32922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The Secretary shall conduct a

referendum as soon as practical after the

end of the fiscal year ending two years

after implementation of this

amendment, and at such time every fifth

year thereafter, to ascertain whether

continuation of the order is favored by

growers who have been engaged in the

production of almonds for market

within the State of California during the

current crop year.

* * * * *

§ 981.467 [Amended]

25. In section 981.467, paragraph (a)

is amended by removing the date ‘‘July

1’’ and adding in its place ‘‘August 1’’

and by removing the words ‘‘export or’’

and ‘‘or both,’’ from the second sentence

in paragraph (a).

§ 981.472 [Amended]

26. In section 981.472, paragraph (a)

is amended by removing the dates ‘‘July

1 to August 31’’ and adding in its place

‘‘August 1 to August 31.’’

981.73 [Amended]

27. Section 981.73 is amended by

removing the date ‘‘July 15’’ and adding

in its place ‘‘August 15’’ and by

removing the date ‘‘June 30’’ and adding

in its place ‘‘July 31’’.

Dated: June 19, 1996.

Michael V. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–16304 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 985

[Docket No. AO–79–2; FV95–985–4]

Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far

West Order Amending the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

marketing order for spearmint oil

produced in the Far West. The

Department of Agriculture (Department)

proposed this amendment, which was

favored by spearmint oil producers in a

referendum. Previously, the order

included in the regulated production

area the States of Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and portions of Utah, Nevada,

Montana, and California. This

amendment redefines the ‘‘production

area’’ to remove the portions of the

States of Montana and California. This

amendment is designed to improve the

administration, operation, and function

of the Far West spearmint oil program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroline C. Thorpe, Marketing

Specialist, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, Room 2522–S, Washington,

D.C. 20090–6456, telephone (202) 720–

5127; or Robert Curry, Marketing

Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field

Office, Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue,

room 369, Portland, Oregon 97204–

2807, telephone: (503) 326–2724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

documents in this proceeding: Notice of

Hearing was issued on October 4, 1995,

and published in the Federal Register

on October 11, 1995 (60 FR 52869).

Notice of Public Hearing: Correction

was issued on November 8, 1995, and

published in the Federal Register on

November 13, 1995 (60 FR 57144). A

Notice of order filed on proposed

rulemaking was issued on November 30,

1995, and published in the Federal

Register December 5, 1995 (60 FR

62229). The Emergency Final Decision

and Referendum Order was issued on

February 13, 1996, and published in the

Federal Register on February 20, 1996

(61 FR 6329).

This administrative action is governed

by the provision of sections 556 and 557

of title 5 of the United States Code, and

is therefore excluded from the

requirements of 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 Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as

amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 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 request a

modification of the order or to be

exempted therefrom. A 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.

Preliminary Statement

This final rule was formulated on the

record of a public hearing held in

Spokane, Washington, on November 14,

1995, to consider the proposed

amendment of Marketing Order No. 985,

regulating the handling of spearmint oil

produced in the Far West, hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The hearing

was held pursuant to the provisions of

the Act and the applicable rules of

practice and procedure governing

proceedings to formulate marketing

agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR

Part 900). The Notice of Hearing

contained an amendment proposal

recommended by the Department.

The Department proposed this action

to determine if portions of both the

States of California and Montana should

continue to be regulated under the

order.

Upon the basis of evidence

introduced at the hearing and the record

thereof, the Assistant Secretary for

Marketing and Regulatory Programs on

February 13, 1996, filed with the

Hearing Clerk, Department of

Agriculture, an Emergency Final

Decision and Referendum Order,

directing that a referendum be

conducted during the period March 2

through March 15, 1996, among all

known producers of spearmint oil

produced in the Far West. The proposed

amendment was favored by more than

the requisite two-thirds of spearmint oil

producers voting in the referendum.

Based upon the referendum and other

available information the Department

determined that the ‘‘production area,’’

the area regulated under the order, no

longer include portions of the states of

California and Montana.

There is no amended marketing

agreement effective with this

amendment of the order. The original

order was published in the April 14,

1980, Federal Register (45 FR 25040), as

a final rule. At that time, a marketing

agreement was not approved by

spearmint oil handlers representing 50

percent or more of the volume of

spearmint oil handled by all handlers

during the representative period.

The information collection

requirements contained in the order and

regulation 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 numbers 0581–0065 for Far West

spearmint oil.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32923

This rule will have no impact on the

reporting burden of approximately 8

handlers of spearmint oil as none of the

handlers have a history of receiving

commercial production from the

portions of California or Montana

removed from regulation under the

order.

Small Business Consideration

In accordance with the provisions of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agricultural

Marketing Service has determined that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small

agricultural producers have been

defined by the Small Business

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.601)

as those having annual receipts of less

than $500,000. Small agricultural

service firms, which include handlers

under this order, are defined as those

with annual receipts of less than $5

million.

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 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 the RFA and the

Act have small entity orientation and

compatibility. Interested persons were

invited to present evidence at the

hearing on the probable impact that the

proposed amendment to the order

would have on small businesses.

During the 1994–95 marketing year

from June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995, 8 handlers were regulated under

the order. In addition, there are

approximately 260 producers of

spearmint oil in the regulated

production area. The Act requires the

application of uniform rules on

regulated handlers. A minority of

handlers and producers of Far West

spearmint oil may be classified as small

entities. The order itself is tailored to

the size and nature of these small

entities. Thus, both the RFA and the Act

are compatible with respect to small

entities.

This amendment removes from the

regulated production area the portions

of California and Montana currently

regulated by the order. This amendment

is designed to enhance the

administration and functioning of the

marketing order to the benefit of the

industry.

Order Amending the Order Regulating

the Handling of Spearmint Oil

Produced in the Far West

Findings and Determinations

The findings and determinations

hereinafter set forth are supplementary

and in addition to the findings and

determinations previously made in

connection with the issuance of the

order; and all of said previous findings

and determinations are hereby ratified

and affirmed, except insofar as such

findings and determinations may be in

conflict with the findings and

determinations set forth herein.

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon

the Basis of the Hearing Record.

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et

seq.), and the applicable rules of

practice and procedure effective

thereunder (7 CFR Part 900), a public

hearing was held upon the proposed

amendment to Marketing Order No. 985

(7 CFR Part 985), regulating the

handling of spearmint oil produced in

the Far West.

Upon the basis of the evidence

introduced at such hearing and the

record thereof, it is found that:

(1) The order, as hereby amended, and

all of the terms and conditions thereof,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act;

(2) The order, as hereby amended,

regulates the handling of spearmint oil

grown in the production area in the

same manner as, and is applicable only

to persons in the respective classes of

commercial and industrial activity

specified in the marketing order upon

which hearings have been held;

(3) The order, as hereby amended, is

limited in application to the smallest

regional production area which is

practicable, consistent with carrying out

the declared policy of the Act, and the

issuance of several orders applicable to

subdivisions of the production area

would not effectively carry out the

declared policy of the Act; and

(4) All handling of spearmint oil

grown in the production area is in the

current of interstate or foreign

commerce or directly burdens,

obstructs, or affects such commerce.

(b) Additional findings. It is necessary

and in the public interest to make this

order amendment effective upon

publication in the Federal Register.

A later effective date would

unnecessarily delay the implementation

of the order amendment and the

improvement in operation of the

marketing order program. There has

been uncertainty within the spearmint

oil industry for some time with respect

to the possible redefinition of the

order’s production area. Such

uncertainty has the potential of

hampering the ability of individual

producers and handlers to make sound

economic decisions concerning their

operations. The amendment could affect

planting, contracting, lending and other

important economic decisions of those

in the industry.

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby

found and determined that good cause

exists to making this amendatory order

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register, and that it would be

contrary to the public interest to delay

the effective date of this order for 30

days after publication in the Federal

Register (Sec. 553(d), Administrative

Procedure Act; 5 U.S.C. 551–559).

(c) Determinations. It is hereby

determined that:

(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative

associations of producers who are not

engaged in processing, distribution, or

shipping the commodity covered by the

said order, as hereby amended) who,

during the period June 1, 1994, through

May 31, 1995, handled not less than 50

percent of the volume of such spearmint

oil covered by the said order, as hereby

amended, have not signed a marketing

agreement;

(2) The issuance of this amendatory

order, amending the aforesaid order, is

favored or approved by at least twothirds of the producers who participated

in a referendum on the question of its

approval or produced for market at least

two-thirds of the volume of such

commodity represented in the

referendum, all such producers, during

the period June 1, 1994, through May

31, 1995 (which has been deemed to be

a representative period), having been

engaged within the production area in

the production of such spearmint oil;

and

(3) In the absence of signed marketing

agreements, the issuance of this

amendatory order is the only practical

means pursuant to the declared policy

of the Act of advancing the interest of

producers of spearmint oil in the

production area.

Order Relative to Handling

It is therefore ordered, That on and

after the effective date hereof, all

handling of spearmint oil grown in the

production area shall be in conformity

to, and in compliance with, the terms

and conditions of the said order as

hereby amended as follows:

The provisions of the proposed

marketing order amending the order

contained in the Emergency Final

Decision issued by the Assistant

Secretary on February 13, 1996, and
32924 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

published in the Federal Register on

February 20, 1996, shall be and are the

terms and provisions of this order

amending the order and are set forth in

full herein.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Spearmint oil.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 985 is amended as

follows:

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE

FAR WEST

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 985 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 985.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 985.5 Production area.

Production area means all the area

within the States of Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and that portion of Nevada

north of the 37th parallel and that

portion of Utah west of the 111th

meridian. The area shall be divided into

the following districts:

(a) District 1. State of Washington

(b) District 2. The State of Idaho and

that portion of the States of Nevada and

Utah included in the production area.

(c) District 3. The State of Oregon.

Dated: June 19, 1996.

Michael V. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–16303 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

8 CFR PARTS 3 AND 242

[EOIR 102F]

RIN 1125–AA01

Executive Office for Immigration

Review; Motions and Appeals in

Immigration Proceedings; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains

additional corrections to the final

regulation published Monday, April 29,

1996 (61 FR 18900), relating to new

motions and appeals procedures in

immigration proceedings.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret M. Philbin, General Counsel,

Executive Office for Immigration

Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike,

Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 305–0470

(not a toll free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulation that is the subject

of these corrections streamlines the

motions and appeals practice before the

Board of Immigration Appeals and

establishes a centralized procedure for

filing notices of appeal, fees, fee waiver

requests, and briefs directly with the

Board. The new regulation also

establishes time and number limitations

on motions to reconsider and on

motions to reopen and makes certain

changes to appellate procedures to

reflect the statutory directives of section

545 of the Immigration Act of 1990

(Pub. L. 101–649, 104 stat. at 4978).

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulation

contains errors that may prove to be

misleading and are in need of

clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on April

29, 1996 of the final regulation (EOIR

102F), which was the subject of FR Doc.

96–10157 is corrected as follows:

§ 3.2(b) [Corrected]

1. On page 18904, in the third

column, in § 3.2 paragraph (b), line 13,

the word ‘‘shall’’ is corrected to read

‘‘may’’ and in line 17, the last sentence

of the paragraph is corrected to read

‘‘Such motion may be consolidated

with, and considered by the Board in

connection with the appeal to the

Board.’’

§ 246.7 [Corrected]

2. On page 18910, in the first column,

§ 246.7, line 4, the following language is

removed: ‘‘except that no appeal shall

lie from an order of deportation entered

in absentia’’.

Rosemary Hart,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–16270 Filed 6–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Parts 102 and 134

Country of Origin Marking Exception

for Textile Goods Assembled Abroad

With Components Only Cut to Shape in

the U.S.

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General policy statement.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

of a general country of origin marking

exception that will be granted by

Customs, commencing July 1, 1996, for

imported textile goods assembled

abroad with components which were

only cut to shape in the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Walker, Special Classification and

Marking Branch, Office of Regulations

and Rulings (202–482–6980).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 5, 1995, Customs

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 46188) a final rule document setting

forth, in section 102.21, Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 102.21), new rules

of origin applicable to textile and

apparel products. These rules, which

become effective July 1, 1996,

implement the provisions of section 334

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘the Act’’) (codified at 19 U.S.C. 3592).

One of the fundamental changes that

will result from the new textile rules of

origin is that cutting fabric to shape will

no longer confer origin. Currently (prior

to July 1, 1996), the cutting of foreign

fabric to shape in the U.S. results in the

components becoming products of the

U.S. If these components are assembled

abroad and returned, they are entitled to

a duty allowance under subheading

9802.00.80, HTSUS, and pursuant to the

regulations (19 CFR 10.22, which will

be eliminated effective August 5, 1996),

they may be marked ‘‘Assembled in X

country from U.S. components’’ or a

similar phrase. However, under the new

textile rules, these fabric components

will no longer be of U.S. origin.

Therefore, while the Act provides that

importers may continue to receive a

duty allowance for components cut to

shape in the U.S. from foreign fabric and

assembled abroad, effective July 1, 1996,

such assembled goods will no longer be

considered properly marked when they

are labeled ‘‘Assembled in X country

from ‘U.S.’ components.’’