[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29090]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 25, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046

[DA-95-06]

 

Milk in the Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-
Lexington-Evansville Marketing Areas; Proposed Suspension of Certain 
Provisions of the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed suspension of rules.

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

SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal that 
would extend a suspension of certain provisions of the Carolina, 
Georgia, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville Federal 
milk orders from March 1, 1995, through February 28, 1996, or until the 
conclusion of an amendatory proceeding that has been scheduled to deal 
with these matters.

DATES: Comments are due no later than December 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist, 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2968, South 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC. 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This action would lessen the regulatory burden on small 
entities by removing pricing disparities that are causing or could 
cause financial hardship for certain regulated plants.
    The Department is issuing this proposed action in conformance with 
Executive Order 12866.
    This proposed suspension has been reviewed under Executive Order 
12778, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have a 
retroactive effect. This action will not preempt any state or local 
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable 
conflict with the rule.
    The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be 
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Sec. 608c(15)(A) 
of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary 
a petition stating that the order, any provisions of the order, or any 
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance 
with law and requesting a modification of the 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 has its 
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.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), the suspension of the following provisions of the orders 
regulating the handling of milk in the Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee 
Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville marketing areas is being 
considered for a 12-month period beginning March 1, 1995:
    1. In Sec. 1005.7(d)(3) of the Carolina order, the words ``from'', 
``there'', ``a greater quantity of route disposition, except filled 
milk, during the month'', and ``than in this marketing area'';
    2. In Sec. 1007.7(e)(3) of the Georgia order, the words ``, except 
as provided in paragraph (e)(4) of this section,'';
    3. In Sec. 1007.7 of the Georgia order, paragraph (e)(4);
    4. In Sec. 1011.7(d)(3) of the Tennessee Valley order, the words 
``from'', ``there'', ``a greater quantity of route disposition, except 
filled milk, during the month'', and ``than in this marketing area''; 
and
    5. In Sec. 1046.2 of the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville order, the 
word ``Pulaski''.
    All persons who desire to send written data, views or arguments 
about the proposed suspension should send two copies of them to the 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2968, South 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 30th day 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    The comments that are sent will be made available for public 
inspection in the Dairy Division during normal business hours (7 CFR 
1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

    This proposed suspension would extend an existing suspension that 
has been in effect since March 1, 1994. This suspension allows a 
distributing plant at Kingsport, Tennessee, that is located within the 
Tennessee Valley marketing area and that meets all of the pooling 
standards of the Tennessee Valley order to be regulated under that 
order rather than the Carolina order despite the plant having greater 
sales in the Carolina marketing area. It also allows a distributing 
plant located at Somerset, Kentucky, that has been regulated under the 
Tennessee Valley order to remain regulated there even if it has greater 
sales in the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville (Order 46) marketing area. 
In addition, the suspension allows a supply plant at Springfield, 
Kentucky, that has been supplying the Somerset plant to remain pooled 
under the Tennessee Valley order without having to make uneconomic 
shipments of milk that it contends would be necessary to remain pooled 
if the Southern Belle plant were regulated under Order 46.
    The problems prompting the existing suspension of these provisions 
were thoroughly explained in a suspension order issued on March 28, 
1994 (published April 1, 1994 [59 FR 15315]). In that document, it was 
noted that ``orderly marketing will be best preserved by adopting the 
proposed suspension, for a 12-month period only, to allow the industry 
time to develop proposals for a hearing to be held before the 
suspension period expires.'' [emphasis added]
    Due to significant changes that have occurred in these markets 
within the past year, the Department was delayed in scheduling the 
promised proceeding to hear industry proposals for resolving the 
problems which lead to the suspension order. Although a hearing has now 
been scheduled for January 4, 1995, to hear these proposals, this will 
not allow sufficient time to evaluate the record and to extend the 
suspension, if found to be warranted, by the time the current 
suspension expires on February 28, 1995.
    Advised of these facts, both Southern Belle Dairy Company and Land-
O-Sun Dairies, Inc., who were proponents of the existing suspension, 
submitted requests to extend the current suspension until the 
amendatory proceeding was concluded. This notice is in response to 
those requests.
    Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid 
provisions from March 1, 1995, through February 28, 1996, or until such 
earlier time as an order amending the aforesaid orders may be issued on 
the basis of the hearing that has been scheduled for January 4, 1995.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046

    Milk marketing orders.

    The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046 
continues to read as follows:

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

    Dated: November 21, 1994.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-29090 Filed 11-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P