National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Invitation To Submit Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Order, 53844-53847 [2011-22154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53844
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
production of potatoes measuring less
than 17⁄8 inches in diameter. The
Committee has relied on information
provided by producers and handlers
familiar with the small potato market for
its recommendation.
As small potatoes have grown in
popularity with consumers, high quality
potatoes from Colorado have been in
demand. The Committee believes that
modifying the size requirements for
such small potatoes would maintain
their consistency and increase their
quality reputation in the market. The
proposed changes are expected to
increase sales of Colorado potatoes and
to benefit the Colorado potato industry.
The benefits of this rule are not
expected to be disproportionately
greater or lesser for small entities than
for large entities.
The Committee discussed alternatives
to this recommendation, including
taking no action on the matter. One
alternative discussed was to use other
size ranges other than the ranges
proposed. The Committee believed that
the size ranges proposed offered the best
compromise between regulatory control
and accommodation for the marketing
needs of the handlers. Another
alternative was to establish just one 3⁄4inch to 17⁄8 inches size range for small
potatoes. However, that alternative was
rejected because it would not have
accommodated the mid-size range
potatoes that some handlers prefer to
ship. Thus, the Committee unanimously
agreed that their recommendation
reflected the best alternative available to
achieve the desired result.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0178. No
changes in those requirements as a
result of this action are necessary.
Should any changes become necessary,
they would be submitted to OMB for
approval.
This action would not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on either small or large
potato 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, USDA has
not identified any relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap or conflict with
this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E–Government Act, to promote the
use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
In addition, the Committee’s meeting
was widely publicized throughout the
potato industry, and all interested
persons were invited to attend the
meeting and participate in Committee
deliberations. Like all Committee
meetings, the May 12, 2011, meeting
was a public meeting and all entities,
both large and small, were able to
express their views on this issue.
Finally, interested persons are invited to
submit comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
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/
MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Laurel May at
the previously mentioned address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
timely received will be considered
before a final determination is made on
this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948
Marketing agreements, Potatoes,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 948—IRISH POTATOES GROWN
IN COLORADO
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 948 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. In § 948.387, revise paragraph (a)
and add paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3)
to read as follows:
§ 948.387
Handling regulation.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Minimum grade and size
requirements—All varieties. (1) U.S. No.
2 or better grade, 17⁄8 inches minimum
diameter or 4 ounces minimum weight.
(2) U.S. No.1 grade, Size B (11⁄2 inches
minimum to 21⁄4 inches maximum
diameter).
(3) U.S. No.1 grade, 3⁄4-inch minimum
to 17⁄8 inches maximum diameter.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: August 19, 2011.
David R. Shipman,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–22111 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1150
[Document No. AMS–DA–11–0007; DA–11–
02]
National Dairy Promotion and
Research Program; Invitation To
Submit Comments on Proposed
Amendments to the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document invites
comments on a proposed amendment to
the Dairy Promotion and Research Order
(Dairy Order). The proposal would
modify the number of National Dairy
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy
Board) members in eight regions, merge
Region 8 and Region 10, merge Region
12 and Region 13, and apportion Idaho
as a separate region. The total number
of domestic Dairy Board members
would remain the same at 36 and the
total number of regions would be
reduced from 13 to 12. This
modification was requested by the Dairy
Board, which administers the Dairy
Order, to better reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production in the
United States.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before September 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed
rule should be identified with the
docket number AMS–DA–11–0007; DA–
11–02. Commenters should identify the
date and page number of the issue of the
Proposed Rule. Interested persons may
comment on this proposed rule using
either of the following procedures:
• Mail: Comments may be submitted
by mail to Whitney A. Rick, Chief,
Promotion and Research Branch, Dairy
Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Room 2958–S,
Stop 0233, Washington, DC 20250–
0233.
• Fax: Comments may be faxed to
(202) 720–0285.
• E-mail: Comments may be e-mailed
to Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov.
• Internet: https://
www.regulations.gov.
All comments to this proposed rule,
submitted by the above procedures will
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
be available for viewing at: https://
www.regulations.gov, or at USDA, AMS,
Dairy Programs, Promotion and
Research Branch, Room 2958–S, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, (except on official
Federal holidays). Persons wanting to
view comments in Room 2958–S are
requested to make an appointment in
advance by calling (202) 720–6909.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Whitney A. Rick, Chief, Promotion and
Research Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS,
USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW.,
Room 2958–S, Stop 0233, Washington,
DC 20250–0233. Phone: (202) 720–6909.
E-mail: Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed rule is issued pursuant to the
Dairy Production Stabilization Act
(Dairy Act) of 1983 [7 U.S.C. 4501–
4514], as amended.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has waived the review process required
by Executive Order 12866 for this
action.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This proposed rule is
not intended to have a retroactive effect.
If adopted, nothing in this rule would
preempt or supersede any other program
relating to dairy product promotion
organized and operated under the laws
of the United States or any State.
The Dairy Act provides that
administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in
court. Under section 4509 of the Dairy
Act, any person subject to the Dairy
Order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the Dairy Order, any
provision of the Dairy Order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the Dairy Order is not in accordance
with the law and request a modification
of the Dairy Order or to be exempted
from the Dairy Order. Such person is
afforded the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. After a hearing, the
Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Dairy Act provides that the district
court of the United States in any district
in which the person is an inhabitant or
has his principal place of business, has
jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s
ruling on the petition, provided a
complaint is filed not later than 20 days
after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the
Agricultural Marketing Service has
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
considered the economic impact of this
action on small entities and has certified
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The purpose of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions
to the scale of businesses subject to such
actions so that small businesses will not
be disproportionately burdened.
The Dairy Production Stabilization
Act of 1983 authorizes a national
program for dairy product promotion,
research and nutrition education.
Congress found that it is in the public
interest to authorize the establishment
of an orderly procedure for financing
(through assessments on all milk
produced in the United States for
commercial use and on imported dairy
products) and carrying out a
coordinated program of promotion
designed to strengthen the dairy
industry’s position in the marketplace
and to maintain and expand domestic
and foreign markets and uses for fluid
milk and dairy products.
The Small Business Administration
[13 CFR 121.201] defines small dairy
producers as those having annual
receipts of not more than $750,000
annually. Most of the producers subject
to the provisions of the Dairy Order are
considered small entities.
The proposed rule would amend the
Dairy Order by modifying the number of
National Dairy Promotion and Research
Board (Dairy Board) members in eight
regions, merge Region 8 and Region 10,
merge Region 12 and Region 13, and
apportion Idaho as a separate region.
The total number of domestic Dairy
Board members would remain the same
at 36 and the total number of regions
would be reduced from 13 to 12. This
modification was requested by the Dairy
Board, which administers the Dairy
Order, to better reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production in the
United States.
The Dairy Order is administered by a
38-member Dairy Board, 36 members
representing 13 geographic regions
within the United States and 2
representing importers. The Dairy Order
provides in section 1150.131 that the
Dairy Board shall review the geographic
distribution of milk production
throughout the United States and, if
warranted, shall recommend to the
Secretary a reapportionment of the
regions and/or modification of the
number of members from the regions in
order to better reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production volume
in the United States. The Dairy Board is
required to conduct the review at least
every 5 years and not more than every
3 years. The Dairy Board was last
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53845
modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk
production.
Based on a review of the 2010
geographic distribution of milk
production, the Dairy Board has
concluded that the number of Dairy
Board members for eight regions should
be changed. Additionally, the Dairy
Board proposes to merge Region 8 and
Region 10, merge Region 12 and Region
13, and apportion Idaho as a separate
region. The Dairy Board was last
modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk
production.
The proposed amendment should not
have a significant economic impact on
persons subject to the Dairy Order. The
proposed changes merely would allow
representation of the Dairy Board to
better reflect geographic milk
production in the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which
implements the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35], the
information collection requirements and
record keeping provisions imposed by
the Dairy Order have been previously
approved by OMB and assigned OMB
Control No. 0581–0093. No relevant
Federal rules have been identified that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
rule.
Statement of Consideration
The Dairy Order is administered by a
38-member Dairy Board, 36 members
representing 13 geographic regions
within the United States and 2
representing importers. The Dairy Order
provides in section 1150.131 that the
Dairy Board shall review the geographic
distribution of milk production volume
throughout the United States and, if
warranted, shall recommend to the
Secretary a reapportionment of regions
and/or modification of the number of
producer members from regions in order
to best reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production in the
United States. The Dairy Board is
required to conduct the review at least
every 5 years and not more than every
3 years. The Dairy Board was last
modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk
production.
Since the Dairy Board’s last
reapportionment, the Dairy Order was
amended by a final rule [76 FR 14777,
March 18, 2011] to implement an
assessment on imported dairy products
to fund promotion and research and to
add importer representation, initially
two members, to the Dairy Board.
Additionally, the final rule amended the
term ‘‘United States’’ in the Dairy Order
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
53846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
to mean all States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Assessments on producers
in these areas were effective April 1,
2011. These amendments to the Dairy
Order were implemented pursuant to
the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L.
110–246).
In order to complement the current
geographical makeup of the existing
regions of the Dairy Board, the final rule
added these four new jurisdictions to
the region of closest proximity. Alaska
was added to Region 1, currently
comprised of Oregon and Washington;
Hawaii was added to Region 2, currently
California; and the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
were added to Region 10, currently
comprised of Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.
These regional modifications were
effective March 18, 2011, and are
reflected in this proposed rule.
The final rule also modified the
language in section 1150.131 of the
Dairy Order to remove the specific
formula for calculating the factor of
pounds of milk per member, which
divided total pounds of milk produced
by 36, as the Dairy Board is now
comprised of 38 members (36 domestic
producers and 2 importer
representatives). While the Dairy Order
no longer specifies the procedure for
calculating the factor of pounds of milk
per member, for the purposes of the
current reapportionment analysis, the
procedure will remain the same.
The final rule also added new
language that requires the Secretary to
review the average volume of imports of
dairy products into the United States
and, if warranted, reapportion the
importer representation on the Dairy
Board to reflect the proportional shares
of the United States market served by
domestic production and imported
dairy products. This review will take
place at least once every 3 years, after
the initial appointment of importer
representatives on the Dairy Board.
The last reapportionment, conducted
in 2008, was calculated by using 2007
milk production data and dividing by 36
to determine a factor of pounds of milk
represented by each domestic Dairy
Board member. The resulting factor was
then divided into the pounds of milk
produced in each region to determine
the number of Dairy Board members for
each region. Accordingly, the same
process using 2010 milk production
data was employed for the current
reapportionment calculations. Table 1
summarizes by region the volume of
milk production distribution for 2010,
the percentage of total milk production
and the current number of Dairy Board
seats per region.
TABLE 1—CURRENT REGIONS AND NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS
Milk
production
(mil. lbs.)
Current regions and states
Percentage of
total milk
production
Current
number of
board seats
1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington .........................................................................................
2. California, Hawaii ...........................................................................................................
3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming .....................................
4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas .....................................................
5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ......................................................................
6. Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................
7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska ..................................................................................
8. Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee ..............................................
9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia .........................................................................
10. District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Virginia ...........................................................................................................................
11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ........................................................
12. New York .....................................................................................................................
13. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont ........
8,307.1
40,410.3
22,592.4
20,321
11,370
26,035
8,867
2,624
17,188
4.3
21.0
11.6
10.4
5.8
13.5
4.6
1.4
8.9
1
8
4
4
2
5
2
1
3
7,039
11,965
12,713
4,036.5
3.6
6.2
6.6
2.1
1
2
2
1
Total ............................................................................................................................
193,468.3
100
36
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
** Puerto Rico—Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
In 2010, total milk production was
193,468 million pounds and each of the
Dairy Board members would represent
5,374 million pounds of milk. For 2007,
total milk production was 185,558
million pounds of milk and each of the
Dairy Board members represented 5,154
million pounds of milk.
Based on the 2010 milk production
data, the Dairy Board proposes that
member representation in Region 1
(Alaska, Oregon, and Washington) be
increased by one member. Milk
production in Region 1 increased to
8,307 million pounds in 2010, up from
7,764 million pounds in 2007,
indicating two Dairy Board members
(8,307 divided by 5,374 = 1.545)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
compared to one Dairy Board member
based on 2007 milk production data.
Milk production in Region 2
(California and Hawaii) decreased from
40,683 million pounds in 2007 to 40,410
million pounds in 2010. The Dairy
Board proposes that seven Dairy Board
members (40,410 divided by 5,374 =
7.519) represent Region 2, compared to
eight Dairy Board members based on
2007 milk production data.
Milk production in Region 3 (Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Utah, and Wyoming) increased from
21,212 million pounds in 2007 to 22,592
million pounds in 2010. Specifically, in
Idaho, milk production increased from
10,905 million pounds in 2007 to 12,779
pounds in 2010 and represents more
than half of the production of Region 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Due to the increase in Idaho production,
the Dairy Board proposes apportioning
Idaho as its own region with two Dairy
Board members.
Milk production in Region 8
(Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee) decreased
from 3,119 million pounds in 2007 to
2,624 million pounds in 2010. The
Dairy Board concluded that Region 8 no
longer supports one Dairy Board
member (2,624 divided by 5,374 =
0.488) and proposes to merge Region 8
into Region 10 (District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, and Virginia) to
create a new region with two Dairy
Board members.
Similarly, milk production in Region
13 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and
Vermont) decreased from 4,046 million
pounds in 2007 to 4,036 million pounds
in 2010. The Dairy Board concluded
that Region 13 no longer supports one
Dairy Board member (4,036 divided by
5,374 = 0.751) and proposes to merge
Region 13 into Region 12 (New York),
creating a new region with three Dairy
Board members.
Table 2 summarizes by region, the
volume of milk production distribution
53847
for 2010, the percentage of total milk
production and the proposed regions
and States and proposed Dairy Board
members.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED REGIONS AND NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS
Milk
production
(mil. lbs.)
Proposed regions and states
Percentage of
total milk
production
1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington .........................................................................................
2. California, Hawaii ...........................................................................................................
3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming ................................................
4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas .....................................................
5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ......................................................................
6. Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................
7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska ..................................................................................
8. Idaho ..............................................................................................................................
9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia .........................................................................
10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia ..............................
11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ........................................................
12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island,
Vermont ..........................................................................................................................
8,307.1
40,410.3
9,813.4
20,321
11,370
26,035
8,867
12,779
17,188
Total ............................................................................................................................
193,468.3
Proposed
number of
board seats
4.3
21.0
5.0
10.4
5.8
13.5
4.6
6.6
8.9
2
7
2
4
2
5
2
2
3
9,663
11,965
5.0
6.2
2
2
16,749.5
8.7
3
100
36
* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
** Puerto Rico—Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
A 15-day comment period is provided
for interested persons to comment on
this proposed rule. Twelve terms of
existing Dairy Board members will
expire on October 31, 2011. Thus a
15-day comment period is provided to
provide for a timely appointment of new
Dairy Board members based on the
current geographic distribution of milk
production in the United States.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1150
Dairy products, Milk, Promotion,
Research.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part
1150 be amended as follows:
PART 1150—DAIRY PROMOTION
PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1150 continues to read as follows:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4501–4514 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
2. In § 1150.131, paragraph (b) is
amended by revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3),
(b)(8), (b)(10), (b)(12), and removing
paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows:
§ 1150.131 Establishment and
membership.
(a) * * *
(b) Thirty-six members of the Board
shall be United States producers. For
purposes of nominating producers to the
Board, the United States shall be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Aug 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
divided into twelve geographic regions
and the number of Board members from
each region shall be as follows:
(1) Two members from region number
one comprised of the following States:
Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
(2) Seven members from region
number two comprised of the following
States: California and Hawaii.
(3) Two members from region number
three comprised of the following States:
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada,
Utah and Wyoming.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Two members from region number
eight comprised of the following State:
Idaho.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Two members from region
number 10 comprised of the following
States: Alabama, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) Three members from region
number 12 comprised of the following
States: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Dated: August 22, 2011.
David Shipman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–22154 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P; 3410–20–P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
[NRC–2009–0279]
New International Commission on
Radiological Protection;
Recommendations on the Annual Dose
Limit to the Lens of the Eye
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is continuing its stakeholder outreach of
possible changes to the radiation
protection standards by seeking public
comment on the newly released
International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP)
recommendations for the limitation of
annual dose to the lens of the eye. This
significant new recommendation has
not yet been the subject of any
stakeholder or public interactions on
any potential changes to the NRC’s
radiation protection regulations. The
NRC has not initiated rulemaking on
this subject, and is seeking early input
and views on the benefits and impacts
of options to be considered before
making any decision on whether to
consider this issue for future
rulemaking. Stakeholders and the public
are encouraged to submit comments
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30AUP1.SGM
30AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53844-53847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22154]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1150
[Document No. AMS-DA-11-0007; DA-11-02]
National Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Invitation To
Submit Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites comments on a proposed amendment to the
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (Dairy Order). The proposal would
modify the number of National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy
Board) members in eight regions, merge Region 8 and Region 10, merge
Region 12 and Region 13, and apportion Idaho as a separate region. The
total number of domestic Dairy Board members would remain the same at
36 and the total number of regions would be reduced from 13 to 12. This
modification was requested by the Dairy Board, which administers the
Dairy Order, to better reflect the geographic distribution of milk
production in the United States.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be identified with the
docket number AMS-DA-11-0007; DA-11-02. Commenters should identify the
date and page number of the issue of the Proposed Rule. Interested
persons may comment on this proposed rule using either of the following
procedures:
Mail: Comments may be submitted by mail to Whitney A.
Rick, Chief, Promotion and Research Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA,
1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 2958-S, Stop 0233, Washington, DC
20250-0233.
Fax: Comments may be faxed to (202) 720-0285.
E-mail: Comments may be e-mailed to
Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov.
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov.
All comments to this proposed rule, submitted by the above
procedures will
[[Page 53845]]
be available for viewing at: https://www.regulations.gov, or at USDA,
AMS, Dairy Programs, Promotion and Research Branch, Room 2958-S, 1400
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, (except on official Federal holidays). Persons wanting
to view comments in Room 2958-S are requested to make an appointment in
advance by calling (202) 720-6909.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Whitney A. Rick, Chief, Promotion and
Research Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Room 2958-S, Stop 0233, Washington, DC 20250-0233. Phone: (202)
720-6909. E-mail: Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued pursuant to the
Dairy Production Stabilization Act (Dairy Act) of 1983 [7 U.S.C. 4501-
4514], as amended.
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process
required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have a
retroactive effect. If adopted, nothing in this rule would preempt or
supersede any other program relating to dairy product promotion
organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any
State.
The Dairy Act provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 4509 of
the Dairy Act, any person subject to the Dairy Order may file with the
Secretary a petition stating that the Dairy Order, any provision of the
Dairy Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Dairy
Order is not in accordance with the law and request a modification of
the Dairy Order or to be exempted from the Dairy Order. Such person is
afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a
hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Dairy Act
provides that the district court of the United States in any district
in which the person is an inhabitant or has his principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the
petition, provided a complaint is filed not later than 20 days after
the date of the entry of the ruling.
Regulatory Flexibility 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
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The purpose of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses
subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened.
The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorizes a
national program for dairy product promotion, research and nutrition
education. Congress found that it is in the public interest to
authorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing
(through assessments on all milk produced in the United States for
commercial use and on imported dairy products) and carrying out a
coordinated program of promotion designed to strengthen the dairy
industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and expand
domestic and foreign markets and uses for fluid milk and dairy
products.
The Small Business Administration [13 CFR 121.201] defines small
dairy producers as those having annual receipts of not more than
$750,000 annually. Most of the producers subject to the provisions of
the Dairy Order are considered small entities.
The proposed rule would amend the Dairy Order by modifying the
number of National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board)
members in eight regions, merge Region 8 and Region 10, merge Region 12
and Region 13, and apportion Idaho as a separate region. The total
number of domestic Dairy Board members would remain the same at 36 and
the total number of regions would be reduced from 13 to 12. This
modification was requested by the Dairy Board, which administers the
Dairy Order, to better reflect the geographic distribution of milk
production in the United States.
The Dairy Order is administered by a 38-member Dairy Board, 36
members representing 13 geographic regions within the United States and
2 representing importers. The Dairy Order provides in section 1150.131
that the Dairy Board shall review the geographic distribution of milk
production throughout the United States and, if warranted, shall
recommend to the Secretary a reapportionment of the regions and/or
modification of the number of members from the regions in order to
better reflect the geographic distribution of milk production volume in
the United States. The Dairy Board is required to conduct the review at
least every 5 years and not more than every 3 years. The Dairy Board
was last modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk production.
Based on a review of the 2010 geographic distribution of milk
production, the Dairy Board has concluded that the number of Dairy
Board members for eight regions should be changed. Additionally, the
Dairy Board proposes to merge Region 8 and Region 10, merge Region 12
and Region 13, and apportion Idaho as a separate region. The Dairy
Board was last modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk production.
The proposed amendment should not have a significant economic
impact on persons subject to the Dairy Order. The proposed changes
merely would allow representation of the Dairy Board to better reflect
geographic milk production in the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which implements the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35], the information collection
requirements and record keeping provisions imposed by the Dairy Order
have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control No. 0581-
0093. No relevant Federal rules have been identified that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Statement of Consideration
The Dairy Order is administered by a 38-member Dairy Board, 36
members representing 13 geographic regions within the United States and
2 representing importers. The Dairy Order provides in section 1150.131
that the Dairy Board shall review the geographic distribution of milk
production volume throughout the United States and, if warranted, shall
recommend to the Secretary a reapportionment of regions and/or
modification of the number of producer members from regions in order to
best reflect the geographic distribution of milk production in the
United States. The Dairy Board is required to conduct the review at
least every 5 years and not more than every 3 years. The Dairy Board
was last modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk production.
Since the Dairy Board's last reapportionment, the Dairy Order was
amended by a final rule [76 FR 14777, March 18, 2011] to implement an
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research
and to add importer representation, initially two members, to the Dairy
Board. Additionally, the final rule amended the term ``United States''
in the Dairy Order
[[Page 53846]]
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Assessments on producers in these areas were effective
April 1, 2011. These amendments to the Dairy Order were implemented
pursuant to the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2008 (2008
Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246).
In order to complement the current geographical makeup of the
existing regions of the Dairy Board, the final rule added these four
new jurisdictions to the region of closest proximity. Alaska was added
to Region 1, currently comprised of Oregon and Washington; Hawaii was
added to Region 2, currently California; and the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were added to Region 10, currently
comprised of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Virginia. These regional modifications were effective March 18, 2011,
and are reflected in this proposed rule.
The final rule also modified the language in section 1150.131 of
the Dairy Order to remove the specific formula for calculating the
factor of pounds of milk per member, which divided total pounds of milk
produced by 36, as the Dairy Board is now comprised of 38 members (36
domestic producers and 2 importer representatives). While the Dairy
Order no longer specifies the procedure for calculating the factor of
pounds of milk per member, for the purposes of the current
reapportionment analysis, the procedure will remain the same.
The final rule also added new language that requires the Secretary
to review the average volume of imports of dairy products into the
United States and, if warranted, reapportion the importer
representation on the Dairy Board to reflect the proportional shares of
the United States market served by domestic production and imported
dairy products. This review will take place at least once every 3
years, after the initial appointment of importer representatives on the
Dairy Board.
The last reapportionment, conducted in 2008, was calculated by
using 2007 milk production data and dividing by 36 to determine a
factor of pounds of milk represented by each domestic Dairy Board
member. The resulting factor was then divided into the pounds of milk
produced in each region to determine the number of Dairy Board members
for each region. Accordingly, the same process using 2010 milk
production data was employed for the current reapportionment
calculations. Table 1 summarizes by region the volume of milk
production distribution for 2010, the percentage of total milk
production and the current number of Dairy Board seats per region.
Table 1--Current Regions and Number of Board Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Current regions and states Milk production total milk Current number
(mil. lbs.) production of board seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington.............................. 8,307.1 4.3 1
2. California, Hawaii...................................... 40,410.3 21.0 8
3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming 22,592.4 11.6 4
4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas........... 20,321 10.4 4
5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota................... 11,370 5.8 2
6. Wisconsin............................................... 26,035 13.5 5
7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska...................... 8,867 4.6 2
8. Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee.... 2,624 1.4 1
9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia.................. 17,188 8.9 3
10. District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 7,039 3.6 1
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia.....................
11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania........... 11,965 6.2 2
12. New York............................................... 12,713 6.6 2
13. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 4,036.5 2.1 1
Island, Vermont...........................................
----------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 193,468.3 100 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
** Puerto Rico--Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
In 2010, total milk production was 193,468 million pounds and each
of the Dairy Board members would represent 5,374 million pounds of
milk. For 2007, total milk production was 185,558 million pounds of
milk and each of the Dairy Board members represented 5,154 million
pounds of milk.
Based on the 2010 milk production data, the Dairy Board proposes
that member representation in Region 1 (Alaska, Oregon, and Washington)
be increased by one member. Milk production in Region 1 increased to
8,307 million pounds in 2010, up from 7,764 million pounds in 2007,
indicating two Dairy Board members (8,307 divided by 5,374 = 1.545)
compared to one Dairy Board member based on 2007 milk production data.
Milk production in Region 2 (California and Hawaii) decreased from
40,683 million pounds in 2007 to 40,410 million pounds in 2010. The
Dairy Board proposes that seven Dairy Board members (40,410 divided by
5,374 = 7.519) represent Region 2, compared to eight Dairy Board
members based on 2007 milk production data.
Milk production in Region 3 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming) increased from 21,212 million pounds in 2007
to 22,592 million pounds in 2010. Specifically, in Idaho, milk
production increased from 10,905 million pounds in 2007 to 12,779
pounds in 2010 and represents more than half of the production of
Region 3. Due to the increase in Idaho production, the Dairy Board
proposes apportioning Idaho as its own region with two Dairy Board
members.
Milk production in Region 8 (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee) decreased from 3,119 million pounds in 2007
to 2,624 million pounds in 2010. The Dairy Board concluded that Region
8 no longer supports one Dairy Board member (2,624 divided by 5,374 =
0.488) and proposes to merge Region 8 into Region 10 (District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, and Virginia) to create a new region with two Dairy Board
members.
Similarly, milk production in Region 13 (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts,
[[Page 53847]]
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) decreased from 4,046 million
pounds in 2007 to 4,036 million pounds in 2010. The Dairy Board
concluded that Region 13 no longer supports one Dairy Board member
(4,036 divided by 5,374 = 0.751) and proposes to merge Region 13 into
Region 12 (New York), creating a new region with three Dairy Board
members.
Table 2 summarizes by region, the volume of milk production
distribution for 2010, the percentage of total milk production and the
proposed regions and States and proposed Dairy Board members.
Table 2--Proposed Regions and Number of Board Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of Proposed
Proposed regions and states Milk production total milk number of
(mil. lbs.) production board seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington.............................. 8,307.1 4.3 2
2. California, Hawaii...................................... 40,410.3 21.0 7
3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming....... 9,813.4 5.0 2
4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas........... 20,321 10.4 4
5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota................... 11,370 5.8 2
6. Wisconsin............................................... 26,035 13.5 5
7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska...................... 8,867 4.6 2
8. Idaho................................................... 12,779 6.6 2
9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia.................. 17,188 8.9 3
10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, 9,663 5.0 2
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia.................
11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania........... 11,965 6.2 2
12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 16,749.5 8.7 3
York, Rhode Island, Vermont...............................
----------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 193,468.3 100 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
** Puerto Rico--Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011.
A 15-day comment period is provided for interested persons to
comment on this proposed rule. Twelve terms of existing Dairy Board
members will expire on October 31, 2011. Thus a 15-day comment period
is provided to provide for a timely appointment of new Dairy Board
members based on the current geographic distribution of milk production
in the United States.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1150
Dairy products, Milk, Promotion, Research.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7
CFR part 1150 be amended as follows:
PART 1150--DAIRY PROMOTION PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1150 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4501-4514 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
2. In Sec. 1150.131, paragraph (b) is amended by revising
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(8),
(b)(10), (b)(12), and removing paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 1150.131 Establishment and membership.
(a) * * *
(b) Thirty-six members of the Board shall be United States
producers. For purposes of nominating producers to the Board, the
United States shall be divided into twelve geographic regions and the
number of Board members from each region shall be as follows:
(1) Two members from region number one comprised of the following
States: Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
(2) Seven members from region number two comprised of the following
States: California and Hawaii.
(3) Two members from region number three comprised of the following
States: Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.
* * * * *
(8) Two members from region number eight comprised of the following
State: Idaho.
* * * * *
(10) Two members from region number 10 comprised of the following
States: Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
* * * * *
(12) Three members from region number 12 comprised of the following
States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,
Rhode Island and Vermont.
Dated: August 22, 2011.
David Shipman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-22154 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P; 3410-20-P
