[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 98 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12274]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1040
[Docket No. AO-225-A45-R01; DA-92-10]
Milk in the Southern Michigan Marketing Area; Partial Decision on
Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and to Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This partial decision adopts on an expedited basis a change in
the pooling provisions of the Southern Michigan Federal milk order. The
change provides that a distributing plant located in the marketing area
that processes and distributes primarily aseptically processed fluid
milk products would be fully regulated under the order irrespective of
the market or markets in which the products may be distributed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Brenner, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, room
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-7183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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 action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The amendment will lessen the regulatory impact of the order on certain
milk handlers and will promote orderly marketing of milk by producers
and regulated handlers.
The proposed amendment to the rules has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed
amendment will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act 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 provision 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 is the
handler's 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.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued December 3, 1992; published December 10,
1992 (57 FR 58418).
Supplemental Notice of Hearing: Issued January 19, 1993; published
January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6447).
Recommended Decision: Issued November 29, 1993; published December
6, 1993 (58 FR 64176).
Notice of Reopened Hearing: Issued February 18, 1994; published
February 24, 1994 (59 FR 8874).
Preliminary Statement
A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing
agreement and the order regulating the handling of milk in the Southern
Michigan 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 (7 CFR
Part 900), in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on March 1, 1994, pursuant to
notice issued February 18, 1994 (59 FR 8874).
Interested parties were given until March 25, 1994, to file post-
hearing briefs on proposal No. 3 as published in the hearing notice,
and on whether the proposal should be considered on an expedited basis.
The hearing notice specifically invited interested persons to
present evidence concerning the probable regulatory and informational
impact of the proposal on small businesses. However, no participants at
the hearing testified about any potentially adverse impacts of the
proposal on small businesses.
The material issues on the record of hearing are:
1. Modification of the recommended multiple component pricing
decision to compute the same protein price for both handlers and
producers on the basis of a cheese market price and a cheese yield
formula, and to include any residual value in the skim milk delivered
by producers in the computation of the weighted average differential
value.
2. Amending the pool supply plant shipping requirement provisions
to allow the market administrator to adjust the shipping percentages as
market conditions require.
3. Including in the pool distributing plant definition a
description of a plant located within the marketing area which
processes at least 50 percent of its fluid milk receipts as ultra-high
temperature fluid milk products for distribution in aseptic packages. A
plant qualifying as a pool distributing plant under the new provision
would be a pool plant under the Southern Michigan order regardless of
its route disposition in the marketing area of any other Federal milk
order.
4. Determining whether an emergency exists to warrant the omission
of a recommended decision and the opportunity to file written
exceptions thereto with respect to issue No. 3.
This decision deals only with issues 3 and 4. The remaining issues
of the original and reopened hearings will be considered in a later
decision on this record. Issues 3 and 4 were not considered at the
initial February 1993 hearing.
Findings and Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:
3. Include in the pool distributing plant definition a description
of a plant located within the marketing area which processes at least
50 percent of its fluid milk receipts as ultra-high temperature fluid
milk products for distribution in aseptic packages. The provisions of
the order that relate to the basis for pooling a fluid milk plant
should be modified to include a distributing plant located in the
marketing area if the principal activity of the plant is the processing
and distribution of aseptically processed fluid milk products. Such
pool status, however, should not be dependent upon the amount of route
disposition in the Southern Michigan marketing area.
The order currently provides that to qualify as a pool plant during
a given month, a distributing plant must have total route disposition
of not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A milk received in
bulk at that plant direct from producers, supply plants, cooperative
associations, or diverted by the plant operator or cooperative. A
distributing plant may also be considered a pool plant in a given month
if it qualified as a pool plant under the same performance requirements
in either of the immediately preceding two months. A distributing plant
which also meets the pooling requirements of another marketing area is
regulated under the order in which it has a greater proportion of its
route disposition.
Parmalat White Knight Packaging Corporation (White Knight), a
proprietary handler, proposed that the order be amended to accommodate
the operations of its milk plant located at Wyoming, Michigan. The
plant is located within the defined marketing area. A witness for White
Knight testified that the plant processes, packages, and distributes
fluid milk products that are processed at ultra high temperatures and
packaged in aseptic containers. The witness indicated that the aseptic
process includes the use of ultra high temperature pasteurization, and
that the resulting products, commonly referred to as ``UHT'' milk,
could be stored unrefrigerated.\1\ The proprietary handler proposed
that this type of plant be a pool plant if it is located in the
Southern Michigan marketing area and meets the current performance
requirements for a distributing plant, except for the requirement that
the plant is regulated where the greatest proportion of its route
disposition occurs. The proponent stated that the intent of the
proposal is to pool its plant under the Southern Michigan order,
irrespective of the level of route sales in this or other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``UHT'' milk, however, refers only to the pasteurization
process that is used in producing an aseptically processed milk
product. For this reason, it is more appropriate for purposes of
order provisions to refer to the products involved as aseptically
processed fluid milk products rather than UHT milk. To simplify the
presentation of the findings and conclusions, however, and because
of the common usage of the term ``UHT'', reference is made in the
decision to UHT milk or milk products and UHT plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White Knight spokesman cited several reasons why the proposal
should be adopted. One reason cited was the nature of UHT milk
products. According to the witness, fluid milk products processed at
ultra high temperatures and packaged in aseptic containers can be
stored at room temperature for nine months, in contrast to typical
fluid milk products, which must be refrigerated and have relatively
short shelf lives. As a result, when compared to the regularly-
scheduled and relatively local distribution of fluid milk products,
White Knight has the ability to distribute its products at more
infrequent intervals and over a much broader geographical territory.
White Knight's milk supply is procured from two cooperatives which
represent 80 percent of producer milk in the order. Because of the
typical procurement but unique distribution patterns, the proponent
asserted, the current pooling provisions create a disincentive against
local producers supplying a local Class I plant.
The nature of the proponent's dairy products has led to chaotic
marketing conditions, the witness stated. Due to the distribution and
sales patterns of its aseptically-packaged products, the regulatory
status of the UHT plant has shifted from order to order, even on a
monthly basis. The witness noted that in the five months beginning in
September 1993, the plant was pooled under four different federal
orders: Carolina, New Orleans-Mississippi, Southeastern Florida, and
Tampa Bay. In a recent month, proponent's products were sold in 17
federal order marketing areas, in addition to unregulated territory.
Almost half of the proponent's sales were in unregulated areas.
The witness stated that continual change in regulation under
different federal orders puts the proponent at a competitive
disadvantage to handlers who know with certainty under which order they
will be regulated, because advance knowledge of the Class I price
virtually is eliminated for the proponent. This has made it difficult
for the proponent to price and sell its products because its costs are
not known in advance.
The witness noted that the administrative costs of tracking
distribution and sales patterns are greater with the regulatory shifts.
Additional administrative effort and time on the part of the market
administrator, the proprietary handler, and the cooperative supplier is
necessary to obtain information detailing where the milk originates and
where the product is sold to consumers. Because of the numerous areas
in which the handler markets products, the witness testified, it is
more difficult for the handler to properly report its sales of UHT milk
on a monthly basis. Payroll information requirements are duplicated in
both the originating and the pooling orders and are necessary for all
producers' milk that is shipped to the plant during the month. Because
the producers whose milk is shipped to the proponent's plant may vary
during the month, more administrative work is created. The variation of
reports required under different orders also requires additional time
each month. The process would be simplified for the market
administrator, handler, and cooperative if regulation were maintained
under only one order.
Moreover, some markets under which the proponent's plant has been
pooled have base-excess plans, such as the Carolina order. According to
proponent's post-hearing brief, because the group of producers whose
milk is supplied to the proponent changes somewhat each month, little
or no base would be accumulated, even under continuous regulation, in a
market that uses a base-excess plan. Hence, producers supplying the
predominantly Class I White Knight plant would be penalized by
receiving the excess or Class III price. The brief continues by noting
that failure to earn base creates a disincentive for producers to
supply a Class I plant, which is not the intent of the base-excess
provisions or the Federal Order program.
In proponent's view, failure to adopt its lock-in proposal on an
expedited basis would cause continuation of disruptive market
conditions, operational problems for the UHT plant, administrative
problems for the various orders, competitive uncertainty for the
proponent, and payment problems for producers.
A witness representing Independent Cooperative Milk Producers
Association (ICMPA) and Michigan Milk Producers Association (MMPA) also
testified in support of proposals 3 and 4. The entire milk supply for
the White Knight plant is obtained from ICMPA and MMPA. The witness
concurred with the proponent's testimony. He stated that continuing to
sell milk to the plant puts producers whose milk is shipped to White
Knight in an inequitable situation with other order producers, and that
various Class I differentials adjusted for location are disruptive to
the order. Some milk destined for White Knight has been reloaded at a
plant located within the marketing area to insure that it will be
pooled under the order. The witness testified that reloading is not
practical and results in increased costs for the supplying cooperative
and White Knight.
The supplying cooperatives' witness also raised concerns about
base-excess possibilities. The witness stated that by shipping the milk
to White Knight, the cooperative is accepting the price that will be
received for it. ICMPA, he testified, does not want to supply a handler
and receive less value for the milk than would have been received if
the milk were sold for utilization within the market area. The witness
also testified that the potential of being pooled under a base-excess
order, in months when milk in excess of an established base is assigned
a lower value, could cause the supplying cooperative to deny shipments
of milk to the distributing plant.
No opposition to the proposal was expressed at the hearing or in
briefs.
The record evidence indicates that fluid milk products have been
processed at the proponent's plant since September 1993; currently, UHT
pasteurization and aseptic packaging are used in the manufacturing of
all dairy products. Most of the plant's milk utilization is classified
as Class I, and a small amount of the milk is classified as Class III.
White Knight purchases milk from two cooperatives which represent
approximately 80 percent of producer milk in the order.
The proponent's distribution channels for UHT fluid milk are
substantially different from those used to distribute fluid milk
products that require refrigeration. These latter products generally
are distributed through frequent deliveries by distributing plants to
stores within the marketing area. According to record evidence, the
proponent's products are distributed as far away as the Caribbean and
in a substantial number of federal order areas each month.
Under current provisions, a distributing fluid milk plant that
qualifies for pooling under more than one order during the same month
is regulated under the order in which such plant's route distribution
is the greatest. Such a provision normally assures that all handlers
having their principal sales in a market are subject to the same
pricing and other regulatory requirements. However, because of its
products' distribution patterns, the proponent's UHT plant has yet to
be regulated under any one particular order on a regular basis. The
problems that have occurred from such pooling uncertainties are severe
enough to override the traditional basis for pooling a distributing
plant.
Shifting regulatory status of the proponent's plant between orders
creates uncertainty, which is not conducive to maintaining market
stability in the Southern Michigan market, and may affect other markets
adversely, as well. For example, the Class I differential at the
Wyoming location, $1.70 under the Southern Michigan order, ranges for
the four orders under which the plant has been regulated from $1.175
under the New Orleans-Mississippi order to $1.54 under the Southeastern
Florida order, a range of 36.5 cents per hundredweight. Such price
changes create serious marketing problems to the proponent in
determining what price to place on the various UHT products. The
supplying cooperatives also experience difficulty in pricing milk to
White Knight due to the broad geographic area of the plant's product
distribution, and uncertainty about the level and the basis of returns
they receive for their milk if the regulatory status of the plant is
unstable.
Prices received by producers under an order are influenced by the
amount of the Class I differential, the market utilization of milk, the
applicable location adjustments, and method of payment. Since these
factors vary from order to order, producer prices at the White Knight
UHT plant vary considerably when the plant shifts regulation from one
order to another on the basis of sales shifts. Under these disorderly
circumstances, producers would find it disruptive to their operations
and long-range planning to shift from one market to another. When
regulated by one order, pay prices for producers supplying the
proponent's plant would be the same as for other producers shipping to
plants in the same zone. In addition, producers whose milk is pooled
regularly under the various orders under which White Knight may become
regulated may find their pay prices fluctuating and disrupted.
The record evidence indicates that both the proponent and its milk
suppliers are concerned with the possibility that the plant might be
regulated under an order with a base-excess plan during months in which
milk in excess of an established base is assigned a lower value.
Without an established milk production base, the milk would be priced
at the excess price.2 White Knight would be unable to attract an
adequate supply of milk if it were known that the milk would be excess
milk in a marketing area with a base-excess plan. Therefore, the
continued milk supply for the UHT plant is threatened unless current
order provisions are amended. Under the circumstances described in the
record, consideration must be given to regulating the plant in the
market in which there is reasonable assurance that it will have
available an adequate supply of producer milk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Currently, 7 of 39 orders have this plan; months in which
excess milk is assigned a lower value than base milk range from
February through August depending on the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is concluded that overall market stability will tend to be
maintained and the regulatory stability of the White Knight UHT plant
(or any other such plant) will tend to be assured if the order is
modified along the lines proposed. The order will specify that the
principal activity at such a plant must be the processing and
distribution of aseptically processed fluid milk products. Such a
requirement is intended to assure that a plant would not be able to be
pooled under the particular pooling provision at issue unless at least
one-half of the plant's fluid milk receipts are processed and
distributed in the form of aseptically processed fluid milk products.
Thus, the plant would have some operating flexibility.
Under the lock-in provision adopted herein, the Southern Michigan
order would regulate the Wyoming UHT plant (or any other similar plant)
even though it had a greater proportion of its route distribution in
the marketing area of another order. The intent of this pooling
arrangement may be in conflict with the pooling requirements of another
order since the other order may not have a complementary provision
which will permit the plant to be locked in under the Southern Michigan
order. It is not possible to eliminate pooling conflicts between the
provisions of the Southern Michigan order and other orders by amending
only the Southern Michigan order. Thus, whenever such a pooling
conflict arises, an administrative decision as to the order under which
the plant shall be pooled may be necessary, depending upon the
particular provisions of each order and the intent of maintaining
Southern Michigan regulation for a UHT plant located within the
marketing area.
4. Emergency Action. The omission of a recommended decision was
proposed by proponent of the lock-in proposal that was discussed above
as issue 3. The witness representing the supplying cooperatives also
stated support for an emergency decision. No testimony was received in
opposition to emergency action. The testimony and data in the record of
this proceeding strongly indicate the need for prompt amendatory
action. The evidence shows it is desirable to have an amended order
effective as soon as possible to minimize the disorderly marketing
conditions currently facing the UHT plant. The normal procedure of
issuing a recommended decision and providing time to file exceptions
thereto would further the disorderly market conditions that the UHT
plant is facing.
It is therefore found that due and timely execution of the
Secretary's function in this proceeding imperatively and unavoidably
requires omission of the recommended decision and the opportunity for
filing exceptions thereto.
Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions
A brief and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf
of White Knight. The brief, proposed findings and conclusions, and the
evidence in the record were considered in making the findings and
conclusions set forth above. No opposition to either the lock-in
proposal or to emergency consideration was received in testimony or in
proposed findings and conclusions.
General Findings
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the Southern Michigan 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.
(a) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby
proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof,
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(b) 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 marketing area, and the minimum
prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as
hereby proposed to be 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
(c) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby
proposed to be amended, will regulate the handling of milk in the same
manner as, and will be applicable only to persons in the respective
classes of industrial and commercial activity specified in, a marketing
agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
Marketing Agreement and Order
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are two documents, a
Marketing Agreement regulating the handling of milk, and an Order
amending the order regulating the handling of milk in the Southern
Michigan marketing area, which have been decided upon as the detailed
and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing conclusions.
It is hereby ordered, That this entire decision and the two
documents annexed hereto be published in the Federal Register.
Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period
January 1994 is hereby determined to be the representative period
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of the order, as
amended and as hereby proposed to be amended, regulating the handling
of milk in the Southern Michigan marketing area is approved or favored
by producers, as defined under the terms of the order (as amended and
as hereby proposed to be amended), who during such representative
period were engaged in the production of milk for sale within the
aforesaid marketing area.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1040
Milk marketing orders.
Dated: May 12, 1994.
Patricia Jensen,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services.
Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the
Southern Michigan Marketing Area
This order shall not become effective unless and until the
requirements of Sec. 900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure
governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing
orders have been met.
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the order was first issued and when it has
been amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby
ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set
forth herein.
(a) Findings. 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 Southern Michigan 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 said 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; and 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 said 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.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective date
hereof, the handling of milk in the Southern Michigan marketing area
shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows:
PART 1040--MILK IN THE SOUTHERN MICHIGAN MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1040 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-
674.
Sec. 1040.5 [Amended]
2. Section 1040.5 is amended by removing the phrase ``in the
marketing area'' at the end of the section.
3. Section 1040.7 is amended by revising the introductory text of
the section, paragraph (a), and the first sentence of the introductory
text of paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 1040.7 Pool plant.
Pool plant means:
(a) A distributing plant:
(1) From which total route disposition, except filled milk, during
the month is not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A milk
received in bulk at such plant direct from producers, from supply
plants, from a cooperative association as described in Sec. 1040.9(c)
or diverted by the plant operator or by a cooperative association
pursuant to Sec. 1040.13 as producer milk, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section; or
(2) That qualified as a pool plant in either of the immediately
preceding 2 months on the basis of performance standards described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section; or
(3) That meets the following conditions, regardless of the
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) The plant is located in the marketing area;
(ii) The plant has total route disposition, except filled milk,
during the month of not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A
milk received in bulk at such plant direct from producers, from supply
plants, from a cooperative association as described in Sec. 1040.9(c)
or diverted by the plant operator or by a cooperative association
pursuant to Sec. 1040.13 as producer milk; and
(iii) The principal activity of such plant is the processing and
distributing of aseptically processed fluid milk products.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a supply
plant which during the month meets one of the performance requirements
specified in paragraph (b) (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in Certain
Marketing Areas
The parties hereto, in order to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act, and in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure
effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), desire to enter into this
marketing agreement and do hereby agree that the provisions referred to
in paragraph I hereof as augmented by the provisions specified in
paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the provisions of this marketing
agreement as if set out in full herein.
I. The findings and determinations, order relative to handling, and
the provisions of Secs. __________\1\ to __________, all inclusive, of
the order regulating the handling of milk in the (__________ Name of
order __________) marketing area (7 CFR __________ PART __________\2\)
which is annexed hereto; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\First and last sections of order.
\2\Appropriate part number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The following provisions: Sec. __________\3\ Record of milk
handled and authorization to correct typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Next consecutive section number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/she
handled during the month of __________\4\, __________ hundredweight of
milk covered by this marketing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Appropriate representative period for the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Authorization to correct typographical errors. The undersigned
hereby authorizes the Director, or Acting Director, Dairy Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, to correct any typographical errors
which may have been made in this marketing agreement.
Sec. __________\3\ Effective date. This marketing agreement shall
become effective upon the execution of a counterpart hereof by the
Secretary in accordance with Section 900.14(a) of the aforesaid rules
of practice and procedure.
In Witness Whereof, The contracting handlers, acting under the
provisions of the Act, for the purposes and subject to the limitations
herein contained and not otherwise, have hereunto set their respective
hands and seals.
Signature
By (Name)--------------------------------------------------------------
(Title)----------------------------------------------------------------
(Address)--------------------------------------------------------------
(Seal)
Attest
[FR Doc. 94-12274 Filed 5-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
