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

16737

Vol. 62, No. 67

Tuesday, April 8, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 96–083–2]

Importation of Cotton and Cotton

Products

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reopening and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: We are reopening and

extending the comment period for our

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

that solicits public comment on whether

and how our regulations for importing

cotton (including seed cotton,

cottonseed, cotton lint and linters,

cottonseed products, and cotton waste)

and cotton covers into the United States

need to be changed. This reopening and

extension will provide interested groups

and individuals with additional time to

prepare comments on the advance

notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments on Docket No. 96–083–1

that are received on or before April 30,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96–083–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road,

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 96–083–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8:00 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Petit de Mange, Staff Officer,

USDA–APHIS–PPQ–Phytosanitary

Issues Management Team, 4700 River

Road, Unit 140, Riverdale, Maryland

20737, Telephone: (301) 734–6799;

FAX: (301) 734–5786; or E-mail:

jpdmange@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 30, 1996, we published

in the Federal Register (61 FR 68673–

68674, Docket No. 96–083–1) an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

for 7 CFR part 319 on whether and how

our regulations for importing cotton

(including seed cotton, cottonseed,

cotton lint and linters, cottonseed

products, and cotton waste) and cotton

covers into the United States need to be

changed.

Comments on the advance notice

were required to be received on or

before March 31, 1997. We have

received a request from the National

Cotton Council to extend the period

during which comments will be

accepted. In response, we are reopening

and extending the comment period on

Docket No. 96–083–1 for an additional

30 days. This action will allow the

National Cotton Council and all other

interested groups and individuals

additional time to prepare and submit

comments.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff,

151–167, 450, 2803, and 2809; 21 U.S.C. 136

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

April 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–8922 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1137

[DA–97–02]

Milk in the Eastern Colorado Marketing

Area; Proposed Suspension or

Termination of Certain Provisions of

the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed suspension or

termination of rule.

SUMMARY: This document invites written

comments on a proposal to suspend

indefinitely or terminate part of a

provision in the Eastern Colorado milk

order which specifies that a distributing

plant disposing of ten percent or more

of its Grade A milk receipts, or 12,000

pounds per day, whichever is less, as

route disposition in the marketing area

be considered a fully regulated pool

plant. This request was submitted by

Brown Swiss-Gillette Dairy, a handler

operating a distributing plant that is

partially regulated under 3 Federal milk

orders. The handler contends that the

action is necessary to assure equity

among producers and competitiveness

among handlers.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 8, 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 OFB—FMMO—

Comments@usda.gov. Reference should

be given to the title of action and docket

number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance M. Brenner, Marketing

Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division,

Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971,

South Building, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456, (202) 720–

2357, e-mail address: connie m

brenner@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
16738 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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.

For the month of January 1997, the

milk of 426 producers was pooled on

the Eastern Colorado Federal milk order.

Of these producers, 323 produced below

the 326,000-pound production guideline

and are considered as small businesses.

A majority of these producers produce

less than 100,000 pounds per month. Of

the total number of producers whose

milk was pooled during that month, 6

were non-member producers and 420

were members of either Mid-America

Dairymen or Western Dairymen

Cooperative Inc. For January 1997, 322

cooperative members and one nonmember producer met the small

business criterion.

For the month of January 1997, there

were 10 handlers operating 11 plants

pooled or regulated under the Eastern

Colorado milk order. Of these handlers,

half have 500 or fewer employees and

qualify as small businesses.

Brown Swiss-Gillette Dairy (Gillette)

receives its milk from Black Hills Milk

Producers Cooperative. During the

month of January 1997, 55 of the 58

producers supplying milk to Black Hills

Milk Producers Cooperative would be

considered small businesses.

This rule proposes to suspend or

terminate part of a provision of the

Eastern Colorado marketing order which

makes a distributing plant disposing of

ten percent or more of its Grade A

receipts, or 12,000 pounds per day,

whichever is less, as route disposition

in a marketing area a fully regulated

plant. The proposal would lessen the

regulatory impact of the order on certain

milk handlers and would not affect the

price received by dairy farmers in

Eastern Colorado. Handlers in the

marketing area will continue to pay the

minimum order prices to producers.

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 or termination of the

following provisions of the order

regulating the handling of milk in the

Eastern Colorado marketing area is

being considered for an indefinite

period:

In § 1137.7(a)(2), the words ‘‘, or

12,000 pounds per day, whichever is

less,’’.

All persons who want to submit

written data, views or arguments about

the proposed suspension or termination

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

30th day after publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

All written submissions made

pursuant to this notice will be made

available for public inspection in the

Dairy Division during regular business

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

The proposed rule would terminate or

suspend indefinitely the portion of the

Eastern Colorado Federal milk order’s

pool distributing plant definition that

defines a plant with 12,000 pounds of

route disposition per day in the

marketing area as a fully regulated pool

plant.

Pooling qualifications included in the

Eastern Colorado order define a pool

distributing plant as any plant in which

during the month fluid milk products

are processed or packaged and from

which 10 percent or more of such

receipts, or 12,000 pounds per day,

whichever is less, are disposed of as

route disposition in the marketing area.

Gillette requested the termination or

suspension of the 12,000-pound

limitation, contending that the

limitation is unreasonable when

considering the plant size which must

be maintained in order for Gillette to

survive financially and also maintain its

status as a partially regulated plant.

Gillette also states that the 12,000-

pound limitation is unreasonable when

compared to the amount of packaged

products delivered in one truckload,

which greatly exceeds this limitation.

Gillette states that termination or

suspension will assure equity among

producers and competitiveness among

handlers.

As part of the Federal Order Reform

process, all aspects of Federal milk

marketing orders are presently

undergoing review, including the

definition of a pool plant. The

Department is accepting and will

continue to accept comments from all

interested parties throughout the reform

process regarding any modifications to

order provisions. Therefore, Gillette’s

proposal requesting an indefinite

suspension or termination should

prevent Gillette from becoming fully

regulated at least until the conclusion of

the reform period.

Accordingly, it may be appropriate to

terminate or suspend indefinitely the

aforesaid provisions.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1137

Milk marketing orders.

The authority citation for 7 CFR Part

1137 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Aggie Thompson,

Acting Director, Dairy Division.

[FR Doc. 97–8904 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P