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

46665

Vol. 62, No. 171

Thursday, September 4, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1011

[DA–97–09]

Milk in the Tennessee Valley Marketing

Area; Suspension of Certain

Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; suspension.

SUMMARY: This document suspends

certain provisions of the Tennessee

Valley Federal milk marketing order

during the period of consideration of the

termination of the Tennessee Valley

order. The suspension deactivates the

provisions that allow funds to be

transferred from the ProducerSettlement Fund to the Transportation

Credit Balancing Fund when the latter

fund does not have sufficient funds to

cover the amount of credits to be

disbursed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202)690–1932, e-mail

address NicholaslMemoli@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Termination:

Issued June 30, 1997; published July 3,

1997 (62 FR 36022).

Notice of Extension of Time for Filing

Comments: Issued July 9, 1997;

published July 14, 1997.

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.

During the representative month of

February 1997, the milk of 1,469

producers was pooled on the Tennessee

Valley order. Of these producers, 1,442

are considered as small businesses.

There were 7 handlers operating 8

pool distributing plants regulated under

the Tennessee Valley milk order for

February 1997. Of these handlers, 3 are

considered small businesses.

This rule lessens the regulatory

impact of the order on dairy farmers by

prohibiting an unwarranted reduction of

their blend price to cover costs

associated with obtaining supplemental

milk.

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 Tennessee Valley

marketing area.

After consideration of all relevant

material and available information, it is

hereby found and determined that

during the period of consideration

involving the termination of the

Tennessee Valley milk order, the

following provisions of the order do not

tend to effectuate the declared policy of

the Act:

1. In § 1011.61, paragraph (a)(4); and

2. § 1011.81, paragraph (b).

Statement of Consideration

This suspension order removes a

provision of the Tennessee Valley order

that requires the market administrator to

transfer money from the producersettlement fund (psf) to the

transportation credit balancing fund

(TCBF) when the latter fund has an

insufficient balance from which to pay

the current month’s transportation costs

associated with supplemental milk

obtained from outside the marketing

area. This suspension is effective

pending consideration of the

termination of the Tennessee Valley

milk order.

On May 12, 1997, the Department

issued a partial final decision on

proposed amendments to the Carolina,

Southeast, Tennessee Valley, and

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville milk

orders which was published on May 20,

1997 (62 FR 27525). The final decision

contained proposed amended orders for

the 4 southeast marketing areas,

including the Tennessee Valley order,

and directed the respective market
46666 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

administrators of the 4 orders to

ascertain whether at least two-thirds of

the producers marketing their milk

under each of the orders approved the

issuance of the amended orders. The

final decision concluded that amended

orders were needed to effectuate the

declared policy of the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act. That Act

requires that at least two-thirds of the

producers voting in a referendum must

vote affirmatively before an order can be

issued.

Less than two-thirds of the producers

whose milk is pooled under the

Tennessee Valley order approved the

issuance of the proposed amended

order. Consequently, on July 3 the

Department issued a notice of proposed

termination of the Tennessee Valley

order. It is now evaluating comments

received in response to that notice.

At the present time, the Tennessee

Valley milk order is being administered

under the interim provisions adopted in

August 1996, whereas the surrounding

orders with transportation credit

provisions are being administered with

revised provisions that became effective

on August 1, 1997.

In July 1997, an extraordinary volume

of supplemental milk was received in

the neighboring Southeast order. As a

result of these receipts, the

transportation credit balancing fund for

that order was virtually depleted in July.

There is now good reason to believe that

shipments of supplemental milk may be

rerouted to handlers under the

Tennessee Valley order in September

since that order still has the interim

provision allowing unlimited payments

for transportation credits even if the

money to pay for the credits must come

from the producer-settlement fund.

Although the Tennessee Valley order

has a viable balance in the TCBF at the

present time, it is likely that funds from

the producer-settlement fund will be

necessary for transportation credit

payments for September’s milk. Were

this to happen, it would reduce blend

prices to producers in the Tennessee

Valley order while their counterparts in

the surrounding markets with

transportation credit provisions would

suffer no such reduction under the

revised August 1997 amendments. This

situation would be inconsistent with the

premises upon which the psf transfer

provision was included in the

Tennessee Valley order.

This suspension is necessary to

ensure that producers’ milk will not be

moved in an uneconomic and inefficient

manner simply to obtain unlimited

transportation credits under the

Tennessee Valley order and to ensure

that producers in the Tennessee Valley

order will be treated in an equitable

manner in relation to producers

supplying the adjacent Southeast,

Carolina, and Louisville-LexingtonEvansville orders.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions during

the period of consideration of

terminating the Tennessee Valley milk

order.

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; and

(b) This suspension does not require

of persons affected substantial or

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date.

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 1011

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 1011 is amended

as follows:

PART 1011—MILK IN THE TENNESSEE

VALLEY MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1011 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1011.61 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1011.61, paragraph (a)(4) is

suspended.

§ 1011.81 [Suspended in part]

3. In § 1011.81, paragraph (b) is

suspended.

Dated: August 29, 1997.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–23568 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISION

16 CFR Parts 1000, 1014, 1021, 1051,

1115, 1211, 1402, 1406, 1500, 1502,

1700, and 1702

Address and Telephone Number

Corrections

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending

16 CFR chapter II to correct errors in

addresses and telephone numbers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph F. Rosenthal, Office of the

General Counsel, Consumer Product

Safety Commission, Washington, D.C.

20207, telephone 301-504-0980.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Some

addresses, office designations, and

telephone numbers in various parts of

16 CFR chapter II are obsolete as a result

of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission’s relocation to new

headquarters in 1994. This rule makes

the necessary corrections. It also revises

some authority citations to conform to

Federal Register recommendations.

Since this rule relates solely to

internal agency management, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), notice and other

public procedures are not required and

it is effective immediately on the

specified effective date. Further, this

action is not a rule as defined in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-

612 and, thus, is exempt from the

provisions of the Act. This action will

have no effect on the environment.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1000

Organization and functions

(Government agencies).

16 CFR Part 1014

Privacy

16 CFR Part 1021

Environmental impact statements.

16 CFR Part 1051

Administrative practice and

procedure, consumer protection.

16 CFR Part 1115

Administrative practice and

procedure, business and industry,

consumer protection, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

16 CFR Part 1211

Consumer protection, imports,

labeling, reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

16 CFR Part 1402