Milk in the Pacific Northwest Marketing Area: Order Amending the Order, 18963-18965 [05-7272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
c. Adding paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(4),
(d)(5) and (e).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
I
§ 1001.13
Producer milk.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Milk of a dairy farmer shall not be
eligible for diversion unless one day’s
milk production of such dairy farmer
was physically received as producer
milk and the dairy farmer has
continuously retained producer status
since that time. If a dairy farmer loses
producer status under the order in this
part (except as a result of a temporary
loss of Grade A approval), the dairy
farmer’s milk shall not be eligible for
diversion unless milk of the dairy
farmer has been physically received as
producer milk at a pool plant during the
month;
(2) Of the total quantity of producer
milk received during the month
(including diversion but excluding the
quantity of producer milk received from
a handler described in § 1000.9(c) or
which is diverted to another pool plant),
the handler diverted to nonpool plants
not more than 80 percent during each of
the months of September through
November and 90 percent during each
of the months of January through
August and December. In the event that
a handler causes the milk of a producer
to be over diverted, a dairy farmer will
not lose producer status;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Any milk diverted in excess of the
limits set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section shall not be producer milk.
The diverting handler shall designate
the dairy farmer deliveries that shall not
be producer milk. If the handler fails to
designate the dairy farmer deliveries
which are ineligible, producer milk
status shall be forfeited with respect to
all milk diverted to nonpool plants by
such handler; and
(5) The delivery day requirement and
the diversion percentages in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section may be
increased or decreased by the Market
Administrator if the Market
Administrator finds that such revision is
necessary to assure orderly marketing
and efficient handling of milk in the
marketing area. Before making such a
finding, the Market Administrator shall
investigate the need for the revision
either on the Market Administrator’s
own initiative or at the request of
interested persons if the request is made
in writing at least 15 days prior to the
month for which the requested revision
is desired to be effective. If the
investigation shows that a revision
might be appropriate, the Market
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Administrator shall issue a notice
stating that the revision is being
considered and inviting written data,
views, and arguments. Any decision to
revise an applicable percentage or
delivery day requirement must be
issued in writing at least one day before
the effective date.
(e) Producer milk shall not include
milk of a producer that is subject to
inclusion and participation in a
marketwide equalization pool under a
milk classification and pricing program
imposed under the authority of another
government entity.
I 4. In § 1001.30, the introductory text is
revised to read as follows:
§ 1001.30 Reports of receipts and
utilization.
Each handler shall report monthly so
that the Market Administrator’s office
receives the report on or before the 10th
day after the end of the month, in the
detail and on prescribed forms, as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
I 5. In § 1001.62, the introductory text is
revised and a new paragraph (h) is added
to read as follows:
The revision and addition reads as
follows:
§ 1001.62
prices.
Announcement of producer
On or before the 14th day after the
end of the month, the Market
Administrator shall announce the
following prices and information:
*
*
*
*
*
(h) If the 14th falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or national holiday, the Market
Administrator may have up to two
additional business days to announce
the producer price differential and the
statistical uniform price.
*
*
*
*
*
I 6. In § 1001.71, the introductory text is
revised to read as follows:
§ 1001.71 Payments to the producer—
settlement fund.
Each handler shall make payment to
the producer-settlement fund in a
manner that provides receipt of the
funds by the Market Administrator no
later than two days after the
announcement of the producer price
differential and the statistical uniform
price pursuant to § 1001.62 (except as
provided for in § 1000.90). Payment
shall be the amount, if any, by which
the amount specified in paragraph (a) of
this section exceeds the amount
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section:
*
*
*
*
*
I 7. Section 1001.72 is revised to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18963
§ 1001.72 Payments from the producer—
settlement fund.
No later than the day after the due
date required for payment to the Market
Administrator pursuant to § 1001.71
(except as provided in § 1001.90), the
Market Administrator shall pay to each
handler the amount, if any, by which
the amount computed pursuant to
§ 1001.71(b) exceeds the amount
computed pursuant to § 1001.71(a). If, at
such time, the balance in the producersettlement fund is insufficient to make
all payments pursuant to this section,
the Market Administrator shall reduce
uniformly such payments and shall
complete the payments as soon as the
funds are available.
I 8. In § 1001.73, paragraphs (a)(2)
introductory text and (e) introductory
text are revised to read as follows:
§ 1001.73 Payments to producers and to
cooperative associations.
(a) * * *
(2) Final payment. For milk received
during the month, payment shall be
made during the following month so it
is received by each producer no later
than the day after the required date of
payment by the Market Administrator,
pursuant to § 1001.72, in an amount
computed as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) In making payments to producers
pursuant to this section, each handler
shall furnish each producer (except for
a producer whose milk was received
from a cooperative association handler
described in § 1000.9(a) or 9(c)), a
supporting statement in such form that
it may be retained by the recipient
which shall show:
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: April 6, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–7273 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1124
[Docket No. AO–368–A30; DA–01–08–PNW]
Milk in the Pacific Northwest Marketing
Area: Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a
final rule, without change, an interim
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
18964
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
final rule concerning pooling provisions
of the Pacific Northwest Federal milk
order. More than the required number of
producers for the Pacific Northwest
marketing area approved the issuance of
the final order amendments.
DATES:
Effective Date: May 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gino Tosi, Marketing Specialist, USDA/
AMS/Dairy Programs, Order
Formulation and Enforcement Branch,
STOP 0231—Room 2971, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–
1366, e-mail: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
This
document adopts as a final rule, without
change, an interim final rule concerning
pooling provisions of the Pacific
Northwest Federal milk order.
Specifically, this final rule permanently
adopts a provision that eliminates the
ability to simultaneously pool the same
milk on the order and on a Stateoperated order that provides for
marketwide pooling.
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 final 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 of Agriculture (USDA) 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 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.
In the Pacific Northwest Federal milk
order, 805 of the 1,164 dairy producers,
or about 69 percent, whose milk was
pooled under the Pacific Northwest
Federal milk order at the time of the
hearing (April 2002), would meet the
definition of small businesses. On the
processing side, 9 of the 20 milk plants
associated with the Pacific Northwest
milk order during April 2002 would
qualify as ‘‘small businesses,’’
constituting about 45 percent of the
total.
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 Pacific Northwest 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
criteria established are applied in an
equal fashion to both large and small
businesses and do not have any
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
different economic impact on small
entities as opposed to large entities.
Therefore, the amendments 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
these amendments would have no
impact on reporting, recordkeeping, 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.
This action does not require
additional information collection that
requires clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) beyond
currently approved information
collection. The primary sources of data
used to complete the forms are routinely
used in most business transactions.
Forms require only a minimal amount of
information, which can be supplied
without data processing equipment or a
trained statistical staff. Thus, the
information collection and reporting
burden is relatively small. Requiring the
same reports for all handlers does not
significantly disadvantage any handler
that is smaller than the industry
average.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued February 26,
2002; published March 4, 2002 (67 FR
9622).
Correction to Notice of Hearing:
Issued March 14, 2002; published
March 19, 2002 (67 FR 12488)
Tentative Final Decision: Issued
August 8, 2003; published August 18,
2003 (68 FR 49375).
Interim Final Rule: Issued January 5,
2004; published January 12, 2004 (69 FR
1654).
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 Pacific
Northwest 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 Pacific
Northwest 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
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 Pacific Northwest marketing
area.
Upon the basis of the evidence
introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Pacific Northwest order, as
hereby amended, and all of the terms
and conditions thereof, will tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The parity prices of milk, as
determined pursuant to section 2 of the
Act, are not reasonable in view of the
price of feeds, available supplies of
feeds, and other economic conditions
which affect market supply and demand
for milk in the marketing area, and the
minimum prices specified in the order,
as hereby amended, are such prices as
will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure
a sufficient quantity of pure and
wholesome milk, and be in the public
interest; and
(3) The Pacific Northwest order, as
hereby amended, regulates the handling
of milk in the same manner as, and is
applicable only to persons in the
respective classes of industrial and
commercial activity specified in, a
marketing agreement upon which a
hearing has been held.
(b) Additional Findings. It is
necessary in the public interest to make
these amendments to the Pacific
Northwest order effective May 1, 2005.
Any delay beyond that date would tend
to disrupt the orderly marketing of milk
in the aforesaid marketing area.
The amendments to these orders are
known to handlers. The final decision
containing the proposed amendments to
these orders was issued on December
23, 2004.
The changes that result from these
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 order amendments
effective May 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 that is
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 Apr 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 order
amending the Pacific Northwest 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 order
amending the Pacific Northwest 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 1124
Milk marketing orders.
Order Relative to Handling
I It is therefore ordered, that on and after
the effective date hereof, the handling of
milk in the Pacific Northwest 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, as follows:
PART 1124—MILK IN THE PACIFIC
NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA
The interim final rule amending 7 CFR
Part 1124 which was published at 69 FR
1654 on January 12, 2004, is adopted as
a final rule without change.
I
Dated: April 6, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–7272 Filed 4–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 617
RIN 3052–AC24
Borrower Rights
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Farm Credit
Administration (FCA or Agency) issues
this final rule to allow a borrower to
waive borrower rights when receiving a
loan from a qualified lender as part of
a loan syndication with non-Farm
Credit System (System) lenders that are
otherwise not required by section
4.14A(a)(6) of the Farm Credit Act of
1971, as amended (Act), to provide
borrower rights. This rule will provide
qualified lenders needed flexibility to
meet the credit needs of borrowers
seeking financing from a qualified
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18965
lender as part of certain syndicated
lending arrangements.
DATES: Effective Date: This regulation
will be effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register
during which either or both Houses of
Congress are in session. We will publish
a notice of the effective date in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Johansen, Senior Policy Analyst,
Office of Policy and Analysis, Farm
Credit Administration, McLean, VA
22102–5090, (703) 883–4498, TTY (703)
883–4434; or
Howard Rubin, Senior Attorney,
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit
Administration, McLean, VA 22102–
5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–
4020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 16, 2004, we published
a proposed regulation (69 FR 67074)
that would permit a borrower to waive
part 617, Borrower Rights, when
receiving a loan from a qualified lender
as part of a loan syndication with nonSystem lenders that are otherwise not
required by the Act to provide borrower
rights.1 As discussed in the preamble to
the proposed rule, we have determined
that the borrower in these transactions
generally possess a very high level of
business sophistication. As a result,
these borrowers are in a reasonably
equal bargaining position with the
qualified lender and are able to provide
a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent
waiver of these rights. To ensure that
the borrower understands the rights
being waived and is freely and
intelligently waiving those rights, we
proposed, in addition to the current
notice requirement in § 617.7010(c), to
require that the borrower certify that he/
she was advised by legal counsel at the
time of the waiver.
We received 23 comments on the
proposed rule: 20 from System
institutions, one from the Farm Credit
Council (FCC), one from the
Independent Community Bankers of
America (ICBA), and one from a private
citizen (whose comment was not
1 Title IV, part C of the Act (subchapter IV, part
C of title 12 of the United States Code) requires
‘‘qualified lenders’’ to provide for certain ‘‘rights of
borrowers.’’ Section 4.14A(a)(6) (12 U.S.C.
2202a(a)(6)) defines ‘‘qualified lenders’’ to include:
(1) A System institution, except a bank for
cooperatives, that makes loans authorized by the
Act; and (2) each bank, institution, corporation,
company, credit union, and association described
in section 1.7(b)(1)(B) of the Act (12 U.S.C.
2015(b)(1)(B)) (commonly referred to as an other
financing institution (OFI)), but only with respect
to loans discounted or pledged under section
1.7(b)(1).
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18963-18965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1124
[Docket No. AO-368-A30; DA-01-08-PNW]
Milk in the Pacific Northwest Marketing Area: Order Amending the
Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule, without change, an
interim
[[Page 18964]]
final rule concerning pooling provisions of the Pacific Northwest
Federal milk order. More than the required number of producers for the
Pacific Northwest marketing area approved the issuance of the final
order amendments.
DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Marketing Specialist, USDA/
AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, STOP
0231--Room 2971, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-
0231, (202) 690-1366, e-mail: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document adopts as a final rule,
without change, an interim final rule concerning pooling provisions of
the Pacific Northwest Federal milk order. Specifically, this final rule
permanently adopts a provision that eliminates the ability to
simultaneously pool the same milk on the order and on a State-operated
order that provides for marketwide pooling.
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 final 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
of Agriculture (USDA) 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act 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
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.
In the Pacific Northwest Federal milk order, 805 of the 1,164 dairy
producers, or about 69 percent, whose milk was pooled under the Pacific
Northwest Federal milk order at the time of the hearing (April 2002),
would meet the definition of small businesses. On the processing side,
9 of the 20 milk plants associated with the Pacific Northwest milk
order during April 2002 would qualify as ``small businesses,''
constituting about 45 percent of the total.
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 Pacific Northwest 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 criteria established are applied in an
equal 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 amendments 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 these amendments would have no impact on reporting,
recordkeeping, 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.
This action does not require additional information collection that
requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) beyond
currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data
used to complete the forms are routinely used in most business
transactions. Forms require only a minimal amount of information, which
can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained
statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting
burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers
does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than
the industry average.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued February 26, 2002; published March 4,
2002 (67 FR 9622).
Correction to Notice of Hearing: Issued March 14, 2002; published
March 19, 2002 (67 FR 12488)
Tentative Final Decision: Issued August 8, 2003; published August
18, 2003 (68 FR 49375).
Interim Final Rule: Issued January 5, 2004; published January 12,
2004 (69 FR 1654).
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 Pacific Northwest 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 Pacific
Northwest 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
[[Page 18965]]
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
Pacific Northwest marketing area.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Pacific Northwest order, as hereby amended, and all of the
terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act;
(2) The parity prices of milk, as determined pursuant to section 2
of the Act, are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market
supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum
prices specified in the order, as hereby amended, are such prices as
will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of
pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3) The Pacific Northwest order, as hereby amended, regulates the
handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to
persons in the respective classes of industrial and commercial activity
specified in, a marketing agreement upon which a hearing has been held.
(b) Additional Findings. It is necessary in the public interest to
make these amendments to the Pacific Northwest order effective May 1,
2005. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly
marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area.
The amendments to these orders are known to handlers. The final
decision containing the proposed amendments to these orders was issued
on December 23, 2004.
The changes that result from these 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 order amendments
effective May 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 that 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 order amending the Pacific Northwest 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 order amending the Pacific Northwest 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 1124
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 Pacific Northwest 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, as follows:
PART 1124--MILK IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA
0
The interim final rule amending 7 CFR Part 1124 which was published at
69 FR 1654 on January 12, 2004, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
Dated: April 6, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-7272 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
