50484 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

U.S.C. 553) because the crop year is

underway and this rule suspends

language concerning offers of reserve

tonnage raisins to handlers for free use.

This action could provide the

Committee with more flexibility in

meeting its marketing needs and

therefore should be implemented as

soon as possible. Further, handlers are

currently making their marketing plans

for the upcoming season. Handlers are

aware of this rule, which was

recommended at a public meeting. Also,

a 30-day comment period was provided

for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

Grapes, Marketing agreements,

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as

follows:

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 989 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 989.54 [Amended]

2. In § 989.54, paragraph (g) the

words, ‘‘On or before November 15 of

the crop year,’’ and ‘‘simultaneous’’, are

suspended indefinitely from the first

sentence.

§ 989.67 [Amended]

3. In § 989.67, paragraph (j) the words,

‘‘by more than 5 percent’’ and ‘‘105

percent of’’, are suspended indefinitely

from the first sentence.

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25621 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1138

[DA–97–07]

Milk in the New Mexico-West Texas

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 pool plant and

producer milk definitions of the New

Mexico-West Texas Federal milk

marketing order for a two-year period.

Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI),

a cooperative association that represents

a majority of the producers who supply

milk to the market, requested

continuation of the current suspension

which would limit the pooling of

diverted milk. Continuation of the

suspension currently in effect is

necessary to ensure that dairy farmers

who have historically supplied the

market will continue to have their milk

priced under the New Mexico-West

Texas order without incurring costly

and inefficient movements of milk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997,

through September 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clifford M. Carman, Marketing

Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division,

Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971,

South Building, PO Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456, (202)720–

9368, e-mail address

CliffordlMlCarman@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued May 7, 1997; published May 13,

1997 (62 FR 26257).

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 174 producers was pooled on

the New Mexico-West Texas Federal

milk order. Of these producers, 26

producers were below the 326,000-

pound production guideline and are

considered small businesses. During

this same period, there were 19 handlers

operating pool plants under the New

Mexico-West Texas order. Twelve of

these handlers would be considered

small businesses.

The suspension continues the current

suspension of segments of the pool

plant and producer milk definitions

under the New Mexico-West Texas

order. The continued suspension will

allow more pooling of diverted milk.

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.

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 New Mexico-West Texas

marketing area.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

May 13, 1997 (62 FR 26257) concerning

a proposed suspension of certain
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 50485

provisions of the order. Interested

persons were afforded opportunity to

file written data, views and arguments

thereon. One comment supporting and

one comment opposing the 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 October 1, 1997, through

September 30, 1999, the following

provisions of the order do not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act:

1. In § 1138.7, paragraph (a)(1), the

words ‘‘including producer milk

diverted from the plant,’’;

2. In § 1138.7, paragraph (c), the

words ‘‘35 percent or more of the

producer’’; and

3. In § 1138.13(d), paragraphs (1), (2),

and (5).

Statement of Consideration

This rule continues the suspension of

segments of the pool plant and producer

milk definitions under the New MexicoWest Texas order. The provisions that

are suspended limit the pooling of

diverted milk. This suspension will be

effective from October 1997 through

September 1999. The current

suspension will expire September 30,

1997.

This rule continues the suspension of:

1. The requirement that milk diverted

to a nonpool plant be considered a

receipt at the distributing plant from

which it was diverted;

2. The requirement that a cooperative

association must deliver at least 35

percent of its milk to pool distributing

plants in order to pool a plant that the

cooperative operates which is located in

the marketing area and is neither a

distributing plant nor a supply plant;

3. The requirement that a producer

must deliver one day’s production to a

pool plant during the months of

September through January to be

eligible to be diverted to a nonpool

plant;

4. The provision that limits a

cooperative’s diversions to nonpool

plants to an amount equal to the milk

it caused to be delivered to, and

physically received at, pool plants

during the month; and

5. The provision that excludes from

the pool, milk diverted from a pool

plant to the extent that it would cause

the plant to lose its status as a pool

plant.

Continuation of the current

suspension was requested by Associated

Milk Producers, Inc., a cooperative

association that represents a substantial

number of dairy farmers who supply the

New Mexico-West Texas market. The

cooperative stated that marketing

conditions have not changed since the

provisions were suspended in 1995 and

therefore should be continued until

restructuring of the Federal order

program is achieved as mandated in the

1996 Farm Bill.

A comment in support of the

continuation of the suspension was filed

by Associated Milk Producers, Inc. and

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., two

cooperative associations representing

producers whose milk is pooled on

Order 138. The cooperative associations

state that the continued suspension is

necessary to balance markets in the

Texas and New Mexico milksheds and

to allow producers in the area to

participate in the Federal order

program.

Select Milk Producers, Inc. (Select), a

dairy cooperative located in New

Mexico representing producers that

account for approximately one-third of

the milk that has been historically

associated with the New Mexico-West

Texas Marketing area, submitted a

comment in opposition to the continued

suspension. The cooperative states that

current marketing conditions do not

warrant the suspension of segments of

performance standard provisions in the

marketing area. According to the

commentor, pooling standards that are

loose or non-existent permit abusive

pool shifting to occur and may result in

the inefficient and uneconomical

movement of milk supplies.

The cooperative association opposes

the suspension of the portion of the pool

plant provision which would exclude

producer milk diversions for purposes

of pool plant qualification. According to

Select, without such a standard there is

an unlimited amount of milk that can be

attached to the order and diverted.

Select states that instead of

suspending the pooling qualifications

altogether as proposed by AMPI, the

Secretary should utilize his authority to

alter the shipping requirement by up to

10 percentage points as specified in

Order 138. A reduced shipping

requirement, according to Select, would

permit qualification of milk in the order

without eliminating the provision

entirely.

The cooperative also states that the

‘‘touch-base’’ provision included in the

New Mexico-West Texas order should

not be suspended entirely, but that a

minimum touch-base requirement

should be maintained to ensure that

loose shipping requirements are not

abused. Furthermore, Select states that

the proponent fails to identify the

amount of milk that may be depooled if

the standard limiting the total quantity

of milk diverted by a cooperative

association is not suspended.

During the past two years, milk

production in this region has increased

while Class I utilization has decreased.

Thus, a return to the pooling standards

of the order would likely result in milk

movements solely for pooling

requirements and/or some milk being

depooled. The continuation of the

suspension is found to be necessary for

the purpose of assuring that producers’

milk will not have to be moved in an

uneconomic and inefficient manner to

assure that producers whose milk has

long been associated with the New

Mexico-West Texas marketing area will

continue to benefit from pooling and

pricing under the order.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions

beginning October 1, 1997, through

September 30, 1999.

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. One comment

supporting and one comment opposing

the continued 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 1138

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 1138 is amended

as follows:

PART 1138—MILK IN THE NEW

MEXICO-WEST TEXAS MARKETING

AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1138 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
50486 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1138.7 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1138.7, paragraph (a)(1), the

words ‘‘including producer milk

diverted from the plant,’’ are suspended;

3. In § 1138.7, paragraph (c), the

words ‘‘35 percent or more of the

producer’’ are suspended; and

§ 1138.13 [Suspended in part]

4. In § 1138.13, paragraphs (d) (1), (2),

and (5) are suspended.

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–25620 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1717

RIN 0572–AB26

Settlement of Debt Owed by Electric

Borrowers

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) hereby

establishes policies and standards for

the settlement of debts and claims owed

by rural electric borrowers. In addition

to establishing policies and standards

for debt settlement, the rule establishes

RUS policy on subsequent loans to

borrowers whose debt has been

restructured.

DATES: This rule is effective September

26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Blaine D. Stockton, Jr., Assistant

Administrator—Electric, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Rural

Utilities Service, Stop 1560, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–1560.

Telephone: 202–720–9545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

regulatory action has been determined

to be significant for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, and therefore has

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). The

Administrator of the Rural Utilities

Service (RUS) has determined that a

rule relating to the RUS electric loan

program is not a rule as defined in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.), for which RUS published a

general notice of proposed rulemaking

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore,

the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not

apply to this rule. The Administrator of

RUS has determined that this rule will

not significantly affect the quality of the

human environment as defined by the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore,

this action does not require an

environmental impact statement or

assessment. This rule is excluded from

the scope of Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Consultation, which

may require consultation with State and

local officials. A Notice of final rule

titled Department Programs and

Activities Excluded from Executive

Order 12372 (50 FR 47034) exempts

RUS electric loans and loan guarantees

from coverage under this Order. This

rule has been reviewed under Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS

has determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards provided in Sec. 3

of the Executive Order.

The program described by this rule is

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Programs under number

10.850 Rural Electrification Loans and

Loan Guarantees. This catalog is

available on a subscription basis from

the Superintendent of Documents, the

United States Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402–9325.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements: The

recordkeeping and reporting burdens

contained in this rule were approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork

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

Chapter 35, as amended) under control

number 0572–0116.

Background

On April 4, 1996, Public Law 104–127

(110 Stat. 888) amended section 331(b)

of the Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development Act (Con Act) to extend to

RUS loans and loan guarantees the

Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to

compromise, adjust, reduce, or chargeoff debts or claims owed to the

government (collectively, debt

settlement). The amendment also

extended to the security instruments,

leases, contracts, and agreements

administered by RUS, the Secretary’s

authority to adjust, modify, subordinate,

or release the terms of those documents.

The Secretary of Agriculture, in 7 CFR

2.47, has delegated authority under

section 331(b) to the Administrator of

RUS, with respect to loans made or

guaranteed by RUS.

The proposed rule to implement this

new authority was published in the

Federal Register on March 3, 1997 at 62

FR 9382. Comments were received from

42 different individuals or

organizations, including the National

Rural Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA), the National Rural Utilities

Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC),

the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the

Office of Inspector General of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, an ad hoc

group of 6 investor-owned utilities

(IOUs), 9 power supply borrowers, 16

distribution borrowers, and 12 other

individuals or organizations. Two of the

power supply borrowers submitted

identical comments, which were

supported by identical or supporting

comments from 9 of their members. Five

other distribution borrowers and one

state-wide borrower association

submitted comments identical to their

power supplier’s comments.

In general, comments from NRECA,

CFC, and most borrowers supported a

more expansive use of debt relief under

section 331(b) of the Con Act, more

flexibility and discretion for the

Administrator to grant debt relief, no

limitation on the debt relief measures,

such as the proposed 5 percent floor on

interest rates, and other changes in

support of more generous terms and

conditions for defaulting borrowers and

other borrowers facing financial or

competitive problems. In contrast, 2

distribution borrowers opposed

settlement of borrowers’ debts, stating

that debt forgiveness is unfair to the

majority of cooperatives who exercise

fiscal responsibility and presents an

undesirable public image for all electric

cooperatives. EEI, the ad hoc group of 6

IOUs, and 2 individual IOUs generally

favored strict limitation of the

Administrator’s debt settlement

authority to borrowers in default or

where default is imminent; more

specific and more restrictive standards

for determining eligibility for relief and

the amount of relief provided; referral of

most cases to the Department of Justice

for settlement under the Attorney

General’s settlement authority; more

extensive documentation of the need for

relief, the amount of relief provided,

and the underlying justification; and

greater congressional and public

oversight of RUS’ debt settlement

activities.

All comments received were

considered in drafting this final

regulation. The more common and more

significant comments are discussed

below.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

Several commenters expressed

concern that the estimate of 2 responses

per year from the public, in the from of

borrowers seeking debt settlement, was

too low and might impose an artificial

limit on the number of applications for