[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61199-61201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29317]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61199]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1126 and 1137
[DA-99-08 and DA-99-07]
Milk in the Texas and Eastern Colorado Marketing Areas;
Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final Rule; Suspension of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document suspends certain provisions of the Texas and
Eastern Colorado Federal milk marketing orders (Orders 126 and 137)
from the day after publication in the Federal Register until
implementation of Federal order reform.
The suspensions have been in effect for both orders for some time,
and were expected to become unnecessary under the provisions of the
final rule establishing the consolidated Southwest and Central orders
under Federal Milk Order Reform.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 11, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-9368, e-mail address: clifford.carman@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Proposed Suspension (Texas): Issued September 15, 1999;
published September 21, 1999 (64 FR 51083).
Notice of Proposed Suspension (Eastern Colorado): Issued September 13,
1999; published September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50777).
The Department is issuing this final rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request
modification or exemption from such order by filing 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. 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
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. 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. For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are
``small businesses,'' the $500,000 per year criterion was used to
establish a production guideline of 326,000 pounds per month. Although
this guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be
received by dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for
most ``small'' dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's
size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple
plants that collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will
be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than
500 employees.
For the month of May 1999, the milk of 1,314 producers was pooled
on the Texas Federal milk order. Of these producers, 812 producers were
below the 326,000-pound production guideline and are considered small
businesses. During May, there were 12 handlers operating 21 pool plants
under the Texas order. Four of these handlers would be considered small
businesses.
For the month of June 1999, the milk of 203 producers was pooled on
the Eastern Colorado milk order. Of these producers, 105 were below the
326,000-pound production guideline and are considered small businesses.
For June 1999, there were eight handlers operating pool plants under
the Eastern Colorado milk order. Of these handlers, five are considered
small businesses.
This rule suspends portions of the pool plant and producer milk
definitions under the Texas order. The suspension lessens the
regulatory impact of the order on certain milk handlers and tends to
assure that dairy farmers will have their milk priced under the order
and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such pricing.
In addition, this rule suspends portions of the producer definition
under the Eastern Colorado order, making it easier for a cooperative
association to qualify milk for pooling under the order. The suspension
lessens the regulatory impact of the order on certain milk handlers and
would tend to ensure that dairy farmers have their milk priced under
the order and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such
pricing.
This order of suspension is issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and of the orders regulating
the handling of milk in the Texas and Eastern Colorado marketing area.
Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register
on September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50777) concerning a proposed suspension of
certain provisions of the Eastern Colorado order, and on September 21,
1999 (64 FR 51083) concerning a proposed suspension of certain
provisions of the Texas order. Interested persons were afforded
opportunity to file written data, views and arguments
[[Page 61200]]
thereon. No comments on either proposed suspension were received.
After consideration of all relevant material, including the
proposals in the notices and other available information, it is hereby
found and determined that from the day after publication of this rule
in the Federal Register until implementation of Federal order reform,
the following provisions of the Texas and Eastern Colorado orders do
not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act:
1. In Sec. 1126.7(d) introductory text, the words ``during the
months of February through July'' and the words ``under paragraph (b)
or (c) of this section''.
2. In Sec. 1126.7(e) introductory text, the words ``and 60 percent
or more of the producer milk of members of the cooperative association
(excluding such milk that is received at or diverted from pool plants
described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section) is
physically received during the month in the form of a bulk fluid milk
product at pool plants described in paragraph (a) of this section
either directly from farms or by transfer from plants of the
cooperative association for which pool plant status under this
paragraph has been requested''.
3. In Sec. 1126.13(e)(1), the words ``and further, during each of
the months of September through January not less than 15 percent of the
milk of such dairy farmer is physically received as producer milk at a
pool plant''.
4. In Sec. 1126.13, paragraph (e)(2).
5. In Sec. 1126.13(e)(3), the sentence ``The total quantity of milk
so diverted during the month shall not exceed one-third of the producer
milk physically received at such pool plant during the month that is
eligible to be diverted by the plant operator;''
6. In Sec. 1137.12(a)(2), the words ``from whom at least three
deliveries of milk are received during the month at a distributing pool
plant''; and in the second sentence ``30 percent in the months of
March, April, May, June, July, and December and 20 percent in other
months of'', and the word ``distributing''.
Statement of Consideration
Suspension of the provisions for an indefinite period (until
implementation of Federal order reform) is necessary because
implementation of the 11 consolidated orders under Federal order reform
has been delayed by judicial action. The Final Rule containing the 11
consolidated orders was issued August 23, 1999, and published September
1, 1999 (64 FR 47898). A Delay of Effective Date rule was issued
September 30, 1999, and published October 5, 1999 (64 FR 53885).
For the Texas order, this rule reinstates a suspension that expired
July 31, 1999, of portions of the pool plant and producer milk
definitions under the Texas order. The rule will be in effect from the
day after publication of the suspension in the Federal Register until
the implementation of Federal order reform is completed. The action
suspends: (1) The 60 percent delivery standard for pool plants operated
by cooperatives; (2) the diversion limitation applicable to cooperative
associations; (3) the limits on the amount of milk that a pool plant
operator may divert to nonpool plants; (4) the shipping standards that
must be met by supply plants to be pooled under the order; and (5) the
individual producer performance standards that must be met in order for
a producer's milk to be eligible for diversion to a nonpool plant.
The order provides for regulating, as a supply plant, a plant that
each month ships a sufficient percentage of its receipts to
distributing plants. The order sets the shipping standard at 15 percent
of the plant's milk receipts during August and December and 50 percent
of the plant's receipts during September through November and January.
In addition, the order provides that a plant that is pooled as a supply
plant during each of the immediately preceding months of September
through January may be pooled under the order during the following
months of February through July without making qualifying shipments to
distributing plants. The requested action would suspend these
performance standards, but only for supply plants that were regulated
under the Texas order during each of the immediately preceding months
of September through January.
The order also permits a cooperative association plant located in
the marketing area to be a pool plant if at least 60 percent of the
producer milk of members of the cooperative association is physically
received at pool distributing plants during the month. In addition, a
cooperative association may divert to nonpool plants up to one-third of
the amount of milk that the cooperative causes to be physically
received during the month at handlers' pool plants, and the operator of
a pool plant may divert to nonpool plants not more than one-third of
the milk that is physically received during the month at the handler's
pool plant. This action suspends the 60 percent delivery standard for
plants operated by a cooperative association and removes the diversion
limitations applicable to a cooperative association and to the operator
of a pool plant.
The order also specifies that some milk of each producer must be
physically received at a pool plant in order for any of the producer's
milk to be eligible for diversion to a nonpool plant. During the months
of September through January, 15 percent of a producer's milk must be
received at a pool plant for the remainder to be eligible for
diversion. This rule suspends these requirements.
The reinstatement of the suspension was requested by DFA, a
cooperative association that represents a substantial number of dairy
farmers who supply the Texas market. The cooperative stated that
marketing conditions have not changed materially since the provisions
were initially suspended, prior to 1990, and therefore should be
suspended until restructuring of the Federal order program is
implemented as mandated in the 1996 Farm Bill.
The cooperative stated that the reinstatement of the suspension is
necessary to assure that dairy farmers who have historically supplied
the Texas market will have their milk priced under the Texas order. In
addition, DFA maintains that the suspension will provide handlers the
flexibility needed to move milk supplies in the most efficient manner
and to eliminate costly and inefficient movements of milk that would be
made solely for the purpose of pooling the milk of dairy farmers who
have historically supplied the market. No comments opposing the
suspension were received.
Implementation of the consolidated Southwest order, which contains
provisions that would accommodate the market's current conditions, was
to have taken place on October 1, 1999. Implementation of that final
rule has been delayed by judicial action, and continued suspension of
the Order 126 provision is necessary to prevent uneconomical and
inefficient movements of milk and to ensure that producers historically
associated with the markets will continue to have their milk pooled
under the order.
Accordingly, the suspension is found to be necessary for the
purpose of assuring that producers' milk will not have to be moved in
an uneconomic and inefficient manner to assure that producers whose
milk has long been associated with the Texas marketing area will
continue to benefit from pooling and pricing under the order.
For the Eastern Colorado order, this rule suspends a portion of the
producer definition to enable a cooperative association to more easily
qualify milk
[[Page 61201]]
for pooling under the order until implementation of Federal Order
Reform. The language suspended requires the milk of cooperative
association members to ``touch base'' at pool distributing plants at
least 3 times per month to be eligible for diversion. In addition,
language limiting the quantity of milk diverted to nonpool plants by
cooperative associations to 30 percent in the months of March through
July and December, and to 20 percent in other months of the quantity
received at pool distributing plants is suspended so that the effective
limit on diversions becomes 50 percent of the total milk pooled by
cooperatives.
Continuation of the Eastern Colorado suspension that expired on
August 31, 1999, was requested by DFA, a cooperative association which
represents nearly all of the dairy farmers who supply the Eastern
Colorado market. DFA contended that milk from some producers is
required every day of the month in order to meet market demands, while
milk from some other producers is required most days of the month and
milk from a few producers is required only a few days each month to
meet market demands. DFA asserted that with the suspension in place the
market can be served in the most efficient manner possible because milk
required by the market only a few days each month can maintain
association with the market without being required to be delivered to
pool distributing plants each month. DFA projected that, without the
suspension, inefficient and costly movements of milk would have to be
made to maintain the pool status of producers who historically have
supplied the market. No comments opposing the suspension were received.
Implementation of the consolidated Central order, which contains
provisions that would accommodate the market's current conditions, was
to have taken place on October 1, 1999. Implementation of that final
rule has been delayed by judicial action, and continued suspension of
the Order 137 provision is necessary to prevent uneconomical and
inefficient movements of milk and to ensure that producers historically
associated with the markets will continue to have their milk pooled
under the order.
Accordingly, the suspension is found to be necessary for the
purpose of assuring that producers' milk will not have to be moved in
an uneconomic and inefficient manner to assure that producers whose
milk has long been associated with the Eastern Colorado marketing area
will continue to benefit from pooling and pricing under the order.
It is hereby found and determined that thirty days' notice of the
effective date hereof is impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest in that:
(a) The suspension is necessary to reflect current marketing
conditions and to assure orderly marketing conditions in the marketing
areas, in that such rule is necessary to permit the continued pooling
of the milk of dairy farmers who have historically supplied the markets
without the need for making costly and inefficient movements of milk;
(b) This suspension does not require of persons affected
substantial or extensive preparation prior to the effective date; and
(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking was given interested parties and
they were afforded opportunity to file written data, views or arguments
concerning this suspension. No comments were received.
Therefore, good cause exists for making this order effective less
than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1126 and 1137
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Parts 1126 and
1137 are amended as follows for the period from the day after
publication of this rule in the Federal Register until implementation
of Federal order reform.
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1126 and 1137 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 1126--MILK IN THE TEXAS MARKETING AREA
Sec. 1126.7 [Suspended in part]
2. In Sec. 1126.7(d) introductory text, the words ``during the
months of February through July'' and the words ``under paragraph (b)
or (c) of this section'' are suspended.
3. In Sec. 1126.7(e) introductory text, the words ``and 60 percent
or more of the producer milk of members of the cooperative association
(excluding such milk that is received at or diverted from pool plants
described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section) is
physically received during the month in the form of a bulk fluid milk
product at pool plants described in paragraph (a) of this section
either directly from farms or by transfer from plants of the
cooperative association for which pool plant status under this
paragraph has been requested'' are suspended.
Sec. 1126.13 [Suspended in part]
4. In Sec. 1126.13(e)(1), the words ``and further, during each of
the months of September through January not less than 15 percent of the
milk of such dairy farmer is physically received as producer milk at a
pool plant'' are suspended.
5. In Sec. 1126.13, paragraph (e)(2) is suspended in its entirety.
6. In Sec. 1126.13(e)(3), the sentence ``The total quantity of milk
so diverted during the month shall not exceed one-third of the producer
milk physically received at such pool plant during the month that is
eligible to be diverted by the plant operator;'' is suspended.
PART 1137--MILK IN THE EASTERN COLORADO MARKETING AREA
Sec. 1137.12 [Suspended in part]
7. In Sec. 1137.12(a)(1), the words ``from whom at least three
deliveries of milk are received during the month at a distributing pool
plant''; and in the second sentence ``30 percent in the months of
March, April, May, June, July, and December and 20 percent in other
months of'', and the word ``distributing'' are suspended.
Dated: November 3, 1999.
F.Tracy Schonrock,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-29317 Filed 11-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
