Milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas Marketing Area; Interim Order Amending the Order, 9846-9848 [05-3883]

Download as PDF 9846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations handler and to report that assessed weight to the Committee on the Receipts/Assessment Form. The term ‘‘assessed weight’’ is defined in § 983.6 of the pistachio order. Assessment Obligations The computation of assessed weight involves requirements specified in §§ 983.39(b)(4) and (5). A final order published on July 26, 2004, (69 FR 44460), delayed the implementation date of those sections until February 1, 2005. A final order published on January 5, 2005, (70 FR 661), further delayed the implementation date for § 983.39(b)(4) and (5), of the order until August 12, 2005. Therefore, for the 2004–05 fiscal period, each handler who receives pistachios for processing will be required to furnish the Receipts/ Assessment Report to the Committee and pay all due assessments to the Committee by March 15, 2005. For subsequent fiscal periods, each handler who receives pistachios for processing will be required to furnish the Receipts/ Assessment Report and pay all due assessments to the Committee by December 15 of the applicable fiscal period. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee’s meeting was widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 17, 2004, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), AMS submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a revision to approved information collection OMB No. 0581–0215, ‘‘Pistachios Grown in California.’’ This information collection has been approved by OMB. This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pistachio handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. VerDate jul<14>2003 14:21 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 205001 USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2004 (69 FR 71749). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all pistachio handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period ending February 8, 2005, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. One opposing comment was received. The commenter considered a continuing assessment rate for the Committee to be an outdated method for agricultural marketing. However, the establishment of the assessment rate is consistent with the marketing order and the Act under which the marketing order is implemented. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/ fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The fiscal year began September 1, 2004, and the assessment rate applies to all pistachios received during the 2004–05 and subsequent seasons; (2) handlers received the 2004–05 crop pistachios by October 2004; and (3) handlers are required to complete and submit the ACP–1 to the Committee by March 15, 2005. Further, handlers are aware of this rule which was unanimously recommended at a public meeting. Also a 60-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule. This rule will impose some additional reporting and recordkeeping on both small and large pistachio handlers. This action will require one new Committee form. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983 Pistachios, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is amended as follows: I PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 983 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 2. In Part 983, a new Subpart— Assessment Rate and § 983.253 are added to read as follows: I Subpart—Assessment Rate § 983.253 Assessment rate. (a) On and after September 1, 2004, a continuing assessment rate of $0.0014 per pound of assessed weight pistachios is established for California Pistachios. The assessment obligation of each handler shall be computed by applying the assessment rate to the assessed weight computed pursuant to § 983.6. (b) For the 2004–05 fiscal period each handler who receives pistachios for processing shall furnish the Receipts/ Assessment Report to the Committee and pay all due assessments to the Committee by March 15, 2005. For subsequent fiscal periods, each handler who receives pistachios for processing shall furnish the Receipts/Assessment Report and pay all due assessments to the Committee by December 15 of the applicable fiscal period. Dated: February 24, 2005. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 05–3928 Filed 2–24–05; 1:33 pm] BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1131 [Docket No. AO–271–837; DA–03–04–A] Milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas Marketing Area; Interim Order Amending the Order Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim final rule. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM 01MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations SUMMARY: This order amends the Producer milk provision of the ArizonaLas Vegas milk marketing order to eliminate the ability to simultaneously pool the same milk on the order and on a State-operated order that provides for marketwide pooling. More than the required number of producers on the Arizona-Las Vegas order have approved the issuance of the interim order as amended. DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Rower, Marketing Specialist, Stop-0231, Room 2971, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 720– 2357, e-mail address jack.rower@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative rule 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. This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with the rule. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Department 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 Department 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 Department’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 and Paperwork Reduction Act 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 14:21 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 205001 action on small entities and has certified that this interim 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 $750,000, 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 $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a marketing guideline of 500,000 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 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. During September 2003, the month during which the hearing began, there were 106 dairy producers pooled on, and 22 handlers regulated by, the Arizona-Las Vegas order. Approximately 18 producers, or 17 percent, were small businesses based on the above criteria. On the handler side, 7, or 32 percent were ‘‘small business’’. The adoption of the proposed pooling standard serves to revise established criteria that determine the producer milk that has a reasonable association with—and consistently serves the fluid needs of—the Arizona-Las Vegas milk marketing area and is not associated with other marketwide pools concerning the same milk. Criteria for pooling are established on the basis of performance levels that are considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs and by doing so determine those that are eligible to share in the revenue that arises from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are established without regard to the size of any dairy industry organization or entity. The established criteria are applied in an identical fashion to both large and small businesses and do not have any different economic impact on small entities as opposed to large entities. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not have a significant economic PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 9847 impact on a substantial number of small entities. A review of reporting requirements was completed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was determined that the amendment would have no impact on reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements because they would remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms are proposed and no additional reporting requirements would be necessary. No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a result of overlapping Federal rules. The rulemaking proceeding does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules. Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing: Issued July 31, 2003; published August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46505). Correction to Notice of Hearing: Issued August 20, 2003; published August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51202) Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued October 27, 2003; published October 31, 2003 (68 FR 62027). Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued December 18, 2003; published December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74874). Tentative Final Decision: Issued December 23, 2004; published December 30, 2004 (69 FR 250). Findings and Determinations The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the Arizona-Las Vegas 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. The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Arizona-Las Vegas order: (a) Findings upon the basis of the hearing record. 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 governing the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900), 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 Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area. Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof it is found that: (1) The Arizona-Las Vegas order, as hereby amended on an interim basis, and all of the terms and conditions E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM 01MRR1 9848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 marketing area, and the minimum prices specified in the order, as hereby amended on an interim basis, 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 Arizona-Las Vegas order, as hereby amended on an interim basis, regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is 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. (b) Additional Findings. It is necessary and in the public interest to make these interim amendments to the Arizona-Las Vegas order effective April 1, 2005. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The interim amendments to this order are known to handlers. The final decision containing the proposed amendments to this order was issued on December 23, 2004. The changes that result from these interim amendments will not require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making these interim order amendments effective on April 1, 2005. It would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of these amendments for 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register. (Sec. 553(d), Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551–559.) (c) Determinations. It is hereby determined that: (1) The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative associations specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of more than 50 percent of the milk, which is marketed within the specified marketing area, to sign a proposed marketing agreement, tends to prevent the effectuation of the declared policy of the Act; (2) The issuance of this interim order amending the Arizona-Las Vegas order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers as defined in the order as hereby amended; (3) The issuance of the interim order amending the Arizona-Las Vegas order VerDate jul<14>2003 14:21 Feb 28, 2005 Jkt 205001 is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the production of milk for sale in the marketing area. which applies to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4, A300–600, and A310 series airplanes. That AD currently requires identification of the part number and serial number of the parking brake List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131 operated valve (PBOV); and, if Milk marketing orders. necessary, inspections of the PBOV, including a functional check of the Order Relative to Handling PBOV, and follow-on and corrective I It is therefore ordered, that on and after actions. That AD also provides for the effective date hereof, the handling of optional terminating action for the milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing requirements of that AD. This new AD requires modification of all affected area shall be in conformity to and in PBOVs, or replacement with new, noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the order, as amended, and affected PBOVs, which would terminate as hereby further amended on an interim the requirements of the existing AD. This AD is prompted by a decision by basis, as follows: the FAA and a civil airworthiness I The authority citation for 7 CFR part authority to require modification or 1131 continues to read as follows: replacement of all affected PBOVs. We Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674, and 7253. are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the yellow hydraulic system, which PART 1131—MILK IN THE ARIZONAprovides all the hydraulics for certain LAS VEGAS MARKETING AREA spoilers; elements of the hydraulics for I 1. Section 1131.13 is amended by flaps, stabilizer, pitch and yaw feel adding a new paragraph (e) to read as systems, pitch and yaw autopilot, and follows: yaw damper; and elevator, rudder, and aileron. § 1131.13 Producer milk. DATES: This AD becomes effective April * * * * * 5, 2005. (e) Producer milk shall not include The incorporation by reference of milk of a producer that is subject to a Airbus Service Bulletin A310–32A2124, marketwide equalization pool under a including Appendix 01, dated milk classification and pricing plan September 10, 2001, as listed in the AD, under the authority of a State is approved by the Director of the government. Federal Register as of April 5, 2005. Dated: February 23, 2005. On May 8, 2002 (67 FR 19655, April 23, 2002), the Director of the Federal Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Register approved the incorporation by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin Service. A300–32A0441, including Appendix 01, [FR Doc. 05–3883 Filed 2–28–05; 8:45 am] dated September 10, 2001; and Airbus BILLING CODE 3410–02–P Service Bulletin A300–32A6087, including Appendix 01, dated DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION September 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: For service information Federal Aviation Administration identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 14 CFR Part 39 Blagnac Cedex, France. You can examine this information at the National [Docket No. FAA–2004–19451; Directorate Archives and Records Administration Identifier 2002–NM–138–AD; Amendment (NARA). For information on the 39–13983; AD 2005–04–11] availability of this material at NARA, RIN 2120–AA64 call (202) 741–6030, or go to: https:// www.archives.gov/federal_register/ Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes; A300 code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. B4–600, B4–600R and F4–600R Series Docket: The AD docket contains the Airplanes, and Model C4–605R Variant proposed AD, comments, and any final F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300– disposition. You can examine the AD 600); and A310 Series Airplanes docket on the Internet at https:// dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket AGENCY: Federal Aviation Management Facility office between 9 Administration (FAA), Department of a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Transportation (DOT). Friday, except Federal holidays. The ACTION: Final rule. Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an the plaza level of the Nassif Building at existing airworthiness directive (AD), PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM 01MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 1, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9846-9848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3883]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1131

[Docket No. AO-271-837; DA-03-04-A]


Milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas Marketing Area; Interim Order 
Amending the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9847]]

SUMMARY: This order amends the Producer milk provision of the Arizona-
Las Vegas milk marketing order to eliminate the ability to 
simultaneously pool the same milk on the order and on a State-operated 
order that provides for marketwide pooling. More than the required 
number of producers on the Arizona-Las Vegas order have approved the 
issuance of the interim order as amended.

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Rower, Marketing Specialist, 
Stop-0231, Room 2971, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and 
Enforcement Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-
0231, (202) 720-2357, e-mail address jack.rower@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative rule 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.
    This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive 
effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, 
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable 
conflict with the rule.
    The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be 
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request 
modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Department 
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 Department 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 
Department'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 and Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 
interim 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 $750,000, 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 $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a 
marketing guideline of 500,000 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 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.
    During September 2003, the month during which the hearing began, 
there were 106 dairy producers pooled on, and 22 handlers regulated by, 
the Arizona-Las Vegas order. Approximately 18 producers, or 17 percent, 
were small businesses based on the above criteria. On the handler side, 
7, or 32 percent were ``small business''.
    The adoption of the proposed pooling standard serves to revise 
established criteria that determine the producer milk that has a 
reasonable association with--and consistently serves the fluid needs 
of--the Arizona-Las Vegas milk marketing area and is not associated 
with other marketwide pools concerning the same milk. Criteria for 
pooling are established on the basis of performance levels that are 
considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs and by doing so 
determine those that are eligible to share in the revenue that arises 
from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are 
established without regard to the size of any dairy industry 
organization or entity. The established criteria are applied in an 
identical fashion to both large and small businesses and do not have 
any different economic impact on small entities as opposed to large 
entities. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    A review of reporting requirements was completed under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was 
determined that the amendment would have no impact on reporting, record 
keeping, or other compliance requirements because they would remain 
identical to the current requirements. No new forms are proposed and no 
additional reporting requirements would be necessary.
    No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a 
result of overlapping Federal rules. The rulemaking proceeding does not 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules.
    Prior documents in this proceeding:
    Notice of Hearing: Issued July 31, 2003; published August 6, 2003 
(68 FR 46505).
    Correction to Notice of Hearing: Issued August 20, 2003; published 
August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51202)
    Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued October 27, 2003; published 
October 31, 2003 (68 FR 62027).
    Notice of Reconvened Hearing: Issued December 18, 2003; published 
December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74874).
    Tentative Final Decision: Issued December 23, 2004; published 
December 30, 2004 (69 FR 250).

Findings and Determinations

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement 
those that were made when the Arizona-Las Vegas 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.
    The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Arizona-
Las Vegas order:
    (a) Findings upon the basis of the hearing record. 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 governing the formulation of marketing agreements and 
marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900), 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 Arizona-Las Vegas 
marketing area.
    Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the 
record thereof it is found that:
    (1) The Arizona-Las Vegas order, as hereby amended on an interim 
basis, and all of the terms and conditions

[[Page 9848]]

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 marketing area, and the minimum 
prices specified in the order, as hereby amended on an interim basis, 
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 Arizona-Las Vegas order, as hereby amended on an interim 
basis, regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is 
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.
    (b) Additional Findings. It is necessary and in the public interest 
to make these interim amendments to the Arizona-Las Vegas order 
effective April 1, 2005. Any delay beyond that date would tend to 
disrupt the orderly marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area.
    The interim amendments to this order are known to handlers. The 
final decision containing the proposed amendments to this order was 
issued on December 23, 2004.
    The changes that result from these interim amendments will not 
require extensive preparation or substantial alteration in the method 
of operation for handlers. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found 
and determined that good cause exists for making these interim order 
amendments effective on April 1, 2005. It would be contrary to the 
public interest to delay the effective date of these amendments for 30 
days after their publication in the Federal Register. (Sec. 553(d), 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559.)
    (c) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:
    (1) The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative 
associations specified in Sec. 8c(9) of the Act) of more than 50 
percent of the milk, which is marketed within the specified marketing 
area, to sign a proposed marketing agreement, tends to prevent the 
effectuation of the declared policy of the Act;
    (2) The issuance of this interim order amending the Arizona-Las 
Vegas order is the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy 
of the Act of advancing the interests of producers as defined in the 
order as hereby amended;
    (3) The issuance of the interim order amending the Arizona-Las 
Vegas order is favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were 
engaged in the production of milk for sale in the marketing area.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131

    Milk marketing orders.

Order Relative to Handling

0
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, 
the handling of milk in the Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area shall be 
in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
order, as amended, and as hereby further amended on an interim basis, 
as follows:

0
The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1131 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.

PART 1131--MILK IN THE ARIZONA-LAS VEGAS MARKETING AREA

0
1. Section 1131.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1131.13  Producer milk.

* * * * *
    (e) Producer milk shall not include milk of a producer that is 
subject to a marketwide equalization pool under a milk classification 
and pricing plan under the authority of a State government.

    Dated: February 23, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-3883 Filed 2-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.