Milk in the Appalachian and Southeast Marketing Areas; Order To Terminate Proceeding on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreements and Orders, 10842-10843 [E9-5414]
Download as PDF
10842
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 48
Friday, March 13, 2009
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007
[Doc. Nos. AMS–DA–07–0133; AO–388–A15;
AO–366–A44; DA–03–11–B]
Milk in the Appalachian and Southeast
Marketing Areas; Order To Terminate
Proceeding on Proposed Amendments
to Marketing Agreements and Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Termination of proceeding.
SUMMARY: This action terminates a
rulemaking proceeding on two proposed
amendments that sought to amend the
producer-handler provisions of the
Appalachian and Southeast milk
marketing orders. Other proposed
amendments considered as part of the
rulemaking proceeding were addressed
in previously issued decisions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gino M. Tosi, Order Formulation and
Enforcement, USDA/AMS/Dairy
Programs, STOP 0231–Room 2971, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–
1366, e-mail address:
gino.tosi@ams.usda.gov, mail to:
gino.tosi@usda.gov.
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 action terminates the rulemaking
proceeding concerning proposed
amendments to the producer-handler
provisions of the Appalachian and
Southeast orders. The proposals were
considered at a public hearing held
February 23–26, 2004. Other proposed
amendments considered at the public
hearing were addressed in a partial
recommended decision issued May 13,
2005, and published May 20, 2005 (70
FR 29410), and a partial final decision
issued September 15, 2005, and
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:40 Mar 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
published September 21, 2005 (70 FR
55458). A partial final rule was
published October 12, 2005 (70 FR
59221), making the amendments
adopted in these decisions effective
November 1, 2005.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), 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 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 500employee limit, the plant will be
considered a large business even if the
local plant has fewer than 500
employees.
Producer-handlers are defined as
dairy farmers that process only their
own milk production. These entities
must be dairy farmers as a pre-condition
to operating processing plants as
producer-handlers. The size of the dairy
farm determines the production level of
the operation and is the controlling
factor in the capacity of the processing
plant and possible sales volume
associated with the producer-handler
entity. Determining whether a producerhandler is considered a small or large
business must depend on its capacity as
a dairy farm where a producer-handler
with annual gross revenue in excess of
$750,000 is considered a large business.
During February 2004, the month the
hearing was held, the milk of 7,311
dairy farmers was pooled on the
Appalachian (Order 5) and Southeast
(Order 7) milk orders (3,395 Order 5
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
dairy farmers and 3,916 Order 7 dairy
farmers). Of the total, 3,252 dairy
farmers (or 96 percent) and 3,764 dairy
farmers (or 96 percent) were considered
small businesses on the Appalachian
and Southeast orders, respectively.
During February 2004, there were a
total of 36 plants associated with the
Appalachian order (25 fully regulated
plants, 7 partially regulated plants, 1
producer-handler, and 3 exempt plants)
and a total of 51 plants associated with
the Southeast order (32 fully regulated
plants, 6 partially regulated plants, and
13 exempt plants). The number of plants
meeting the small business criteria
under the Appalachian and Southeast
orders were 13 (or 36 percent) and 13
(or 25 percent), respectively.
Two proposals that would amend the
producer-handler provisions of the
Appalachian and Southeast orders were
considered at the public hearing. A
proposal published in the hearing notice
as Proposal 7 sought to apply the
pooling and pricing provisions of the
Southeast or Appalachian orders to
producer-handlers with more than 3
million pounds of fluid route
disposition during the month. A dairy
farmer who is a producer-handler with
fluid route disposition above the
proposed 3-million pounds per month
threshold would be considered a ‘‘large’’
business.
A second proposal published in the
hearing notice as Proposal 8 sought to
allow producer-handlers to purchase a
limited amount of supplemental milk
without losing their status as producerhandlers. As proposed, a producerhandler would be allowed to purchase
up to 10 percent of the producer’s
monthly milk production during the
months of December through May, and
30 percent during the months of June
through November from other sources.
Because this action terminates the
rulemaking proceeding without
amending the existing rules applicable
to producer-handlers in the
Appalachian and Southeast orders, the
economic conditions of small entities
remain unchanged. This action does not
change reporting, record keeping, or
other compliance requirements.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued January 16,
2004; published January 23, 2004 (69 FR
3278).
Partial Recommended Decision:
Issued May 13, 2005; published May 20,
2005 (70 FR 29410).
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Partial Final Decision: Issued
September 15, 2005; published
September 21, 2005 (70 FR 55458).
Partial Final Rule: Issued October 7,
2005; published October 12, 2005 (70
FR 59221).
yshivers on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Preliminary Statement
A public hearing was held upon
proposed amendments to the marketing
agreements and orders regulating the
handling of milk in the Appalachian
and Southeast marketing areas. The
hearing was held, 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), at Atlanta, Georgia, on
February 23–26, 2004, pursuant to a
notice of hearing issued January 16,
2004, and published in the Federal
Register on January 20, 2004 (69 FR
3278).
Producer-Handler Provisions
This action terminates the rulemaking
proceeding concerning proposed
amendments to the producer-handler
provisions of the Appalachian and
Southeast orders. A proposal published
in the hearing notice as Proposal 7
sought to apply the Appalachian and
Southeast orders’ pooling and pricing
provisions to producer-handlers with
fluid route disposition in excess of 3
million pounds per month. A second
proposal, published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 8, sought to allow
producer-handlers to purchase up to 10
percent of the producer’s monthly milk
production during December through
May and 30 percent during June through
November from other sources.
The Appalachian and the Southeast
milk orders provide identical
definitions that describe and define a
category of handlers known as
producer-handlers. Both orders require
producer-handlers to operate their
businesses at their own enterprise and
risk, meaning that the care and
management of the dairy animals and
other resources necessary for the
production, processing, and distribution
of fluid milk products are the sole
responsibility of the handler.
The Appalachian and Southeast
orders prohibit producer-handlers from
purchasing any amount of supplemental
milk from pool sources or from any
other source. Producer-handlers bear the
entire burden of balancing their own
milk production. Any fluctuation in a
producer-handler’s daily and seasonal
milk needs must be met through their
own farm production and any excess
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:40 Mar 12, 2009
Jkt 217001
milk supplies must be disposed of at
their own expense.
Producer-handlers are exempt from
the pooling and pricing provisions of
the Appalachian and Southeast orders.
Exemption from the pooling and pricing
provisions of the orders means that the
minimum class prices established under
the orders that handlers must pay for
milk are not applicable to producerhandlers, and producer-handlers receive
no minimum price protection for their
milk production not disposed of for
fluid uses.
While producer-handlers are exempt
from the pooling and pricing provisions
of the Appalachian and Southeast
orders, they are required to submit
reports to the Market Administrator who
monitors producer-handler operations
to ensure that they are in compliance
with the conditions for such exemption
status.
The Secretary is in the process of
receiving proposals to initiate a new
rulemaking proceeding to consider the
elimination of the producer-handler
provision in all Federal milk marketing
orders. Two such proposals have been
received and the Secretary has invited
the submission of additional proposals.
Such proposals must be received by
Dairy Programs by March 16, 2009. (See
Dairy Programs Web site at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/dairy.)
Given this development and the
substance of the two proposals
considered herein, the review of the
producer-handler exemption under all
Federal milk marketing orders would be
a more comprehensive review.
Therefore, the Secretary has determined
that this rulemaking proceeding should
be terminated.
Termination of Proceeding
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby
determined that the proceeding with
respect to proposed amendments to the
Appalachian and Southeast orders
regarding the regulation of producerhandlers should be and is hereby
terminated.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005 and
1007
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts
1005 and 1007 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674, and 7253.
Dated: March 9, 2009.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–5414 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10843
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 320
RIN 3084-AA99
Disclosures for Non-Federally Insured
Depository Institutions under the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Improvement Act (FDICIA)
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission
(FTC or Commission).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; request for public
comment.
SUMMARY: The Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation Improvement Act
of 1991 (FDICIA) directs the
Commission to prescribe the manner
and content of certain mandatory
disclosures for depository institutions
that lack federal deposit insurance. On
March 16, 2005, the Commission
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment
on disclosure rules for such institutions.
Subsequently, Congress passed the
Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act
of 2006 (FSRRA), which amended
FDICIA’s requirements. To ensure that
the FTC’s requirements are consistent
with the FSRRA amendments, the
Commission is seeking comment on
conforming changes to the proposed
Rule.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 5, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form.
Comments should refer to
‘‘Supplemental Proposed Rule for
FDICIA Disclosures, Matter No.
R411014’’ to facilitate the organization
of comments. Please note that comments
will be placed on the public record of
this proceeding—including on the
publicly accessible FTC website, at
(https://www.ftc.gov/os/
publiccomments.shtm) — and therefore
should not include any sensitive or
confidential information. In particular,
comments should not include any
sensitive personal information, such as
an individual’s Social Security Number;
date of birth; driver’s license number or
other state identification number, or
foreign country equivalent; passport
number; financial account number; or
credit or debit card number. Comments
also should not include any sensitive
health information, such as medical
records or other individually
identifiable health information. In
addition, comments should not include
any ‘‘[t]rade secrets and commercial or
financial information obtained from a
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10842-10843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5414]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 10842]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007
[Doc. Nos. AMS-DA-07-0133; AO-388-A15; AO-366-A44; DA-03-11-B]
Milk in the Appalachian and Southeast Marketing Areas; Order To
Terminate Proceeding on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreements and
Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Termination of proceeding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action terminates a rulemaking proceeding on two proposed
amendments that sought to amend the producer-handler provisions of the
Appalachian and Southeast milk marketing orders. Other proposed
amendments considered as part of the rulemaking proceeding were
addressed in previously issued decisions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Order Formulation and
Enforcement, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231-Room 2971, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 690-1366, e-
mail address: gino.tosi@ams.usda.gov, mail to: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 action terminates the rulemaking proceeding concerning
proposed amendments to the producer-handler provisions of the
Appalachian and Southeast orders. The proposals were considered at a
public hearing held February 23-26, 2004. Other proposed amendments
considered at the public hearing were addressed in a partial
recommended decision issued May 13, 2005, and published May 20, 2005
(70 FR 29410), and a partial final decision issued September 15, 2005,
and published September 21, 2005 (70 FR 55458). A partial final rule
was published October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59221), making the amendments
adopted in these decisions effective November 1, 2005.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), 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
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.
Producer-handlers are defined as dairy farmers that process only
their own milk production. These entities must be dairy farmers as a
pre-condition to operating processing plants as producer-handlers. The
size of the dairy farm determines the production level of the operation
and is the controlling factor in the capacity of the processing plant
and possible sales volume associated with the producer-handler entity.
Determining whether a producer-handler is considered a small or large
business must depend on its capacity as a dairy farm where a producer-
handler with annual gross revenue in excess of $750,000 is considered a
large business.
During February 2004, the month the hearing was held, the milk of
7,311 dairy farmers was pooled on the Appalachian (Order 5) and
Southeast (Order 7) milk orders (3,395 Order 5 dairy farmers and 3,916
Order 7 dairy farmers). Of the total, 3,252 dairy farmers (or 96
percent) and 3,764 dairy farmers (or 96 percent) were considered small
businesses on the Appalachian and Southeast orders, respectively.
During February 2004, there were a total of 36 plants associated
with the Appalachian order (25 fully regulated plants, 7 partially
regulated plants, 1 producer-handler, and 3 exempt plants) and a total
of 51 plants associated with the Southeast order (32 fully regulated
plants, 6 partially regulated plants, and 13 exempt plants). The number
of plants meeting the small business criteria under the Appalachian and
Southeast orders were 13 (or 36 percent) and 13 (or 25 percent),
respectively.
Two proposals that would amend the producer-handler provisions of
the Appalachian and Southeast orders were considered at the public
hearing. A proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 7
sought to apply the pooling and pricing provisions of the Southeast or
Appalachian orders to producer-handlers with more than 3 million pounds
of fluid route disposition during the month. A dairy farmer who is a
producer-handler with fluid route disposition above the proposed 3-
million pounds per month threshold would be considered a ``large''
business.
A second proposal published in the hearing notice as Proposal 8
sought to allow producer-handlers to purchase a limited amount of
supplemental milk without losing their status as producer-handlers. As
proposed, a producer-handler would be allowed to purchase up to 10
percent of the producer's monthly milk production during the months of
December through May, and 30 percent during the months of June through
November from other sources.
Because this action terminates the rulemaking proceeding without
amending the existing rules applicable to producer-handlers in the
Appalachian and Southeast orders, the economic conditions of small
entities remain unchanged. This action does not change reporting,
record keeping, or other compliance requirements.
Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued January 16, 2004; published January 23,
2004 (69 FR 3278).
Partial Recommended Decision: Issued May 13, 2005; published May
20, 2005 (70 FR 29410).
[[Page 10843]]
Partial Final Decision: Issued September 15, 2005; published
September 21, 2005 (70 FR 55458).
Partial Final Rule: Issued October 7, 2005; published October 12,
2005 (70 FR 59221).
Preliminary Statement
A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing
agreements and orders regulating the handling of milk in the
Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas. The hearing was held,
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), at Atlanta, Georgia,
on February 23-26, 2004, pursuant to a notice of hearing issued January
16, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2004 (69
FR 3278).
Producer-Handler Provisions
This action terminates the rulemaking proceeding concerning
proposed amendments to the producer-handler provisions of the
Appalachian and Southeast orders. A proposal published in the hearing
notice as Proposal 7 sought to apply the Appalachian and Southeast
orders' pooling and pricing provisions to producer-handlers with fluid
route disposition in excess of 3 million pounds per month. A second
proposal, published in the hearing notice as Proposal 8, sought to
allow producer-handlers to purchase up to 10 percent of the producer's
monthly milk production during December through May and 30 percent
during June through November from other sources.
The Appalachian and the Southeast milk orders provide identical
definitions that describe and define a category of handlers known as
producer-handlers. Both orders require producer-handlers to operate
their businesses at their own enterprise and risk, meaning that the
care and management of the dairy animals and other resources necessary
for the production, processing, and distribution of fluid milk products
are the sole responsibility of the handler.
The Appalachian and Southeast orders prohibit producer-handlers
from purchasing any amount of supplemental milk from pool sources or
from any other source. Producer-handlers bear the entire burden of
balancing their own milk production. Any fluctuation in a producer-
handler's daily and seasonal milk needs must be met through their own
farm production and any excess milk supplies must be disposed of at
their own expense.
Producer-handlers are exempt from the pooling and pricing
provisions of the Appalachian and Southeast orders. Exemption from the
pooling and pricing provisions of the orders means that the minimum
class prices established under the orders that handlers must pay for
milk are not applicable to producer-handlers, and producer-handlers
receive no minimum price protection for their milk production not
disposed of for fluid uses.
While producer-handlers are exempt from the pooling and pricing
provisions of the Appalachian and Southeast orders, they are required
to submit reports to the Market Administrator who monitors producer-
handler operations to ensure that they are in compliance with the
conditions for such exemption status.
The Secretary is in the process of receiving proposals to initiate
a new rulemaking proceeding to consider the elimination of the
producer-handler provision in all Federal milk marketing orders. Two
such proposals have been received and the Secretary has invited the
submission of additional proposals. Such proposals must be received by
Dairy Programs by March 16, 2009. (See Dairy Programs Web site at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy.)
Given this development and the substance of the two proposals
considered herein, the review of the producer-handler exemption under
all Federal milk marketing orders would be a more comprehensive review.
Therefore, the Secretary has determined that this rulemaking proceeding
should be terminated.
Termination of Proceeding
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby determined that the
proceeding with respect to proposed amendments to the Appalachian and
Southeast orders regarding the regulation of producer-handlers should
be and is hereby terminated.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1005 and 1007 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
Dated: March 9, 2009.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-5414 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P