[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 98 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12274]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 23, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1040

[Docket No. AO-225-A45-R01; DA-92-10]

 

Milk in the Southern Michigan Marketing Area; Partial Decision on 
Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and to Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This partial decision adopts on an expedited basis a change in 
the pooling provisions of the Southern Michigan Federal milk order. The 
change provides that a distributing plant located in the marketing area 
that processes and distributes primarily aseptically processed fluid 
milk products would be fully regulated under the order irrespective of 
the market or markets in which the products may be distributed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Brenner, Marketing 
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, room 
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 
720-7183.

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.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the 
Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule on small entities. 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of the Agricultural 
Marketing Service has certified that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The amendment will lessen the regulatory impact of the order on certain 
milk handlers and will promote orderly marketing of milk by producers 
and regulated handlers.
    The proposed amendment to the rules has been reviewed under 
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not 
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed 
amendment will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or 
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this 
rule.
    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 file with the Secretary a 
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any 
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance 
with the law and requesting a modification of an order or to be 
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a 
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on 
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United 
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or is the 
handler's principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to 
review the Secretary'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.
    Prior documents in this proceeding:
    Notice of Hearing: Issued December 3, 1992; published December 10, 
1992 (57 FR 58418).
    Supplemental Notice of Hearing: Issued January 19, 1993; published 
January 29, 1993 (58 FR 6447).
    Recommended Decision: Issued November 29, 1993; published December 
6, 1993 (58 FR 64176).
    Notice of Reopened Hearing: Issued February 18, 1994; published 
February 24, 1994 (59 FR 8874).

Preliminary Statement

    A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing 
agreement and the order regulating the handling of milk in the Southern 
Michigan 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 (7 CFR 
Part 900), in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on March 1, 1994, pursuant to 
notice issued February 18, 1994 (59 FR 8874).
    Interested parties were given until March 25, 1994, to file post-
hearing briefs on proposal No. 3 as published in the hearing notice, 
and on whether the proposal should be considered on an expedited basis.
    The hearing notice specifically invited interested persons to 
present evidence concerning the probable regulatory and informational 
impact of the proposal on small businesses. However, no participants at 
the hearing testified about any potentially adverse impacts of the 
proposal on small businesses.
    The material issues on the record of hearing are:
    1. Modification of the recommended multiple component pricing 
decision to compute the same protein price for both handlers and 
producers on the basis of a cheese market price and a cheese yield 
formula, and to include any residual value in the skim milk delivered 
by producers in the computation of the weighted average differential 
value.
    2. Amending the pool supply plant shipping requirement provisions 
to allow the market administrator to adjust the shipping percentages as 
market conditions require.
    3. Including in the pool distributing plant definition a 
description of a plant located within the marketing area which 
processes at least 50 percent of its fluid milk receipts as ultra-high 
temperature fluid milk products for distribution in aseptic packages. A 
plant qualifying as a pool distributing plant under the new provision 
would be a pool plant under the Southern Michigan order regardless of 
its route disposition in the marketing area of any other Federal milk 
order.
    4. Determining whether an emergency exists to warrant the omission 
of a recommended decision and the opportunity to file written 
exceptions thereto with respect to issue No. 3.
    This decision deals only with issues 3 and 4. The remaining issues 
of the original and reopened hearings will be considered in a later 
decision on this record. Issues 3 and 4 were not considered at the 
initial February 1993 hearing.

Findings and Conclusions

    The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are 
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:
    3. Include in the pool distributing plant definition a description 
of a plant located within the marketing area which processes at least 
50 percent of its fluid milk receipts as ultra-high temperature fluid 
milk products for distribution in aseptic packages. The provisions of 
the order that relate to the basis for pooling a fluid milk plant 
should be modified to include a distributing plant located in the 
marketing area if the principal activity of the plant is the processing 
and distribution of aseptically processed fluid milk products. Such 
pool status, however, should not be dependent upon the amount of route 
disposition in the Southern Michigan marketing area.
    The order currently provides that to qualify as a pool plant during 
a given month, a distributing plant must have total route disposition 
of not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A milk received in 
bulk at that plant direct from producers, supply plants, cooperative 
associations, or diverted by the plant operator or cooperative. A 
distributing plant may also be considered a pool plant in a given month 
if it qualified as a pool plant under the same performance requirements 
in either of the immediately preceding two months. A distributing plant 
which also meets the pooling requirements of another marketing area is 
regulated under the order in which it has a greater proportion of its 
route disposition.
    Parmalat White Knight Packaging Corporation (White Knight), a 
proprietary handler, proposed that the order be amended to accommodate 
the operations of its milk plant located at Wyoming, Michigan. The 
plant is located within the defined marketing area. A witness for White 
Knight testified that the plant processes, packages, and distributes 
fluid milk products that are processed at ultra high temperatures and 
packaged in aseptic containers. The witness indicated that the aseptic 
process includes the use of ultra high temperature pasteurization, and 
that the resulting products, commonly referred to as ``UHT'' milk, 
could be stored unrefrigerated.\1\ The proprietary handler proposed 
that this type of plant be a pool plant if it is located in the 
Southern Michigan marketing area and meets the current performance 
requirements for a distributing plant, except for the requirement that 
the plant is regulated where the greatest proportion of its route 
disposition occurs. The proponent stated that the intent of the 
proposal is to pool its plant under the Southern Michigan order, 
irrespective of the level of route sales in this or other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\``UHT'' milk, however, refers only to the pasteurization 
process that is used in producing an aseptically processed milk 
product. For this reason, it is more appropriate for purposes of 
order provisions to refer to the products involved as aseptically 
processed fluid milk products rather than UHT milk. To simplify the 
presentation of the findings and conclusions, however, and because 
of the common usage of the term ``UHT'', reference is made in the 
decision to UHT milk or milk products and UHT plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The White Knight spokesman cited several reasons why the proposal 
should be adopted. One reason cited was the nature of UHT milk 
products. According to the witness, fluid milk products processed at 
ultra high temperatures and packaged in aseptic containers can be 
stored at room temperature for nine months, in contrast to typical 
fluid milk products, which must be refrigerated and have relatively 
short shelf lives. As a result, when compared to the regularly-
scheduled and relatively local distribution of fluid milk products, 
White Knight has the ability to distribute its products at more 
infrequent intervals and over a much broader geographical territory. 
White Knight's milk supply is procured from two cooperatives which 
represent 80 percent of producer milk in the order. Because of the 
typical procurement but unique distribution patterns, the proponent 
asserted, the current pooling provisions create a disincentive against 
local producers supplying a local Class I plant.
    The nature of the proponent's dairy products has led to chaotic 
marketing conditions, the witness stated. Due to the distribution and 
sales patterns of its aseptically-packaged products, the regulatory 
status of the UHT plant has shifted from order to order, even on a 
monthly basis. The witness noted that in the five months beginning in 
September 1993, the plant was pooled under four different federal 
orders: Carolina, New Orleans-Mississippi, Southeastern Florida, and 
Tampa Bay. In a recent month, proponent's products were sold in 17 
federal order marketing areas, in addition to unregulated territory. 
Almost half of the proponent's sales were in unregulated areas.
    The witness stated that continual change in regulation under 
different federal orders puts the proponent at a competitive 
disadvantage to handlers who know with certainty under which order they 
will be regulated, because advance knowledge of the Class I price 
virtually is eliminated for the proponent. This has made it difficult 
for the proponent to price and sell its products because its costs are 
not known in advance.
    The witness noted that the administrative costs of tracking 
distribution and sales patterns are greater with the regulatory shifts. 
Additional administrative effort and time on the part of the market 
administrator, the proprietary handler, and the cooperative supplier is 
necessary to obtain information detailing where the milk originates and 
where the product is sold to consumers. Because of the numerous areas 
in which the handler markets products, the witness testified, it is 
more difficult for the handler to properly report its sales of UHT milk 
on a monthly basis. Payroll information requirements are duplicated in 
both the originating and the pooling orders and are necessary for all 
producers' milk that is shipped to the plant during the month. Because 
the producers whose milk is shipped to the proponent's plant may vary 
during the month, more administrative work is created. The variation of 
reports required under different orders also requires additional time 
each month. The process would be simplified for the market 
administrator, handler, and cooperative if regulation were maintained 
under only one order.
    Moreover, some markets under which the proponent's plant has been 
pooled have base-excess plans, such as the Carolina order. According to 
proponent's post-hearing brief, because the group of producers whose 
milk is supplied to the proponent changes somewhat each month, little 
or no base would be accumulated, even under continuous regulation, in a 
market that uses a base-excess plan. Hence, producers supplying the 
predominantly Class I White Knight plant would be penalized by 
receiving the excess or Class III price. The brief continues by noting 
that failure to earn base creates a disincentive for producers to 
supply a Class I plant, which is not the intent of the base-excess 
provisions or the Federal Order program.
    In proponent's view, failure to adopt its lock-in proposal on an 
expedited basis would cause continuation of disruptive market 
conditions, operational problems for the UHT plant, administrative 
problems for the various orders, competitive uncertainty for the 
proponent, and payment problems for producers.
    A witness representing Independent Cooperative Milk Producers 
Association (ICMPA) and Michigan Milk Producers Association (MMPA) also 
testified in support of proposals 3 and 4. The entire milk supply for 
the White Knight plant is obtained from ICMPA and MMPA. The witness 
concurred with the proponent's testimony. He stated that continuing to 
sell milk to the plant puts producers whose milk is shipped to White 
Knight in an inequitable situation with other order producers, and that 
various Class I differentials adjusted for location are disruptive to 
the order. Some milk destined for White Knight has been reloaded at a 
plant located within the marketing area to insure that it will be 
pooled under the order. The witness testified that reloading is not 
practical and results in increased costs for the supplying cooperative 
and White Knight.
    The supplying cooperatives' witness also raised concerns about 
base-excess possibilities. The witness stated that by shipping the milk 
to White Knight, the cooperative is accepting the price that will be 
received for it. ICMPA, he testified, does not want to supply a handler 
and receive less value for the milk than would have been received if 
the milk were sold for utilization within the market area. The witness 
also testified that the potential of being pooled under a base-excess 
order, in months when milk in excess of an established base is assigned 
a lower value, could cause the supplying cooperative to deny shipments 
of milk to the distributing plant.
    No opposition to the proposal was expressed at the hearing or in 
briefs.
    The record evidence indicates that fluid milk products have been 
processed at the proponent's plant since September 1993; currently, UHT 
pasteurization and aseptic packaging are used in the manufacturing of 
all dairy products. Most of the plant's milk utilization is classified 
as Class I, and a small amount of the milk is classified as Class III. 
White Knight purchases milk from two cooperatives which represent 
approximately 80 percent of producer milk in the order.
    The proponent's distribution channels for UHT fluid milk are 
substantially different from those used to distribute fluid milk 
products that require refrigeration. These latter products generally 
are distributed through frequent deliveries by distributing plants to 
stores within the marketing area. According to record evidence, the 
proponent's products are distributed as far away as the Caribbean and 
in a substantial number of federal order areas each month.
    Under current provisions, a distributing fluid milk plant that 
qualifies for pooling under more than one order during the same month 
is regulated under the order in which such plant's route distribution 
is the greatest. Such a provision normally assures that all handlers 
having their principal sales in a market are subject to the same 
pricing and other regulatory requirements. However, because of its 
products' distribution patterns, the proponent's UHT plant has yet to 
be regulated under any one particular order on a regular basis. The 
problems that have occurred from such pooling uncertainties are severe 
enough to override the traditional basis for pooling a distributing 
plant.
    Shifting regulatory status of the proponent's plant between orders 
creates uncertainty, which is not conducive to maintaining market 
stability in the Southern Michigan market, and may affect other markets 
adversely, as well. For example, the Class I differential at the 
Wyoming location, $1.70 under the Southern Michigan order, ranges for 
the four orders under which the plant has been regulated from $1.175 
under the New Orleans-Mississippi order to $1.54 under the Southeastern 
Florida order, a range of 36.5 cents per hundredweight. Such price 
changes create serious marketing problems to the proponent in 
determining what price to place on the various UHT products. The 
supplying cooperatives also experience difficulty in pricing milk to 
White Knight due to the broad geographic area of the plant's product 
distribution, and uncertainty about the level and the basis of returns 
they receive for their milk if the regulatory status of the plant is 
unstable.
    Prices received by producers under an order are influenced by the 
amount of the Class I differential, the market utilization of milk, the 
applicable location adjustments, and method of payment. Since these 
factors vary from order to order, producer prices at the White Knight 
UHT plant vary considerably when the plant shifts regulation from one 
order to another on the basis of sales shifts. Under these disorderly 
circumstances, producers would find it disruptive to their operations 
and long-range planning to shift from one market to another. When 
regulated by one order, pay prices for producers supplying the 
proponent's plant would be the same as for other producers shipping to 
plants in the same zone. In addition, producers whose milk is pooled 
regularly under the various orders under which White Knight may become 
regulated may find their pay prices fluctuating and disrupted.
    The record evidence indicates that both the proponent and its milk 
suppliers are concerned with the possibility that the plant might be 
regulated under an order with a base-excess plan during months in which 
milk in excess of an established base is assigned a lower value. 
Without an established milk production base, the milk would be priced 
at the excess price.2 White Knight would be unable to attract an 
adequate supply of milk if it were known that the milk would be excess 
milk in a marketing area with a base-excess plan. Therefore, the 
continued milk supply for the UHT plant is threatened unless current 
order provisions are amended. Under the circumstances described in the 
record, consideration must be given to regulating the plant in the 
market in which there is reasonable assurance that it will have 
available an adequate supply of producer milk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Currently, 7 of 39 orders have this plan; months in which 
excess milk is assigned a lower value than base milk range from 
February through August depending on the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is concluded that overall market stability will tend to be 
maintained and the regulatory stability of the White Knight UHT plant 
(or any other such plant) will tend to be assured if the order is 
modified along the lines proposed. The order will specify that the 
principal activity at such a plant must be the processing and 
distribution of aseptically processed fluid milk products. Such a 
requirement is intended to assure that a plant would not be able to be 
pooled under the particular pooling provision at issue unless at least 
one-half of the plant's fluid milk receipts are processed and 
distributed in the form of aseptically processed fluid milk products. 
Thus, the plant would have some operating flexibility.
    Under the lock-in provision adopted herein, the Southern Michigan 
order would regulate the Wyoming UHT plant (or any other similar plant) 
even though it had a greater proportion of its route distribution in 
the marketing area of another order. The intent of this pooling 
arrangement may be in conflict with the pooling requirements of another 
order since the other order may not have a complementary provision 
which will permit the plant to be locked in under the Southern Michigan 
order. It is not possible to eliminate pooling conflicts between the 
provisions of the Southern Michigan order and other orders by amending 
only the Southern Michigan order. Thus, whenever such a pooling 
conflict arises, an administrative decision as to the order under which 
the plant shall be pooled may be necessary, depending upon the 
particular provisions of each order and the intent of maintaining 
Southern Michigan regulation for a UHT plant located within the 
marketing area.
    4. Emergency Action. The omission of a recommended decision was 
proposed by proponent of the lock-in proposal that was discussed above 
as issue 3. The witness representing the supplying cooperatives also 
stated support for an emergency decision. No testimony was received in 
opposition to emergency action. The testimony and data in the record of 
this proceeding strongly indicate the need for prompt amendatory 
action. The evidence shows it is desirable to have an amended order 
effective as soon as possible to minimize the disorderly marketing 
conditions currently facing the UHT plant. The normal procedure of 
issuing a recommended decision and providing time to file exceptions 
thereto would further the disorderly market conditions that the UHT 
plant is facing.
    It is therefore found that due and timely execution of the 
Secretary's function in this proceeding imperatively and unavoidably 
requires omission of the recommended decision and the opportunity for 
filing exceptions thereto.

Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions

    A brief and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf 
of White Knight. The brief, proposed findings and conclusions, and the 
evidence in the record were considered in making the findings and 
conclusions set forth above. No opposition to either the lock-in 
proposal or to emergency consideration was received in testimony or in 
proposed findings and conclusions.

General Findings

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement 
those that were made when the Southern Michigan 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) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby 
proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, 
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
    (b) The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to section 2 
of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available 
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market 
supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum 
prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as 
hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the 
aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome 
milk, and be in the public interest; and
    (c) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby 
proposed to be amended, will regulate the handling of milk in the same 
manner as, and will be applicable only to persons in the respective 
classes of industrial and commercial activity specified in, a marketing 
agreement upon which a hearing has been held.

Marketing Agreement and Order

    Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are two documents, a 
Marketing Agreement regulating the handling of milk, and an Order 
amending the order regulating the handling of milk in the Southern 
Michigan marketing area, which have been decided upon as the detailed 
and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing conclusions.
    It is hereby ordered, That this entire decision and the two 
documents annexed hereto be published in the Federal Register.

Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period

    January 1994 is hereby determined to be the representative period 
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of the order, as 
amended and as hereby proposed to be amended, regulating the handling 
of milk in the Southern Michigan marketing area is approved or favored 
by producers, as defined under the terms of the order (as amended and 
as hereby proposed to be amended), who during such representative 
period were engaged in the production of milk for sale within the 
aforesaid marketing area.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1040

    Milk marketing orders.

    Dated: May 12, 1994.
Patricia Jensen,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services.

Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the 
Southern Michigan Marketing Area

    This order shall not become effective unless and until the 
requirements of Sec. 900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure 
governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing 
orders have been met.

Findings and Determinations

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement 
those that were made when the order was first issued and when it has 
been amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby 
ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set 
forth herein.
    (a) Findings. 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 Southern Michigan 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; and the 
minimum prices specified in the order as hereby amended are such prices 
as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of 
pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
    (3) The 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.

Order Relative to Handling

    It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective date 
hereof, the handling of milk in the Southern Michigan marketing area 
shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows:

PART 1040--MILK IN THE SOUTHERN MICHIGAN MARKETING AREA

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1040 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-
674.


Sec. 1040.5  [Amended]

    2. Section 1040.5 is amended by removing the phrase ``in the 
marketing area'' at the end of the section.
    3. Section 1040.7 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
the section, paragraph (a), and the first sentence of the introductory 
text of paragraph (b), to read as follows:


Sec. 1040.7  Pool plant.

    Pool plant means:
    (a) A distributing plant:
    (1) From which total route disposition, except filled milk, during 
the month is not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A milk 
received in bulk at such plant direct from producers, from supply 
plants, from a cooperative association as described in Sec. 1040.9(c) 
or diverted by the plant operator or by a cooperative association 
pursuant to Sec. 1040.13 as producer milk, except as provided in 
paragraph (c) of this section; or
    (2) That qualified as a pool plant in either of the immediately 
preceding 2 months on the basis of performance standards described in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) 
of this section; or
    (3) That meets the following conditions, regardless of the 
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section:
    (i) The plant is located in the marketing area;
    (ii) The plant has total route disposition, except filled milk, 
during the month of not less than 50 percent of the combined Grade A 
milk received in bulk at such plant direct from producers, from supply 
plants, from a cooperative association as described in Sec. 1040.9(c) 
or diverted by the plant operator or by a cooperative association 
pursuant to Sec. 1040.13 as producer milk; and
    (iii) The principal activity of such plant is the processing and 
distributing of aseptically processed fluid milk products.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a supply 
plant which during the month meets one of the performance requirements 
specified in paragraph (b) (1), (2), (3) or (4) of this section. * * *
* * * * *

Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in Certain 
Marketing Areas

    The parties hereto, in order to effectuate the declared policy of 
the Act, and in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure 
effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), desire to enter into this 
marketing agreement and do hereby agree that the provisions referred to 
in paragraph I hereof as augmented by the provisions specified in 
paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the provisions of this marketing 
agreement as if set out in full herein.
    I. The findings and determinations, order relative to handling, and 
the provisions of Secs. __________\1\ to __________, all inclusive, of 
the order regulating the handling of milk in the (__________ Name of 
order __________) marketing area (7 CFR __________ PART __________\2\) 
which is annexed hereto; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\First and last sections of order.
    \2\Appropriate part number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. The following provisions: Sec. __________\3\ Record of milk 
handled and authorization to correct typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Next consecutive section number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/she 
handled during the month of __________\4\, __________ hundredweight of 
milk covered by this marketing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\Appropriate representative period for the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Authorization to correct typographical errors. The undersigned 
hereby authorizes the Director, or Acting Director, Dairy Division, 
Agricultural Marketing Service, to correct any typographical errors 
which may have been made in this marketing agreement.
    Sec. __________\3\ Effective date. This marketing agreement shall 
become effective upon the execution of a counterpart hereof by the 
Secretary in accordance with Section 900.14(a) of the aforesaid rules 
of practice and procedure.
    In Witness Whereof, The contracting handlers, acting under the 
provisions of the Act, for the purposes and subject to the limitations 
herein contained and not otherwise, have hereunto set their respective 
hands and seals.

Signature

By (Name)--------------------------------------------------------------
(Title)----------------------------------------------------------------
(Address)--------------------------------------------------------------

(Seal)
Attest
[FR Doc. 94-12274 Filed 5-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P