Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59221 

Dated: September 25, 2005. 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20346 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007 

[Docket No. AO–388–A15 and AO–366–A44; 

DA–03–11] 

Milk in the Appalachian and Southeast 

Marketing Areas; Order Amending the 

Orders 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This partial final rule amends 

the Appalachian and Southeast 

marketing orders. Specifically, the final 

rule expands the Appalachian milk 

marketing area, eliminates the ability to 

simultaneously pool the same milk on 

the Appalachian or Southeast order and 

on a State-operated milk order that has 

marketwide pooling, and amends the 

transportation credit provisions of the 

Southeast and Appalachian orders. The 

amendments are based on record 

evidence of a public hearing held 

February 2004. More than the required 

number of dairy farmers approved the 

issuance of the amended orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 1, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Antoinette M. Carter, Marketing 

Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, 

Order Formulation and Enforcement, 

STOP 0231—Room 2971, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–

3465, e-mail address: 

antoinette.carter@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

administrative action is governed by the 

provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of 

Title 5 of the United States Code and, 

therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of 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 

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 

Department 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 Department 

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 

Department’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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

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 $750,000, 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 $750,000 per year 

criterion was used to establish a 

production guideline of 500,000 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 February 2004, the month in 

which the hearing was held, the milk of 

7,311 dairy farmers was pooled on the 

Appalachian (Order 5) and Southeast 

(Order 7) milk orders (3,395 Order 5 

dairy farmers and 3,916 Order 7 dairy 

farmers). Of the total, 3,252 dairy 

farmers (or 96 percent) and 3,764 dairy 

farmers (or 96 percent) were considered 

small businesses on the Appalachian 

and Southeast orders, respectively. 

During February 2004, there were a 

total of 36 plants associated with the 

Appalachian order (25 fully regulated 

plants, 7 partially regulated plants, 1 

producer-handler, and 3 exempt plants) 

and a total of 51 plants associated with 

the Southeast order (32 fully regulated 

plants, 6 partially regulated plants, and 

13 exempt plants). The number of plants 

meeting the small business criteria 

under the Appalachian and Southeast 

orders were 13 (or 36 percent) and 13 

(or 25 percent), respectively. 

The final rule will expand the 

Appalachian milk marketing area to 

include 25 unregulated counties and 15 

unregulated cities in the State of 

Virginia that currently are not in any 

Federal milk marketing area. Adopted 

amendments to the producer milk 

provisions of the Appalachian and 

Southeast milk orders will prevent 

producers who share in the proceeds of 

a state marketwide pool from 

simultaneously sharing in the proceeds 

of a Federal marketwide pool on the 

same milk. In addition, this final rule 

amends the transportation credit 

provisions of the Appalachian and 

Southeast orders. 

The final rule amendments that will 

expand the Appalachian marketing area 

will likely continue to regulate under 

the Appalachian order two fluid milk 

distributing plants located in Roanoke, 

Virginia, and Lynchburg, Virginia, and 

shift the regulation of a distributing 

plant located in Mount Crawford, 

Virginia, from the Northeast order to the 

Appalachian order. 

The amendments will allow the 

Kroger Company’s (Kroger) Westover 

Dairy plant, located in Lynchburg, 

Virginia, that competes for a milk 

supply with other Appalachian order 

plants to continue to be regulated under 

the order if it meets the order’s 

minimum performance standards. The 

plant has been regulated by the 

Appalachian order since January 2000. 

In addition, the adopted amendments 

will remove the disruption that occurs 

as a result of the Dean Foods Company’s 

(Dean Foods) Morningstar Foods plant, 

located in Mount Crawford, Virginia, 

shifting its regulatory status under the 

Northeast order. 

The Appalachian order currently 

contains a ‘‘lock-in’’ provision that 

provides that a plant located within the 

marketing area that meets the order’s 

minimum performance standard will be 

regulated by the Appalachian order 

even if the majority of the plant’s Class 

I route sales are in another marketing 

area. The expansion of the Appalachian 

marketing area along with the lock-in 

provision will regulate fluid milk 

distributing plants physically located in 

the marketing area that meet the order’s 

minimum performance standard even if 

59222 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the majority of their sales are in another 

Federal order marketing area. 

Accordingly, the amendments will 

regulate three distributing plants under 

the Appalachian order: Kroger’s 

Westover Dairy, located in Lynchburg, 

Virginia; Dean Foods’ Morningstar 

Foods plant, located in Mount 

Crawford, Virginia; and National Dairy 

Holdings’ Valley Rich Dairy, located in 

Roanoke, Virginia. Based on Small 

Business Administration criteria these 

are all large businesses. 

This final rule contains amendments 

to the transportation credit provisions of 

the Appalachian and Southeast orders. 

The Appalachian and Southeast orders 

contain provisions for a transportation 

credit balancing fund from which 

payments are made to handlers to 

partially offset the cost of moving bulk 

milk into each marketing area to meet 

fluid milk demands. 

The amendments included in this 

final rule will increase the maximum 

rate of the transportation credit 

assessment of the Appalachian and 

Southeast orders by 3 cents per 

hundredweight. Specifically, the 

amendments will increase the 

maximum rate of assessment for the 

Appalachian order from 6.5 cents per 

hundredweight to 9.5 cents per 

hundredweight while increasing the 

maximum rate of assessment for the 

Southeast order from 7 cents per 

hundredweight to 10 cents per 

hundredweight. Increasing the 

transportation assessment rates will 

tend to minimize the exhaustion of the 

transportation credit balancing fund 

when there is a need to import 

supplemental milk from outside the 

marketing areas to meet Class I needs. 

Currently, the Appalachian and 

Southeast orders provide that 

transportation credits shall apply to the 

milk of a dairy farmer who was not a 

‘‘producer’’ under the order during more 

than two of the immediately preceding 

months of February through May but 

not more than 50 percent of the milk 

production of the dairy farmer, in 

aggregate, was received as producer 

milk under the order during those two 

months. The adopted amendments 

contained in this final rule will provide 

the Market Administrator of the 

Appalachian order and the Market 

Administrator of the Southeast order the 

discretionary authority to adjust the 50 

percent milk production standard. 

This final rule will prohibit the 

simultaneous pooling of the same milk 

on the Appalachian or Southeast milk 

marketing orders and on a Stateoperated order that provides for the 

marketwide pooling of milk. Since the 

1960’s, the Federal milk order program 

has recognized the harm and disorder 

that result to both producers and 

handlers when the same milk of a 

producer is simultaneously pooled on 

more than one Federal order. When this 

occurs, producers do not receive 

uniform minimum prices, and handlers 

receive unwarranted competitive 

advantages. 

The need to prevent ‘‘double pooling’’

became critically important as 

distribution areas expanded, orders 

merged, and a national pricing surface 

was adopted. Milk already pooled under 

a State-operated program and able to 

simultaneously be pooled under a 

Federal order has essentially the same 

undesirable outcomes that Federal 

orders once experienced and 

subsequently corrected. Thus, 

amendments to eliminate the ‘‘double 

pooling’’ of the same milk on the 

Appalachian or Southeast order and a 

State-operated milk order that has 

marketwide pooling are included in this 

final rule. 

The amendments contained in this 

final rule will be applied to all 

Appalachian and Southeast order 

participants (producers and handlers), 

which consist of both large and small 

business. Since the adopted 

amendments in this final rule will be 

subject to all the orders’ producers and 

handlers regardless of their size, the 

provisions are not expected to provide 

a competitive advantage to any 

participant. Accordingly, the 

amendments will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

A review of reporting requirements 

was completed under the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35). It was determined that 

these adopted amendments will have no 

impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements because 

they will remain identical to the current 

requirements. No new forms are 

proposed and no additional reporting 

requirements will be necessary. 

This action does not require 

additional information collection that 

requires clearance by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) beyond 

currently approved information 

collection. The primary sources of data 

used to complete the forms are routinely 

used in most business transactions. 

Forms require only a minimal amount of 

information which can be supplied 

without data processing equipment or a 

trained statistical staff. Thus, the 

information collection and reporting 

burden is relatively small. Requiring the 

same reports for all handlers does not 

significantly disadvantage any handler 

that is smaller than the industry 

average. 

Prior documents in this proceeding: 

Notice of Hearing: Issued January 16, 

2004; published January 23, 2004 (69 FR 

3278). 

Partial Recommended Decision: 

Issued May 13, 2005; published May 20, 

2005 (70 FR 29410). 

Partial Final Decision: Issued 

September 15, 2005; published 

September 21, 2005 (70 FR 55458). 

Findings and Determinations 

The following findings and 

determinations hereinafter set forth 

supplement those that were made when 

the Appalachian and Southeast orders 

were first issued and when they were 

amended. The previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

confirmed, except where they may 

conflict with those set forth herein. 

The following findings are hereby 

made with respect to each of the 

aforesaid orders: 

(a) Findings upon the basis of the 

hearing record. Pursuant to the 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), and the applicable 

rules of practice and procedure 

governing the formulation of marketing 

agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR 

part 900), a public hearing was held 

upon certain proposed amendments to 

the tentative marketing agreements and 

to the orders regulating the handling of 

milk in the specified marketing areas. 

Upon the basis of the evidence 

introduced at such hearing and the 

record thereof, it is found that: 

(1) The said orders as hereby 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

(2) The parity prices of milk, as 

determined pursuant to section 2 of the 

Act, are not reasonable in view of the 

price of feeds, available supplies of 

feeds, and other economic conditions 

which affect market supply and demand 

for milk in the aforesaid marketing 

areas. The minimum prices specified in 

the orders as hereby amended are such 

prices as will reflect the aforesaid 

factors, insure a sufficient quantity of 

pure and wholesome milk, and be in the 

public interest; and 

(3) The said orders as hereby 

amended regulates the handling of milk 

in the same manner as, and is applicable 

only to persons in the respective classes 

of industrial or commercial activity 

specified in, marketing agreements upon 

which a hearing has been held. 

(4) All milk and milk products 

handled by handlers, as defined in the 

order as hereby amended, are in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 59223 

current of interstate commerce or 

directly burden, obstruct, or affect 

interstate commerce in milk or its 

products. 

(b) Additional Findings. It is 

necessary and in the public interest to 

make these amendments to the 

Appalachian and Southeast orders 

effective November 1, 2005. This 

effective date will ensure the timely 

implementation of the amendments. 

Any delay beyond that date would tend 

to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk 

in the aforesaid marketing areas. 

The amendments to these orders are 

known to handlers. The partial final 

decision containing the proposed 

amendments to these orders was issued 

on September 15, 2005. 

The changes that result from these 

amendments will not require extensive 

preparation or substantial alteration in 

the method of operation for handlers. In 

view of the foregoing, it is hereby found 

and determined that good cause exists 

for making theses amendments effective 

November 1, 2005. It would be contrary 

to the public interest to delay the 

effective date of these amendments for 

30 days after their publication in the 

Federal Register. (Sec. 553(d), 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 

551–559.) 

(c) Determinations. It is hereby 

determined that: 

(1) The refusal or failure of handlers 

(excluding cooperative associations 

specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of 

more than 50 percent of the milk that is 

marketed within the specified marketing 

areas to sign a proposed marketing 

agreement tends to prevent the 

effectuation of the declared policy of the 

Act; 

(2) The issuance of this order 

amending the Appalachian and 

Southeast orders are the only practical 

means pursuant to the declared policy 

of the Act of advancing the interests of 

producers as defined in the orders as 

hereby amended; 

(3) The issuance of the order 

amending the Appalachian and 

Southeast orders is favored by at least 

two-thirds of the producers who were 

engaged in the production of milk for 

sale in each of the marketing areas. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005 and 

1007 

Milk marketing orders. 

Order Relative to Handling 

■ It is therefore ordered, that on and 

after the effective date hereof, the 

handling of milk in the Appalachian 

and Southeast marketing areas shall be 

in conformity to and in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the orders, 

as mended, and as hereby further 

amended, as follows: 

PART 1005—MILK IN THE 

APPALACHIAN MARKETING AREA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1005 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 1005.2 is amended by 

revising the Virginia counties and cities 

to read as follows: 

§ 1005.2 Appalachian marketing area. 

* * * * * 

Virginia Counties and Cities 

Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, 

Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, 

Campbell, Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, 

Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Henry, 

Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, 

Pittsylvania, Pulaski, Roanoke, 

Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, 

Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, 

and Wythe; and the cities of Bedford, 

Bristol, Buena Vista, Clifton Forge, 

Covington, Danville, Galax, 

Harrisonburg, Lexington, Lynchburg, 

Martinsville, Norton, Radford, Roanoke, 

Salem, Staunton, and Waynesboro. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 1005.13 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1005.13 Producer milk. 

Except as provided for in paragraph 

(e) of this section, Producer milk means 

the skim milk (or the skim equivalent of 

components of skim milk) and butterfat 

contained in milk of a producer that is: 

* * * * * 

(e) Producer milk shall not include 

milk of a producer that is subject to 

inclusion and participation in a 

marketwide equalization pool under a 

milk classification and pricing program 

imposed under the authority of a State 

government maintaining marketwide 

pooling of returns. 

§ 1005.81 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 1005.81(a), remove ‘‘$0.065’’

and add, in its place, ‘‘$0.095’’. 

§ 1005.82 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 1005.82, paragraph (b) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘Director of the Dairy Division’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘Deputy Administrator of Dairy 

Programs’’ and adding a new paragraph 

(c)(2)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 1005.82 Payments from the 

transportation credit balancing fund. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The market administrator may 

increase or decrease the milk 

production standard specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section if the 

market administrator finds that such 

revision is necessary to assure orderly 

marketing and efficient handling of milk 

in the marketing area. Before making 

such a finding, the market administrator 

shall investigate the need for the 

revision either on the market 

administrator’s own initiative or at the 

request of interested persons. If the 

investigation shows that a revision 

might be appropriate, the market 

administrator shall issue a notice stating 

that the revision is being considered and 

inviting written data, views, and 

arguments. Any decision to revise an 

applicable percentage must be issued in 

writing at least one day before the 

effective date. 

* * * * * 

PART 1007—MILK IN THE SOUTHEAST 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 6. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1007 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 7. Section 1007.13 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1007.13 Producer milk. 

Except as provided for in paragraph 

(e) of this section, Producer milk means 

the skim milk (or the skim equivalent of 

components of skim milk) and butterfat 

contained in milk of a producer that is: 

* * * * * 

(e) Producer milk shall not include 

milk of a producer that is subject to 

inclusion and participation in a 

marketwide equalization pool under a 

milk classification and pricing program 

imposed under the authority of a State 

government maintaining marketwide 

pooling of returns. 

§ 1007.81 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 1007.81(a), remove ‘‘$0.07’’ and 

add, in its place, ‘‘$0.10’’. 

§ 1007.82 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 1007.82, paragraph (b) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘Director of the Dairy Division’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘Deputy Administrator of Dairy 

Programs’’ and adding a new paragraph 

(c)(2)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 1007.82 Payments from the 

transportation credit balancing fund. 

* * * * * 

59224 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) The market administrator may 

increase or decrease the milk 

production standard specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section if the 

market administrator finds that such 

revision is necessary to assure orderly 

marketing and efficient handling of milk 

in the marketing area. Before making 

such a finding, the market administrator 

shall investigate the need for the 

revision either on the market 

administrator’s own initiative or at the 

request of interested persons. If the 

investigation shows that a revision 

might be appropriate, the market 

administrator shall issue a notice stating 

that the revision is being considered and 

inviting written data, views, and 

arguments. Any decision to revise an 

applicable percentage must be issued in 

writing at least one day before the 

effective date. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 7, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20525 Filed 10–7–05; 12:57 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Housing Service 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Rural Utilities Service 

Farm Service Agency 

7 CFR Part 1902 

Disbursement of Funds 

AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Rural 

Business-Cooperative Service, Rural 

Utilities Service, and Farm Service 

Agency, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Agencies are revising 

their disbursement of funds regulations. 

This action is necessary since existing 

regulations do not accurately reflect the 

current disbursement methodologies 

employed by the Agencies. The 

intended effect is to simplify and update 

the regulations; to eliminate reference to 

the obsolete Loan Disbursement System; 

clarify Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) and National Credit 

Union Administration (NCUA) 

insurance coverage; and eliminate 

reference to the now defunct Federal 

Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation 

(FSLIC). These amended regulations are 

to ensure the Agencies’ field offices 

have current guidance on the 

disbursement methods available and 

supervised bank accounts. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Gianella, Staff Accountant, 

Office of the Deputy Chief Financial 

Officer, Policy and Internal Review 

Division, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, STOP 33, P.O. Box 200011, 

St. Louis, Missouri 63120, telephone: 

(314) 457–4298. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Classification 

This action is not subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12866 

since it involves only internal Agency 

management. This action is not 

published for prior notice and comment 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

since it involves only internal Agency 

management and publication for 

comment is unnecessary and contrary to 

the public interest. 

Programs Affected 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance programs impacted by this 

action are as follows: 

10.353—National Rural Development 

Partnership 

10.405—Farm Labor Housing Loans and 

Grants 

10.410—Very Low to Moderate Income 

Housing Loans 

10.411—Rural Housing Site Loans and 

Self-Help Housing Land Development 

Loans 

10.415—Rural Rental Housing Loans 

10.417—Very Low-Income Housing 

Repair Loans and Grants 

10.420—Rural Self-Help Housing 

Technical Assistance 

10.421—Indian Tribes and Tribal 

Corporation Loans 

10.427—Rural Rental Assistance 

Payments 

10.433—Rural Housing Preservation 

Grants 

10.438—Section 538 Rural Rental 

Housing Guaranteed Loans 

10.441—Technical and Supervisory 

Assistance Grants 

10.442—Housing Application Packaging 

Grants 

10.444—Direct Housing Natural Disaster 

Loans and Grants 

10.445—Direct Housing Natural Disaster 

10.446—Rural Community Development 

Initiative 

10.760—Water and Waste Disposal 

Systems for Rural Communities 

10.761—Technical Assistance and 

Training Grants 

10.762—Solid Waste Management 

Grants 

10.763—Emergency Community Water 

Assistance Grants 

10.766—Community Facilities Loans 

and Grants 

10.767—Intermediary Relending 

Program 

10.768—Business and Industry Loans 

10.769—Rural Business Enterprise 

Grants 

10.770—Water and Waste Disposal 

Loans and Grants (Section 306C) 

10.771—Rural Cooperative 

Development Grants 

10.772—Empowerment Zones Program 

10.773—Rural Business Opportunity 

Grants 

10.775—Renewable Energy Systems and 

Energy Efficiency Improvements 

Program 

10.854—Rural Economic Development 

Loans and Grants 

Intergovernmental Consultation 

Programs with Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance numbers 10.353, 

10.405, 10.411, 10.415, 10.420, 10.421, 

10.427, 10.433, 10.760, 10.763, 10.766, 

10.767, 10.768, 10.769, 10.770, 10.771, 

10.773, and 10.854 are subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12372 

which requires intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

officials. 

Programs with Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance numbers 10.410, 

10.417, 10.438, 10.441, 10.442, 10.444, 

10.445, 10.446, 10.761, 10.762, 10.772, 

10.775 are excluded from the scope of 

Executive Order 12372. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. In accordance with this 

rule: (1) Unless otherwise specifically 

provided, all State and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule except as specifically prescribed in 

the rule; and (3) administrative 

proceedings of the National Appeals 

Division (7 CFR part 11) must be 

exhausted before litigation against the 

Department is instituted. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements contained in this rule have 

been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 

and were assigned OMB control number 

0575–0184 in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. No 

person is required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

This rule does not impose any new