This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

9381

Vol. 62, No. 41

Monday, March 3, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1131

[DA–97–01]

Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing

Area; Proposed Suspension of Certain

Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; suspension.

SUMMARY: This document invites written

comments on a proposal to suspend

indefinitely certain provisions of the

Central Arizona Federal milk marketing

order. This rule would continue a

suspension that eliminates the

requirement that a cooperative

association that operates a

manufacturing plant ship at least 50

percent of its receipts to other handler

pool plants to maintain pool status of its

manufacturing plant. United Dairymen

of Arizona, a cooperative association

that represents nearly all of the

producers who supply milk to the

Central Arizona market, has requested

continuation of the suspension. The

cooperative association asserts that the

suspension is necessary to prevent the

uneconomical and inefficient movement

of milk.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies)

should be filed with the USDA/AMS/

Dairy Division, Order Formulation

Branch, Room 2971, South Building,

P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456. Advance, unofficial copies of such

comments may be faxed to (202) 690–

0552 or e-mailed to

OFBlFMMOlComments@usda.gov.

Reference should be given to the title of

action and docket number.

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:

CMCarman@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department is issuing this proposed rule

in conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have a retroactive effect. If adopted,

this proposed rule will not preempt any

state or local laws, regulations, or

policies, unless they present an

irreconcilable conflict with the 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 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 proposed 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. This rule

would lessen the regulatory impact of

the order on certain milk handlers and

would tend to ensure that dairy farmers

would continue to have their milk

priced under the order and thereby

receive the benefits that accrue from

such pricing.

Interested parties are invited to

submit comments on the probable

regulatory and informational impact of

this proposed rule on small entities.

Also, parties may suggest modifications

of this proposal for the purpose of

tailoring their applicability to small

businesses.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant

to the provisions of the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act, the

suspension of the following provision of

the order regulating the handling of

milk in the Central Arizona marketing

area is being considered for an

indefinite period beginning April 1,

1997:

In § 1131.7(c), the words ‘‘50 percent

or more of’’, ‘‘(including the skim milk

and butterfat in fluid milk products

transferred from its own plant pursuant

to this paragraph that is not in excess of

the skim milk and butterfat contained in

member producer milk actually received

at such plant)’’, and ‘‘or the previous 12-

month period ending with the current

month.’’

All persons who want to submit

written data, views or arguments about

the proposed suspension should send

two copies of their views to the USDA/

AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation

Branch, Room 2971, South Building,

P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456, by the 15th day after publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

The period for filing comments is

limited to 15 days because a longer

period would not provide the time

needed to complete the required

procedures before the requested

suspension is to be effective.

All written submissions made

pursuant to this notice will be made
9382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules

available for public inspection in the

Dairy Division during regular business

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

The proposed rule would continue to

suspend certain provisions of the

Central Arizona order for an indefinite

period beginning April 1, 1997. The

proposed suspension would continue to

remove the requirement that a

cooperative association which operates

a manufacturing plant in the marketing

area must ship at least 50 percent of its

milk supply during the current month

or the previous 12-month period ending

with the current month to other

handlers’ pool plants to maintain the

pool status of its manufacturing plant.

The order permits a cooperative

association’s manufacturing plant,

located in the marketing area, to be a

pool plant if at least 50 percent of the

producer milk of members of the

cooperative association is physically

received at pool plants of other handlers

during the current month or the

previous12-month period ending with

the current month.

Continuation of the current

suspension was requested by United

Dairymen of Arizona (UDA), a

cooperative association that represents

nearly all of the dairy farmers who

supply the Central Arizona market.

UDA contends that the continued pool

status of their manufacturing plant

would be threatened if the suspension is

not continued. UDA states that the same

marketing conditions that warranted the

suspension for the past two years still

exist. UDA maintains that members who

increased their milk production to meet

the projected demands of fluid handlers

for distribution into Mexico continue to

suffer the adverse impact of the collapse

of the Mexican peso. Absent a

suspension, UDA projects that costly

and inefficient movements of milk

would have to be made to maintain pool

status of producers who have

historically supplied the market and to

prevent disorderly marketing in the

Central Arizona marketing area.

Accordingly, it may be appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions

beginning April 1, 1997, for an

indefinite period.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131

Milk marketing orders.

The authority citation for 7 CFR Part

1131 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Richard M. McKee,

Director, Dairy Division.

[FR Doc. 97–5114 Filed 2–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1717

RIN 0572–AB26

Settlement of Debt Owed by Electric

Borrowers

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) hereby

proposes to establish policies and

standards for the settlement of debts and

claims owed by rural electric borrowers.

In addition to proposing policies and

standards for debt settlement, the rule

proposes RUS policy on subsequent

loans to borrowers whose debt has been

restructured.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by RUS or carry a postmark or

equivalent by May 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Monte Heppe, Jr.,

Director, Program Support and

Regulatory Analysis, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Stop

1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–1522. RUS

requires, in hard copy, a signed original

and 3 copies of all comments (7 CFR

1700.30(e)). Comments will be available

for public inspection during regular

business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

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.), and, therefore, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act does not apply to this

proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule

has been reviewed under Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS

has determined that this proposed 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.

Background

On April 4, 1996, P.L. 104–127

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.

This proposed regulation proposes the

policies, standards, and procedures the

Administrator would use in settling

(restructuring) debts and claims owed

by rural electric borrowers.

Section 1717.1202 General Policy

This section proposes general policies

for settling debts and claims. Four

general policies are proposed:

1. Wherever possible, all debt and

claims will be collected in full in

accordance with its terms.

2. The rule by itself contains nothing

that modifies or forgives debt or claims

owed by a borrower. Any debt