[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 165 (Friday, August 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43474-43483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1124
[Docket Nos. AO-368-A25, AO-380-A15; DA-95-01]
Milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern
Oregon Marketing Areas; Partial Recommended Decision and Opportunity To
File Written Exceptions on Proposed Amendments To Tentative Marketing
Agreement and To Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document recommends adoption of proposed amendments that
would add two counties to the Pacific Northwest milk marketing area and
modify the component pricing provisions of the order. Other issues
included in the proceeding, including all of those pertaining to the
Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon Federal milk order, will be dealt
with at a later time. The recommendations are based on the record of a
public hearing held in Portland, Oregon, on July 11-12, 1995.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments (four copies) should be filed with the Hearing
Clerk, Room 1083, South Building, United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
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)
720-2357.
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 amendments to the rules proposed herein have been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed
amendments would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
[[Page 43475]]
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 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 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.
Small Business Consideration
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic
impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The record indicates that there
are approximately 1,400 dairy farmers whose milk is pooled under the
Pacific Northwest Federal milk order, and 20 milk handlers regulated
under the order. For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a
dairy farm is considered a ``small business'' if it has an annual gross
revenue of less than $500,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a
``small business'' if it has fewer than 500 employees. Most parties
subject to a milk order are considered to be small businesses.
None of the proposed amendments would result in any change in the
regulatory status of any handlers or the pool status of any producers.
The addition of two counties to the marketing area would reduce the
handler burden of reporting out-of-area sales into the counties added
to the marketing area.
The addition of a payment component is not expected to cause any
additional expense to milk handlers for testing producer milk.
Reporting an additional component may increase the time involved in
preparing handler and producer payroll reports to a small degree,
particularly in the process of changing from two payment components to
three. However, there was no testimony regarding any additional time
required for the preparation of these already-required reports.
The record of the proceeding indicates that the proposed change in
the multiple component pricing plan will result in a reduction of the
minimum prices handlers are required to pay producers by about 10 cents
per hundredweight, or less than one percent of the pool value of
producer milk. This change may confer a slight benefit on handlers of
milk used in manufactured dairy products, and reduce returns to some
dairy farmers. However, a reduction in the cost of milk used in cheese
may result in more milk being used in cheese rather than nonfat dry
milk, which generally is a lower-valued use. In that case dairy farmers
may benefit from higher returns to the pool. In any event, Federal milk
order prices are minimum prices, and handlers can always choose to pay
more than order prices to producers.
Only one participant in the proceeding identified his operation as
a small business, but did not identify the manner in which the proposed
amendments would affect it specifically as a small business. Further
comments are invited concerning the potential benefits or costs of the
proposed amendments on small entities.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notice of Hearing: Issued June 15, 1995; published June 21, 1995
(60 FR 32282).
Extension of Time for Filing Briefs: Issued October 12, 1995;
published October 23, 1995 (60 FR 54315).
Extension of Time for Filing Briefs: Issued November 2, 1995;
published November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56538).
Preliminary Statement
Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this
recommended decision with respect to proposed amendments to the
tentative marketing agreements and the orders regulating the handling
of milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon
marketing areas. This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and the applicable rules of
practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing
agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900).
Interested parties may file written exceptions to this decision
with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250, by the 30th day after publication of this decision in the
Federal Register. Four copies of the exceptions should be filed. All
written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made available
for public inspection at the office of the Hearing Clerk during regular
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
The proposed amendments set forth below are based on the record of
a public hearing held at Portland, Oregon, on July 11-12, 1995,
pursuant to a notice of hearing issued June 15, 1995, (60 FR 32282).
The material issues on the record of hearing relate to:
1. Pacific Northwest marketing area.
2. Supply plant definition.
A. Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon.
B. Pacific Northwest.
3. Government agency plant.
4. Producer milk diversion limits.
A. Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon.
B. Pacific Northwest.
5. Call provision.
6. Pacific Northwest multiple component pricing provisions.
This decision deals only with issues 1 and 6. The remaining issues
on which testimony and data were gathered at the hearing will be
considered and dealt with in the process of restructuring the Federal
milk orders pursuant to the 1996 Farm Bill.
Findings and Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:
1. Pacific Northwest marketing area. A proposal to add the only
remaining two counties on the Olympic Peninsula that currently are not
part of the marketing area to the Pacific Northwest marketing area
should be adopted. Darigold Farms, a cooperative association that is
also a large handler under the Pacific Northwest order, testified that
the necessity of separating out sales to Clallam and Jefferson
Counties, Washington, for the purpose of reporting out-of-area sales is
difficult and time-consuming, but of little real benefit. The record
indicates that there are no handlers having sales within these two
counties who would become regulated by the addition of the counties to
the marketing area. In addition, inclusion of the two counties would
reduce the reporting requirements for currently-regulated handlers, who
must report sales into unregulated area separately so that the
proportion of their sales within the marketing area can be used for
determining pool qualification. Therefore, the proposal to add Clallam
and Jefferson counties to the Pacific Northwest marketing area should
be adopted.
[[Page 43476]]
6. Modification of multiple component pricing. A revised multiple
component pricing (MCP) plan should be adopted in the Pacific Northwest
Federal milk marketing order. The pricing plan would contain elements
of both the multiple component pricing plan initially submitted by
Darigold Farms in Proposal 2, and that proposed by National All-Jersey,
Inc., in Proposal 4. Producers would be paid on the basis of three
components in milk: butterfat, protein, and other nonfat nonprotein
solids (other solids). Producers' share of the value of the pool's
Class I and Class II uses would be reflected in a separate weighted
average differential price, or ``producer price differential.''
Regulated handlers would pay for the milk they receive on the basis
of total butterfat, the protein and other nonfat solids used in Classes
II and III, skim milk used in Class I, and the hundredweight of total
product used in Class I, II and III-A.
At the present time, milk received by handlers pooled under the
Pacific Northwest order is priced on the basis of the pounds of total
butterfat, nonfat milk solids used in Classes II and III and the
hundredweight of skim milk used in Class I, and the hundredweight of
total product used in Classes I, II and III-A. Adjustments for such
items as overage, reclassified inventory, location and other source
milk allocated to Class I are added to or subtracted from the
classified use value of the milk. The resulting amount is distributed
to producers on the basis of the total pounds of nonfat milk solids and
butterfat in each producer's milk, and each producer's per
hundredweight share of the pool's Class I, Class II and Class III-A
uses.
Darigold Farms, the proponent cooperative of Proposal 2, proposed
to change the pricing of milk in the Pacific Northwest Federal milk
order from the current two-component pricing plan based on butterfat
and solids-not-fat (SNF) to a three-component plan based on butterfat,
protein, and ``other solids'' (solids other than butterfat and
protein). The Darigold witness testified that the protein and butterfat
prices would be computed on the basis of cheese and butter prices,
respectively, and the yields of these respective products in the
manufacturing process. The ``other solids'' price to handlers would be
computed by subtracting the value of the protein and butterfat in a
hundredweight of milk from the basic formula price, and dividing by the
Pacific Northwest market average ``other solids'' content. Currently,
the nonfat solids price is computed by subtracting the value of the
butterfat in a hundredweight of milk from the basic formula price and
dividing by the average nonfat solids content of the milk to which the
basic formula price applies--Grade B milk received at manufacturing
plants in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Class I milk would continue to be paid for on a butterfat-skim
basis. No somatic cell adjustment would be included in Pacific
Northwest multiple component pricing. Rather than retaining the
``weighted average differential price'' to producers, a hundredweight
price that represents the value to producers of participation in the
marketwide pool, the Darigold proposal would include class price
differential values in the producer ``other solids'' price calculation.
The proponent witness reviewed the evolution of pricing milk under
various MCP plans, and refinements made since the first MCP plan was
implemented in the Great Basin Federal order (Order 139) in 1988. The
witness focused on MCP plans which specifically priced the protein
portion of the skim milk, and noted that the plan first introduced in
three Ohio and Indiana Federal milk orders in 1993 used protein pricing
based on the Minnesota-Wisconsin price survey (M-W) average protein
test rather than on the market average protein test. He stated that
Darigold supported this pricing refinement (use of the average test of
M-W milk instead of the market average test) at the first proceeding in
which MCP was considered for the Pacific Northwest order, but neither
understood its implications nor had detailed information regarding
application of that concept to a plan pricing the SNF portion of skim
milk instead of the protein portion.
Prior to mid-1994, the Pacific Northwest milk order (Order 124)
priced milk on the basis of volume and butterfat. In May 1994, Order
124 adopted a MCP plan which priced the solids-not-fat (SNF) portion of
the skim milk as well as the butterfat component. Proponent's witness
stated that this pricing system recognized that much of the milk pooled
under the order is dried into milk powder, and that yields on powder
correlate with the SNF content of the milk.
The Darigold witness observed that average Grade B milk in M-W
plants typically tests lower for SNF content than does average Grade A
milk in the Pacific Northwest, and that fewer M-W plants report SNF
than report protein content. The witness stated that this difference in
test does not apply to protein, as protein content in milk is
comparable across regions or orders. He asserted that the higher
average SNF test of milk in Order 124 than in the M-W plants resulted
in over five million dollars in additional costs incurred by Darigold
during the first 12 months of the current MCP plan.
The Darigold witness asserted that the current MCP system has
resulted in Order 124 handlers paying the highest regulated price in
the U.S. for milk used to make cheese. As a result of this
noncompetitive position, he stated, an increase in the northwest's
share of the national cheese market is not possible. The witness also
claimed that cheese market prices have decreased due to competition. He
added that while under current pricing Darigold cannot forecast
profitability in making bulk cheese, consumer-sized units of cheese
would be profitable.
The witness stated that Darigold would like to encourage cheese
production in the region. He noted that the cooperative has converted a
nonfat dry milk plant to cheese-making capability to, in part, meet
increasing demand for cheese and lessen the impact of Class III-A
pricing (which reflects a lower value of nonfat dry milk, compared to
cheese) on producers. The witness testified that a consultant analyzed
the economic feasibility of the proponent increasing cheese production,
thereby decreasing production of nonfat dry milk, and concluded that a
new cheese plant may not be profitable because of Order 124's current
MCP plan. The witness stated that conversion of another Darigold plant
to mozzarella production has been delayed because of the consultant's
analysis.
The Darigold witness asserted that national cheese companies
approached about investing in the Pacific Northwest region have no
interest because the price of milk is too high and the region is too
far from the processing centers generally located east of the
Mississippi. He explained that a competitive price for Class III milk
(primarily milk used in cheese) is essential to both maintain current
levels of cheese production and encourage new investments in cheese
plants.
The proponent witness asserted that adoption of Darigold's proposal
would bring the cooperative association back to a ``similar
disadvantage'' as that held before May 1994. He explained that the
proposal is structured to reduce the cost of milk to a level that
approaches what was paid before MCP, although it still would be
slightly higher.
Proponent's post-hearing brief stated that the price of milk paid
by cheese plants on the basis of components under Order 124 must be
reduced to something close to the Order 135
[[Page 43477]]
(Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon) price if parity is to exist among
cheese plants and if Order 124 cheese plants are to be able to compete
with the Idaho plants.
The Darigold witness said that the impact of the current MCP system
also is felt by plants producing Class II and III-A products. Witness
asserted that two of Darigold's true powder plants have become
unprofitable since the implementation of MCP, impairing cash flow and
reducing the cooperative's ability to fund capital investments without
per-unit retains.
Proponent's witness estimated that under Proposal 2, producer
income would fall by about eight cents per hundredweight (cwt.) if
Class III utilization remains constant, but would be two cents per cwt.
higher than producers were paid prior to the current MCP system. He
stated that a lower Class III price should result in an increase of
Class III utilization (with a corresponding reduction in the volume of
Class III-A utilization), which would increase the blend price to
producers because milk would be used in cheese--a more valuable form
than nonfat dry milk. As a result, he claimed, producer income would
increase.
The Darigold witness asserted that the current MCP plan in Order
124 increased producer returns by an average of 10 cents per cwt. from
the previous system but failed to give producers proper signals about
the components needed in the market. Because the weighted average
differential is included in the current pricing system, he claimed,
producers continue to produce for volume to enhance returns. The
witness argued that elimination of the producer weighted average
differential as a separate price component that represents producers'
share of the Class I, II and III-A differences in value from the basic
formula price would also eliminate a source of confusion when the
differential is a negative value. He stated that payments based only on
pounds of components would show producers more directly the value of
the individual components, giving the producer a direct incentive to
produce the most valuable component.
The witness testified that a somatic cell adjustment was not
included in proponent's proposal because Order 124's monthly average
SCC is between 190,000 and 210,000. Consequently, he stated, somatic
cells do not need to be considered as a pricing factor in Order 124.
Opposition to Proposal 2 was expressed by five Order 124 producers,
all members of the proponent cooperative. Each producer asserted that
the proposal would result in lower prices to producers and each
producer expressed support for the pricing system currently in effect
in Order 124.
National All-Jersey, Inc. (NAJ), a national dairy farmer
organization that assists its members in marketing their milk, is
proponent of Proposal 4, a MCP plan which would modify the current plan
in effect under Order 124. Also supporting Proposal 4 is the American
Jersey Cattle Association. The two organizations have 220 dairy farmer
members in Oregon and Washington.
NAJ's witness expressed support for the concept presented in
Proposal 2 but stated that Proposal 4 differs in two respects: the
method of calculating the protein value and retention of the current
feature of a weighted average differential paid on a hundredweight
basis.
The NAJ witness stated that the current system is an improvement
over the butterfat/skim (pre-May 1994) plan. However, he asserted,
market conditions are changing, with more milk in this marketing area
predicted to be used in cheese production. He stated that since protein
is the most important milk component in cheese manufacture, it is
important to recognize protein in the Order 124 pricing plan.
The witness stated that under the current plan, all nonfat solids
components are priced at the same level--a pound of protein is assigned
the same value as a pound of lactose. According to the witness, the
current pricing plan does not give dairy farmers a direct incentive to
increase production of protein compared to the other nonfat solids. He
asserted that the current plan can be inequitable to both producers and
handlers because protein should be assigned a higher value than
lactose.
The witness testified that a producer with milk containing a higher
percentage of nonfat solids as protein is paid less per pound of
protein than one with a lower percentage of nonfat solids that is
protein. The NAJ representative stated that based on the relationship
of protein to solids-not-fat in a particular milk, a cheese maker could
either be overpaying or underpaying for the milk. He contended that a
milk pricing plan that includes a separate payment for the protein
component would be more equitable to both producers and handlers. He
also noted that a MCP plan that includes protein would allow cheese
manufacturers to purchase milk at a price that better reflects its
cheese yield potential.
NAJ's witness stated that the major objective of any milk pricing
plan is to give dairy farmers the economic incentive to produce the
most valuable component in milk, which currently is protein. He
contended that to achieve this objective, the protein value needs to be
as high as can be economically justified while being equitable to both
producers and handlers. The witness asserted that within any MCP plan
that is adopted, the ratio of the protein price to both the butterfat
price and the other solids price must be high enough to encourage dairy
farmers to increase the ratio of protein to butterfat and other solids
in their milk production.
Proposal 4's protein price would be derived from cheese and whey
powder market prices and yield factors. The proponent witness stated
that both protein and butterfat are necessary for making cheese. He
explained that in addition to protein's direct impact on yield, a
higher level of the casein portion of protein allows more butterfat to
be utilized in cheese-making, giving protein a value as a cheese
ingredient beyond its actual contribution to yield.
The NAJ witness contended that evidence exists to support a higher
value for protein than provided for in Proposal 2. He stated that many
cheese manufacturers add nonfat dry milk (NFDM) to producer milk to
standardize or increase the ratio of casein or protein to butterfat; in
doing so, the protein content of the milk used to make cheese is
increased and therefore more of the butterfat contained in producer
milk may be utilized. The witness stated that a higher protein value
would give dairy farmers a greater economic incentive to produce
protein rather than the less important component, ``other solids.''
The NAJ witness explained that Proposal 4's protein price also
includes a value determined from the whey price and a yield factor,
both to recognize the additional value of protein beyond that
calculated from the yield factor and a market cheese price and to
account for all of the milk protein. The witness asserted that the
majority of cheese plants do process their whey.
The proponent witness asserted that the inclusion of whey in the
calculation of the Proposal 4 protein price is consistent with current
market practices. As an example, the witness cited the price of butter
used to determine the price of butterfat in the Federal order system.
He pointed out that the butterfat price, calculated from the price of
butter, is paid by handlers that process or manufacture milk products
other than butter. The NAJ witness stated that handlers who do not
manufacture butter have not objected to paying for butterfat based on
the price of a product they do not make, and argued that this is no
different than the
[[Page 43478]]
price of protein being based on the price of Cheddar cheese and dry
whey solids for handlers that do not manufacture these products.
According to the NAJ witness, the Proposal 4 ``other solids'' price
would be calculated in a manner similar to that in Proposal 2, and the
market average content for other solids would be used. Proposal 4
retains the current weighted average differential price on a
hundredweight basis rather than including the Class I, II, and III-A
differential values in the computation of the producer ``other solids''
price as in Proposal 2. The witness contended that it is important for
producers to see the direct value of participation in the Federal order
pool and the sources of value for each milk component.
The NAJ representative stated that Proposal 4 also uses the same
protein and other solids prices for both producers and handlers, with
any differences in component levels of milk used in Class I versus
Classes II and III to be reconciled in the weighted average
differential value. The witness stated that the need for separate
handler and producer protein and other solids prices and the confusion
resulting from use of more than one price for a single component would
be eliminated.
The NAJ witness said that since there is a direct relationship
between manufacturing product yield and the level of protein and other
solids contained in milk, Class II and III handlers' obligations to the
pool under Proposal 4 would reflect more accurately the economic value
of the milk they use. He stated that a MCP plan that provides equal
manufacturing margins across all milk component levels would be the
most uniform and equitable. He asserted that Proposal 4 comes closest
to meeting this objective by providing more equity among handlers while
providing an incentive to procure and produce higher-protein milk. The
witness contended that adoption of Proposal 4 would direct milk to its
most valuable use.
The proponent witness said Proposal 4 would allow all producers to
receive payment at the same price per pound for each component
contained in their milk production, regardless of concentration. The
witness stated that more equity in payment to producers would be
provided than under either the current system or Proposal 2 and,
consequently, that some redistribution of monies among producers would
occur.
A witness for Tillamook County Creamery Association (Tillamook), a
cooperative which pools and processes one-third of the milk produced in
Oregon, testified in opposition to Proposals 2 and 4. Tillamook's
primary objections and concerns, supported by Portland Independent Milk
Producers Association (PIMPA) in a post-hearing brief filed with
Tillamook's, are that the proposed changes are not economically
justified, the proposals would result in lower pay prices to Pacific
Northwest dairy farmers, and the proposals should not have been heard
given another recent proceeding held in 1992 regarding many of the same
issues.
The Tillamook witness stated that the cooperative has recently had
a less-than-adequate supply of raw milk to meet production needs as a
result of declining milk production within its membership brought on by
severe economic stress in the Oregon coastal dairy industry.
Tillamook's post-hearing brief contended that current supply and demand
conditions in Order 124 cannot support a price reduction and,
consequently, no justification exists for the lower pay prices that may
result if Proposal 2 is adopted.
The Tillamook representative stated that since the implementation
of Class III-A in Federal orders in 1993, Tillamook member incomes have
fallen 64 cents per hundredweight, while feed costs continue to rise.
The witness stated that adoption of Proposal 2 would cause pool blend
prices and producer payout prices to fall another 8 to 9 cents per
hundredweight. He stated opposition toward any proposals that would
further erode producer income.
The Tillamook witness predicted that a reduction in producer pay
prices would result in additional plant profits for manufacturers of
cheese. Given the influence of NFDM manufacture and Class III-A prices
on pool values, however, he expected little if any of that increase in
plant margins to be passed back to producers. The witness stated that
manufacturing plants should look toward production efficiencies and
value-added marketing rather than reduced payments to producers for
their source of income.
The Tillamook witness stated a preference for the current pricing
system. However, he conceded that adding protein as a component in
pricing milk is a sound concept and stated that if a new form of MCP
were adopted, Tillamook would support a system using the composition of
M-W average milk to value all components. The witness argued that using
a national standard to determine the value of components in milk is
more appropriate than having a variety of isolated standards based on
smaller production areas. Additionally, he asserted that using M-W
component tests to calculate the value of each component would be the
best method to assure that all processors are treated fairly and
producers are paid properly for milk which produces greater cheese
yields.
Tillamook's post-hearing brief noted that the 1992 hearing which
initially considered MCP for Order 124 considered specifically the
question of whether to use the M-W average test or the market average
test to compute the SNF price; interested parties ultimately requested,
and USDA adopted in the final decision, the average M-W test for solids
nonfat.
The Tillamook representative agreed with other witnesses that the
best hope for improving producer prices under the current provisions of
Order 124 would be to increase the utilization of Class III relative to
Class III-A. He also agreed that because an economically competitive
price of milk must exist to produce cheese, milk used to produce cheese
in the region should not be priced higher than in other regions of the
Federal order system.
The Oregon-Washington Dairy Processors Association (OWDPA),
representing proprietary processors who operate the majority of pool
distributing plants regulated under Order 124, opposed Proposals 2 and
4 because both would result in lower-than-current milk prices to
producers. A witness for the association asserted that producers
associated with Order 124 have been subjected to excessive price
declines in recent years and oppose any further declines, particularly
those which result from increasing returns to specific sectors of the
processing industry.
The OWDPA witness supported modifications to either Proposal 2 or 4
which would use M-W average component composition in place of market
average composition. He stated that this modification for either
proposal would limit potential producer losses by following the current
MCP plan more closely, and would be consistent with MCP plans in other
markets.
The witness stated OWDPA's opposition to incorporating Class I, II
and III-A price differentials within the calculation of the other
solids price, and supported instead continuing payment of a weighted
average differential price to producers on a hundredweight basis. He
asserted that Proposal 2 is an attempt to use differential funds to
enhance returns on ``other solids'' and would represent an unfair
advantage to producers of higher solids milk who may already be
receiving additional payments to reflect the unique characteristics of
their production for the market. The witness observed that the
production of high-solids producers
[[Page 43479]]
may be the least likely source of milk for those uses which normally
generate class price differentials. The OWDPA witness asserted that it
is inappropriate to penalize producers serving the Class I market by
denying them equal access to funds derived from such sources. He argued
that returning Class I or Class II differentials to producers on a
hundredweight basis is the only equitable method of apportioning pool
proceeds.
Northwest Independent Milk Producers Association (NWI), a
cooperative association regulated under Order 124, supported Proposal
4. The NWI witness expressed the cooperative's support for continued
refinements in MCP programs under Federal orders with the position that
the component values of producer milk should reflect more closely the
market value of products produced by these components. He stated that
since January 1995 the cooperative has paid its members based on the
components and values of the MCP plan recommended in late 1994 for five
Midwest Federal order markets.
The NWI witness stated that Proposal 2 would improve the current
MCP system but would fail to price components used in Class III closely
enough to the Class III value to result in appropriate returns to
producers. The witness asserted that Proposal 4 would reflect more
nearly the components' market value and convey more accurately to
producers the right economic signals for component production and
management decisions.
The NWI representative noted that producer confusion and
misunderstanding has existed regarding the weighted average
differential, which sometimes has been positive and sometimes negative.
However, he maintained that the current order provisions result in a
weighted average differential that appropriately indicates market
prices and class usages, and that this aspect of the current pricing
plan should be continued.
Olympia Cheese Company (Olympia Cheese) was not represented by
testimony during the hearing, but did file a post-hearing brief.
Olympia Cheese's brief contended that more time should be allowed to
assess the current MCP plan and to allow for changes resulting from the
pending Farm Bill. The brief opposed implementing the MCP portion of
Proposal 2. However, should the MCP plan be revised, the brief
supported using the Pacific Northwest market average test instead of
the M-W test to compute component values, and opposed including a whey
protein factor to calculate a protein price in any MCP plan. The brief
contended that whey is more of a disposal problem than a profitable
endeavor and that whole whey operations represent a disposal cost
rather than a contribution to earnings. The brief stated that Olympia
Cheese has invested capital and now makes whey protein concentrate, but
stated that the resulting lactose is a disposal problem that will
require another substantial investment.
This decision recommends the adoption of a pricing plan for milk
based on three components rather than two, and a weighted average
differential, or ``producer price differential'' per hundredweight.
Milk pooled under the Pacific Northwest Federal milk order should be
priced on the basis of its protein, other nonfat solids, and butterfat
components.
The protein price contained in this decision is based on the value
of protein in the manufacture of cheese, as determined by cheese market
prices, and is not a residual of the basic formula price (BFP) minus
butterfat value as is the case in the Southwest Idaho-Eastern Oregon
(Order 135) MCP plan. The butterfat price would be based on the butter
market, as it is in other multiple component pricing systems. ``Other
nonfat solids'' will be priced as a residual of the BFP minus protein
value and butterfat value, divided by a marketwide average ``other
solids'' test. The butterfat, protein, and other nonfat solids prices
would be expressed in dollars per pound carried to the fourth decimal
place. In addition, payments to each producer should reflect the value
of participation in the marketwide pool on a hundredweight basis.
Recognition of both the protein and other solids components under
the Pacific Northwest pricing plan will give producers the proper
signal to concentrate on production of nonfat solids, especially
protein, because it is the solids in milk rather than the water that
give milk its functional and economic value. Additional emphasis on the
importance of the value of protein in cheese manufacture is
appropriate, as this use of producer milk results in greater value to
producers than milk used in nonfat dry milk, and the record indicates
that an increasing percentage of the producer milk in this market will
be used in cheese.
As in other orders for which multiple component pricing has been
adopted, this decision assures that the value of the components of
producer milk used in Class III remains equal to the BFP. Maintaining
the price relationship of Class III use between orders helps to assure
some basic uniformity in the Federal order pricing system nationally.
If the sum of the butterfat and protein component values is greater
than the BFP, a situation which would result in a negative other nonfat
solids price, the protein price will be adjusted such that the other
nonfat solids price will be zero.
Three details of the revised pricing plan on which participating
parties did not generally agree surfaced at the hearing. These were (1)
the computation of an appropriate level of protein price, (2) whether
the ``other solids'' price should be computed by dividing the residual
value by the M-W or the marketwide ``other solids'' test, and (3)
whether the differential values of milk used in Classes I, II and III-A
should continue to be paid to producers as a weighted average
differential or be combined with the value from which the ``other
solids'' price is computed.
Protein is the most important component in cheese-making and
increasing volumes of milk in Order 124 are being used, or are forecast
to be used, in cheese production. A payment for protein should be
directly included in the milk pricing plan in order to give producers
an incentive to increase protein production. Under the current
butterfat and solids-not-fat pricing system, all nonfat solids are
priced at the same level. As a result, producers are not given a direct
incentive to increase protein production over other nonfat solids.
The inclusion of protein in the milk pricing system provides for
greater equity for both handlers and producers. Under the current Order
124 pricing system, a producer who delivers milk containing a higher
percentage of nonfat solids as protein receives a lower price per pound
of protein than one with a lower percentage of nonfat solids that is
protein. In this situation, some cheese-makers could be overpaying, and
some underpaying, for milk, resulting in unequal milk protein costs to
handlers. The three-component milk pricing plan provides a system in
which manufacturing handlers are obligated to pay the same price per
pound for each of the components in milk. At the same time, all
producers would receive the same price per pound for each component
contained in their milk.
Protein price. The protein price for milk pooled under the Pacific
Northwest Federal milk order should be calculated by multiplying the
monthly average of 40-pound block cheese prices on the Green Bay Cheese
Exchange by 1.32, without including a value for whey protein. This
price calculation, included in Proposal 2, would result in a lower
protein price than that in
[[Page 43480]]
Proposal 4. The 1.32 yield factor is obtained from the modified Van
Slyke and Price cheese yield formula. Based on milk containing 3.2
percent protein, the formula predicts that for each pound of protein
used for Cheddar Cheese-making, 75 percent of that pound of protein
yields 1.32 pounds of cheese (with the remaining 25 percent ending up
in whey).
The record indicates that both protein and butterfat are necessary
for cheese-making. Protein has value beyond its actual contribution to
cheese yield because it determines the amount of the butterfat in milk
that will be used in cheese by forming the matrix that causes the
butterfat to remain with the cheese. The Van Slyke formula indicates
that with a favorable ratio of protein to butterfat, 90 percent of each
pound of butterfat used for Cheddar cheese-making remains in the
cheese.
The total value of producer milk at market average component levels
is basically the same under both Proposals 2 and 4; the difference is
the percentage of the skim milk value allocated to protein and to other
solids. When a value for whey is specifically included in the protein
price calculation, as under Proposal 4 in which the value of protein in
whey powder is included to account for all the milk protein beyond the
portion contained in cheese, a higher protein price and lower other
solids price result.
Proposal 4 provides a higher protein price than Proposal 2, but
results in a protein price lower than that under Order 135. Comparing
the period May 1994 through May 1995, the average protein prices per
pound under Proposals 2 and 4, and under Order 135 would have been
$1.6547, $2.0205, and $2.87, respectively.
The hearing record provides little basis for incorporating a whey
powder price factor in the computation of the protein price. The record
indicates that for one Order 124 handler the cost of whey production
amounts to between 80 and 120 percent of the sales value. Although the
protein in whey does have value, the cost of recovery is so great that
it frequently has little, or a negative, value to handlers. In
addition, certainly much less than 100 percent of the protein that is
not incorporated in cheese is captured in whey products. The record
also indicates that the capability of making a whey product, which is
not available to every cheese-maker, leads to another disposal
problem--that of lactose.
The NAJ argument that an appropriate protein component price would,
like the price of butterfat based on a butter market price, reflect all
of the value of the component's use in one product overlooks the fact
that the price of butterfat, based on its value in butter, prices that
component at probably its lowest use value, and likely underprices it
in other products. Pricing protein according to its value in cheese
appears to be appropriate, but enhancing that price by the value of a
product that the handler may not make (whey) would overstate the value
of protein in cheese. In addition, Federal order pricing is intended to
reflect minimum values rather than maximum values. Handlers who believe
that they obtain more value from protein than they are required to pay
for under the order may gain a competitive advantage in procuring
supplies of high-protein producer milk by paying more than the minimum
order price for protein.
The difference in protein prices under Orders 124 and 135 should
result in few, if any, disorderly conditions between the two marketing
areas. On average, the amount by which the Order 135 protein price
exceeds that in Order 124 will be compensated for by the additional
``other solids'' payment component under Order 124. Very few producers'
milk should contain protein and ``other solids'' that vary so greatly
from average milk that they would find it advantageous to overcome the
various institutional factors that would make it difficult to switch
between the two markets. If some degree of such ``switching'' should
occur, it is even more unlikely that the balance between protein and
``other solids'' in individual producers' milk would be variable enough
to make a change in markets more than a one-time occurrence.
Computation of ``other solids'' price. The price for ``other
solids'' should be computed by dividing the remaining value of the BFP,
after the butterfat and protein values have been deducted, by the
Pacific Northwest ``other solids'' content. If the resulting other
solids price is less than zero, the protein price would be reduced so
that the ``other solids'' price would equal zero.
Record evidence indicates that the current pricing plan in the
Pacific Northwest order does not value the composition of average milk
correctly, and will continue to overvalue the ``other solids''
component if either Proposal 2 or 4 is adopted using the average nonfat
solids test of M-W milk. The record indicates that while protein levels
are comparable across regions or orders, the nonfat solids tests
reported in the Pacific Northwest are consistently higher than those
reported for M-W milk. The conclusion could be drawn that milk produced
in the Pacific Northwest therefore should carry a higher value.
However, because most plants within the M-W survey purchase milk for
processing cheese, fewer plants within the survey report SNF than
protein. Both the M-W survey price and the MCP system in the five north
central markets reflect the fact that the M-W average test is used in
markets that have a higher percentage of milk used to produce cheese.
Since the implementation of the Pacific Northwest MCP plan in May
1994, Grade B milk in the M-W region has tested lower for SNF by 0.14
pounds per hundredweight than has Grade A milk in the Pacific
Northwest, resulting in a price difference between the two regions of
.016 cents per pound of SNF. For a seven-month period during 1992,
Darigold's SNF tests ranged from .04 to .19 higher than the M-W SNF
tests. Thus, a discrepancy exists between the average SNF test
stipulated in the order (the M-W test) and the average SNF test within
the region. As a result, plants located in the Pacific Northwest pay
more per hundredweight for milk used in manufactured products than do
plants located in the M-W region. Additionally, Order 124's price per
pound of SNF averages about 1 to 1.5 cents higher than California,
placing class prices for milk used in manufactured products under Order
124 higher than both California and the Midwest. If the 5-market MCP
decision were incorporated in the Pacific Northwest order, the cost of
milk used in manufacturing would be higher under Order 124 than in
either California or the Midwest. In such a case, it is appropriate to
use market composition of milk for a region so distant from the upper
Midwest.
Although use of the market, rather than the M-W, average of ``other
solids'' to compute the ``other solids'' price will have the effect of
reducing producer returns by approximately 10 cents per hundredweight,
increased profitability of cheese manufacture should offset that effect
by reducing the use of milk in Class III-A. If, as expected, increasing
volumes of milk are used in cheese, rather than in (lower-value) nonfat
dry milk, producer prices should increase accordingly.
Producer price differential. Although inclusion of the differential
values of producer milk used in classes other than Class III was
proposed to be part of the ``other solids'' price calculation, the
weighted average differential should be calculated as it is currently.
Some confusion between orders may be avoided by referring to it
hereafter as the ``producer price differential,'' as it is in the 5
north central milk orders.
[[Page 43481]]
Apparently, one of the reasons for proposing that the differential
pool values be incorporated in computation of the other solids price is
to avoid producer confusion when the differential value is negative.
The record shows that a negative differential existed for about 6 of
the first 12 months under the current MCP system. While the negative
value may be a difficult concept for producers to understand or
accept--it indicates that participation in the marketwide pool has a
negative value to them--there is value in making producers aware of
this aspect of the Pacific Northwest pool.
Another of the reasons given for wanting to eliminate this
remaining per hundredweight basis of paying producers for milk was to
discourage producers from continuing to produce for volume, rather than
solids, to enhance returns. It is difficult to describe the producer
price differential as ``enhancing'' the hundredweight value of milk
when it is sometimes negative. Inclusion of class price differentials
in the ``other solids'' price would not necessarily enhance that price,
but rather would add to it a random plus or minus factor of varying
magnitude.
It is appropriate to continue a component of producer payments that
represents the differential value of participating in the marketwide
pool. Such a payment factor indicates market prices and the relative
value of class usages.
Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions
Briefs and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf
of certain interested parties. These briefs, proposed findings and
conclusions, and the evidence in the record were considered in making
the findings and conclusions set forth above. To the extent that the
suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested parties are
inconsistent with the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
requests to make such findings or reach such conclusions are denied for
the reasons previously stated in this decision.
General Findings
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-
Eastern Oregon orders were first issued and when they were 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; and
(d) All milk and milk products handled by handlers, as defined in
the tentative marketing agreement and the order as hereby proposed to
be amended, are in the current of interstate commerce or directly
burden, obstruct, or affect interstate commerce in milk or its
products.
Recommended Marketing Agreements and Order Amending the Orders
The recommended marketing agreement is not included in this
decision because the regulatory provisions thereof would be the same as
those contained in the orders, as hereby proposed to be amended. The
following order amending the orders, as amended, regulating the
handling of milk in the Pacific Northwest marketing area is recommended
as the detailed and appropriate means by which the foregoing
conclusions may be carried out.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1124
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble 7 CFR Part 1124 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1124--MILK IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1124 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In Sec. 1124.2, the list of Washington counties is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1124.2 Pacific Northwest marketing area.
* * * * *
Washington counties:
Adams, Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Columbia, Cowlitz,
Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Grays Harbor, Island,
Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason,
Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania,
Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom,
Whitman and Yakima.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 1124.30, paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.30 Reports of receipts and utilization.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Milk received directly from producers (including such handler's
own production), and the pounds of protein and pounds of solids-not-fat
other than protein (other solids) contained therein;
(ii) Milk received from a cooperative association pursuant to
Sec. 1124.9(c), and the pounds of protein and pounds of solids-not-fat
other than protein (other solids) contained therein;
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The pounds of skim milk, butterfat, protein and solids-not-fat
other than protein (other solids) received from producers;
(2) The utilization of skim milk, butterfat, protein and solids-
not-fat other than protein (other solids) for which it is the handler
pursuant to Sec. 1124.9(b); and
(3) The quantities of skim milk, butterfat, protein and solids-not-
fat other than protein (other solids) delivered to each pool plant
pursuant to Sec. 1124.9(c).
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 1124.31, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1124.31 Payroll reports.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) The total pounds of milk received from each producer, the
pounds of butterfat, protein and solids-not-fat other than protein
(solids nonfat) contained in such milk, and the number of days on which
milk was delivered by the producer during the month;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The total pounds of milk received from each producer and the
pounds of
[[Page 43482]]
butterfat, protein and solids-not-fat other than protein (solids
nonfat) contained in such milk;
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 1124.50, paragraphs (f) introductory text and (g), are
revised, and a new paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.50 Class and component prices.
* * * * *
(f) The butterfat price per pound, rounded to the nearest one-
hundredth cent, shall be the total of:
* * * * *
(g) The protein price per pound, rounded to the nearest one-
hundredth cent, shall be 1.32 times the average monthly price per pound
for 40-pound block Cheddar cheese on the National Cheese Exchange as
reported by the Department.
(h) The other solids price per pound, rounded to the nearest one-
hundredth cent, shall be the basic formula price at test less the
average butterfat test of the basic formula price as reported by the
Department times the butterfat price, less the average protein test of
the basic formula price as reported by the Department for the month
times the protein price, and dividing the resulting amount by the
average other solids test of producer milk pooled under Part 1124 for
the month, as determined by the Market Administrator. If the resulting
price is less than zero, then the protein price will be reduced so that
the other solids price equals zero.
6. Section 1124.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.53 Announcement of class and component prices.
On or before the 5th day of each month, the market administrator
shall announce publicly the following prices:
(a) The Class I price for the following month;
(b) The Class II price for the following month;
(c) The Class III price for the preceding month;
(d) The Class III-A price for the preceding month;
(e) The skim milk price for the preceding month;
(f) The butterfat price for the preceding month;
(g) The protein price for the preceding month;
(h) The other solids price for the preceding month; and
(i) The butterfat differential for the preceding month.
7. Section 1124.60 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (f)
through (m) as paragraphs (g) through (n); revising paragraph (e),
newly designated paragraphs (g) introductory text, (g)(3), (h)(3), and
(h)(6), the section heading and the undesignated center heading
preceding it; removing the phrase ``assigned to shrinkage'' in
paragraph (h) and adding in its place the phrase ``assigned to
inventory''; and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Producer Price Differential
Sec. 1124.60 Handler's value of milk.
* * * * *
(e) Multiply the protein price for the month by the pounds of
protein associated with the pounds of producer skim milk in Class II
and Class III during the month. The pounds of protein shall be computed
by multiplying the producer skim milk pounds so assigned by the
percentage of protein in the handler's receipts of producer skim milk
during the month for each report filed separately;
(f) Multiply the other solids price for the month by the pounds of
other solids associated with the pounds of producer skim milk in Class
II and Class III during the month. The pounds of other solids shall be
computed by multiplying the producer skim milk pounds so assigned by
the percentage of other solids in the handler's receipts of producer
skim milk during the month for each report filed separately;
(g) With respect to skim milk and butterfat overages assigned
pursuant to Sec. 1124.44(a)(15), (b) and paragraph (g)(6) of this
section:
* * * * *
(3) Multiply the pounds of protein and other solids associated with
the skim milk pounds assigned to Class II and III by the protein and
other solids prices, respectively;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Multiply the pounds of protein and other solids associated with
the skim milk pounds assigned to Class II and III by the protein and
other solids prices, respectively;
* * * * *
(6) Subtract the Class III value of the milk at the previous
month's protein, other milk solids, and butterfat prices;
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 1124.61, the section heading, introductory text, and
paragraphs (a), (d) and (e) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.61 Producer price differential.
A producer price differential per hundredweight of milk for each
month shall be computed by the market administrator as follows:
(a) Combine into one total for all handlers:
(1) The values computed pursuant to Sec. 1124.60(a) through (c) and
(g) through (n) for all handlers who filed the reports prescribed by
Sec. 1124.30 for the month and who made the payments pursuant to
Sec. 1124.71 for the preceding month; and
(2) Add the values computed pursuant to Sec. 1124.60(d), (e) and
(f); and subtract the values obtained by multiplying the handlers'
total pounds of protein and total pounds of other solids contained in
such milk by their respective prices;
* * * * *
(d) Divide the resulting amount by the sum, for all handlers, of
the total hundredweight of producer milk and the total hundredweight
for which a value is computed pursuant to Sec. 1124.60(k); and
(e) Subtract not less than 4 cents per hundredweight nor more than
5 cents per hundredweight. The result shall be the producer price
differential.
9. Section 1124.62 is removed, and Sec. 1124.63 is redesignated as
Sec. 1124.62 and revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.62 Announcement of the producer price differential and a
statistical uniform price.
On or before the 14th day after the end of each month, the market
administrator shall announce the following prices and information:
(a) The producer price differential;
(b) The protein price;
(c) The other solids price;
(d) The butterfat price;
(e) The average protein and other solids content of producer milk;
and
(f) The statistical uniform price for milk containing 3.5 percent
butterfat, computed by combining the Class III price and the producer
price differential.
10. In Sec. 1124.71 paragraph (b)(1), the phrase
``Sec. 1124.73(a)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii);'' is removed and the phrase
``Sec. 1124.73(a)(2)(ii) through (iv);'' is added in its place, and
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.71 Payments to the producer-settlement fund.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) The total handler's value of milk for such month as determined
pursuant to Sec. 1124.60; and
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The value at the producer price differential adjusted for the
location of the plant(s) from which received (not to be less than zero)
with respect to the total hundredweight of skim milk and butterfat in
other source milk for which
[[Page 43483]]
a value was computed or such handler pursuant to Sec. 1124.60(k).
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 1124.73, paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) are amended by
removing the phrase ``paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section'' and adding in its place the phrase ``paragraph (a)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section''; paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (vi), (c)
introductory text, (c)(1), and (f)(2) are revised; and a new paragraph
(a)(2)(vii) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1124.73 Payments to producers and to cooperative associations.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Add the amount that results from multiplying the protein price
for the month by the total pounds of protein in the milk received from
the producer;
(iii) Add the amount that results from multiplying the other solids
price for the month by the total pounds of other solids in the milk
received from the producer;
(iv) Add the amount that results from multiplying the total
hundredweight of milk received from the producer by the producer price
differential for the month as adjusted pursuant to Sec. 1124.74(a);
(v) Subtract payments made to the producer pursuant to paragraph
(a)(1) of this section;
(vi) Subtract proper deductions authorized in writing by the
producer; and
(vii) Subtract any deduction required pursuant to Sec. 1124.86 or
by statute; and
* * * * *
(c) Each handler shall pay to each cooperative association which
operates a pool plant, or to the cooperative's duly authorized agent,
for butterfat, protein and other solids received from such plant in the
form of fluid milk products as follows:
(1) On or before the second day prior to the date specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for butterfat, protein, and other
milk solids received during the first 15 days of the month at not less
than the butterfat, protein, and other milk solids prices,
respectively, for the preceding month; and
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) The total pounds of milk delivered by the producer, the pounds
of butterfat, protein and other solids contained therein, and, unless
previously provided, the pounds of milk in each delivery;
* * * * *
Sec. 1124.74 [Amended]
12. In Sec. 1124.74 paragraph (c), the phrase ``weighted average
differential price'' is removed and the phrase ``producer price
differential'' is added in its place everywhere it appears.
Sec. 1124.75 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 1124.75, the second sentence of paragraph (a)(1)(i) is
amended by adding the phrase ``or statistical uniform price'' after the
words ``estimated uniform price'' and the phrase ``estimated uniform
price'' in the first sentence of paragraph (b)(4) is removed and the
phrase ``statistical uniform price'' is added in its place.
Sec. 1124.85 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 1124.85 paragraph (b), the phrase ``Sec. 1124.60 (h)
and (j)'' is removed and the phrase ``Sec. 1124.60 (i) and (k)'' is
added in its place.
Dated: August 19, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21491 Filed 8-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
