Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Interim Order Amending the Order, 56111-56113 [05-19086]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
submitted by the NAC and PCC 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 is 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 2005–06 fiscal period
began on March 1, 2005, and the
marketing orders require that the
assessment rates for each fiscal period
apply to all nectarines and peaches
handled during such fiscal period; (2)
the committees need to have sufficient
funds to pay their expenses, which are
incurred on a continuous basis; and (3)
handlers are aware of this action, which
was discussed by the committees at
public meetings and unanimously
recommended by a mail vote, and is
similar to other assessment rate actions
issued in past years. Also, a 10-day
comment period was provided for in the
proposed rule and the comments
received have been considered in
reaching a final decision on this matter.
§ 917.258
Assessment rate.
On and after March 1, 2005, an
assessment rate of $0.20 per 25-pound
container or container equivalent of
peaches is established for California
peaches.
Dated: September 20, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–19085 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1033
[Docket No. AO–166–A39; DA–05–01–A]
Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area;
Interim Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
AGENCY:
Marketing agreements, Nectarines,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
SUMMARY: This order amends certain
features of the pooling standards of the
Mideast milk marketing order on an
interim basis. More than the required
number of producers in the Mideast
marketing area have approved the
issuance of the interim order as
amended.
7 CFR Part 917
DATES:
Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 916
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR parts 916 and 917 are
amended as follows:
I 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
parts 916 and 917 continue to read as
follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
PART 916—NECTARINES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
2. Section 916.234 is revised to read
as follows:
I
§ 916.234
Assessment rate.
On and after March 1, 2005, an
assessment rate of $0.20 per 25-pound
container or container equivalent of
nectarines is established for California
nectarines.
PART 917—PEACHES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
3. Section 917.258 is revised to read
as follows:
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:27 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Effective October 1, 2005.
Gino M. Tosi, Associate Deputy
Administrator, Stop 0231, Room 2971,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order
Formulation and Enforcement Branch,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–
1366, e-mail address:
gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Specifically, this decision adopts
provisions that will: (1) Prohibit the
ability to simultaneously pool the same
milk on the Mideast Federal milk order
and on a marketwide equalization pool
administered by another government
entity; (2) Lower the diversion limit
standards; and (3) Increase the
performance standards for supply
plants.
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 a retroactive effect. This rule
will not preempt any State or local laws,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56111
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937 (the Act), 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 (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.
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 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
production 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.
During March 2005, the month during
which the hearing occurred, there were
9,767 dairy producers pooled on, and 36
handlers regulated by, the Mideast
order. Approximately 9,212 producers,
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
56112
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
or 94.3 percent, were considered small
businesses based on the above criteria.
Of the 36 handlers regulated by the
Mideast order, approximately 26
handlers, or 72.2 percent, were
considered small businesses.
The adoption of the proposed pooling
standards serve to revise established
criteria that determine those producers,
producer milk and plants that have a
reasonable association with, and are
consistently serving the fluid needs of,
the Mideast milk marketing area.
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 producers who 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 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 adopted amendments will have no
impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements because
they will remain identical to the current
requirements. No new forms are
proposed and no additional reporting
requirements will 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:
Amendment to Public Hearing on
Proposed Rulemaking: Issued March 1,
2005; published March 3, 2005 (70 FR
10337).
Notice of Hearing: Issued February 14,
2005; published February 17, 2005 (70
FR 8043).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:27 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
Tentative Partial Decision: Issued July
21, 2005; published July 27, 2005 (70 FR
43335).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations
hereinafter set forth supplement those
that were made when the Mideast 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 Mideast 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 Mideast marketing area.
Upon the basis of the evidence
introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Mideast order, as hereby
amended on an interim basis, 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 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 Mideast 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
Mideast order effective October 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 tentative
partial final decision containing the
proposed amendments to this order was
issued on July 21, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 October
1, 2005.
(c) Determinations. It is hereby
determined that:
(1) The refusal or failure of handlers
(excluding cooperative associations
specified in Section 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 Mideast 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 Mideast 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 1033
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 Mideast
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:
PART 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST
AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
Part 1033 reads as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 1033.7 is amended by:
(a) Revising paragraph (c)
introductory text.
I (b) Revising the introductory text of
paragraph (d).
I (c) Revising paragraph (d)(2).
I (d) Revising paragraph (e)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
I
I
§ 1033.7
Pool plant.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) A supply plant from which the
quantity of bulk fluid milk products
shipped to, received at, and physically
unloaded into plants described in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section as a
percent of the Grade A milk received at
the plant from dairy farmers (except
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
dairy farmers described in § 1033.12(b))
and handlers described in § 1000.9(c), as
reported in § 1033.30(a), is not less than
40 percent of the milk received from
dairy farmers, including milk diverted
pursuant to § 1033.13, subject to the
following conditions:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A plant located in the marketing
area and operated by a cooperative
association if, during the months of
December through July 30 percent,
during the month of August 35 percent
and during the months of September
through November 40 percent or more
of the producer milk of members of the
association is delivered to a distributing
pool plant(s) or to a nonpool plant(s)
and classified as Class I. Deliveries for
qualification purposes may be made
directly from the farm or by transfer
from such association’s plant, subject to
the following conditions:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The 30 percent delivery
requirement for the months of December
through July may be met for the current
month or it may be met on the basis of
deliveries during the preceding 12month period ending with the current
month.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) The aggregate monthly quantity
supplied by all parties to such an
agreement as a percentage of the
producer milk receipts included in the
unit during the months of August
through November is not less than 45
percent and during the months of
December through July is not less than
35 percent;
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 1033.13 is amended by:
I (a) Revising paragraph (d)(4).
I (b) Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 1033.13
Producer milk.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) Of the total quantity of producer
milk received during the month
(including diversions 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 50 percent in each of the
months of August through February and
60 percent in each of the months of
March through July.
*
*
*
*
*
(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 plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
12:27 Sep 23, 2005
Jkt 205001
imposed under the authority of another
government entity.
Dated: September 20, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–19086 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1430
RIN 0560–AH28
2004 Dairy Disaster Assistance
Payment Program
AGENCIES: Commodity Credit
Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule sets forth the
regulations for the 2004 Dairy Disaster
Assistance Payment Program. This
program will assist dairy producers by
providing payments to those who
suffered dairy production and milk
spoilage losses due to hurricanes in
2004.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 26, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Cooke, Price Support Division,
Farm Service Agency, United States
Department of Agriculture, STOP 0512,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0512.
Telephone: (202) 720–1919; e-mail:
Danielle.Cooke@wdc.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion of Final Rule
This rule finalizes the proposed rule
published in the Federal Register May
25, 2005 (70 FR 30009). The 30-day
comment period for the proposed 2004
Dairy Disaster Assistance Payment
Program (DDAP) rule closed on June 24,
2005. The proposed rule provided that
the DDAP program would be based on
hurricane related dairy production and
dairy spoilage losses suffered during the
months of August through October 2004
in counties declared a disaster by the
President in 2004 due to hurricane. The
program will end at the conclusion of
the application period and
disbursement of allotted funds. The
DDAP program will operate under
regulations codified in 7 CFR part 1430.
Among other provisions, the proposed
rule provided that in cases where the
producers had been paid for qualified
dumped milk the producer would still
qualify for payments related to that
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56113
milk. Also, the rule did not provide for
adjustments in payments based on cow
herd size. Rather, the rule provided for
payments to be made based on changes
in milk production from a set base
amount. Also, among other provisions,
the rule provided that in the case the
limited program funds were not
sufficient to pay all claims for lost
production and for dumped milk, then
priority would be given in making
payments to those persons whose losses
over the whole period were greater than
20 percent. It was provided additionally
in the proposed rule that the prices at
which payments would be made would
be amounts set out in the rule which
were derived from a series of reported
‘‘mailbox’’ prices. On these aspects and
all others, comment was invited.
Comments and Changes to Final Rule
During the 30-day comment period
the Agency received public comments
from two U.S. Senators, ten U.S.
congressmen, one dairy cooperative, one
advocacy group and two private
citizens. Some responses contained
multiple comments.
Of the total comments received during
the public comment period, two
respondents opposed the program
indicating that private insurance should
adequately compensate dairy producers
monetarily for losses rather than the
taxpayers or Government. One of those
respondents also believed that the
assistance being provided by the Agency
was duplicative to that of Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and that it was misleading for
Congress to insert a statute for
agriculture in a non-related military
spending bill. No changes have been
made in the rule based on these
comments. The agency is charged with
implementing statutory provisions as
written and has done so in the final
rule. It is not understood to be the case
that the relief in the rule duplicates that
provided elsewhere, but provision is
made in the rule to address that
possibility.
Public comments and suggestions
were sought for paying milk marketing
cooperatives directly for milk that was
dumped. Several public comments were
received in support of direct payment of
DDAP benefits to a milk handler or
dairy marketing cooperative rather than
directly to the producer for spoiled milk
that was dumped as a result of the
hurricanes for which the dairy
marketing cooperative or milk handler
compensated the dairy producer.
Respondents indicated that marketing
cooperatives have adequate records to
verify dumped production and confirm
payment to producers made by the dairy
E:\FR\FM\26SER1.SGM
26SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56111-56113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19086]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1033
[Docket No. AO-166-A39; DA-05-01-A]
Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Interim Order Amending the
Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order amends certain features of the pooling standards of
the Mideast milk marketing order on an interim basis. More than the
required number of producers in the Mideast marketing area have
approved the issuance of the interim order as amended.
DATES: Effective October 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Associate Deputy
Administrator, Stop 0231, Room 2971, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order
Formulation and Enforcement Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 690-1366, e-mail address:
gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Specifically, this decision adopts
provisions that will: (1) Prohibit the ability to simultaneously pool
the same milk on the Mideast Federal milk order and on a marketwide
equalization pool administered by another government entity; (2) Lower
the diversion limit standards; and (3) Increase the performance
standards for supply plants.
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 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 (the Act), 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 (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.
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
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
production 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.
During March 2005, the month during which the hearing occurred,
there were 9,767 dairy producers pooled on, and 36 handlers regulated
by, the Mideast order. Approximately 9,212 producers,
[[Page 56112]]
or 94.3 percent, were considered small businesses based on the above
criteria. Of the 36 handlers regulated by the Mideast order,
approximately 26 handlers, or 72.2 percent, were considered small
businesses.
The adoption of the proposed pooling standards serve to revise
established criteria that determine those producers, producer milk and
plants that have a reasonable association with, and are consistently
serving the fluid needs of, the Mideast milk marketing area. 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 producers who 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 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 adopted amendments will have no impact on
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements because they
will remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms are
proposed and no additional reporting requirements will 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:
Amendment to Public Hearing on Proposed Rulemaking: Issued March 1,
2005; published March 3, 2005 (70 FR 10337).
Notice of Hearing: Issued February 14, 2005; published February 17,
2005 (70 FR 8043).
Tentative Partial Decision: Issued July 21, 2005; published July
27, 2005 (70 FR 43335).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the Mideast 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 Mideast
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 Mideast marketing
area.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Mideast order, as hereby amended on an interim basis, 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 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 Mideast 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 Mideast order effective October
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
tentative partial final decision containing the proposed amendments to
this order was issued on July 21, 2005.
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 October 1, 2005.
(c) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:
(1) The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative
associations specified in Section 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 Mideast 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 Mideast 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 1033
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 Mideast 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:
PART 1033--MILK IN THE MIDEAST AREA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1033 reads as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
0
2. Section 1033.7 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (c) introductory text.
0
(b) Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d).
0
(c) Revising paragraph (d)(2).
0
(d) Revising paragraph (e)(1).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1033.7 Pool plant.
* * * * *
(c) A supply plant from which the quantity of bulk fluid milk
products shipped to, received at, and physically unloaded into plants
described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section as a percent of the
Grade A milk received at the plant from dairy farmers (except
[[Page 56113]]
dairy farmers described in Sec. 1033.12(b)) and handlers described in
Sec. 1000.9(c), as reported in Sec. 1033.30(a), is not less than 40
percent of the milk received from dairy farmers, including milk
diverted pursuant to Sec. 1033.13, subject to the following
conditions:
* * * * *
(d) A plant located in the marketing area and operated by a
cooperative association if, during the months of December through July
30 percent, during the month of August 35 percent and during the months
of September through November 40 percent or more of the producer milk
of members of the association is delivered to a distributing pool
plant(s) or to a nonpool plant(s) and classified as Class I. Deliveries
for qualification purposes may be made directly from the farm or by
transfer from such association's plant, subject to the following
conditions:
* * * * *
(2) The 30 percent delivery requirement for the months of December
through July may be met for the current month or it may be met on the
basis of deliveries during the preceding 12-month period ending with
the current month.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The aggregate monthly quantity supplied by all parties to such
an agreement as a percentage of the producer milk receipts included in
the unit during the months of August through November is not less than
45 percent and during the months of December through July is not less
than 35 percent;
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1033.13 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (d)(4).
0
(b) Adding paragraph (e).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1033.13 Producer milk.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Of the total quantity of producer milk received during the
month (including diversions but excluding the quantity of producer milk
received from a handler described in Sec. 1000.9(c) or which is
diverted to another pool plant), the handler diverted to nonpool plants
not more than 50 percent in each of the months of August through
February and 60 percent in each of the months of March through July.
* * * * *
(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 plan imposed under the
authority of another government entity.
Dated: September 20, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-19086 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
