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

18343

Vol. 60, No. 69

Tuesday, April 11, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1050

[DA–95–14]

Milk in the Central Illinois Marketing

Area; Suspension of Certain

Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Suspension of rule.

SUMMARY: This document suspends a

portion of the producer milk definition

of the Central Illinois Federal milk

marketing order (Order 50) for an

indefinite period commencing with date

of publication in the Federal Register.

The suspension was requested by

Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., which

contends the action is necessary to

prevent uneconomic and inefficient

movements of milk and to ensure that

producer milk historically associated

with Order 50 will continue to be

pooled under the order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued March 17, 1995; published

March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15262).

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 rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule lessens the regulatory impact

of the order on certain milk handlers

and tends to ensure that dairy farmers

will continue to have their milk priced

under the order and thereby receive the

benefits that accrue from such pricing.

The Department is issuing this final

rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, 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

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

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 the law and requesting

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, 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.

This order of suspension is issued

pursuant to the provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

and of the order regulating the handling

of milk in the Central Illinois marketing

area.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15262),

concerning a proposed suspension of

certain provisions of the order.

Interested persons were afforded

opportunity to file written data, views

and arguments thereon. No comments

were received.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposal in the

notice and other available information,

it is hereby found and determined that

for an indefinite period commencing

with the date of publication in the

Federal Register the following provision

of the order does not tend to effectuate

the declared policy of the Act:

In § 1050.13(d)(2), the words ‘‘not’’

and ‘‘it’’ where they first appear.

Statement of Consideration

This rule suspends a portion of the

producer milk definition under the

Central Illinois order for an indefinite

period of time, effective upon

publication in the Federal Register. The

suspension relaxes the diversion limits

applicable to individual producers for a

pool distributing plant regulated under

the order. The aggregate limit of 35

percent contained in the proviso of

§ 1050.13(d)(2) was suspended for an

indefinite period on January 1, 1995.

The Central Illinois order currently

allows an operator of a distributing

plant to divert to a nonpool plant up to

50 percent of a producer’s milk that is

physically received at the pool plant

during the months of August through

April. The suspension will allow a

distributing plant to divert an unlimited

amount of a producer’s milk to a

nonpool plant during each of these

months, provided that at least one day’s

production is physically received at a

pool plant.

Prairie Farms, which operates the

only distributing plant regulated under

Order 50, states that it represents over

90 percent of the producer milk pooled

under Order 50. According to Prairie

Farms, approximately 60 percent of its

producer milk pooled under Order 50

was supplied to Beatrice Cheese, Inc.,

before Beatrice closed its cheese plant

located in Preston, Iowa, effective

December 1, 1994. It contends the

suspension is necessary to permit it to

keep its producers pooled under the

order without the necessity of costly

and inefficient movements of milk. It

maintains that its proposal would not

jeopardize the integrity of the order

because at least one day’s production

would have to be physically received at

a pool plant during each of the months

of August through April to qualify the

milk for diversion to a nonpool plant.

Prairie Farms requests that the action be

handled on an emergency basis to allow

the continuous pooling of producer milk

historically associated with Order 50.

The suspension request should be

granted. The suspension will continue

to allow the market’s Class I needs to be

met by requiring at least one day’s
18344 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

production of a producer’s milk be

physically received at a distributing

plant each month. It will maintain

orderly marketing conditions and

prevent uneconomic and inefficient

movements of milk.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provision for an

indefinite period beginning with the

date of Federal Register publication of

this document.

It is hereby found and determined

that thirty days’ notice of the effective

date hereof is impractical, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest in

that:

(a) The suspension is necessary to

reflect current marketing conditions and

to assure orderly marketing conditions

in the marketing area, in that such rule

is necessary to permit the continued

pooling of the milk of dairy farmers who

have historically supplied the market

without the need for making costly and

inefficient movements of milk;

(b) This suspension does not require

of persons affected substantial or

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date; and

(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking

was given interested parties and they

were afforded opportunity to file written

data, views or arguments concerning

this suspension. No comments were

received.

Therefore, good cause exists for

making this order effective less than 30

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1050

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the following provision in

Title 7, Part 1050, is amended as

follows:

PART 1050—MILK IN THE CENTRAL

ILLINOIS MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1050 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1050.13 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1050.13(d)(2), the words ‘‘not’’

and ‘‘it’’ where they first appear are

suspended for an indefinite period

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–8852 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150–AF24

NRC Size Standards; Revision

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending the

NRC’s size standards used to qualify an

NRC licensee as a ‘‘small entity’’ under

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This

action is necessary to establish a

separate standard to be used to

determine whether a licensee who is a

manufacturer would qualify as a small

entity, to adjust the receipts-based

standard to account for the effects of

inflation since 1985, and to eliminate

the separate $1 million size standard for

private practice physicians and apply

the revised receipts-based size standard

of $5 million to this class of licensees.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review

Section, Rules Review and Directives

Branch, Division of Freedom of

Information and Publications Services,

Office of Administration, telephone

(301) 415–7163.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1983, the NRC surveyed its

materials licensees to create an

economic profile sufficient to consider

regulatory alternatives tailored to the

size of the licensee. After analyzing the

data and consulting with the Small

Business Administration (SBA), the

NRC developed a proposed size

standard that would be appropriate to

use in determining which of its

licensees would qualify as small entities

for the purposes of compliance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The NRC

published its proposed size standard for

notice and comment in the Federal

Register of May 21, 1985 (50 FR 20913).

After considering the comments

received, the NRC adopted its final size

standards as noted in the Federal

Register of December 9, 1985 (50 FR

50241). In the Federal Register of

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56671), the

NRC restated the size standards to

include the Regulatory Flexibility Act’s

definition of small governmental

jurisdiction. To further improve clarity,

the NRC changed the presentation of the

size standards to conform to the listing

of definitions of small entities in the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The Proposed Rule

On November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61293),

the NRC published a proposed rule to

amend the NRC’s size standards. The

NRC proposed to establish a separate

standard to be used to determine

whether a licensee who is a

manufacturer would qualify as a small

entity and to adjust the receipts-based

standard to account for the effects of

inflation since 1985. In addition, the

NRC proposed to eliminate the separate

$1 million size standard for private

practice physicians and apply the

revised receipts-based size standard of

$5 million to this class of licensees. By

amending the size standards through

rulemaking, the NRC indicated its intent

to codify NRC’s size standards in 10

CFR part 2.

As discussed in the preamble to the

proposed rule, these amendments were

developed after several factors indicated

that some adjustments to the NRC’s size

standards were desirable.

The NRC received a number of

comments concerning its size standards

and the failure of the NRC to promulgate

a size standard that differentiates

between manufacturing entities and

service providers in response to the

final rule implementing Public Law

101–508 (56 FR 31472; July 10, 1991,

and subsequent years). These

commenters indicated that applying a

gross receipts standard to a

manufacturing concern resulted in an

adverse impact on a manufacturer. The

SBA size standards for manufacturers

are prescribed in terms of a maximum

number of employees rather than in

terms of gross receipts.

The NRC conducted a survey to

update the economic profile of its

materials licensees. The purpose of this

survey was to evaluate the continued

efficacy of NRC’s size standards and to

obtain the information needed to

determine the necessity and effect of a

separate standard for manufacturers

within the context of the nuclear

industry.

The SBA adjusted its receipts-based

size standard levels to mitigate the

effects of inflation from 1984 to the

present in a final rule published in the

Federal Register of April 7, 1994 (59 FR

16513).

Public Comment

The comment period on the proposed

rule closed December 30, 1994. The

NRC received two letters of public

comment on this action.

One commenter objected to the

inclusion of a size standard based on the