Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 /Wednesday, September 24, 1997 /Rules and Regulations 49907

1Farm Credit System associations that are

shareholders of an FCB include Federal land bank

associations, Federal land credit associations,

production credit associations, and agricultural

credit associations.

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 993

Dried prunes, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 993 which was

published at 62 FR 41808 on August 4,

1997, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: September 17, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–25275 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing and Community

Development Service

Rural Business and Cooperative

Development Service

Rural Utilities Service

Consolidated Farm Service Agency

7 CFR Part 1924

Construction and Repair

CFR Correction

In Title 7 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 1900 to 1939, revised

as of January 1, 1997, make the

following correction:

1. On page 97, in § 1924.5(h), in the

fourth line, ‘‘103–354ing’’ should read

‘‘103–354, prior to beginning’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 615

RIN 3052–AB75

Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan

Policies and Operations, and Funding

Operations; Cumulative Voting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit

Administration (FCA), through the FCA

Board (Board), issues a final rule

amending § 615.5230 of its regulations

to provide that a Farm Credit Bank (FCB

or bank) may eliminate cumulative

voting in director elections with the

consent of 75 percent of the bank’s

association shareholders. This rule is

necessary because the existing

requirement of unanimous consent was

unduly burdensome, complicated, and

provided questionable benefits. The

effect of this rule is to ease the

unanimous consent requirement while

maintaining significant protection for

the minority interests.

DATES: This regulation shall become

effective October 24, 1997, during

which either or both houses of Congress

are in session. Notice of the effective

date will be published in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gaylon J. Dykstra, Policy Analyst, Office

of Policy Development and Risk

Control, Farm Credit Administration,

McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–

4498;

or

Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Attorney,

Office of General Counsel, Farm

Credit Administration, McLean, VA

22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TDD

(703) 883–4444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCA

proposed to amend § 615.5230 of its

regulations on April 25, 1997 (62 FR

20131), to provide that an FCB may

eliminate the cumulative voting

requirement for the election of directors

by a vote of 75 percent of the bank’s

association shareholders.1 The proposed

rule was in response to petitions from

several Farm Credit System (System)

institutions requesting that the FCA

revise the existing unanimous consent

requirement for eliminating cumulative

voting. The 30-day comment period

expired on May 27, 1997.

The FCA received a total of eight

comment letters. Five of the letters

represented seven associations (some

commented jointly). The other three

were from the FCB of Wichita

(transmitting comments of 10 of its

affiliated associations); the FCB of

Texas; and the Tenth District Federation

of Production Credit Associations

(Federation), whose members are

affiliated with the FCB of Texas.

Nine associations and the Federation

supported the proposed amendment;

seven associations opposed the

proposed amendment. One association

requested that the FCA reconsider the

recommendation of a two-thirds

majority made by several petitioners but

supported the proposed amendment if

the FCA could not support the twothirds majority. The FCB of Texas stated

that it believed that a simple majority

vote of all associations should control

cumulative voting, but that

alternatively, the supermajority

requirement should be based on the

number of associations that actually

vote. Two institutions specifically

endorsed the proposal to accord each

association one vote in a vote to

eliminate cumulative voting.

The associations that supported the

proposed amendment generally

commented that the existing regulation

was unduly burdensome, complicated,

and provided questionable benefits. One

commenter stated that the current

regulation ‘‘allows only one vote to void

the wishes of the remainder of the

District who support a less restrictive

consent for change.’’

Four associations that opposed the

proposed amendment supported the

continuation of the existing regulation.

They commented that the original intent

of the regulation was to provide smaller

associations a meaningful vote by

allowing them to cumulate their votes in

elections and that this is now even more

paramount because of the mergers,

consolidations, and proposed joint

management agreements at the district

level. They further stated that it was

important for all stockholders in the

district banks to have the maximum

opportunity to voice their respective

votes and that there was ‘‘no valid

reason for an association located in a

smaller geographic size to forfeit this

right.’’

After careful consideration of the

comments, the FCA adopts the rule as

proposed. The FCA continues to believe

that cumulative voting provides

important protection to minority

interests and, consequently, should not

be subject to elimination by a two-thirds

majority. The 75-percent supermajority

provides the proper balance among the

differing opinions by easing the

unanimous requirement for eliminating

cumulative voting while maintaining

significant protection for the minority

interests.

As noted above, one commenter

stated that a supermajority requirement

should be a percentage of only the

shareholders that participate in the vote,

rather than the total number of voting

shareholders. The effect of such a

change would be the possibility that a

smaller number of shareholders would

be able to eliminate cumulative voting

if some shareholders abstain. The FCA

is not persuaded that such a change is

appropriate.
49908 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 /Wednesday, September 24, 1997 /Rules and Regulations

One respondent requested that the

FCA clarify whether a 75-percent vote is

needed to reinstate cumulative voting.

The FCA does not require a

supermajority to reinstate cumulative

voting. The FCA believes that such a

vote should be subject to the

amendment procedures established by

the FCB’s bylaws.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 615

Accounting, Agriculture, Banks,

Banking, Government securities,

Investments, Rural areas.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 615 of chapter VI, title 12

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 615—FUNDING AND FISCAL

AFFAIRS, LOAN POLICIES AND

OPERATIONS, AND FUNDING

OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 615

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12,

2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11, 3.25, 4.3,

4.3A, 4.9, 4.14B, 4.25, 5.9, 5.17, 6.20, 6.26,

8.0, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.12 of the

Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2018,

2019, 2020, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2093,

2122, 2128, 2132, 2146, 2154, 2154a, 2160,

2202b, 2211, 2243, 2252, 2278b, 2278b–6,

2279aa, 2279aa–3, 2279aa–4, 2279aa–6,

2279aa–7, 2279aa–8, 2279aa–10, 2279aa–12);

sec. 301(a) of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 Stat. 1568,

1608.

Subpart I—Issuance of Equities

2. Section 615.5230 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as

follows:

§ 615.5230 Implementation of cooperative

principles.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Have the right to vote in the

election of each director and be allowed

to cumulate such votes and distribute

them among the candidates in the

shareholder’s discretion, except that

cumulative voting for directors may be

eliminated if 75 percent of the

associations that are shareholders of the

Farm Credit Bank vote in favor of

elimination. In a vote to eliminate

cumulative voting, each association

shall be accorded one vote.

* * * * *

Dated: September 16, 1997.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 97–25262 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 177

Indirect Food Additives: Polymers

CFR Correction

In Title 21 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 170 to 199, revised as

of April 1, 1997, make the following

correction:

On page 263, in § 177.1520, in the

paragraph (b) table, the third entry

under the heading ‘‘Substance’’ is

corrected to read

‘‘Polymethylsilsesquioxane (CAS Reg.

No. 68554–70–1)’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

Oregon State Plan; Approval of Plan

Supplements; Changes in Level of

Federal Enforcement, Including

Umatilla Indian Reservation

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), U.S.

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document gives notice of

the approval of a State-initiated plan

change and assumption of Federal

OSHA enforcement authority in the

State of Oregon over all private sector

establishments, including tribal and

Indian-owned enterprises, on all Indian

and non-Indian lands within the

currently established boundary of the

Umatilla Indian Reservation, and on

lands outside the reservation that are

held in trust by the Federal government

for the Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla (Umatilla Tribes). Oregon

OSHA will retain its enforcement

jurisdiction over public sector (State

and local government) employees

working on these lands.

This document also gives notice of the

approval of several other changes in the

level of Federal enforcement in the State

of Oregon. A 1991 addendum to

Oregon’s operational status agreement

contained four changes to the

circumstances under which Federal

enforcement jurisdiction may be

exercised within the State, including

situations where Oregon is refused entry

to an establishment. In addition, Oregon

has assumed responsibility for worker

protection at Superfund sites (except on

military bases) and with regard to

private contractors working on U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers dam

construction projects, as reflected in a

1992 Memorandum of Understanding

between Federal OSHA and the State of

Oregon.

OSHA is hereby amending its

regulation on approved plans to reflect

these changes to the level of Federal

enforcement authority in Oregon, and

correcting a few typographical errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of

Public Affairs, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, Room N3647,

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone

(202) 219–8148.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29

U.S.C. 667, provides that States which

wish to assume responsibility for

developing and enforcing their own

occupational safety and health

standards may do so by submitting, and

obtaining Federal approval of, a State

plan. State plan approval occurs in

stages which include initial approval

under section 18(c) of the Act and,

ultimately, final approval under section

18(e). In the interim, between initial

approval and final approval, there is a

period of concurrent Federal/State

jurisdiction within a State operating an

approved plan. See 29 CFR 1954.3 for

guidelines and procedures.

The Oregon Occupational Safety and

Health State plan was approved under

section 18(c) of the Act and part 1902

of this chapter on December 28, 1972

(37 FR 28628). On January 23, 1975,

OSHA and the State of Oregon entered

into an Operational Status Agreement

which suspended the exercise of

Federal concurrent enforcement

authority in all except specifically

identified areas. The agreement was

amended on December 12, 1983 and on

November 27, 1991. Except for this last

amendment, the pertinent provisions

concerning level of Federal enforcement

in Oregon are codified at 29 CFR

1952.105.

By letters of April 29, 1997 and July

14, 1997 from Peter DeLuca,

Administrator, Oregon Occupational

Safety and Health Division (OR–OSHA)

to Richard Terrill, Acting Regional

Administrator, the State of Oregon has

requested that Federal OSHA assume

enforcement authority in Oregon over