Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order, 63213-63215 [E6-18174]
Download as PDF
63213
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 209
Monday, October 30, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1030
[Docket No. AO–361–A39; DA–04–03–B]
Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing
Area; Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule amends
regulations pertaining to 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 Date: December 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gino Tosi, Associate Deputy
Administrator, Order Formulation and
Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy
Programs, STOP 0231—Room 2968,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–
1366, e-mail: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document amends the pooling
provisions of the Upper Midwest
Federal milk order. Specifically, this
final rule adopts provisions that: (1)
Establish a limit on the volume of milk
a handler may pool during the months
of April through February to 125
percent of the volume of milk pooled in
the prior month; (2) Establish a limit on
the volume of milk a handler may pool
during the month of March to 135
percent of the volume of milk pooled in
the prior month; and (3) Allow the
market administrator to increase the
maximum administrative assessment
rate up to 8 cents per hundredweight on
all pooled milk if necessary to maintain
the required fund reserves. This
administrative action is governed by the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Oct 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
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. The rule is not intended
to have a retroactive effect. This rule
will not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601–674), provides that
administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in
court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may
request modification or exemption from
such order by filing with the Secretary
a petition stating that the order, any
provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is
not in accordance with the law. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. After a
hearing, the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the
district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an
inhabitant, or has its principal place of
business, has jurisdiction in equity to
review the 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 final 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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 the hearing occurred, there were
15,802 dairy producers pooled on and
60 handlers regulated by the UMW
order. Approximately 15,608 producers,
or 97 percent, were considered small
businesses based on the above criteria.
Of the 60 handlers regulated by the
UMW during August 2004, 49 handlers,
or 82 percent, were considered small
businesses. The adopted amendments
regarding the pooling standards serve to
revise established criteria that
determine those producers, producer
milk, and plants that have a reasonable
association with and consistently serve
the fluid needs of the Upper Midwest
milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling
milk are established on the basis of
performance standards that are
considered adequate to meet the Class I
fluid needs of the market and, by doing
so, to 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.
Administrative assessments are
similarly charged without regard to the
size of any dairy industry organization
or entity. Therefore, the amendments
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Agricultural Marketing Service is
committed to complying with the EGovernment Act, to promote the use of
the Internet and other information
technologies to provide increased
opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services,
and for other purposes.
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 approved forms
are routinely used in most business
transactions. The forms require only a
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
63214
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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.
No other burdens are expected to fall
on the dairy industry as a result of
overlapping Federal rules. This
rulemaking proceeding does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
existing Federal rules.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notice of Hearing: Issued June 15,
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).
Final Partial Rule: Issued December 5,
2005; published December 9, 2005 (70
FR 73126).
Recommended Decision: Issued
February 15, 2006; published February
22, 2006 (71 FR 9004).
Final Decision: Issued September 1,
2006; published September 13, 2006 (71
FR 54136).
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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.
The following findings are hereby
made with respect to the Upper
Midwest order:
(a) Findings upon the basis of the
hearing record: A public hearing was
held upon certain proposed amendment
to the tentative marketing agreement
and to the order regulating the handling
of milk in the Upper Midwest marketing
area. The hearing was held pursuant to
the provisions of the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601–604), the
applicable rules of practice and
procedure (7 CFR part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence
introduced at such hearing and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Oct 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
record thereof, will tend to effectuate
the declared policy of the Act;
(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
tentative marketing agreement and the
order, as hereby proposed to be
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 or
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 amendments to the Upper
Midwest order effective December 1,
2006. Any delay beyond that date would
tend to disrupt the orderly marketing of
milk in the aforesaid marketing area.
The amendments to the Upper
Midwest order are known to handlers.
The final decision containing the
proposed amendments to the order was
issued on September 1, 2006.
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 December 1, 2006.
(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 Upper Midwest order is
the only practical means pursuant to the
declared policy of the Act of advancing
the interests of producers as defined by
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
production of milk for sale in the
marketing area.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1030
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 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 amended, as follows:
PART 1030—MILK IN THE UPPER
MIDWEST MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1030 is amended to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674, 7253.
2. Section 1030.13 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (f), to read as
follows:
I
§ 1030.13
Producer milk.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The quantity of milk reported by a
handler pursuant to either
§ 1030.30(a)(1) or § 1030.30(c)(1) for
April through February may not exceed
125 percent, and March may not exceed
135 percent of the producer milk
receipts pooled by the handler during
the prior month. Milk diverted to
nonpool plants reported in excess of
this limit shall be removed from the
pool. Milk in excess of this limit
received at pool plants, other than pool
distributing plants, shall be classified
pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3)(v) and
§ 1000.44(b). The handler must
designate, by producer pick-up, which
milk is to be removed from the pool. If
the handler fails to provide this
information, the market administrator
will make the determination. The
following provisions apply:
(1) Milk shipped to and physically
received at pool distributing plants in
excess of the previous month’s pooled
volume shall not be subject to the 125
or 135 percent limitation;
(2) Producer milk qualified pursuant
to § ll.13 of any other Federal Order
and continuously pooled in any Federal
Order for the previous six months shall
not be included in the computation of
the 125 or 135 percent limitation;
(3) The market administrator may
waive the 125 or 135 percent limitation:
(i) For a new handler on the order,
subject to the provisions of
§ 1030.13(f)(4), or
(ii) For an existing handler with
significantly changed milk supply
conditions due to unusual
circumstances;
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
(4) A bloc of milk may be considered
ineligible for pooling if the market
administrator determines that handlers
altered the reporting of such milk for the
purpose of evading the provisions of
this paragraph.
I 3. Section 1030.85 is revised, to read
as follows:
§ 1030.85 Assessment for order
administration.
On or before the payment receipt date
specified under § 1030.71, each handler
shall pay to the market administrator its
pro rata share of the expense of
administration of the order at a rate
specified by the market administrator
that is no more than 8 cents per
hundredweight with respect to:
(a) Receipts of producer milk
(including the handler’s own
production) other than such receipts by
a handler described in § 1000.9(c) that
were delivered to pool plants of other
handlers;
(b) Receipts from a handler described
in § 1000.9(c);
(c) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk
products from unregulated supply
plants and receipts of nonfluid milk
products assigned to Class I use
pursuant to § 1000.43(d) and other
source milk allocated to Class I pursuant
to § 1000.44(a)(3) and (8) and the
corresponding steps of § 1000.44(b),
except other source milk that is
excluded from the computations
pursuant to § 1030.60(h) and (i); and
(d) Route disposition in the marketing
area from a partially regulated
distributing plant that exceeds the skim
milk and butterfat subtracted pursuant
to § 1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
Dated: October 25, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E6–18174 Filed 10–27–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1032
[Docket No. AO–313–A48; DA–04–06]
Milk in the Central Marketing Area;
Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule amends
regulations pertaining to the Central
Federal milk order. More than the
required number of producers for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:00 Oct 27, 2006
Jkt 211001
Central marketing area approved the
issuance of the final order amendments.
DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack
Rower, Marketing Specialist, Order
Formulation and Enforcement Branch,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP
0231-Room 2971, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–
0231, (202) 720–2357, e-mail address:
jack.rower@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document amends the pooling
provisions of the Central Federal milk
order. Specifically, this final rule adopts
provisions that: (1) Increase supply
plant performance standards to 25
percent for the months of August
through February and to 20 percent for
the months of March through July; (2)
Require the non-pool side of a split
plant to maintain nonpool status for 12
months; (3) Amend the ‘‘touch-base’’
feature of the order to require that at
least one day’s production of the milk
of a dairy farmer be received at a pool
plant in each of the months of January,
February, and August through
November, to be eligible for diversion to
non-pool plants; (4) Lower the diversion
limit standards by five percentage
points, from 80 percent to 75 percent,
for the months of August through
February, and by five percentage points,
from 85 percent to 80 percent for the
months of March through July; and (5)
Establish provisions that limit the
volume of milk a handler may pool in
a month to 125 percent of the volume
of milk pooled in the prior month.
This administrative action 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. The rule is not intended to have
a retroactive effect. This rule will not
preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601–674), provides that
administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in
court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may
request modification or exemption from
such order by filing with the Secretary
a petition stating that the order, any
provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is
not in accordance with the law. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. After a
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63215
hearing, the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the
district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an
inhabitant, or has its principal place of
business, has jurisdiction in equity to
review the 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 final 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 January 2005, the time of the
hearing, there were 5,778 dairy
producers pooled on, and 23 handlers
regulated by, the Central order.
Approximately 5,365 producers, or 92.9
percent, were considered ‘‘small
businesses’’ based on the above criteria.
Of the 23 handlers regulated by the
Central order during January 2005, 11
handlers, or 47.8 percent, were
considered ‘‘small businesses.’’
The adopted amendments regarding
the pooling standards serve to revise
established criteria that determine those
producers, producer milk, and plants
that have a reasonable association with
and consistently serve the fluid needs of
the Central milk marketing area. Criteria
for pooling milk are established on the
basis of performance standards that are
considered adequate to meet the Class I
fluid needs of the market and, by doing
so, to determine those producers who
are eligible to share in the revenue that
E:\FR\FM\30OCR1.SGM
30OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 209 (Monday, October 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63213-63215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18174]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 63213]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1030
[Docket No. AO-361-A39; DA-04-03-B]
Milk in the Upper Midwest Marketing Area; Order Amending the
Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends regulations pertaining to 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 Date: December 1, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Associate Deputy
Administrator, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy
Programs, STOP 0231--Room 2968, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 690-1366, e-mail: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the pooling provisions
of the Upper Midwest Federal milk order. Specifically, this final rule
adopts provisions that: (1) Establish a limit on the volume of milk a
handler may pool during the months of April through February to 125
percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month; (2) Establish
a limit on the volume of milk a handler may pool during the month of
March to 135 percent of the volume of milk pooled in the prior month;
and (3) Allow the market administrator to increase the maximum
administrative assessment rate up to 8 cents per hundredweight on all
pooled milk if necessary to maintain the required fund reserves. This
administrative action 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. The rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request
modification or exemption from such order by filing with the Secretary
a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
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
final 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 August 2004, the month during the hearing occurred, there
were 15,802 dairy producers pooled on and 60 handlers regulated by the
UMW order. Approximately 15,608 producers, or 97 percent, were
considered small businesses based on the above criteria. Of the 60
handlers regulated by the UMW during August 2004, 49 handlers, or 82
percent, were considered small businesses. The adopted amendments
regarding the pooling standards serve to revise established criteria
that determine those producers, producer milk, and plants that have a
reasonable association with and consistently serve the fluid needs of
the Upper Midwest milk marketing area. Criteria for pooling milk are
established on the basis of performance standards that are considered
adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs of the market and, by doing
so, to 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. Administrative assessments
are similarly charged without regard to the size of any dairy industry
organization or entity. Therefore, the amendments will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Agricultural Marketing Service is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
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 approved forms are routinely used in most business
transactions. The forms require only a
[[Page 63214]]
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.
No other burdens are expected to fall on the dairy industry as a
result of overlapping Federal rules. This rulemaking proceeding does
not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any existing Federal rules.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notice of Hearing: Issued June 15, 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).
Final Partial Rule: Issued December 5, 2005; published December 9,
2005 (70 FR 73126).
Recommended Decision: Issued February 15, 2006; published February
22, 2006 (71 FR 9004).
Final Decision: Issued September 1, 2006; published September 13,
2006 (71 FR 54136).
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.
The following findings are hereby made with respect to the Upper
Midwest order:
(a) Findings upon the basis of the hearing record: A public hearing
was held upon certain proposed amendment to the tentative marketing
agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the Upper
Midwest marketing area. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions
of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-604), the applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR
part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(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 tentative marketing agreement and the order, as
hereby proposed to be 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 or 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 amendments to the Upper Midwest order effective December
1, 2006. Any delay beyond that date would tend to disrupt the orderly
marketing of milk in the aforesaid marketing area.
The amendments to the Upper Midwest order are known to handlers.
The final decision containing the proposed amendments to the order was
issued on September 1, 2006.
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 December 1, 2006.
(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 Upper Midwest order is
the only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the Act of
advancing the interests of producers as defined by 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 amended, as follows:
PART 1030--MILK IN THE UPPER MIDWEST MARKETING AREA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1030 is amended to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, 7253.
0
2. Section 1030.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f), to read as
follows:
Sec. 1030.13 Producer milk.
* * * * *
(f) The quantity of milk reported by a handler pursuant to either
Sec. 1030.30(a)(1) or Sec. 1030.30(c)(1) for April through February
may not exceed 125 percent, and March may not exceed 135 percent of the
producer milk receipts pooled by the handler during the prior month.
Milk diverted to nonpool plants reported in excess of this limit shall
be removed from the pool. Milk in excess of this limit received at pool
plants, other than pool distributing plants, shall be classified
pursuant to Sec. 1000.44(a)(3)(v) and Sec. 1000.44(b). The handler
must designate, by producer pick-up, which milk is to be removed from
the pool. If the handler fails to provide this information, the market
administrator will make the determination. The following provisions
apply:
(1) Milk shipped to and physically received at pool distributing
plants in excess of the previous month's pooled volume shall not be
subject to the 125 or 135 percent limitation;
(2) Producer milk qualified pursuant to Sec. ----.13 of any other
Federal Order and continuously pooled in any Federal Order for the
previous six months shall not be included in the computation of the 125
or 135 percent limitation;
(3) The market administrator may waive the 125 or 135 percent
limitation:
(i) For a new handler on the order, subject to the provisions of
Sec. 1030.13(f)(4), or
(ii) For an existing handler with significantly changed milk supply
conditions due to unusual circumstances;
[[Page 63215]]
(4) A bloc of milk may be considered ineligible for pooling if the
market administrator determines that handlers altered the reporting of
such milk for the purpose of evading the provisions of this paragraph.
0
3. Section 1030.85 is revised, to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.85 Assessment for order administration.
On or before the payment receipt date specified under Sec.
1030.71, each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro
rata share of the expense of administration of the order at a rate
specified by the market administrator that is no more than 8 cents per
hundredweight with respect to:
(a) Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own
production) other than such receipts by a handler described in Sec.
1000.9(c) that were delivered to pool plants of other handlers;
(b) Receipts from a handler described in Sec. 1000.9(c);
(c) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated
supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk products assigned to Class
I use pursuant to Sec. 1000.43(d) and other source milk allocated to
Class I pursuant to Sec. 1000.44(a)(3) and (8) and the corresponding
steps of Sec. 1000.44(b), except other source milk that is excluded
from the computations pursuant to Sec. 1030.60(h) and (i); and
(d) Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially
regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat
subtracted pursuant to Sec. 1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
Dated: October 25, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E6-18174 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P