[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67201-67202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31137]
========================================================================
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. 64, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67201]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1032
[DA-00-02]
Milk in the Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 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 a portion of the pool supply plant definition of the Southern
Illinois-Eastern Missouri Federal milk marketing order (Order 32) for
the period of December 1999 through January 2000. Prairie Farms Dairy,
Inc. (Prairie Farms), requested the proposed action. The cooperative
contends the suspension is necessary to prevent inefficient movements
of milk and to ensure that producers historically associated with Order
32 will continue to have their milk priced and pooled under the order.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 8, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the 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 given to the title of
action and docket number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932, e-
mail address [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.
During August 1999, 1,312 dairy farmers were producers under Order
32. Of these producers, 1,277 producers (i.e., 97%) were considered
small businesses. For the same month, 10 handlers were pooled under
Order 32, of which three were considered small businesses.
The supply plant shipping standard is designed to ensure that the
market's fluid needs will be met. Prairie Farms, the proponent of the
suspension, anticipates that there will be an increase in milk
production based on current market trends and experiences in prior
years.
The proposal would allow a supply plant operated by a cooperative
association that delivered milk to Order 32 pool distributing plants
during each of the months of September 1998 through August 1999 to meet
the Order's pool supply plant standard by shipping at least 25 percent
of its milk to pool distributing plants during the months of December
1999 and January 2000. 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 Southern
Illinois-Eastern Missouri marketing area is being considered for the
period of December 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000:
In Sec. 1032.7(b), the words ``and 75 percent of the total producer
milk marketed in that 12-month period by such cooperative association
was delivered'' and the words ``and physically received at''.
[[Page 67202]]
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 Programs, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 7th day
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The period
for filing comments is limited to 7 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 at the address above during regular
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Statement of Consideration
The proposed rule would suspend a portion of the pool supply plant
definition of the Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri Federal milk
marketing order for the period of December 1999 through January 2000.
The proposed action would allow a plant operated by a cooperative
association to qualify as a pool supply plant by shipping at least 25
percent of its milk to pool distributing plants during December 1999
and January 2000 if such plant delivered milk to Order 32 pool
distributing plants during each of the immediately preceding months of
September 1998 through August 1999. Without the suspension, such plants
would have to meet the minimum 25 percent pool supply plant standard
and at least 75 percent of the total producer milk marketed in that 12-
month period would have to have been delivered or physically received
at pool distributing plants to qualify as a pool supply plant.
In Prairie Farms' letter requesting the suspension, the cooperative
indicated that they currently operate processing plants in Carlinville,
Olney, and Quincy, Illinois, and a multi-product plant in Granite City,
Illinois, which are all regulated under the Southern Illinois-Eastern
Missouri order. Prairie Farms notes that, from fiscal year 1998 to
fiscal year 1999, milk processed at their Order 32 plants was
approximately 6 percent higher and milk production of their member
producers also increased about 8 percent. Based on current market
trends and experiences in prior years, the cooperative expects an
increase in milk production from its member producers during December
1999 and January 2000. Accordingly, it anticipates having a problem
pooling all of its member producers' milk and the milk of its suppliers
during the proposed suspension period.
Prairie Farms states that the proposed suspension would provide
some relief for December 1999 and January 2000 and prevent large
amounts of milk from being disassociated with the order. The
cooperative contends that the proposed action is necessary to prevent
inefficient movements of milk and to ensure that producers historically
associated with Order 32 will continue to have their milk priced and
pooled under the order. The cooperative points out that a portion of
the supply plant provision was suspended in December 1994 and January
1995 for virtually the same reasons.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid
provisions from December 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1032
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1032 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: November 23, 1999.
Richard M. McKee,
Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-31137 Filed 11-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-U