[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31418-31419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14694]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1046

[DA-95-18]


Milk in the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville Marketing Area; 
Proposed Suspension/Termination of Certain Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed suspension/termination of rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to 
suspend or terminate the base-excess plan of the Louisville-Lexington-
Evansville Federal milk marketing order, effective September 1, 1995. 
The proposed suspension/termination was submitted by Holland Dairies, 
Inc., which contends the action is necessary to allow handlers in the 
area to compete equally for a supply of milk and to ensure that 
producers will continue to have their milk priced and pooled under the 
Order.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the USDA/AMS/
Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building, PO 
Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist, 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South 
Building, PO 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 proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule would lessen the 
[[Page 31419]] regulatory impact of the order on certain milk handlers 
and would tend to ensure that dairy farmers would continue to have 
their milk priced under the order and thereby receive the benefits that 
accrue from such pricing.
    The Department is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with 
Executive Order 12866.
    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive 
effect. If adopted, this proposed rule 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 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 provisions of the 
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in 
accordance with law and request 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 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, the suspension or termination of 
the following provisions of the order regulating the handling of milk 
in the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville marketing area is being 
considered:
    1. Section 1046.32(d).
    2. In the heading of Sec. 1046.61, the words ``and uniform prices 
for base and excess milk''; in Sec. 1046.61(a), the words ``for each 
month'' and ``of July and February''; in Sec. 1046.61(a)(5), the words 
``for each month'', the ``s'' on the end of the word ``months'', and 
the words ``for the months of July through February''; and 
Sec. 1046.61(b) in its entirety.
    3. In Secs. 1046.62(b) and 1046.71(a)(2)(i), the letter ``(s)'' on 
the end of the word ``prices''.
    4. In Sec. 1046.73(a), the last sentence.
    5. In Sec. 1046.73(b), the letter ``(s)'' on the end of the word 
``prices'' and the words ``or base milk and excess milk''.
    6. In Sec. 1046.73, paragraphs (d)(3) and (e)(3).
    7. In Sec. 1046.73(d)(4), the letter ``(s)'' on the end of the word 
``rate(s)''.
    8. In Sec. 1046.73(d)(5), the letter ``(s)'' on the end of the word 
``rate(s)'' wherever it appears.
    9. In Sec. 1046.75(a), the words ``and the uniform price'' and the 
word ``base''.
    10. Sections 1046.90 through 1046.94.
    All persons who want to send written data, views, or arguments 
about the proposed suspension/termination should send two copies of 
them to the USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 
30th day after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    The comments that are received will be made available for public 
inspection in the Dairy Division during normal business hours (7 CFR 
1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

    The proposed rule would suspend or terminate the base-excess plan 
of the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville Federal milk marketing order 
(Order 46), effective September 1, 1995, the first month of the base-
forming period. Holland Dairies, Inc. (Holland), a fully regulated 
distributing plant under Order 46 that procures its milk from over 100 
nonmember producers and Associated Milk Producers, Inc., states that 
the Order's base-excess plan has created significant milk procurement 
problems in the area in recent years.
    Holland claims that the base-excess plan limits its ability to 
obtain milk from new producers because these producers have no base. As 
a result, the handler states that it has been forced to purchase 
supplemental milk during the summer months from producers located 
outside the region at an additional cost.
    According to Holland, the cooperatives in the southern Indiana area 
which compete with it for producers do not pay their member-producers 
base and excess prices. Additionally, Holland states that the Indiana 
and Ohio Valley Federal milk orders, which border Order 46 to the 
north, do not contain a producer base-excess plan. Holland contends 
that both of these factors place it at a competitive disadvantage in 
procuring milk and are unreasonable and detrimental to its long-term 
ability to retain nonmember producers.
    Therefore, comments are sought to determine whether the 
aforementioned provisions should be suspended or terminated.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1046

    Milk marketing orders.

    The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1046 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    Dated: June 9, 1995.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-14694 Filed 6-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P