7466 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1126

Milk marketing orders.

The authority citation for 7 CFR Part

1126 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3147 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 1131

[DA–95–11]

Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing

Area; Proposed Suspension of Certain

Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed suspension of rule.

SUMMARY: This document invites written

comments on a proposal to suspend

certain provisions of the Central

Arizona Federal milk marketing order

for an indefinite period beginning

March 1, 1995. The proposed

suspension would eliminate the

requirement that a cooperative

association ship at least 50 percent of its

receipts to other handler pool plants to

maintain pool status of a manufacturing

plant operated by the cooperative.

United Dairymen of Arizona, a

cooperative association that represents

nearly all of the producers who supply

milk to the market, has requested the

suspension. The cooperative asserts that

the suspension is necessary to prevent

uneconomical and inefficient

movements of milk.

DATES: Comments are due no later than

February 23, 1995.

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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612) requires the Agency to

examine the impact of a proposed rule

on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator of the

Agricultural Marketing Service has

certified that this proposed rule would

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule 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.

The Department is issuing this

proposed rule in conformance with

Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, 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

file with the Secretary a petition stating

that the order, any provisions of the

order, or any obligation imposed in

connection with the order is not in

accordance with law and request a

modification of an order or to be

exempted from the order. 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, had

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.

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 March 1,

1995:

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

or more of its member producer milk

(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) received at the pool plants of

other handlers during the current month

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

available for public inspection in the

Dairy Division during regular business

hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

The proposed rule would suspend

certain provisions of the Central

Arizona order for an indefinite period

beginning March 1, 1995. The proposed

suspension would remove the

requirement that a cooperative

association that 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.

Currently 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

previous 12-month period ending with

the current month.

The proposed suspension of this

shipping requirement 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 is

threatened by an increase in milk

production combined with a drop in

Class I sales. UDA states that in 1994 its

member production increased 17

percent over the previous year. In 1994,

monthly deliveries to distributing plants

also increased sufficiently to ensure

UDA a safe margin over the minimum

50 percent shipping requirement to

maintain pool status of its

manufacturing plant. According to

UDA, the increase in distributing plant

demand reflected a significant increase

in Class I sales in the Mexico market by

Central Arizona handlers. The recent

collapse of the Mexican peso has

curtailed these sales and thus reduced

handler requirements for bulk milk

deliveries from UDA. Absent a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7467

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 March 1, 1995, 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: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3146 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50, 52 and 100

RIN 3150–AD93

Reactor Site Criteria Including Seismic

and Earthquake Engineering Criteria

for Nuclear Power Plants and

Proposed Denial of Petition From Free

Environment, Inc. et al.

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: On October 17, 1994, the NRC

published (59 FR 52255) for public

comment a proposed revision of 10 CFR

Parts 50, 52, and 100 to update the

criteria used in decisions regarding

power reactor siting, including geologic,

seismic, and earthquake engineering

considerations for future nuclear power

plants. The comment period for this

proposed rule presently expires on

February 14, 1995.

The Commission has received

requests to extend the comment period

based on the fact that staff guidance

documents consisting of five draft

regulatory guides and three standard

review plan sections that were to

accompany the proposed rule were

delayed in issuance, and that

availability of these documents were

necessary to provide meaningful

comments.

The Commission agrees that

availability of the staff guidance

documents is necessary to provide

adequate comments. The staff guidance

documents are not yet available and

may not be available before the present

comment period expires.

The Commission therefore intends to

extend the comment period to allow a

75 day period after the staff guidance

documents become available to allow

interested persons adequate time to

comment on the staff guidance

documents as well as the proposed rule.

The comment period for this

proposed rule is being extended to

allow at least 75 days after the relevant

staff guidance documents become

available. At this time no firm

expiration date is available. When the

staff documents are available a notice

will be issued providing a firm

expiration date for comments.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch. Deliver comments to 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal

workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Andrew J. Murphy, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6010,

concerning the seismic and earthquake

engineering aspects and Mr. Leonard

Soffer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone (301) 415–6574, concerning

other siting aspects.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–3153 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

12 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. 95–01]

RIN 1557–AB44

Agricultural Loan Loss Amortization

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) proposes to

remove its rule governing agricultural

loan loss amortization, effective January

1, 1999. This proposal is another

component of the OCC’s Regulation

Review Program, which is intended to

update and streamline OCC regulations

and to reduce unnecessary regulatory

costs and other burdens. This action is

needed to eliminate the rule when it

becomes obsolete.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Communications Division,

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, 250 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20219, Attention:

Docket No. 95–01. Comments will be

available for public inspection and

photocopying at the same location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew T. Gutierrez, Attorney,

Legislative and Regulatory Activities

Division, (202) 874–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The OCC proposes to remove 12 CFR

part 35 as a component of its Regulation

Review Program. The goal of the

Regulation Review Program is to review

all of the OCC’s rules to revise,

streamline, and simplify them, and to

eliminate provisions that do not

contribute significantly to maintaining

the safety and soundness of national

banks or to accomplishing the OCC’s

other statutory responsibilities.

Title VIII of the Competitive Equality

Banking Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100–86,

101 Stat. 635 (1987), added 12 U.S.C.

1823(j) in an attempt to alleviate some

of the financial pressures then facing

agricultural banks. In particular, 12

U.S.C. 1823(j) permits an agricultural

bank to amortize over a period not to

exceed seven years: (1) Any loss on a

qualified agricultural loan that the bank

would otherwise be required to show on

its annual financial statement for any

year between December 31, 1983, and

January 1, 1992; and (2) any loss

resulting from the reappraisal of

property that the bank owned or

acquired between January 1, 1983, and

January 1, 1992, in connection with a

qualified agricultural loan. The OCC

implemented this statutory provision by

promulgating 12 CFR part 35 with a

temporary rule published on November

2, 1987 (52 FR 41959), and a final rule

published on July 28, 1988 (53 FR

28373).

Because the statute requires that a loss

occur on or before December 31, 1991,

to qualify, and that the amortization

period may not exceed seven years, the

program becomes obsolete on January 1,

1999. Reflecting this fact, the OCC’s rule

requires that loans under the program