41810 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

all assessable dried prunes handled

during such crop year; (3) handlers are

aware of this action which was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and is

similar to other assessment rate actions

issued in past years; and (4) this interim

final rule provides a 30-day comment

period, and all comments timely

received will be considered prior to

finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993

Dried prunes, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is amended as

follows:

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 993 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 993.347 [Amended]

2. Section 993.347 is amended by

removing ‘‘August 1, 1996,’’ and adding

in its place ‘‘August 1, 1997,’’, and by

removing ‘‘$1.50’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘$1.60.’’

Dated: July 29, 1997.

Ronald L. Cioffi,

Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20457 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1126

[DA–97–06]

Milk in the Texas Marketing Area;

Suspension of Certain Provisions of

the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; suspension.

SUMMARY: This document continues the

suspension of segments of the pool

plant and producer milk definitions of

the Texas order for a two-year period.

Associated Milk Producers, Inc., a

cooperative association that represents

producers who supply milk to the

market, requested continuation of the

current suspension with a change to the

producer diversion provision.

Continuation of the suspension

currently in effect is necessary to ensure

that dairy farmers who have historically

supplied the Texas market will continue

to have their milk priced under the

Texas order without incurring costly

and inefficient movements of milk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1997, through

July 31, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clifford M. Carman, Marketing

Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division,

Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971,

South Building, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456, (202) 720–

9368, e-mail address Clifford—M—

Carman@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued May 7, 1997; published May 13,

1997 (62 FR 26255).

Notice of Revised Proposed

Suspension: Issued June 23, 1997;

published June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34676).

The Department is issuing this final

rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have a 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, as amended

(7 U.S.C. 601–674), 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

request modification or exemption from

such order by filing 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 the law. A

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After a

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 its 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 the date

of the entry of the ruling.

Small Business Consideration

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Agricultural Marketing Service has

considered the economic impact of this

action on small entities and has certified

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. For the

purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, a dairy farm is considered a ‘‘small

business’’ if it has an annual gross

revenue of less than $500,000, and a

dairy products manufacturer is a ‘‘small

business’’ if it has fewer than 500

employees. For the purposes of

determining which dairy farms are

‘‘small businesses,’’ the $500,000 per

year criterion was used to establish a

production guideline of 326,000 pounds

per month. Although this guideline does

not factor in additional monies that may

be received by dairy producers, it

should be an inclusive standard for

most ‘‘small’’ dairy farmers. For

purposes of determining a handler’s

size, if the plant is part of a larger

company operating multiple plants that

collectively exceed the 500-employee

limit, the plant will be considered a

large business even if the local plant has

fewer than 500 employees.

For the month of March 1997, the

milk of 1,805 producers was pooled on

the Texas Federal milk order. Of these

producers, 1,350 producers were below

the 326,000-pound production guideline

and are considered small businesses.

During this same period, there were 24

handlers operating pool plants under

the Texas order. Five of these handlers

would be considered small businesses.

This rule continues the suspension of

segments of the pool plant and producer

milk definitions under the Texas order.

This rule lessens the regulatory impact

of the order on certain milk handlers

and tends to ensure that dairy farmers

continue to have their milk priced

under the order and thereby receive the

benefits that accrue from such pricing.

Additionally, this rule will not increase

the regulatory burden on handlers since

the suspension has been in effect during

the prior two-year period. The

suspension will continue to provide

handlers the flexibility needed to move

milk supplies in the most efficient

manner and to eliminate costly and

inefficient movements of milk that

would be made solely for the purpose of

pooling the milk of dairy farmers who

have historically supplied the market.

Preliminary Statement

This order of suspension is issued

pursuant to the provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

and of the order regulating the handling

of milk in the Texas marketing area.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

May 7, 1997 (62 FR 26255), concerning

a proposed suspension of certain

provisions of the order. A revised

proposed suspension was issued on

June 23, 1997, and published in the

Federal Register on June 27, 1997 (62

FR 34676). Interested persons were
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 41811

afforded opportunity to file written data,

views and arguments thereon.

Two comments in opposition to the

revised proposed suspension and in

support of the continuance of the

existing suspension, one comment in

opposition to the proposed suspension,

and one comment in support of the

revised proposed suspension were

received.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposal in the

notice, the comments received, and

other available information, it is hereby

found and determined that for the

months of August 1, 1997, through July

31, 1999, the following provisions of the

order do not tend to effectuate the

declared policy of the Act:

1. In § 1126.7(d) introductory text, the

words ‘‘during the months of February

through July’’ and the words ‘‘under

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section’’.

2. In § 1126.7(e) introductory text, the

words ‘‘and 60 percent or more of the

producer milk of members of the

cooperative association (excluding such

milk that is received at or diverted from

pool plants described in paragraphs (b),

(c), and (d) of this section) is physically

received during the month in the form

of a bulk fluid milk product at pool

plants described in paragraph (a) of this

section either directly from farms or by

transfer from plants of the cooperative

association for which pool plant status

under this paragraph has been

requested’’.

3. In § 1126.13(e)(1), the words ‘‘and

further, during each of the months of

September through January not less than

15 percent of the milk of such dairy

farmer is physically received as

producer milk at a pool plant’’.

4. In § 1126.13, paragraph (e)(2).

5. In § 1126.13(e)(3), the sentence

‘‘The total quantity of milk so diverted

during the month shall not exceed onethird of the producer milk physically

received at such pool plant during the

month that is eligible to be diverted by

the plant operator;’.

Statement of Consideration

This rule continues the suspension of

segments of the pool plant and producer

milk provisions under the Texas order.

This suspension will be in effect from

August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1999.

The current suspension will expire on

July 31, 1997. This rule continues the

suspension of: (1) The 60 percent

delivery standard for pool plants

operated by cooperatives; (2) the

diversion limitation applicable to

cooperative associations; (3) the limits

on the amount of milk that a pool plant

operator may divert to nonpool plants;

(4) the shipping standards that must be

met by supply plants to be pooled under

the order; and (5) the individual

producer performance standards that

must be met in order for a producer’s

milk to be eligible for diversion to a

nonpool plant.

A comment received from Associated

Milk Producers Inc. (AMPI) to the May

7, 1997, proposed suspension supports

the continuation of the suspension with

a change to the producer milk diversion

provision. AMPI, a cooperative

association that represents a substantial

number of dairy farmers who supply the

Texas market, states that the change to

the current suspension is necessary to

achieve orderly marketing conditions

within the Texas marketing area. The

suspension currently in effect

eliminates any diversion limit on the

Texas market. However, according to

the cooperative, by modifying the

existing suspension as noticed in the

revised proposed suspension,

cooperative diversions would be limited

to an amount equal to deliveries made

to pool plants by these associations. The

cooperative argues that this assures a

more distinct association with the Class

I market than the current suspension

and limits ‘‘pool riding.’’ Furthermore,

AMPI states that as the New Mexico/

West Texas and Texas markets coalesce,

inter-market movements create the need

for pooling requirements that are

unrestrictive. However, these

requirements must also allow reserve

locations to serve their function in the

marketplace and also preserve the

integrity of the market.

Comments opposing the modification

of the current suspension and in

support of the existing suspension were

submitted by Premier Milk, Inc., and

Lone Star Milk Producers, L.C., two

small cooperative associations

representing producers who pool their

milk on the Texas order. The

cooperatives state that AMPI’s revised

proposal increases the difficulty of

marketing milk on the Texas order

because the proposed diversion

limitation would reduce Premier’s and

Lone Star’s opportunities to divert milk.

The two cooperatives contend that

presently in the Texas order a very

limited amount of milk can be sold to

pool plants by small cooperatives

because the larger cooperatives either

own or have full supply contracts with

almost all of the pool plants in the

Texas order.

A comment submitted by The Kroger

Co. (Kroger), a handler operating a pool

distributing plant regulated under the

Texas order, opposes a continuance of

the suspension of the pool plant and

producer definitions which are

currently in effect. Kroger states that the

current suspension has eliminated the

need for producers and pool supply

plants to service the fluid milk market

and continue to enjoy the benefits of

association with the Texas order.

Furthermore, the handler contends that

current marketing conditions justify the

denial of continuation of the

suspension. Kroger argues that current

supply conditions indicate that local

milk supplies will be needed to meet

the demand of fluid milk sales and

states that the suspended provisions

discourage the availability of local milk

to meet the needs of fluid milk handlers.

Therefore, in order to assure consumers

an adequate supply of milk at a

reasonable cost, according to the

handler, the suspension should not be

continued.

Continuation of the current

suspension is necessary to ensure that

dairy farmers who have historically

supplied the Texas market will continue

to have their milk priced under the

Texas order, thereby receiving the

benefits that accrue from such pooling.

In addition, the suspension will

continue to provide handlers the

flexibility needed to move milk supplies

in the most efficient manner and to

eliminate costly and inefficient

movements of milk that would be made

solely for the purpose of pooling the

milk of dairy farmers who have

historically supplied the market.

Marketing conditions have not

significantly changed since 1995 when

the current suspension was issued.

There is no indication that adequate

local fluid milk supplies will not be

available to service the needs of

handlers in the Texas marketing area.

Although the Class I utilization of

producer milk has increased to 51.73%

for the July 1996 through June 1997

period as compared to 45.38% in the

previous July through June period, this

Class I utilization has not increased to

the level where it is difficult to obtain

an adequate supply of milk.

Currently the Federal milk marketing

order program is undergoing an

extensive review as mandated by the

Federal Agriculture Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996. All provisions of

milk orders, including the producer and

pool plant definitions, are being

examined as part of Federal order

reform. However, while this process is

underway, marketing conditions in the

Texas order warrant the continuance of

the existing suspension to ensure the

orderly marketing of milk.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions

beginning August 1, 1997, through July

31, 1999.
41812 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

It is hereby found and determined

that thirty days’ notice of the effective

date hereof is impractical, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest in

that:

(a) The suspension is necessary to

reflect current marketing conditions and

to assure orderly marketing conditions

in the marketing area, in that such rule

is necessary to permit the continued

pooling of the milk of dairy farmers who

have historically supplied the market

without the need for making costly and

inefficient movements of milk;

(b) This suspension does not require

of persons affected substantial or

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date; and

(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking

was given interested parties and they

were afforded opportunity to file written

data, views or arguments concerning

this suspension. Two comments

supporting the current suspension and

opposing the revised proposed

suspension, one comment supporting

the revised proposed suspension, and

one comment opposing the proposed

suspension were received.

Therefore, good cause exists for

making this order effective less than 30

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1126

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 1126 is amended

as follows:

PART 1126—MILK IN THE TEXAS

MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1126 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1126.7 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1126.7(d) introductory text, the

words ‘‘during the months of February

through July’’ and the words ‘‘under

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section’’ are

suspended.

3. In § 1126.7(e) introductory text, the

words ‘‘and 60 percent or more of the

producer milk of members of the

cooperative association (excluding such

milk that is received at or diverted from

pool plants described in paragraphs (b),

(c), and (d) of this section) is physically

received during the month in the form

of a bulk fluid milk product at pool

plants described in paragraph (a) of this

section either directly from farms or by

transfer from plants of the cooperative

association for which pool plant status

under this paragraph has been

requested’’ are suspended.

§ 1126.13 [Suspended in part]

4. In § 1126.13(e)(1), the words ‘‘and

further, during each of the months of

September through January not less than

15 percent of the milk of such dairy

farmer is physically received as

producer milk at a pool plant’’ are

suspended.

5. Section 1126.13(e)(2) is suspended.

6. In § 1126.13(e)(3), the sentence

‘‘The total quantity of milk so diverted

during the month shall not exceed onethird of the producer milk physically

received at such pool plant during the

month that is eligible to be diverted by

the plant operator;’’ is suspended.

Dated: July 29, 1997.

Michael V. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–20458 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Part 960

[No. 97–44]

RIN 3069–AA28

Amendment of Affordable Housing

Program Regulation

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance

Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance

Board (Finance Board) is amending its

regulation governing the operation of

the Affordable Housing Program (AHP

or Program). Among the significant

changes made by the final rule are:

transfer of approval authority for AHP

applications from the Finance Board to

the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks);

modification of the competitive scoring

process under which AHP subsidies are

allocated among housing projects;

establishment of specific standards and

retention periods for monitoring of

AHP-assisted housing projects; and

clarification and expansion of the types

of remedies available in the event of

noncompliance with AHP requirements.

The final rule is in furtherance of the

Finance Board’s continuing effort to

devolve management and governance

authority to the Banks. It also is

consistent with the goals of the

Regulatory Reinvention Initiative of the

National Performance Review.

DATES: The final rule is effective on

January 1, 1998. Compliance with

§ 960.3(b) shall begin on September 3,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Tucker, Deputy Director,

Compliance Assistance Division, (202)

408–2848, or Diane E. Dorius, Associate

Director, Program Development

Division, (202) 408–2576, Office of

Policy; or Sharon B. Like, Senior

Attorney-Advisor, (202) 408–2930, or

Brandon B. Straus, Senior AttorneyAdvisor, (202) 408–2589, Office of

General Counsel, Federal Housing

Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Section 10(j)(1) of the Federal Home

Loan Bank Act (Act) requires each Bank

to establish a Program to subsidize the

interest rate on advances to members of

the Federal Home Loan Bank System

(Bank System) engaged in lending for

long-term, low- and moderate-income,

owner-occupied and affordable rental

housing at subsidized interest rates. See

12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(1). The Finance Board

is required to promulgate regulations

governing the Program. See id. The

Finance Board’s existing regulation

governing the operation of the Program

is set forth in part 960 of the Finance

Board’s regulations. See 12 CFR part

960. The Program has been operating

successfully for approximately seven

years.

As a result of the Finance Board’s and

the Banks’ experience in administering

the Program, on January 10, 1994, the

Finance Board issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking, which was

published in the Federal Register, that

proposed changes to improve operation

of the Program. See 59 FR 1323 (Jan. 10,

1994). The Finance Board received over

100 comment letters. During the

following 18-month period, the Finance

Board was without a quorum and was

unable to take action on the proposed

rule.

On September 25, 1995, the Finance

Board published a final rule amending

the AHP regulation to permit the Banks

to set aside of portion of their required

annual AHP contributions to fund

homeownership set-aside programs to

provide downpayment and closing cost

assistance to low-and moderate-income

homebuyers. See 60 FR 49327 (Sept. 25,

1995). On November 1, 1995, the

Finance Board published for comment a

proposal to amend the existing AHP

regulation to authorize the Banks, in

their discretion, to establish limits on

the maximum amount of AHP subsidy

that may be requested per member, per

project application, or per project unit,

for a given funding period. See 60 FR

55487 (Nov. 1, 1995) (Subsidy Limits

Proposal). The Finance Board received