Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order, 51693-51695 [2012-20973]
Download as PDF
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the costs of certifying the disposal of
such lot paid by the importer.
(1) Inshell rework procedure for
aflatoxin. If inshell rework is selected as
a remedy to meet the aflatoxin
requirements of this part, then 100
percent of the product within that lot
shall be removed from the bulk and/or
retail packaging containers and
reworked to remove the portion of the
lot that caused the failure. Reworking
shall consist of mechanical, electronic,
or manual procedures normally used in
the handling of pistachios. After the
rework procedure has been completed,
the total weight of the accepted product
and the total weight of the rejected
product shall be reported by the
importer to Customs and USDA on an
Imported Pistachios—Rework and
Failed Lot Disposition report (Form FV–
251) as described in paragraph (h)(2) of
this section. The reworked lot shall be
sampled and tested for aflatoxin as
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section, except that the lot sample
size and the test sample size shall be
doubled. If, after the lot has been
reworked and tested, it fails the
aflatoxin test for a second time, the lot
may be shelled and the kernels
reworked, sampled, and tested in the
manner specified for an original lot of
kernels, or the failed lot may be
exported, used for non-human
consumption, or otherwise disposed of.
(2) Kernel rework procedure for
aflatoxin. If pistachio kernel rework is
selected as a remedy to meet the
aflatoxin requirements of this part, then
100 percent of the product within that
lot shall be removed from the bulk and/
or retail packaging containers and
reworked to remove the portion of the
lot that caused the failure. Reworking
shall consist of mechanical, electronic,
or manual procedures normally used in
the handling of pistachios. After the
rework procedure has been completed
the total weight of the accepted product
and the total weight of the rejected
product shall be reported to Customs
and USDA on an Imported Pistachios—
Rework and Failed Lot Disposition
report (Form FV–251). The reworked lot
shall be sampled and tested for aflatoxin
as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
this section.
(3) Failed lot reporting. If a lot fails to
meet the aflatoxin requirements of this
part, the testing laboratory shall
complete an Imported Pistachios—
Failed Lot Notification report (Form FV–
249) as described in paragraph (h)(1) of
this section, and shall submit it to
Customs, the importer, and USDA
within 10 working days of the test
failure. This form must be completed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:47 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
and submitted each time a lot fails
aflatoxin testing.
(h) Reports and Recordkeeping.
(1) Form FV–249 Imported
Pistachios—Failed Lot Notification.
Each USDA or USDA-accredited
laboratory shall notify the importer;
Customs; and the Marketing Order and
Agreement Division, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; of all
lots that fail to meet the maximum
aflatoxin requirements by completing
this form and submitting it within 10
days of failed aflatoxin testing.
(2) Form FV–251 Imported
Pistachios—Rework and Failed Lot
Disposition. Each importer who reworks
a failing lot of pistachios shall complete
this report and shall forward it to
Customs and the Marketing Order and
Agreement Division, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, no
later than 10 days after the rework is
completed. If rework is not selected as
a remedy, the importer shall complete
and submit this form within 10 days of
alternate disposition of the lot.
(i) Exemptions. Any importer may
import pistachios free of the
requirements of this section if such
importer imports a quantity not
exceeding a total of 5,000 dried pounds
between September 1 and August 31 of
each year. Substandard pistachios
imported for use in non-human
consumption outlets shall be subject to
the safeguard provisions contained in
§ 999.500.
(j) Reconditioning prior to
importation. Nothing contained in this
section shall be deemed to preclude
reconditioning pistachios prior to
importation, in order that such
pistachios may be made eligible to meet
the applicable aflatoxin regulations
prescribed in paragraphs (c) through (f)
of this section.
(k) Comingling. Certified lots of
pistachios may be comingled with other
certified lots, but the comingling of
certified lots and uncertified lots shall
cause the loss of certification for the
comingled lots.
(l) Retesting. Whenever USDA has
reason to believe that imported
pistachios may have been damaged or
deteriorated while in storage, USDA
may reject the then effective inspection
certificate and may require the owner of
the pistachios to have them retested to
establish whether or not such pistachios
may be shipped for human
consumption.
(m) Compliance. Any person who
violates any provision of this section
shall be subject to a forfeiture in the
amount prescribed in section 8a(5) of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51693
674), or, upon conviction, a penalty in
the amount prescribed in section 8c(14)
of the said Act, or to both such forfeiture
and penalty. False representation to any
agency of the United States on any
matter within its jurisdiction, knowing
it to be false, is a violation of 18 U.S.C.
1001, which provides for a fine or
imprisonments or both.
(n) Other import requirements. The
provisions of this section do not
supersede any restrictions or
prohibitions on pistachios under the
Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, or
any other applicable laws or regulations
of city, county, State, or Federal
Agencies including the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Dated: August 21, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–20974 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1033
[Doc. No. AO–11–0333; AMS–DA–11–0067;
DA–11–04]
Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area;
Order Amending the Order
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends the
Pool Plant provisions of the Mideast
Federal milk marketing order regulating
distributing plants physically located
within the marketing area, with a Class
I utilization of at least 30 percent and
with combined route disposition and
transfers of at least 50 percent
distributed into Federal milk marketing
areas, as Pool Distributing Plants under
the terms of the order. More than the
required number of producers for the
Mideast marketing area approved the
issuance of the final order as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
C. Taylor, Order Formulation and
Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/
Dairy Programs, STOP 0231–Room
2963, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 720–
7183, email address: erin.taylor@ams.
usda.gov.
DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule more adequately defines the plants,
and the producer milk associated with
those plants, that serve the fluid needs
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
51694
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
of the Mideast market and therefore
which producers should share in the
additional revenue arising from fluid
milk sales.
Accordingly, this final rule adopts
proposed amendments detailed in the
final decision (77 FR 38536).
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.
The amendment proposed herein has
been reviewed under Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are
not intended to have a retroactive effect.
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601–674) (the Act), 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 USDA a
petition stating that the order, any
provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is
not in accordance with the law. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. After a
hearing, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA or Department)
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has its
principal place of business, has
jurisdiction in equity to review USDA’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. 601–612), the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
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.
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’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:47 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
dairy farms. 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 October 2011, the time of the
hearing, there were 6,651 dairy farms
pooled on the Mideast order. Of these,
approximately 6,169 dairy farms (or
92.8 percent) were considered small
businesses. During the same month,
there were 51 handler operations
associated with the Mideast order (25
fully regulated handlers, 8 partially
regulated handlers, 2 producerhandlers, and 16 exempt handlers). Of
these, approximately 38 handlers (or
74.5 percent) were considered small
businesses.
The Pool Plant provisions of the
Mideast order define which plants have
an association with serving the fluid
milk market demand of the Mideast
marketing area, and therefore determine
the producers and the producer milk
that can participate in the marketwide
pool as well as share in the Class I
market revenues. The proposed
amendment adopted in this final rule
will fully regulate some handlers that
currently fall under partial regulation.
As a result, these handlers will be
required to account to the Mideast order
marketwide pool. Consequently, all
producers whose milk is pooled and
priced under the terms of the Mideast
order will benefit from the additional
revenue contributed to the marketwide
pool by the newly-regulated distributing
plant. The Department anticipates that
while these additional monies will be
shared with all producers serving the
market, the amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
AMS 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.
A review of reporting requirements
was completed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35). It was determined that the
amendment will have no impact on
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements because it will
remain identical to the current
requirements. No new forms are
proposed and no additional reporting
requirements are necessary.
This notice does not require
additional information collection that
will necessitate clearance by the Office
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
minimal amount of information which
can be supplied without data processing
equipment or a trained statistical staff.
Thus, the information collection and
reporting burden is relatively small.
Requiring the same reports for all
handlers does not significantly
disadvantage any handler that is smaller
than the industry average.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notice of Hearing: Issued September
2, 2011; published September 8, 2011
(76 FR 55608).
Recommended Decision: Issued
February 24, 2012; published February
29, 2012 (77 FR 12216).
Final Decision: Issued June 22, 2012;
published June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38536).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations
hereinafter set forth supplement those
that were made when the 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.
(a) Findings Upon the Basis of the
Hearing Record
A public hearing was held upon
certain proposed amendments to the
tentative marketing agreement and to
the order regulating the handling of
milk in the Mideast marketing area. 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 (7 CFR
part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence
introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The said 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 aforesaid marketing area.
The minimum prices specified in the
order as hereby amended are such
prices as will reflect the aforesaid
factors, insure a sufficient quantity of
pure and wholesome milk, and be in the
public interest; and
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The said 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
The amendment to this order is
known to handlers. The final decision
containing the proposed amendment to
this order was issued on June 22, 2012,
and published in the Federal Register
on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38536).
The changes that result from this
amendment 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 this amendment effective
following October 1, 2012. (Section
553(d), Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. 551–559.)
(c) Determinations
It is hereby determined that:
(1) The refusal or failure of handlers
(excluding cooperative associations
specified in section 8c(9) of the AMAA)
of more than 50 percent of the milk,
which is marketed within the specified
marketing areas, to sign a proposed
marketing agreement, tends to prevent
the effectuation of the declared policy of
the AMAA;
(2) The issuance of this order
amending the Mideast order is the only
practical means pursuant to the
declared policy of the AMAA of
advancing the interests of producers as
defined in the orders as hereby
amended; and
(3) The issuance of this order
amending the Mideast order is favored
by at least two-thirds of the producers
who were engaged in the production of
milk for sale in the respective marketing
areas.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1033
Milk marketing orders.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and
after the effective date hereof, the
handling of milk in the Mideast
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:
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
7 CFR part 1033 is amended as follows:
PART 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST
MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1033 continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:47 Aug 24, 2012
Jkt 226001
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674, and 7253.
2. Amend § 1033.7 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 1033.7
Pool Plant.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) A distributing plant, other than a
plant qualified as a pool plant pursuant
to paragraph (b) of this section or
§ __.7(b) of any other Federal milk order,
from which during the month 30
percent or more of the total quantity of
fluid milk products physically received
at the plant (excluding concentrated
milk received from another plant by
agreement for other than class I use) are
disposed of as route disposition or are
transferred in the form of packaged fluid
milk products to other distributing
plants. At least 25 percent of such route
disposition and transfers must be to
outlets in the marketing area. Plants
located within the marketing area that
meet the 30 percent route disposition
standard contained above, and have
combined route disposition and
transfers of at least 50 percent into
Federal order marketing areas will be
regulated as a distributing plant in this
order.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 21, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–20973 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2011–0945; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NE–18–AD; Amendment 39–
17161; AD 2012–16–14]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell
International Inc. Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Honeywell International Inc. TFE731–
20R, –20AR, –20BR, –40, –40AR, –40R,
–50R, and –60 turbofan engines. This
AD was prompted by a report of a
quality escape of about 8,000 2nd stage
low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor
blades, manufactured by Honeywell
Chihuahua Manufacturing Operation
since 2009. This AD requires removing
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51695
and inspecting certain LPT2 rotor
blades. We are issuing this AD to correct
an unsafe condition caused by these
blades installed on these engines.
DATES: This AD is effective October 1,
2012.
The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
of a certain publication listed in the AD
as of October 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Honeywell
International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85034–2802; Web site:
https://portal.honeywell.com; or call
Honeywell toll free at phone: 800–601–
3099 (U.S./Canada) or 602–365–3099
(International Direct).
You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–
7125.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is
Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA
90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5246; fax:
562–627–5210; email:
joseph.costa@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
We issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would
apply to the specified products. That
NPRM published in the Federal
Register on January 9, 2012 (77 FR
1043). That NPRM proposed to require
removing and inspecting certain LPT2
rotor blades.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. We
received no comments on the NPRM.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51693-51695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1033
[Doc. No. AO-11-0333; AMS-DA-11-0067; DA-11-04]
Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Pool Plant provisions of the
Mideast Federal milk marketing order regulating distributing plants
physically located within the marketing area, with a Class I
utilization of at least 30 percent and with combined route disposition
and transfers of at least 50 percent distributed into Federal milk
marketing areas, as Pool Distributing Plants under the terms of the
order. More than the required number of producers for the Mideast
marketing area approved the issuance of the final order as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin C. Taylor, Order Formulation and
Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 0231-Room 2963,
1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-7183,
email address: erin.taylor@ams.usda.gov.
DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule more adequately defines the
plants, and the producer milk associated with those plants, that serve
the fluid needs
[[Page 51694]]
of the Mideast market and therefore which producers should share in the
additional revenue arising from fluid milk sales.
Accordingly, this final rule adopts proposed amendments detailed in
the final decision (77 FR 38536).
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.
The amendment proposed herein has been reviewed under Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have a
retroactive effect.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674) (the Act), 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 USDA a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After a hearing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA
or Department) would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the
district court of the United States in any district in which the
handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has
jurisdiction in equity to review USDA'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-
612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 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.
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 farms. 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 October 2011, the time of the hearing, there were 6,651
dairy farms pooled on the Mideast order. Of these, approximately 6,169
dairy farms (or 92.8 percent) were considered small businesses. During
the same month, there were 51 handler operations associated with the
Mideast order (25 fully regulated handlers, 8 partially regulated
handlers, 2 producer-handlers, and 16 exempt handlers). Of these,
approximately 38 handlers (or 74.5 percent) were considered small
businesses.
The Pool Plant provisions of the Mideast order define which plants
have an association with serving the fluid milk market demand of the
Mideast marketing area, and therefore determine the producers and the
producer milk that can participate in the marketwide pool as well as
share in the Class I market revenues. The proposed amendment adopted in
this final rule will fully regulate some handlers that currently fall
under partial regulation. As a result, these handlers will be required
to account to the Mideast order marketwide pool. Consequently, all
producers whose milk is pooled and priced under the terms of the
Mideast order will benefit from the additional revenue contributed to
the marketwide pool by the newly-regulated distributing plant. The
Department anticipates that while these additional monies will be
shared with all producers serving the market, the amendment will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
AMS 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.
A review of reporting requirements was completed under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). It was
determined that the amendment will have no impact on reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements because it will remain
identical to the current requirements. No new forms are proposed and no
additional reporting requirements are necessary.
This notice does not require additional information collection that
will necessitate 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 minimal amount of
information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or
a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and
reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for
all handlers does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is
smaller than the industry average.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notice of Hearing: Issued September 2, 2011; published September 8,
2011 (76 FR 55608).
Recommended Decision: Issued February 24, 2012; published February
29, 2012 (77 FR 12216).
Final Decision: Issued June 22, 2012; published June 28, 2012 (77
FR 38536).
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the 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.
(a) Findings Upon the Basis of the Hearing Record
A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendments to the
tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling
of milk in the Mideast marketing area. 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 (7 CFR part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The said 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 aforesaid marketing area. The minimum
prices specified in the order as hereby amended are such prices as will
reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and
wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
[[Page 51695]]
(3) The said 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
The amendment to this order is known to handlers. The final
decision containing the proposed amendment to this order was issued on
June 22, 2012, and published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2012
(77 FR 38536).
The changes that result from this amendment 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 this amendment
effective following October 1, 2012. (Section 553(d), Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559.)
(c) Determinations
It is hereby determined that:
(1) The refusal or failure of handlers (excluding cooperative
associations specified in section 8c(9) of the AMAA) of more than 50
percent of the milk, which is marketed within the specified marketing
areas, to sign a proposed marketing agreement, tends to prevent the
effectuation of the declared policy of the AMAA;
(2) The issuance of this order amending the Mideast order is the
only practical means pursuant to the declared policy of the AMAA of
advancing the interests of producers as defined in the orders as hereby
amended; and
(3) The issuance of this order amending the Mideast order is
favored by at least two-thirds of the producers who were engaged in the
production of milk for sale in the respective marketing areas.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1033
Milk marketing orders.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date
hereof, the handling of milk in the Mideast 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:
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1033 is amended
as follows:
PART 1033--MILK IN THE MIDEAST MARKETING AREA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1033 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1033.7 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1033.7 Pool Plant.
* * * * *
(a) A distributing plant, other than a plant qualified as a pool
plant pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section or Sec. ----.7(b) of
any other Federal milk order, from which during the month 30 percent or
more of the total quantity of fluid milk products physically received
at the plant (excluding concentrated milk received from another plant
by agreement for other than class I use) are disposed of as route
disposition or are transferred in the form of packaged fluid milk
products to other distributing plants. At least 25 percent of such
route disposition and transfers must be to outlets in the marketing
area. Plants located within the marketing area that meet the 30 percent
route disposition standard contained above, and have combined route
disposition and transfers of at least 50 percent into Federal order
marketing areas will be regulated as a distributing plant in this
order.
* * * * *
Dated: August 21, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-20973 Filed 8-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P