Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20719

There are 27 handlers of South Texas

melons who are subject to regulation

under the marketing order and 30

producers in the production area. Small

agricultural service firms, which

include handlers, have been defined by

the Small Business Administration (13

CFR 121.601) as those having annual

receipts of less than $5,000,000, and

small agricultural producers are defined

as those having annual receipts of less

than $500,000. The majority of handlers

and producers of South Texas melons

may be classified as small entities.

At a public meeting on December 12,

1995, the committee unanimously

recommended, under the authority of

§ 979.52 of the order, increasing the

depth of cantaloup cartons. Section

979.304(b)(1) specified that the depth of

cantaloup cartons could be not more

than 103⁄8 nor less than 93⁄4 inches. A

tolerance of 1⁄4 inch was permitted. The

committee recommended a one inch

increase in depth to 113⁄8 inches.

In recent years, buyers have requested

increased supplies of larger cantaloups.

Handlers had experienced difficulty in

packing larger cantaloups without

bruising because the container depth

did not allow sufficient room for the

larger fruit and ice packed with the

cantaloups to keep them cool. Also,

without adequate carton space, proper

stacking on pallets was more difficult

and compression damage often occurred

to the cantaloups when loading and

shipping. Increasing the depth of

cantaloup cartons by one inch to 113⁄8

inches allows for proper stacking and

delivery of cantaloups without bruising

and other damage. This change is

expected to foster buyer satisfaction and

confidence. Handlers will not be

prevented from using their current

supply of smaller cartons if they desire.

Section 979.304(c)(4) designates

inspection stations in Alamo and

Laredo, for handlers who do not have

permanent packing facilities recognized

by the committee. The telephone area

codes specified for Alamo and Laredo

were not correct. The interim final rule

amended § 979.304(c)(4) to correct those

area codes from (502) and (512),

respectively, to (210).

Section 979.304(c)(5) specified that

handlers shall pay assessments on all

assessable melons according to the

provisions of § 979.42, at the rate of 3⁄4

cent per carton. The 3⁄4 cent per carton

rate of assessment has not been in effect

for a number of years. The current rate

of assessment is 7 cents per carton.

Also, because the assessment rate is

established by the Department in a

separate rulemaking document and

handlers are informed of the rate by the

committee through handler notices, the

rate of assessment does not need to be

referenced in these provisions.

Therefore, the words ‘‘at the rate of 3⁄4

cent per carton’’ in § 979.304(c)(5) were

removed.

The interim final rule was published

in the Federal Register on February 28,

1996 (61 FR 7408). That rule amended

§ 979.304 to change the container

requirements for cantaloups, to correct

the telephone area codes, and to remove

the out-of-date handler assessment

information. That rule provided that

interested persons could file comments

through March 29, 1996. No comments

were received.

Based on the above, the Agricultural

Marketing Service has determined that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 979

Marketing agreements, Melons,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reason set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 979 is amended as

follows:

PART 979—MELONS GROWN IN

SOUTH TEXAS

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending § 979.304 which was

published at 61 FR 7408 on February 28,

1996, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11462 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004

[DA–96–02]

Milk in the New York-New Jersey and

Middle Atlantic Marketing Areas;

Suspension of Certain Provisions of

the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Suspension of rules.

SUMMARY: This document suspends a

pooling provision of the New York-New

Jersey order and a provision in the

Middle Atlantic order’s base-excess

plan. The request for suspension was

submitted on behalf of several handlers

(cooperative and proprietary) who

market the milk of dairy farmers who

are located in a common supply area

and who have milk pooled under both

orders. This suspension will permit

more efficient assembly and

transportation of producer milk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996, through

September 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gino M. Tosi, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, PO Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued March 27, 1996; published April

2, 1996 (61 FR 14514).

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 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 orders 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 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
20720 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 orders regulating the

handling of milk in the New York-New

Jersey and Middle Atlantic marketing

areas.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

April 2, 1996 (64 FR 14514) concerning

the proposed suspension of certain

provisions of the orders. Interested

persons were afforded opportunity to

file written data, views and arguments

thereon.

Two comments supporting and one

comment opposing the proposed

suspension were received.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposals in the

notice, the comments received, and

other available information, it is hereby

found and determined that for the

months of May 1, 1996, through

September 30, 1996, the following

provisions of the orders do not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act:

1. In § 1002.14 of the New York-New

Jersey order, paragraph (d); and

2. In § 1004.92(c) of the Middle

Atlantic order, the words ‘‘and who

held such status in all or part of the 2

months of August and September and

who otherwise was a producer only

under this part for all of the remaining

August through December period’’.

Statement of Consideration

This rule suspends a pooling

provision of the New York-New Jersey

order (Order 2) and suspends a

provision in the Middle Atlantic order

(Order 4) base-excess plan. The

suspension will allow handlers

regulated under Order 2 and Order 4 to

assemble and transport the milk of dairy

farmers more efficiently and thereby

reduce costs. Suspension of these

provisions in the two orders would

permit handlers to freely shift the milk

of individual dairy farmers located in a

common supply area between the two

markets. Proponents claim that this

added flexibility would enable Order 2

and 4 handlers to furnish the fluid

needs of bottling plants more

effectively. Handlers will be obligated to

change the pooling status of individual

producers to achieve this efficiency.

Under the terms of Order 2, an

individual dairy farmer’s milk may not

be pool milk during the months of

December through June if any of the

dairy farmer’s milk was producer milk

pooled by the same handler under

another Federal order in the preceding

months of July through November.

Under the Order 4 base-excess plan

provisions, a dairy farmer’s milk

deliveries to handlers regulated under

Orders 2 and 4 during August and

September would be used to compute

the producer’s Order 4 base only if the

dairy farmer’s milk was pooled on Order

4 during the remaining months

(October-December) of such baseforming period. Suspending these order

provisions would allow milk to be

shifted to Order 2 from Order 4 and

would also allow Order 2 milk to be

shifted to Order 4 without negative

consequences to producers.

Several handlers (cooperative and

proprietary) who market the milk of

dairy farmers under Orders 2 and 4

requested the suspension. Proponents

asked that the provisions be suspended

for the months of May through

September 1996.

In support of the action, proponents

indicated that the State of Pennsylvania

has become a common milkshed for

Orders 2 and 4. In June 1995 there were

3,836 Pennsylvania dairy farmers

pooled on Order 2 and 3,717

Pennsylvania producers pooled on

Order 4. These dairy farmers

represented 37 percent of the total

producers on Order 2 and 73 percent of

the total producers on Order 4. They

produced 27 percent of the Order 2 pool

milk and 67 percent of the Order 4

producer receipts. There is significant

overlap of producers supplying the two

markets in the Pennsylvania counties of

Lancaster, Lebanon, Chester, and Berks,

proponents stated.

Proponents also indicated in their

request that a large percentage of the

milk that is picked up in the common

supply area of Pennsylvania is delivered

to Order 4 fluid milk plants located at

Wawa, Spring City, Royersford, and Fort

Washington, Pennsylvania, and

Florence, New Jersey. Some of the milk

produced in this same area is delivered

to the Order 2 pool plants located at

Lansdale and Reading.

Proponents of the suspension have

made plans to combine their milk routes

in Pennsylvania to assemble and haul

the milk from farms that are most

advantageously located to plants where

the milk is needed for processing. The

commingling of the milk supply of these

proponents is scheduled to begin on

May 1, 1996, which is the first month

the suspension is to be effective.

In their comments the proponents

indicated that the number of producers

that will be shifted between orders will

be small. During April and May of 1996,

two of the proponents intend to change

the farm pickup routes of approximately

865 dairy farmers serviced by 41 milk

haulers. However, according to one

comment, it is expected that 183

producers currently pooled under Order

2 will be changed to Order 4 and that

48 producers currently pooled on Order

4 will be changed to Order 2. Among the

producers who will have their hauler

changed on May 1 are those picked up

on routes which primarily service

proponents’ pool distributing plants.

Concerns arose regarding the timing

of this suspension action and the

advisability of loosening the pooling

restrictions of the New York-New Jersey

order that could result in additional

reserve supplies of milk pooled on the

orders as a consequence of suspending

these order provisions. In comments

received from a proprietary handler who

distributes Class I, Class II, and Class III

products in the Order 2 marketing area

and who opposes the suspension, it was

stated that there is a potential for a

lowering of the blend price to producers

historically pooled on the respective

orders, although the specific concern

was for the lowering of the blend price

to Order 2 producers. Similar concerns

were expressed by a major cooperative

in the Order 2 marketing area who

nevertheless supports the suspension

because it would help in lowering the

costs of doing business to dairy farmers.

In light of the small number of

producers who will have their pooling

status shifted, it is reasonable to

conclude that the changes in producer

blend prices will not be significantly

affected given the increased efficiencies

gained by cost savings in transportation.

Additionally, the suspension action is

supported by producers who market the

majority of milk in the Middle Atlantic

and the New York-New Jersey marketing

areas.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to

suspend the aforesaid provisions from

May 1, 1996, through September 30,

1996.

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 areas, in that such rule

is necessary to permit the continued

pooling of the milk of dairy farmers who

historically supplied the markets

without the need for making costly and

inefficient movements of milk;

(b) This suspension does not require

of persons affected substantial or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20721

1 17 CFR 200.30–4.

2 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date; and

(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking

was given to interested parties and they

were afforded the opportunity to file

written data, views and arguments

concerning these suspension actions.

Two comments supporting and one

comment opposing the action 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 Parts 1002 and

1004

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the following provisions in

Title 7, parts 1002 and 1004 are

amended as follows:

PART 1002—MILK IN THE NEW YORKNEW JERSEY MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1002 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1002.14 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1002.14, paragraph (d) is

suspended.

PART 1004—MILK IN THE MIDDLE

ATLANTIC MARKETING AREA

3. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1004 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1004.92 [Suspended in part]

4. In § 1004.92(c), the words ‘‘and

who held such status in all or part of the

2 months of August and September and

who otherwise was a producer only

under this part for all of the remaining

August through December period’’ is

suspended.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Michael V. Dunn,

Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–11463 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34–37159]

Delegation of Authority to Director of

Division of Enforcement

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending

its rules to delegate authority to the

Director of the Division of Enforcement

to authorize staff to appear in federal

bankruptcy court where the debtor is

involved with the subject matter of a

Commission investigation, and to take

necessary action therein to preserve

potential Commission claims. This

amendment will expedite and enhance

the effectiveness of the enforcement

process by enabling staff to meet

bankruptcy court deadlines that affect

potential Commission claims and to

preserve and protect such claims.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith R. Starr, Division Bankruptcy

Counsel, Division of Enforcement, 202/

942–4868.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Securities and Exchange Commission

today announced amendments to its

rules governing delegation of authority

to the Division of Enforcement

(‘‘Division’’).

The amendment to Rule 30–4 1

authorizes the Director of Division of

Enforcement to approve staff

appearances in federal bankruptcy court

where the debtor is involved with the

subject matter of a Commission

investigation. This delegation will

expedite and enhance the effectiveness

of the enforcement process by enabling

prompt action to protect and preserve

potential claims. Notwithstanding this

delegation of authority, in instances

where contemplated action in a

bankruptcy case raises any close or

controversial issues, the Division may

consult with the Commission before the

action is filed in federal court.

The Commission finds, in accordance

with Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act,2 that this

amendment relates solely to agency

organization, procedure, or practice, and

does not relate to a substantive rule.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for

public comment are unnecessary, and

publication of the amendment 30 days

before its effective date is also

unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

Administrative practice and

procedure, Authority delegations

(Government agencies).

Text of Amendment

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 200—ORGANIZATION;

CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND

INFORMATION AND REQUESTS

1. The authority citation for Part 200

continues to read in part as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78d–1, 78d–2,

78w, 78ll(d), 79t, 77sss, 80a–37, 80b–11,

unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

2. Section 200.30–4 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(11) to read as

follows:

§ 200.30–4 Delegation of authority to

Director of Division of Enforcement.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(11) To authorize staff to appear in

federal bankruptcy court to preserve

Commission claims in connection with

investigations pursuant to section 19(b)

of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.

77s(b)), section 21(b) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(b)),

section 18(c) of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935 (15

U.S.C. 79r(c)), section 42(b) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (15

U.S.C. 80a–41(b)) and section 209(b) of

the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15

U.S.C. 80b–9(b)).

* * * * *

By the Commission.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11451 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Parts 1, 4, 7, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22,

24, 25, 53, 55, 71, 170, 178, 179, 194,

197, 200, 250, 251, 252, 270, 275, 285,

290, and 296

[T.D. 372]

RIN 1512–AB47

Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF) Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision makes

technical amendments and conforming

changes to chapter I of title 27 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). All changes

are to provide clarity and uniformity

throughout title 27 Code of Federal

Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.