[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19939-19940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10657]


 ========================================================================
 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. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 19939]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1006

[DA-97-03]


Milk in the Upper Florida Marketing Area; Proposed Suspension 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 indefinitely certain provisions of the Upper Florida Federal 
milk marketing order. The proposed suspension would eliminate the 
requirement that a cooperative association operating a plant have at 
least 50 percent of the producer milk of its members received at pool 
distributing plants to retain its pool plant status. Florida Dairy 
Farmers Association, a cooperative association representing producers 
whose milk is pooled on the 3 Florida orders, has requested the 
suspension. The cooperative association asserts that the suspension is 
necessary to maintain the orderly marketing of milk.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 27, 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: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist, 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932, e-
mail address: Nicholas__M[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 affect 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. The $500,000 per year criterion for dairy farmers 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. With respect to 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.
    For the month of January 1997, the milk of 80 producers was pooled 
on the Upper Florida Federal milk order. Of these producers, 23 were 
below the 326,000-pound production guideline and are considered to be 
small businesses. A majority of these producers produce more than 
100,000 pounds per month. Of the total number of producers whose milk 
was pooled during that month, all were members of Florida Dairy Farmers 
Association.
    In January 1997, there were 2 handlers operating 2 plants under the 
Upper Florida order. One of these would be considered a small business.
    This rule proposes to suspend or terminate part of a provision of 
the Upper Florida marketing order which requires a cooperative 
association to have at least 50 percent of its members' producer milk 
received at pool distributing plants to retain its pool plant status. 
If adopted, the proposed suspension would promote orderly marketing of 
milk by permitting a plant operated by a cooperative association to 
qualify as a pool plant with minimal deliveries of milk by the 
cooperative to pool distributing plants in the market. This will 
facilitate the shipment of surplus milk to the cooperative's plant, 
where it will then be concentrated and shipped to distant plants for 
its ultimate disposition.

Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to suspend or terminate part of a provision of 
the Upper Florida marketing order which requires a cooperative 
association to have at least 50 percent of its members' producer milk 
received at pool distributing plants to retain its pool plant status. 
If adopted, the proposed suspension would promote orderly marketing of 
milk by permitting a plant operated by a cooperative association to 
qualify as a pool plant with minimal deliveries of milk by the 
cooperative to pool distributing plants in the market. This will 
facilitate the shipment of surplus milk to the cooperative's plant, 
where it will then be concentrated and shipped to distant plants for 
its ultimate disposition.

[[Page 19940]]

    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 indefinite suspension of the 
following provisions of the order regulating the handling of milk in 
the Upper Florida marketing area is being considered:
    (1) In Sec. 1006.7, the introductory text of paragraph (c), the 
words ``50 percent or more of the''; and
    (2) In Sec. 1006.7, paragraph (c)(2).
    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 30th day 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    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)).

Statement of Consideration

    The proposed rule would suspend indefinitely certain provisions of 
the Upper Florida milk order. The proposed suspension would remove the 
requirement that a cooperative association have 50 percent of the 
producer milk of its members received at pool distributing plants to 
retain its pool plant status. It would also suspend the condition that 
the plant not qualify as a pool supply plant under this or any other 
Federal milk order.
    The order permits a plant operated by a cooperative association 
that is located in the marketing area to be a pool plant if at least 50 
percent of the producer milk of its members is received at pool 
distributing plants either directly from farms or by transfer from 
plants of the cooperative association, the plant is duly approved for 
Grade A milk disposition, and the plant does not qualify as a pool 
supply plant under this order or any other Federal milk order.
    The suspension was requested by Florida Dairy Farmers Association 
(FDFA), a cooperative association representing producers whose milk is 
pooled on the 3 Florida orders. FDFA contends that the suspension of 
the requirement would allow the continued pooling of the cooperative's 
Jacksonville, Florida, plant under the Upper Florida order irrespective 
of the quantity of producer milk received at pool distributing plants. 
With assurance of pooling, surplus producer milk from the Tampa Bay and 
Southeastern Florida marketing areas could be diverted to the 
Jacksonville plant for processing into concentrated milk and shipment 
to manufacturing plants. Also, in order to prevent the pooling of the 
Jacksonville plant under another Federal order, FDFA requested the 
suspension of Sec. 1006.7(c)(2), which would yield regulation of the 
plant to another Federal order if the plant met the other order's 
supply plant shipping requirements. With this paragraph suspended, 
however, the plant would remain regulated under the Upper Florida order 
even if it were to qualify as a pool plant under another order.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1006

    Milk marketing orders.

    The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1006 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    Dated: April 21, 1997.
Richard M. McKee,
Director, Dairy Division.
[FR Doc. 97-10657 Filed 4-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P