The

payment period must not exceed the

length of the postponement period. The

payment period for the total

assessments due, when an extension

and a second period are granted, must

begin within one (1) year after the first

postponed month’s assessments were

originally due. However, these

procedures are not intended to be
30500 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

retroactive for those individuals who

requested postponement of the payment

of assessments before this rule becomes

effective.

The Council will have the right to

audit the records of those requesting an

extension or those requesting more than

one postponement period to verify the

validity of the request(s). If it is

determined that the qualified handler is

capable of meeting the obligations of

payment of assessments, the qualified

handler will be given the opportunity to

start paying the assessments. If the

qualified handler refuses to pay the

assessments due, the Council will refer

the debt to the Department for collection

after notifying the qualified handler.

The second commentor stated that the

requirements for requesting the

postponement of the payment of

assessments should be simple, such as

an officer of the company certifying that

the company is not able to meet the

terms of the payment of his vendors and

that dividends are not being paid. Such

statement could be provided by a

Certified Public Accountant.

The Department believes that the

procedures established by this final rule

are reasonable and are not burdensome

to a qualified handler that requests a

postponement of the payment of

assessments. Therefore, this comment is

denied.

In addition, the second commentor

stated that the Department should

address producers’ financial hardship

due to imports of certain flowers.

Although this issue may be cause of

concern to certain producers and

handlers, it is not relevant to this

rulemaking.

In addition, to the changes described

above, the Department has made a few

editorial changes to the proposal in

order to simplify the regulatory text.

This final rule provides the following:

Section 1208.100 will provide that the

definitions for this subpart are the same

as those prescribed in § 1208.1 through

1208.24 of the Order.

Section 1208.150 will provide for the

postponement of the payment of

assessments under certain

circumstances. Section 1208.55 of the

Order states that ‘‘The Council may

grant a postponement of an assessment

under this subpart for any qualified

handler that establishes that it is

financially unable to make the payment

* * *’’ In addition, the Order

establishes that the Council shall

develop forms and procedures for a

qualified handler to request and for the

Council to grant the postponement of

the payment of assessments.

Under these regulations, the period

for which the initial postponement of

the payment of assessments is requested

may not exceed six (6) months. If the

postponement is granted, the qualified

handler will be exempt from paying

assessments beginning with the first

month for which the request for

postponement is filed with the Council

and for no more than six (6) months

unless an extension is requested and

granted by the Council. Only one

extension may be granted for the

postponement period. The qualified

handler will be required to file monthly

reports during the postponement period

and any extension. The handler must

provide a reason for the request as well

as detailed information concerning the

handler’s name, address, telephone and

fax numbers, the month(s) for which the

request is made, the amount of

assessments due or gross sales per

month, the percent or amount of the

outstanding debt to be paid by month

after the postponement of payment is

granted, and the starting and ending

date for the payment.

The request must be made no later

than 30 days after the first month’s

assessment of the requested

postponement period is due.

Applications postmarked after the 30-

day deadline will not be considered by

the Council. In addition, after the

postponement period has concluded,

the handler must pay the percentage or

amount of the outstanding assessments

agreed upon each month as well as any

other assessments which are due.

Assessments due after the initial

postponement period is over will not be

postponed further unless an extension

of time to pay such assessment is

granted. If an extension of time is

requested, new documentation must be

provided for the Council to determine

whether to grant the request. The same

procedures used for the initial

postponement request must be followed

in requesting an extension. The

extension may not exceed six (6)

months. In addition, a qualified handler

may request a second period of

postponement of the payment of the

assessments of no more than six (6)

months. The same procedures followed

for requesting the first postponement

period must be used. However, the

second postponement period may not be

extended. The qualified handler may

request the postponement of the

payment of the assessments for a

maximum of two periods only. No

additional postponements would be

considered by the Council until the

assessments owed for the first two

periods have been paid.

The following example will serve to

further explain and clarify this rule. If

a qualified handler wants to postpone

the payment of assessments due on cut

flowers and greens handled during the

months of January through June 1997,

the request for the postponement must

be filed with the Council’s office no

later than April 30, 1997. April 30 is 30

days after the assessments on cut

flowers and greens handled during

January 1997 would be due (March 31,

1997). If the request is granted, the

handler would not have to pay

assessments to the Council in the

months of March through August 1997.

The first payment on handlings during

January through June 1997 would be

due no later than September 30, 1997.

Payments would be made pursuant to a

schedule agreed upon between the

handler and the Council.

If the same handler wants to extend

the postponement period for an

additional six (6) months, the request

must be submitted to the Council’s

office no later than the date the first

payment was due or, in this case, no

later than September 30, 1997. If the

extension is granted, the deadline for

the first payment of the assessments on

January through June 1997 handlings

would be on March 31, 1998. Therefore,

in March 1998, the qualified handler

would be required to pay (1) the agreed

upon amount of the assessments due on

cut flowers and greens handled in

January 1997 as well as (2) the total

amount due in March 1998 for cut

flowers and greens handled in January

1998.

If the qualified handler also wants to

postpone the assessments due on cut

flowers and greens handled during the

months of July through December 1997,

the handler must make that request no

later than October 31, 1997, the date 30

days after the assessments on cut

flowers and greens handled in July 1997

would be due. If the request is granted,

the deadline for the first payment of the

assessments on cut flowers and greens

handled in July through December 1997

would be March 31, 1998. And, during

March 1998, the handler would be

required to pay (1) at least 50 percent of

the assessments on cut flowers and

greens handled in January 1997; (2) the

entire assessments due on cut flowers

and greens handled in July 1997; and (3)

the total assessments due for cut flowers

and greens handled in January 1998.

The Council may conduct an audit of

the qualified handler’s books and

records at any time to determine

whether the qualified handler will be

unable to continue to operate if the

handler is required to pay the

assessments when due.

Any late payment will make the

postponement null and all assessments

due will need to be paid in their entirety
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30501

at that time. In addition, the Council

agrees to forgo any late fee charges and

interest for the duration of the

postponement of the payment of

assessments.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, it is found that this

regulation, as set forth herein, tends to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this action until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) This rule establishes rules

and regulations in accordance with the

provisions of the Act; (2) the Council

has received requests for the

postponement of the payment of

assessments and needs rules to

administer the postponement process;

and (3) no useful purpose will be served

in delaying the effective date until 30

days after publication of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1208

Administrative practice and

procedure, Advertising, Consumer

information, Marketing agreements, Cut

flowers, Cut greens, Promotion,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 1208 is amended

as follows:

PART 1208—FRESH CUT FLOWERS

AND FRESH CUT GREENS

PROMOTION AND INFORMATION

ORDER

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1208 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.

2. In Part 1208 a new Subpart B is

added to read as follows:

Subpart B—Rules and Regulations

Definitions

Sec.

1208.100 Terms defined.

Assessments

1208.150 Procedures for postponement of

assessments.

Subpart B—Rules and Regulations

Definitions

§ 1208.100 Terms defined.

Unless otherwise defined in this

subpart, definitions or terms used in

this subpart shall have the same

meaning as the definitions of such terms

which appear in Subpart A—Fresh Cut

Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens

Promotion and Information Order of this

part.

Assessments

§ 1208.150 Procedures for postponement

of collections.

(a) For a request for postponement of

the payment of assessments to be

granted, the qualified handler

requesting such postponement must:

Submit a written opinion from a

Certified Public Accountant stating that

the handler making the request is

insolvent or will be unable to continue

to operate if the handler is required to

pay the assessments when due; and

submit copies of the handler’s last three

(3) years’ federal tax returns. The

request must be in writing no later than

30 days after the assessment for the first

month of the requested postponement

period is due. Applications postmarked

after the 30-day due date will not be

considered by the Council. The

qualified handler must file handler

reports with the Council for each month

during the postponement period. The

postponement period may not exceed

six (6) months unless an extension is

requested and granted by the Council.

Only one extension of up to six (6)

months may be granted. Within the

postponement period, the qualified

handler will be exempt from paying

assessments beginning with the first

month for which the request for

postponement is filed with the Council

and for no more than six (6) months

unless an extension is granted. The

same procedures used for the initial

request will be used to grant any

extension. The written request must

specify:

(1) a reason for the request;

(2) detailed information concerning

the qualified handler’s name, address,

and telephone and fax numbers;

(3) the month(s) for which the request

is made;

(4) assessments due per month or

gross sales per month;

(5) total assessments due;

(6) the percent or amount of the

outstanding assessment to be paid each

month after the postponement of

payment is granted; and

(7) the starting and ending date for the

payment of assessments due.

(b) At the end of the postponement

period, the qualified handler must pay

the percent or amount outstanding of

assessments agreed upon each month as

well as any other assessments which are

due. An extension of time for payment

of postponed assessments, if granted,

will be for the same months previously

requested and granted. The extension

must not exceed six (6) months. If a

qualified handler requests that another

period be postponed, that handler must

file another application for the

postponement of the assessment for the

second period using the same procedure

which was followed in requesting the

first postponement. A qualified handler

may request the postponement of the

payment of assessments for a maximum

of two periods of up to six (6) months

each. The payment applicable to the

second postponement period, if granted,

may not be extended, and the payment

period must not exceed the length of the

postponement period. Payment of the

total assessments due, when an

extension and a second period are

granted, must begin within one (1) year

after the first postponed month’s

assessments were originally due. No

additional postponements would be

considered by the Council until the

assessments owed for the first two

periods have been paid. The Council

may conduct an audit of the qualified

handler’s records at any time to

determine whether the qualified handler

will be unable to continue to operate if

the handler is required to pay the

assessments due. In the event that

postponed assessments are not paid

when due, the Council can demand that

all such assessments due be paid in

their entirety.

(c) Charges for late payment of

assessments as described in § 1208.52

will not be imposed on assessments for

which postponement of payment has

been granted.

Dated: June 7, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–15092 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–CE–54–AD; Amendment 39–

9665; AD 96–12– 22]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna

Aircraft Company Engine Oil Filter

Adapter Assemblies Installed on

Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to Cessna Aircraft Company

(Cessna) engine oil filter adapter

assemblies installed on aircraft. This

action requires inspecting the oil filter

and adapter assembly (or torque putty,