[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41047-41049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19351]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1079
[DA-99-02]
Milk in the Iowa Marketing Area; Termination of Proceeding
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Termination of Proceeding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document terminates the proceeding that was initiated to
consider a proposal to reduce the percentage of a supply plant's
receipts that must be delivered to fluid milk plants to qualify a
supply plant for pooling under the Iowa Federal milk order for the
months of July and August 1999, and to further reduce the percentage
for June 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Brenner, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-2357, e-mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding:
Proposed Rule: Issued April 14, 1999; published April 19, 1999 (64
FR 19071).
Final Rule: Issued May 5, 1999; published May 11,1999 (64 FR
25193).
Notice of Reopening and Extension of Time for Filing Comments:
Issued May 7, 1999; published May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25851).
Small Business Consideration
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the
[[Page 41048]]
Agricultural Marketing Service considered the economic impact of the
action on small entities and certified that it would 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.
For the month of February 1999, 3,788 dairy farmers were producers
under the Iowa order. Of these, 3,714 producers (i.e., 98 percent) were
considered small businesses, having monthly milk production under
326,000 pounds. A further breakdown of the monthly milk production of
the producers on the order during February 1999 was as follows: 2,804
produced less than 100,000 pounds of milk; 776 produced between 100,000
and 200,000 pounds; 134 produced between 200,000 and 326,000 pounds;
and 74 produced over 326,000 pounds. During the same month, 11 handlers
were pooled under the order. Five were considered small businesses.
Because this termination of the proceeding concerning the proposed
revision results in no change in regulation, the economic conditions of
small entities will remain unchanged. Also, it does not change
reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements.
Based on the comment received in response to the initial proposed
revision from Anderson-Erickson Dairy Company, the later comment from
Swiss Valley Farms, Co., a cooperative organization in Davenport, Iowa,
and on our analysis of relevant information connected with the proposed
rulemaking, we have determined that the revision request should not be
granted. While reduction of the pool supply plant shipping standards
may have made qualification for pool status more easily obtainable for
one supply plant operator, the order should assure that adequate
supplies of milk are available to meet the fluid milk needs of the Iowa
market. The current level of supply plant shipping percentages should
meet those needs without preventing producers whose milk historically
has been associated with the order from maintaining their pool status.
Preliminary Statement
This termination of proceeding is issued pursuant to the provisions
of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and of the order regulating
the handling of milk in the Iowa marketing area.
Notice of reopening and extension of time for filing comments was
published in the Federal Register on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 25851). The
time for filing comments on the proposed reduction of the percentage of
a supply plant's receipts that must be delivered to fluid milk plants
to qualify a supply plant for pooling under the Iowa Federal milk order
for the months of July and August 1999, and a further reduction for
June 1999, was extended through June 14, 1999. Interested persons were
afforded opportunity to file written data, views and arguments thereon.
One comment opposing the reduction of supply plant shipping
requirements was received.
Statement of Consideration
This document terminates the proceeding that was initiated to
consider a proposal to reduce the percentage of a supply plant's
receipts that must be delivered to fluid milk plants to qualify a
supply plant for pooling under the Iowa Federal milk order for the
months of July and August 1999, and to further reduce the percentage
for June 1999.
The original request for a reduction in the percentage of a supply
plant's shipping percentage requirements came from Beatrice Cheese,
Inc., (Beatrice), a proprietary manufacturer of dairy products in
Fredericksburg, Iowa. Beatrice requested a decrease in the applicable
percentage of 10 percentage points from 20 percent to 10 percent for
the months of April through August 1999. This request was based on
Beatrice's contention that the action would allow the milk of dairymen
who historically had supplied the market to continue to be pooled under
the Federal order and also would prevent uneconomic milk movements.
Beatrice stated that the 10 percent decrease for April through August
1999 was warranted due to the fact that current raw milk supplies
available for fluid use from outside of Iowa's traditional procurement
area exceeded the needs of the fluid milk plants pooled under Federal
Order 79 and that these available supplies had replaced milk formerly
shipped by Beatrice producers. Beatrice contended that if the pool
supply plant shipping percentages remained unchanged, the milk of
dairymen who historically had supplied the Iowa market would not be
able to continue to be pooled under the Federal Order or Beatrice would
be forced to move milk uneconomically to qualify it for pooling.
A comment filed by Anderson-Erickson Dairy Company, a pool
distributing plant operator regulated under Order 79, did not oppose
the proposed reduction for the months of April and May, but proposed a
reduction of no more than 5 percentage points for June and opposed any
reduction at that time for the months of July and August 1999.
Anderson-Erickson stated that the summer could likely lead to a
different marketing scenario than that projected by Beatrice due to a
volatile milk supply situation in Iowa.
As a result of Beatrice's request and Anderson-Erickson's comments,
the Iowa order supply plant shipping percentages were reduced for April
and May by 10 percentage points, and for June by 5 percentage points.
In addition, a notice of reopening and extension of time for filing
comments through June 14, 1999, was issued to consider a further 5-
percent reduction for June and a continuation of the 10-percentage
point reduction for July and August.
Comments from Swiss Valley Farms, Co., a cooperative organization
in Davenport, Iowa, recommend termination of the proceeding due to
indications that Iowa milk production during the traditionally short
supply months may be lower than normal. Swiss Valley also states that
shipping percentages, once properly set, should be changed based only
on changes in the supply-demand factors in the market. The cooperative
association contends that such factors would represent only emergency
situations beyond the control of the producers or processors in a
market. Swiss Valley argues that these emergency situations are not
currently in existence.
After consideration of all relevant material, including the
proposal in the notice, the comment received from the cooperative
organization, and other information connected with the rulemaking, it
is hereby found and determined that the proposed revision action be
terminated.
[[Page 41049]]
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1079
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1079 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: July 23, 1999.
Richard M. McKee,
Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-19351 Filed 7-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P