[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61201-61204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1131 and 1138

[DA-99-05 and DA-99-09]


Milk in the Central Arizona and New Mexico-West Texas Marketing 
Areas; Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments; suspension.

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

SUMMARY: This document suspends certain provisions of the Central 
Arizona (Order 131) and New Mexico-West Texas (Order 138) Federal milk 
marketing orders from the day after publication in the Federal Register 
until implementation of Federal order reform.
    The suspensions have been in effect for both orders for periods 
beginning in 1995 in Central Arizona and 1993 in New Mexico-West Texas 
at the request of cooperatives representing nearly all of the producers 
in Order 131 and most

[[Page 61202]]

of the producers in Order 138, and were expected to become unnecessary 
under the provisions of the final rule establishing the Arizona-Las 
Vegas and Southwest orders under Federal Milk Order Reform.

DATES: Effective date: November 11, 1999.

COMMENTS: Comments are due by January 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be sent to USDA/AMS/Dairy 
Programs, 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 made to the title of the action 
and docket number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing 
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room 
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 
720-9368, e-mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension (Central Arizona): Issued July 9, 1999; 
published July 15, 1999 (64 FR 38144).
Suspension of Certain Provisions (Central Arizona): Issued September 
13, 1999; published September 20, 1999 (64 FR 50748).

    The Department is issuing this interim final rule in conformance 
with Executive Order 12866.
    This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a 
retroactive effect. This rule 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 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 the 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 
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.
    For the month of September 1999, 101 dairy farmers were producers 
under Order 131. Of these producers seven were considered small 
businesses. For the same month, five handlers were regulated under 
Order 131. Three of these handlers were considered small businesses.
    Eighty-nine dairy farmers were producers under Order 138 for the 
month of May 1999. Twenty-six of these producers were considered small 
businesses. Three handlers operating five pool plants were regulated 
under Order 138 during the month of May 1999. One of these handlers was 
considered a small business.
    For the Central Arizona order, this interim final rule suspends the 
requirement that a cooperative association ship at least 50 percent of 
its receipts to other handler's pool plants to maintain the pool status 
of a manufacturing plant operated by the cooperative. This rule lessens 
the regulatory impact of the order on certain milk handlers and tends 
to ensure that dairy farmers will continue to have their milk priced 
under Order 131 and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such 
pricing. This rule will not result in any additional regulatory burden 
on handlers in the Central Arizona marketing area since this provision 
has been suspended for much of the time since April 1995.
    For Order 138, this rule suspends: (1) The requirement that milk 
diverted to a nonpool plant be considered a receipt at the distributing 
plant from which it was diverted; (2) the requirement that a 
cooperative association deliver at least 35 percent of its milk to pool 
distributing plants in order to pool a plant that the cooperative 
operates which is located in the marketing area and is neither a 
distributing plant nor a supply plant; (3) the requirement that a 
producer deliver one day's production to a pool plant during the months 
of September through January to be eligible to be diverted to a nonpool 
plant; (4) the provision that limits a cooperative's diversions to 
nonpool plants to an amount equal to the milk it caused to be delivered 
to and physically received at pool plants during the month; and (5) the 
provision that excludes from the pool, milk diverted from a pool plant 
to the extent that the diverted milk would cause the plant to lose its 
status as a pool plant. This rule lessens the regulatory impact of the 
order on certain milk handlers and tends to ensure that dairy farmers 
will continue to have their milk priced under Order 138 and thereby 
receive the benefits that accrue from such pricing. This rule will not 
result in any additional regulatory burden on handlers in the New 
Mexico-West Texas marketing area since most of the provisions suspended 
by this action have been suspended since 1993.
    This order of suspension is issued pursuant to the provisions of 
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and of the order regulating 
the handling of milk in the Central Arizona and New Mexico-West Texas 
marketing areas.
    After consideration of all relevant material, it is hereby found 
and determined that from the day after publication of this rule in the 
Federal Register until implementation of Federal order reform, the 
following provisions of the Central Arizona and New Mexico-West Texas 
orders do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act:
    1. 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

[[Page 61203]]

actually received at such plant)'', and ``or the previous 12-month 
period ending with the current month''.
    2. In Sec. 1138.7(a)(1), the words ``including producer milk 
diverted from the plant''.
    3. In Sec. 1138.7(c) introductory text, the words ``35 percent or 
more of the producer''.
    4. In Sec. 1138.13, paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (5).
    All persons who want to submit written data, views or arguments 
about the proposed suspension should send two copies of their views to 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South 
Building, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 60th 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 Dairy Programs during regular 
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

Statement of Consideration

    This rule continues suspension of certain provisions of the Central 
Arizona and New Mexico-West Texas Federal milk orders until 
implementation of Federal order reform. For Central Arizona, the 
suspension removes the requirement that a cooperative association 
operating a manufacturing plant in the marketing area must ship at 
least 50 percent of its milk supply during the current month or for the 
12-month period ending with the current month to other handlers' pool 
plants to maintain the pool status of its manufacturing plant.
    Suspension of the requirement for an indefinite period (until 
implementation of Federal order reform) is necessary because 
implementation of the 11 consolidated orders under Federal order reform 
has been delayed by judicial action. The Final Rule containing the 11 
consolidated orders was issued August 23, 1999, and published September 
1, 1999 (64 FR 47898). A Delay of Effective Date rule was issued 
September 30, 1999, and published October 5, 1999 (64 FR 53885).
    Continued suspension of the Order 131 provision 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 stated that the pool status of its manufacturing 
plant is threatened if the suspension is not reinstated, and that the 
same marketing conditions that have warranted the suspension of the 
provision during the past four years still exist. UDA maintained that 
members who increased their milk production to meet projected demand of 
fluid handlers for distribution into Mexico continue to suffer the 
adverse impact of the collapse of the Mexican peso. Absent continuation 
of the suspension, UDA projects that costly and inefficient movements 
of milk would have to be made to maintain the pool status of producers 
who have historically supplied the market and to prevent disorderly 
marketing in the Central Arizona marketing area.
    A review of current marketing conditions in the Central Arizona 
marketing area indicates that, absent continuation of the suspension, 
the pool plant status of UDA's manufacturing plant will not be 
maintained. Thus, 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. Therefore, the suspension is found to be 
necessary for the purpose of assuring that producers' milk will not 
have to be moved in an uneconomic and inefficient manner to assure that 
producers whose milk has long been associated with the Central Arizona 
marketing area will continue to benefit from pooling and pricing under 
the order. In addition, suspension of these provisions until 
implementation of Federal order reform will ensure that disorderly 
marketing conditions that may result from these provisions do not 
negatively impact producers in the future as these provisions have been 
modified in the Federal order reform regulatory language.
    For Order 138, the suspension removes the requirement that milk 
diverted to a nonpool plant be considered a receipt at the distributing 
plant from which it was diverted, that a cooperative must deliver at 
least 35 percent of its milk to pool distributing plants in order to 
pool a plant that the cooperative operates which is located in the 
marketing area and is neither a distributing plant nor a supply plant, 
that a producer must deliver one day's production to a pool plant 
during the months of September through January to be eligible to be 
diverted to a nonpool plant, that a cooperative association's 
diversions to nonpool plants be limited to an amount equal to the milk 
the cooperative causes to be delivered to and physically received at 
pool plants during the month, and that milk diverted from a pool plant 
be excluded from pool milk to the extent that it would cause the plant 
to lose its status as a pool plant.
    Continued suspension of the New Mexico-West Texas provisions was 
requested by Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), a cooperative 
association that represents the largest volume of milk marketed under 
Order 138. The cooperative stated that marketing conditions have not 
changed since the provisions were suspended in 1993 and therefore the 
suspension should be continued until implementation of the consolidated 
Southwest order under Federal order reform since the provisions of the 
consolidated order reflect current industry needs. Implementation of 
that final rule has been delayed by judicial action, and continued 
suspension of the Order 138 provisions is necessary to prevent 
uneconomical and inefficient movements of milk and to ensure that 
producers historically associated with the markets will continue to 
have their milk pooled under the order.
    A review of current marketing conditions in the New Mexico-West 
Texas marketing area indicates that, absent continuation of the 
suspension, 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 New 
Mexico-West Texas marketing area. Therefore, the suspension is found to 
be necessary for the purpose of assuring that producers' milk will not 
have to be moved in an uneconomic and inefficient manner to assure that 
producers whose milk has long been associated with the New Mexico-West 
Texas marketing area will continue to benefit from pooling and pricing 
under the order. In addition, suspension of these provisions until 
implementation of Federal order reform will ensure that disorderly 
marketing conditions that may result from these provisions do not 
negatively impact producers in the future, as these provisions have 
been modified in the Federal order reform regulatory language.
    This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements on either small or large handlers. As with all Federal 
marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed 
to reduce information and reporting requirements and duplication.
    The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
    Accordingly, it is appropriate to suspend the aforesaid provisions 
from October 1, 1999, until implementation of the consolidated Arizona-
Las Vegas

[[Page 61204]]

and Southwest Federal milk orders under Federal order reform.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good 
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public 
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into 
effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective 
date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register because:
    (a) The suspension is necessary to reflect current marketing 
conditions and to assure orderly marketing conditions in the marketing 
areas, in that such rule is necessary to permit the continued pooling 
of the milk of dairy farmers who have historically supplied the market 
without the need for making costly and inefficient movements of milk;
    (b) This suspension does not require of persons affected 
substantial or extensive preparation prior to the effective date; and
    (c) This interim final rule provides a 60-day comment period, and 
all comments will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1131 and 1138

    Milk marketing orders.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Parts 1131 and 
1138 are amended as follows for the period of one day following 
publication of this rule in the Federal Register until implementation 
of Federal order reform:
    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1131 and 1138 continues 
to read as follows:
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.

PART 1131--MILK IN THE CENTRAL ARIZONA MARKETING AREA


Sec. 1131.7  [Suspended in part]

    2. 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'' are suspended.

PART 1138--MILK IN THE NEW MEXICO-WEST TEXAS MARKETING AREA


Sec. 1138.7  [Suspended in part]

    3. In Sec. 1138.7(a)(1), the words ``including producer milk 
diverted from the plant'' are suspended;
    4. In Sec. 1138.7(c) introductory text, the words ``35 percent or 
more of the producer'' are suspended.


Sec. 1138.13  [Suspended in part]

    5. In Sec. 1138.13, paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (5) are suspended.

    Dated: November 3, 1999.
F. Tracy Schonrock,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-29318 Filed 11-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P