This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

70991 

Vol. 70, No. 226 

Friday, November 25, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1131 

[Docket No. AO–271–A37; DA–03–04–A] 

Milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas 

Marketing Area; Order Amending the 

Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

regulations pertaining to the producer 

milk provision of the Arizona-Las Vegas 

Federal milk order. More than the 

required number of producers for the 

Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area 

approved the issuance of the final order 

amendments. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack 

Rower, Marketing Specialist, USDA/ 

AMS/Dairy Programs, Order 

Formulation and Enforcement Branch, 

STOP 0231–Room 2971, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 720– 

2357, e-mail: jack.rower@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document amends the pooling and 

related provisions of the Arizona-Las 

Vegas Federal milk order. Specifically, 

this final rule permanently adopts a 

provision that will eliminate the ability 

to simultaneously pool the same milk 

on the Arizona-Las Vegas milk order 

and any State operated milk order that 

has marketwide pooling. 

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. 

The final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. The 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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 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 final 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 marketing 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. 

In September 2003, the month in 

which the hearing began, the milk of 

106 dairy producers was pooled on, and 

22 handlers were regulated by, the 

Arizona-Las Vegas order. 

Approximately 18 producers, or 17 

percent, were small businesses based on 

the above criteria. On the handler side, 

7 handlers, or 32 percent were ‘‘small 

businesses.’’ 

The adoption of the proposed 

standards serve to revise and establish 

criteria that ensure the pooling of 

producers, producer milk, and plants 

that have a reasonable association with, 

and are consistently serving, the fluid 

milk needs of the Arizona-Las Vegas 

milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling 

milk are established on the basis of 

performance standards that are 

considered adequate to meet the Class I 

fluid needs of the market and to 

determine those that are eligible to share 

in the revenue that arises from the 

classified pricing of milk. Criteria for 

pooling are established without regard 

to the size of any dairy industry 

organization or entity. The criteria 

established in the amended pooling 

standards provision are applied in an 

equal fashion to both large and small 

businesses. Therefore, 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 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 are 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 approved forms 

are routinely used in most business 

transactions. The 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 

70992 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 July 31, 

2003; published August 6, 2003 (68 FR 

46505). 

Correction to Notice of Hearing: 

August 20, 2003; published August 26, 

2003 (68 FR 51202). 

Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued 

October 27, 2003; published October 31, 

2003 (68 FR 62027). 

Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued 

December 18, 2003; published 

December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74874). 

Tentative Final Decision: Issued 

December 23, 2004; published 

December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78355). 

Interim Final Rule: Issued February 

23, 2005; published March 1, 2005 (70 

FR 9846). 

Partial Recommended Decision: 

Issued April 7, 2005; published April 

13, 2005 (70 FR 19636). 

Partial Final Decision: Issued June 20, 

2005; published June 27, 2005 (70 FR 

36859). 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth supplement those 

that were made when the Arizona-Las 

Vegas order was first issued and when 

it was 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 the Arizona-Las 

Vegas order: 

(a) Findings upon the basis of the 

hearing record. A public hearing was 

held upon certain proposed 

amendments to the tentative marketing 

agreement and to the order regulating 

the handling of milk in the Arizona-Las 

Vegas marketing area. The hearing was 

held 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 (7 CFR Part 900). 

Upon the basis of the evidence 

introduced at such hearing and the 

record thereof, it is found that: 

(1) The Arizona-Las Vegas order 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 area. 

The minimum prices specified in the 

order 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 Arizona-Las Vegas order 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, a 

marketing agreement upon which a 

hearing has been held. 

(b) Determinations. It is hereby 

determined that: 

(1) The refusal or failure of handlers 

(excluding cooperative associations 

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

more than 50 percent of the milk that is 

marketed within the specified marketing 

area 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 Arizona-Las Vegas order 

is the only practical means pursuant to 

the declared policy of the Act of 

advancing the interests of producers as 

defined by the order as hereby 

amended; 

(3) The issuance of the order 

amending the Arizona-Las Vegas order 

is favored by at least two-thirds of the 

producers who were engaged in the 

production of milk for sale in the 

marketing area. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131 

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 Arizona-Las 

Vegas marketing area shall be in 

conformity to and in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the order, as 

amended, and as hereby further 

amended, as follows: 

■ The provisions of the order amending 

the order contained in the interim 

amendment of the order issued by the 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, on February 23, 2005, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9846), are adopted 

without change and shall be and are the 

terms and provisions of this order. 

Dated: November 18, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–23253 Filed 11–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services 

8 CFR Part 214 

[CIS No. 2369–05; Docket No. USCIS–2005–

0022] 

RIN 1615–ZA31 

Short-Term Employment Authorization 

and Reduced Course Load for Certain 

F–1 Nonimmigrant Students Adversely 

Affected by Hurricane Katrina 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary rule 

suspension. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public of the suspension of certain 

regulatory requirements for a specific 

group of F–1 nonimmigrant students 

who were enrolled in academic 

institutions located in areas that have 

been adversely affected by Hurricane 

Katrina. F–1 students who are granted 

short-term employment authorization 

pursuant to this document will be 

deemed to be engaged in a ‘‘full course 

of study’’ for the duration of their 

employment authorization, provided 

such students satisfy the minimum 

course load requirement set forth in this 

document. 

DATES: This document is effective 

November 25, 2005, and will remain in 

effect until February 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alanna Ow, Adjudications Officer, 

Office of Program and Regulations 

Development, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts 

Avenue NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 

20529, telephone (202) 272–8410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What action is the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) taking under 

this Notice? 

The Secretary of Homeland Security 

is exercising his authority under 8 CFR 

214.2(f)(9) to temporarily suspend the 

applicability of certain requirements 

governing on-campus and off-campus 

employment. F–1 students, who are 

granted employment authorization 

pursuant to this Notice, will be deemed 

to be engaged in a ‘‘full course of study’’

for the duration of their employment 

authorization, provided such students 

satisfy the minimum course load 

requirement set forth in this Notice. See 

8 CFR 214.2(f)(6)(F).