Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order, 73126-73128 [05-23820]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73126
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Committee believes that the permanent
container list should include all the
containers the Texas citrus industry is
now using. Moving the widely used
containers from the experimental list to
the permanent list and eliminating
unused containers brings the container
requirements into conformity with
industry operating practices. This
change does not preclude additional
containers being put on the
experimental list, when necessary.
The Committee also recommended
eliminating one wire crib on the
permanent list with dimensions of 461⁄2
by 37 by 30 inches, which was no longer
being used by the industry. In addition,
the Committee recommended
combining five separate bag
requirements into one paragraph to
allow for easier reference. Previously,
paragraph (a)(1) of § 906.340 listed bags
with a capacity of five, eight, ten, or 18
pounds of fruit, and four-pound poly or
vexar bags for oranges only, in
paragraphs (iv), (v), (x), and (xi). This
rule combined all the bag requirements
into one paragraph so all authorized
bags could be more easily identified. In
addition, the Committee indicated that
a reference to Freight Container Tariff
2G previously in § 906.340(a)(1)(ii), was
obsolete and recommended that it be
removed.
The U.S. grade standards for Texas
oranges and grapefruit were revised in
2003 to reflect current cultural and
marketing practices and give the
industry greater flexibility in marketing
and packaging using developing
technologies. The major changes revised
the standard pack sections of the
grapefruit and orange standards, and the
standard sizing section of the orange
standard by redefining the requirements
in each section. To bring the order
regulations into conformity with the
revised grade standards, in paragraphs
(c)(3)(iii) and (e) of § 906.120, the words
‘‘which are packed level full,’’ and ‘‘the
term level full means that the fruit is
level with the top edge of the bottom
section of the carton;’’, respectively,
were removed. In addition, in the
introductory text of paragraph
(a)(2)(i)(A) of § 906.340, the comma after
‘‘and’’ and the words ‘‘when place
packed in cartons or other containers,’’
were removed. Also, in the introductory
text of paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) of
§ 906.340, the words ‘‘when place
packed in cartons or other containers’’
and ‘‘and otherwise meet the
requirements of standard sizing’’, when
referring to grapefruit only, were
removed.
Furthermore, the interim final rule
revised several references to the U.S.
standards for grapefruit and oranges for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Dec 08, 2005
Jkt 208001
Texas and States other than Florida,
California, and Arizona in paragraph (b)
of § 906.137 in the regulations to
correctly identify applicable sections of
the U.S. grade standards. A reference to
‘‘51.685’’ of the U.S. grade standards for
grapefruit was incorrect and was revised
to ‘‘51.653’’ to accurately reflect sections
of the grapefruit standard. Also, an
incorrect reference to ‘‘51.712’’ of the
U.S. grade standards for oranges was
revised to ‘‘51.714’’. In addition, a
reference to ‘‘51.652’’ in paragraph (c) of
§ 906.340 was revised to ‘‘51.653’’.
The benefits of these changes are
expected to be equally available to all
Texas citrus producers and handlers
regardless of their size of operation. The
changes offer benefits to the entire
Texas citrus industry. These changes
enable handlers to compete more
effectively in the marketplace by
lessening the chances of marketing
confusion. These changes also will
contribute to the industry’s long-term
objective of marketing as much citrus as
possible.
These regulation changes are expected
to lead to market expansion. The
alternative of leaving the regulations
unchanged would not bring the
regulations into conformity with
industry operating practices.
Accordingly, in assessing alternatives to
the changes provided in this rule, this
action provides the most beneficial
results.
This rule will not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on either small or large
Texas orange and grapefruit 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. In addition, as noted in
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis,
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the Texas
orange and grapefruit industry and all
interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in
Committee deliberations. Like all
Committee meetings, the May 26, 2005,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express their views on this issue.
Also, the Committee has a number of
appointed subcommittees to review
certain issues and make
recommendations to the Committee.
The Committee’s Container
Subcommittee met on May 26, 2005,
and discussed this issue in detail. That
meeting was also a public meeting and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
both large and small entities were able
to participate and express their views.
An interim final rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on August 31, 2005. Copies of
the rule were mailed by the Committee’s
staff to all Committee members and
orange and grapefruit handlers. In
addition, the rule was made available
through the Internet by USDA and the
Office of the Federal Register. That rule
provided for a 60-day comment period
which ended October 31, 2005. No
comments were received.
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
Committee’s recommendation, and
other information, it is found that
finalizing the interim final rule, without
change, as published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 51574, August 31, 2005)
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,
Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 906—ORANGES AND
GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO
GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 7 CFR part 906 which was
published at 70 FR 51574 on August 31,
2005, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
I
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23821 Filed 12–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1030
[Docket No. AO–361–A39; DA–04–03–A]
Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing
Area; Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a
final rule, without change, an interim
final rule concerning pooling standards
and transportation credit provisions of
the Upper Midwest Federal milk order.
More than the required number of
producers for the Upper Midwest
marketing area approved the issuance of
the final order amendments.
DATES: Effective February 1, 2006.
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 standards and transportation
credit provisions of the Upper Midwest
Federal milk order. Specifically, this
final rule permanently adopts
provisions to allow only supply plants
located in the States that comprise the
UMW marketing area to use milk
delivered directly from producer farms
for qualification purposes, eliminate the
ability to pool diversions to nonpool
plants located outside of the States that
comprise the UMW marketing area as
producer milk and limit the
transportation credit received by
handlers to the first 400 miles of
applicable milk movements.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Dec 08, 2005
Jkt 208001
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.
During August 2004, the month
during which the hearing occurred,
there were 15,608 dairy producers
pooled on, and 60 handlers regulated
by, the UMW order. Approximately
15,082 producers, or 97 percent, were
considered small businesses based on
the above criteria. Of the 60 handlers
regulated by the UMW order during
August 2004, approximately 49
handlers, or 82 percent, were
considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
The adoption of the proposed pooling
standards and transportation credit
provisions serve to revise established
criteria that determine the producer
milk that has a reasonable association
with and consistently serves the fluid
needs of the Upper Midwest 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 that are
eligible to share in the revenue that
arises from the classified pricing of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73127
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 June 16,
2004; published June 23, 2004 (69 FR
34963).
Notice of Hearing Delay: Issued July
14, 2004; published July 21, 2004 (69 FR
43538).
Tentative Partial Decision: Issued
April 8, 2005; published April 14, 2005
(70 FR 19709).
Interim Final Rule: Issued May 26,
2005; published June 1, 2005 (70 FR
31321).
Final Partial Decision: Issued
September 29, 2005; published October
5, 2005 (70 FR 58086).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations
hereinafter set forth supplement those
that were made when the Upper
Midwest 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.
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
73128
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The following findings are hereby
made with respect to the Upper
Midwest 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 Upper Midwest marketing
area.
Upon the basis of the evidence
introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Upper Midwest 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 Upper Midwest 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.
The amendments to these orders are
known to handlers. A final partial
decision containing the proposed
amendments to these orders was issued
on September 29, 2005.
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 February 1, 2006. 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.)
(b) 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:58 Dec 08, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 Upper Midwest 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 Upper Midwest 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 1030
Milk marketing orders.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and
after the effective date hereof, the
handling of milk in the Upper Midwest
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:
I
PART 1030—MILK IN THE UPPER
MIDWEST MARKETING AREA
The interim final rule amending 7
CFR part 1030 which was published at
70 FR 31321 on June 1, 2005, is adopted
as a final rule without change.
I
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–23820 Filed 12–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 229
[Regulation CC; Docket No. R–1242]
Availability of Funds and Collection of
Checks
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors is
amending appendix A of Regulation CC
to delete the reference to the head office
of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
and reassign the Federal Reserve routing
symbols currently listed under that
office to the Windsor Locks office of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. These
amendments will ensure that the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
information in appendix A accurately
describes the actual structure of check
processing operations within the
Federal Reserve System.
DATES: The final rule will become
effective on February 25, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack
K. Walton II, Associate Director (202–
452–2660), or Joseph P. Baressi, Senior
Financial Services Analyst (202–452–
3959), Division of Reserve Bank
Operations and Payment Systems; or
Adrianne G. Threatt, Counsel (202–452–
3554), Legal Division. For users of
Telecommunications Devices for the
Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202–263–4869.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulation
CC establishes the maximum period a
depositary bank may wait between
receiving a deposit and making the
deposited funds available for
withdrawal.1 A depositary bank
generally must provide faster
availability for funds deposited by a
local check than by a nonlocal check. A
check drawn on a bank is considered
local if it is payable by or at a bank
located in the same Federal Reserve
check processing region as the
depositary bank. A check drawn on a
nonbank is considered local if it is
payable through a bank located in the
same Federal Reserve check processing
region as the depositary bank. Checks
that do not meet the requirements for
local checks are considered nonlocal.
Appendix A to Regulation CC
contains a routing number guide that
assists banks in identifying local and
nonlocal banks and thereby determining
the maximum permissible hold periods
for most deposited checks. The
appendix includes a list of each Federal
Reserve check processing office and the
first four digits of the routing number,
known as the Federal Reserve routing
symbol, of each bank that is served by
that office for check processing
purposes. Banks whose Federal Reserve
routing symbols are grouped under the
same office are in the same check
processing region and thus are local to
one another.
As explained in detail in the Board’s
final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 28, 2004, the
Federal Reserve Banks have decided to
restructure their check processing
services by reducing further the number
of locations at which they process
checks.2 The Board issues separate final
rules amending appendix A for each
phase of the restructuring, and the
1 For purposes of Regulation CC, the term ‘‘bank’’
refers to any depository institution, including
commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit
unions.
2 See 69 FR 57837, September 28, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\09DER1.SGM
09DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73126-73128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23820]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1030
[Docket No. AO-361-A39; DA-04-03-A]
Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area; Order Amending the
Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73127]]
SUMMARY: This document adopts as a final rule, without change, an
interim final rule concerning pooling standards and transportation
credit provisions of the Upper Midwest Federal milk order. More than
the required number of producers for the Upper Midwest marketing area
approved the issuance of the final order amendments.
DATES: Effective February 1, 2006.
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 standards and
transportation credit provisions of the Upper Midwest Federal milk
order. Specifically, this final rule permanently adopts provisions to
allow only supply plants located in the States that comprise the UMW
marketing area to use milk delivered directly from producer farms for
qualification purposes, eliminate the ability to pool diversions to
nonpool plants located outside of the States that comprise the UMW
marketing area as producer milk and limit the transportation credit
received by handlers to the first 400 miles of applicable milk
movements.
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.
During August 2004, the month during which the hearing occurred,
there were 15,608 dairy producers pooled on, and 60 handlers regulated
by, the UMW order. Approximately 15,082 producers, or 97 percent, were
considered small businesses based on the above criteria. Of the 60
handlers regulated by the UMW order during August 2004, approximately
49 handlers, or 82 percent, were considered ``small businesses.''
The adoption of the proposed pooling standards and transportation
credit provisions serve to revise established criteria that determine
the producer milk that has a reasonable association with and
consistently serves the fluid needs of the Upper Midwest 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 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 June 16, 2004; published June 23, 2004
(69 FR 34963).
Notice of Hearing Delay: Issued July 14, 2004; published July 21,
2004 (69 FR 43538).
Tentative Partial Decision: Issued April 8, 2005; published April
14, 2005 (70 FR 19709).
Interim Final Rule: Issued May 26, 2005; published June 1, 2005 (70
FR 31321).
Final Partial Decision: Issued September 29, 2005; published
October 5, 2005 (70 FR 58086).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the Upper Midwest 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.
[[Page 73128]]
The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Upper
Midwest 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 Upper Midwest
marketing area.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof it is found that:
(1) The Upper Midwest 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 Upper Midwest 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.
The amendments to these orders are known to handlers. A final
partial decision containing the proposed amendments to these orders was
issued on September 29, 2005.
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 February 1, 2006. 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.)
(b) 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 Upper Midwest 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 Upper Midwest 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 1030
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 Upper Midwest 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 1030--MILK IN THE UPPER MIDWEST MARKETING AREA
0
The interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 1030 which was published at
70 FR 31321 on June 1, 2005, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-23820 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
