[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 174 (Friday, September 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47092-47093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22787]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 174 / Friday, September 6, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 47092]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1137

[DA-96-13]


Milk in the Eastern Colorado Marketing Area; Notice of Proposed 
Suspensions of Certain Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed suspension of rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to 
suspend certain performance standards of the Eastern Colorado Federal 
milk order. The suspension was requested by Mid-America Dairymen Inc., 
a cooperative association that supplies milk forthe market's fluid 
needs. The suspension was requested to prevent uneconomic milk 
movements that otherwise would be required to maintain pool status for 
milk of producers who have been historically associated with the order.

DATES: Comments are due no later than September 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be sent to USDA/AMS/Dairy 
Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2968, South Building, P.O. Box 
96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing 
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 
2968, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, 
(202) 720-9368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is issuing this proposed rule 
in conformancewith Executive Order 12866.
    This proposed revision of rules has been reviewed under Executive 
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have 
retroactive effect. If adopted, this proposedaction will not preempt 
any state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present 
an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
    The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings mustbe 
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Undersection 
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 inconnection with the order is not in 
accordance with the law and request a modification of an order or to be 
exempted from theorder. 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 billin equity is 
filed not later than 20 days after 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, the following 
sections of the order regulating the handling of milk in the Eastern 
Colorado marketing area are being considered:
    1. For the months of September 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997: 
In Sec. 1137.7(b), the second sentence is amended by suspending the 
words ``plant which has qualified as a'' and ``of March through 
August''; and
    2. For the months of September 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997: In 
Sec. 1137.12(a)(1), the first sentence is amended by suspending the 
words ``from whom at least three deliveries of milk are received during 
the month at a distributing pool plant''; and in the second sentence 
``30 percent in the months of March, April, May, June, July, and 
December and 20 percent in other months of'', and the word 
``distributing''.
    All persons who desire to submit written data, views or arguments 
about the proposed suspension should send two copies of their views to 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2968, South 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456 by the 7th day 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The filing 
period is limited to seven days because a longer period would not 
provide the time needed to complete the required procedures before the 
requested suspension is to be effective.
    All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made 
available for public inspection in the Dairy Division during regular 
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Small Business Consideration

    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 Agricultural Marketing Service has 
certified that this action would not have asignificant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Such action would lessen the 
regulatory impact of theorder 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act seeks to ensure that, within the 
statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and informational 
requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses. 
For the purpose of the Act, a dairy farm is a small business if it has 
an annual gross revenue of less than $500,000, and a dairy products 
manufacturer is a small business if it has fewer than 500 employees. 
For the purpose of determining which dairy farms are small businesses, 
the $500,000 per year criterion was divided by 12, then by the uniform 
price, to arrive at a 300,000 pounds-per-month limit for ``small'' 
dairy farmers.
    For the month of June 1996, 429 dairy farmers were producers under 
the Eastern Colorado milk order. Of these, all but 115 would be 
considered small businesses, having less than 300,000 pounds of 
marketings for the month. Of the dairy farmers in the small business 
category, 181 marketed less than 100,000 pounds of milk, 105 marketed 
between 100,000 and 200,000 pounds, and 28 marketed between 200,000 and 
300,000 pounds of milk during June.
    There were 10 handlers operating 11 plants for the month of June 
1996, pooled, or regulated, under the Eastern Colorado order. The 
individual plants, for the most part, would meet the SBA definition of 
a small business, having

[[Page 47093]]

less than 500 employees. However, most of these plants are part of 
larger businesses that operate multiple plants and meet the definition 
of large entities on that basis.
    The proposed rule would suspend certain portions of the pool plant 
and producer definitions of the Eastern Colorado order. The proposed 
suspension would make it easier for handlers to qualify milk for 
pooling under the order and tend to ensure that dairy farmers would 
continue to have their milk priced under theorder and thereby receive 
the benefits that accrue from such pricing.

Proposed Suspension--Eastern Colorado--DA-96-13

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the probable 
regulatory and informational impact of this proposed rule on small 
businesses. Also, parties may suggest modifications of this proposal 
for the purpose of tailoring their applicability to small businesses.

Statement of Consideration

    The proposed suspension was requested by Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. 
(Mid-Am), a cooperative association that has pooled milk of dairy 
farmers on the Eastern Colorado order for several years. Mid-Am has 
requested the suspension to prevent the uneconomic and inefficient 
movement of milk for the sole purpose of pooling the milk of producers 
historically associated with the Eastern Colorado order.
    Mid-Am requests for the months of September 1996 through February 
1997 the removal of the restriction on the months when automatic pool 
plant status applies for supply plants. Mid-Am also proposes that, for 
the months of September 1996 through August 1997, the touch-base 
requirement not apply and the diversion allowance for cooperatives be 
raised.
    These provisions have been suspended previously in order to 
maintain the pool status of producers who have historically supplied 
the fluid needs of Eastern Colorado distributing plants. Mid-Am states 
that the marketing conditions that justified the prior suspensions 
continue to exist. Mid-Am asserts that they have made a commitment to 
meet the fluid requirements of fluid distributing plants if the 
suspension request is granted. Without the suspension, Mid-Am contends 
that it will be necessary to ship milk from distant farms to Denver-
area bottling plants to qualify milk for pooling. The distant milk will 
displace locally-produced milk that would then have to be shipped from 
the Denver area to manufacturing plants located in outlying areas.
    In addition, Mid-Am maintains that ample supplies of locally 
produced milk that can be delivered directly to distributing plants 
will be available to meet the market's fluid needs without requiring 
shipments from supply plants. Mid-Am also claims that neither the 
elimination of the touch-base requirement for producers nor the 
increase in the amount of milk that a cooperative can divert to nonpool 
plants should jeopardize the needs of the market's fluid processors.
    In view of the foregoing, it may be appropriate to suspend the 
aforesaid portion of the pool plant and producer definitions of the 
Eastern Colorado order for the time periods stated.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1137

    Milk marketing orders.

    The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1137 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    Dated: August 30, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22787 Filed 9-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P