[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 9381-9382] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 97-5114] ======================================================================== 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. 62, No. 41 / Monday, March 3, 1997 / Proposed Rules [[Page 9381]] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1131 [DA-97-01] Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing Area; Proposed Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Order AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule; suspension. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to suspend indefinitely certain provisions of the Central Arizona Federal milk marketing order. This rule would continue a suspension that eliminates the requirement that a cooperative association that operates a manufacturing plant ship at least 50 percent of its receipts to other handler pool plants to maintain pool status of its manufacturing plant. United Dairymen of Arizona, a cooperative association that represents nearly all of the producers who supply milk to the Central Arizona market, has requested continuation of the suspension. The cooperative association asserts that the suspension is necessary to prevent the uneconomical and inefficient movement of milk. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 1997. ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the USDA/AMS/ Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456. Advance, unofficial copies of such comments may be faxed to (202) 690-0552 or e-mailed to OFB__FMMO__C[email protected]. Reference should be given to the title of action and docket number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 720-9368, e-mail address: CMC[email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 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 request modification or exemption from such order by filing 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 law. 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. Small Business Consideration In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agricultural Marketing Service 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 $500,000, 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 $500,000 per year criterion was used to establish a production guideline of 326,000 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 farmers. 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. This rule would lessen the 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. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the probable regulatory and informational impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Also, parties may suggest modifications of this proposal for the purpose of tailoring their applicability to small businesses. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the suspension of the following provision of the order regulating the handling of milk in the Central Arizona marketing area is being considered for an indefinite period beginning April 1, 1997: In Sec. 1131.7(c), the words ``50 percent or more of'', ``(including the skim milk and butterfat in fluid milk products transferred from its own plant pursuant to this paragraph that is not in excess of the skim milk and butterfat contained in member producer milk actually received at such plant)'', and ``or the previous 12-month period ending with the current month.'' All persons who want to submit written data, views or arguments about the proposed suspension should send two copies of their views to the USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 15th day after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The period for filing comments is limited to 15 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 [[Page 9382]] available for public inspection in the Dairy Division during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). Statement of Consideration The proposed rule would continue to suspend certain provisions of the Central Arizona order for an indefinite period beginning April 1, 1997. The proposed suspension would continue to remove the requirement that a cooperative association which operates a manufacturing plant in the marketing area must ship at least 50 percent of its milk supply during the current month or the previous 12-month period ending with the current month to other handlers' pool plants to maintain the pool status of its manufacturing plant. The order permits a cooperative association's manufacturing plant, located in the marketing area, to be a pool plant if at least 50 percent of the producer milk of members of the cooperative association is physically received at pool plants of other handlers during the current month or the previous12-month period ending with the current month. Continuation of the current suspension was requested by United Dairymen of Arizona (UDA), a cooperative association that represents nearly all of the dairy farmers who supply the Central Arizona market. UDA contends that the continued pool status of their manufacturing plant would be threatened if the suspension is not continued. UDA states that the same marketing conditions that warranted the suspension for the past two years still exist. UDA maintains that members who increased their milk production to meet the projected demands of fluid handlers for distribution into Mexico continue to suffer the adverse impact of the collapse of the Mexican peso. Absent a suspension, UDA projects that costly and inefficient movements of milk would have to be made to maintain pool status of producers who have historically supplied the market and to prevent disorderly marketing in the Central Arizona marketing area. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid provisions beginning April 1, 1997, for an indefinite period. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131 Milk marketing orders. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1131 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. Dated: February 24, 1997. Richard M. McKee, Director, Dairy Division. [FR Doc. 97-5114 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P