[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14514-14515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7900]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 2, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14514]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
[DA-96-02]
Milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic Marketing
Areas; Proposed Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed suspension of rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to
suspend a pooling provision of the New York-New Jersey order and a
provision in the Middle Atlantic order's base-excess plan. The proposal
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.
Proponents contend that this suspension would enable them to assemble
and transport milk of producers more efficiently.
DATES: Comments are due no later than April 12, 1996.
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, D.C. 20090-6456.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Marketing Specialist,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1366.
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 lessen the regulatory impact
of the order on certain milk handlers and 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, 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the suspension of the following
provisions of the orders regulating the handling of milk in the New
York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic marketing areas is being considered
through September 30, 1996, beginning on May 1, 1996:
1. In Sec. 1002.14 of the New York-New Jersey order, paragraph (d);
and
2. In Sec. 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''.
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 10th day
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
The comment period is limited to 10 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
This proposed action would suspend a pooling provision of the New
York-New Jersey (order 2) and a provision in the Middle Atlantic (Order
4) order's base-excess plan. The suspension would 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 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, say the proponents.
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 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 base-forming period. Proponents contend that
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
[[Page 14515]]
without negative consequences to producers.
Suspension of the foregoing provisions on Order 2 and 4 producers
would facilitate more efficient milk assembly and transportation in a
geographic area characterized by a significant overlap of milksheds and
pool plants, proponents claim.
Several handlers (cooperative and proprietary) who market the milk
of dairy farmers under Orders 2 and 4 requested the suspension.
Proponents ask that the provisions be suspended for the months of May
through September 1996.
In support of the action, proponents stated 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, Sunbury 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.
Two proponent cooperatives (Atlantic Dairy Cooperative and Milk
Marketing, Inc.) and a proprietary handler, (Dietrich's Milk Products)
also a proponent 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 three
handlers is scheduled to begin on May 1, 1996, which is the first month
the suspension is to be effective.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid
provisions from May 1, 1996 through September 30, 1996.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7900 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
