[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78351-78355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1124

[Docket No. AO-368-A30; DA-01-08-PNW]


Milk in the Pacific Northwest Marketing Area; Decision on 
Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and to Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt as a final rule, order 
language contained in the interim final rule published in the Federal 
Register on January 12, 2004, concerning pooling provisions of the 
Pacific Northwest Federal milk order. This document also sets forth the 
final decision of the Department and is subject to approval by 
producers. Specifically, the final decision adopts an amendment that 
would continue to amend the Producer milk provision which will 
eliminate the ability to simultaneously pool the same milk on the order 
and on a State-operated order that provides for marketwide pooling.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Marketing Specialist, 
USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, Room 
2968, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0231, Washington, DC 20250-
0231, (202) 690-1366, e-mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is governed by 
the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States 
Code and therefore is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 
12866.
    These proposed amendments have been reviewed under Executive Order 
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed 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 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 $750,000, 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 $750,000 per year criterion was used to 
establish a production guideline of 500,000 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.
    In the Pacific Northwest Federal milk order, 805 of the 1,164 dairy 
producers (farmers), or about 69 percent, whose milk was pooled under 
the Pacific Northwest Federal milk order at the time of the hearing 
(April 2002), would meet the definition of small businesses. On the 
processing side, 9 of the 20 milk plants associated with the Pacific 
Northwest milk order during April 2002 would qualify as ``small 
businesses,'' constituting about 45 percent of the total.
    The adoption of the proposed pooling standard serves to revise 
established criteria that determine the producer milk that has a 
reasonable association with--and consistently serves the fluid needs 
of--the Pacific Northwest milk marketing area and is not associated 
with other marketwide pools concerning the same milk. Criteria for 
pooling are established on the basis of performance levels that are 
considered adequate to meet the Class I fluid needs and by doing so 
determine those that are eligible to share in the revenue that arises 
from the classified pricing of milk. Criteria for pooling are 
established without regard to the size of any dairy industry 
organization or entity. The established criteria are applied in an 
identical fashion to both large and small businesses and do not have 
any different economic impact on small

[[Page 78352]]

entities as opposed to large entities. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    A review of reporting requirements was completed under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was 
determined that these proposed amendments would have no impact on 
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements because they 
would remain identical to the current requirements. No new forms are 
proposed and no additional reporting requirements would be necessary.
    This notice does not require additional information collection that 
requires clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) beyond 
currently approved information collection. The primary sources of data 
used to complete the forms are routinely used in most business 
transactions. Forms require only a minimal amount of information which 
can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained 
statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting 
burden is relatively small. Requiring the same reports for all handlers 
does not significantly disadvantage any handler that is smaller than 
the industry average.

Prior Documents in This Proceeding:

    Notice of Hearing: Issued February 26, 2002; published March 4, 
2002 (67 FR 9622).
    Correction to Notice of Hearing: Issued March 14, 2002; published 
March 19, 2002 (67 FR 12488)
    Tentative Final Decision: Issued August 8, 2003; published August 
18, 2003 (68 FR 49375).
    Interim Final Rule: Issued January 5, 2004; published January 12, 
2004 (69 FR 1654).

Preliminary Statement

    A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing 
agreement and the order regulating the handling of milk in the Pacific 
Northwest marketing area. The hearing was held, pursuant to the 
provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the applicable rules of practice (7 CFR 
part 900), at Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 16-19, 2002, pursuant to a 
Notice of Hearing issued February 26, 2002; published March 4, 2002 (67 
FR 9622).
    Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing and the 
record thereof, the Administrator, on August 8, 2003, issued a 
Tentative Final Decision containing notice of the opportunity to file 
written exceptions thereto.
    The material issues, findings and conclusions, rulings, and general 
findings of the Recommended Decision are hereby approved and adopted 
and are set forth herein. The material issue on the record of the 
hearing relate to:
    1. Simultaneous pooling of milk on the order and on a State-
operated milk order providing for marketwide pooling.

Findings and Conclusions

    The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are 
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:

1. Simultaneous Pooling on a Federal and State-Operated Milk Order

    Two proposals, published in the hearing notice as Proposals 1 and 
10, seeking to exclude the same milk from being simultaneously pooled 
on either the Pacific Northwest or the Western orders and any State-
operated order which provides for marketwide pooling, should be adopted 
on a permanent basis. The practice of pooling milk on a Federal order 
and simultaneously pooling the same milk on a State-operated order has 
come to be referred to as ``double dipping''. The Pacific Northwest 
order does not currently prohibit milk to be simultaneously pooled on 
the order and a State-operated order that provides for marketwide 
pooling. Proposals 1 and 10 were offered by Northwest Dairy Association 
(NDA), a cooperative association that markets the milk of their dairy-
farmer members in the Pacific Northwest and Western milk marketing 
areas. The Western order was terminated on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 1958). 
Accordingly, proposal 10, applicable to the Western order, is no longer 
considered.
    A witness appearing on behalf of NDA, testified that ``double 
dipping'' not only creates disorderly conditions in California, it also 
results in competitive inequities in Federal milk order areas. The NDA 
witness explained that once minimal pool qualification standards are 
met, milk pooled via this manner rarely is delivered to a Federal order 
marketing area.
    The NDA witness provided evidence indicating that in 2001, over 
$4.5 million was diverted from the Western Order pool and the producer 
blend price was reduced by an average of 10 cents per hundredweight 
(cwt) through ``double dipping''. The witness was of the opinion that 
milk pooled through ``double dipping'' provided no service or delivery 
of milk from California yet the California milk receives the benefit of 
the Western order's blend price.
    The NDA witness testified that there was no evidence of ``double 
dipping'' presently occurring on the Pacific Northwest order. However, 
the witness was of the opinion that the Pacific Northwest order would 
be targeted. The witness drew this conclusion on the premise that as 
soon as the ``double dipping'' loophole is closed in other orders, 
California milk will be pooled on orders that do not yet prohibit the 
practice.
    Two witnesses, one representing Gossner Foods, Inc. (Gossner), an 
ultra high temperature (UHT) fluid milk processor located in Utah, and 
the second, Utah Dairymen's Association (UDA), a cooperative located in 
Utah, also provided testimony in support of eliminating ``double 
dipping''. The witnesses concurred that by eliminating ``double 
dipping'', producers pooled on the order would benefit financially and 
enhance their ability to stay in business.
    A witness representing River Valley Milk Producers Inc. (River 
Valley), a dairy farmer cooperative located in Southwestern Idaho, 
testified in support of eliminating ``double dipping''. The witness was 
of the opinion that producers from outside of the marketing area should 
meet pooling standards by demonstrating actual performance in supplying 
the Western marketing area as a condition for pooling their milk and 
receiving the blend price. However, the witness stressed that producer 
milk which already participates in a State marketwide pool should be 
prohibited from participating in a Federal order pool.
    The Commissioner of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 
testified in support of eliminating ``double dipping'' on the Western 
milk order. The witness testified that increasing volumes of California 
milk are diluting the Class I utilization of the market and lowering 
the blend price paid to producers. The witness found this to be 
patently unfair and stressed that ``double dipping'' lowers the income 
of Utah dairy farmers.
    Three dairy farmers from Utah testified in support of prohibiting 
``double dipping''. These witnesses stated that ``double dipping'' on 
the Western order has had a significant negative impact on their pay 
prices. They maintained that it is unfair and wrong for dairy farmers 
to have their milk price reduced as a result of California milk being 
pooled on the order. One dairy farmer witness also added that the loose 
pooling provisions of the Western Order have resulted in unwarranted 
financial gain to those who

[[Page 78353]]

do not supply the Class I milk market of the Western marketing area. 
This witness indicated that this contributed to the financial ruin of a 
quarter of Western Order dairy farmers over the past 4 years.
    There was no direct opposition to eliminating or preventing 
``double dipping''. However, a witness testifying on behalf of the 
Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), a dairy farmer cooperative that markets 
the milk of their members in the Pacific Northwest and in most other 
Federal milk orders offered their own proposals. These proposals were 
published in the hearing notice as Proposals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 
9, and are offered, said the witness, to address broader pooling 
standards and concerns rather than focusing on the single pooling issue 
of ``double dipping'.
    For nearly 70 years, the Federal Government has operated the milk 
marketing order program. The law authorizing the use of milk marketing 
orders, the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as 
amended, provides authority for milk marketing orders as an instrument 
which dairy farmers may voluntarily opt to use to achieve objectives 
consistent with the AMAA and that are in the public interest. An 
objective of the AMAA, as it relates to milk, was the stabilization of 
market conditions in the dairy industry. The declaration of the AMAA is 
specific: ``The disruption of the orderly exchange of commodities in 
interstate commerce impairs the purchasing power of farmers and 
destroys the value of agricultural assets which support the national 
credit structure and that these conditions affect transactions in 
agricultural commodities with a national public interest, and burden 
and obstruct the normal channels of interstate commerce.''
    The AMAA provides authority for employing several methods to 
achieve more stable marketing conditions. Among these is classified 
pricing which entails pricing milk according to its use by charging 
processors differing prices on the basis of form and use. In addition, 
the AMAA provides for specifying when and how processors are to account 
for and make payments to dairy farmers. Plus, the AMAA requires that 
milk prices established by an order be uniform to all processors and 
that the price charged can be adjusted by, among other things, the 
location at which milk is delivered by producers (section 608c(5)).
    As these features and constraints provided for in the AMAA were 
employed in establishing prices under Federal milk orders, some 
important market stabilization goals were achieved. The most often 
recognized goal was the near elimination of ruinous pricing practices 
of handlers competing with each other on the basis of the price they 
paid dairy farmers for milk and in price concessions made by dairy 
farmers. The need for processors to compete with each other on the 
price they paid for milk was significantly reduced because all 
processors are charged the same minimum amount for milk, and processors 
had assurance that their competitors were paying the same value-
adjusted minimum price.
    The AMAA also authorizes the establishment of uniform prices to 
producers as a method to achieve stable marketing conditions. 
Marketwide pooling has been adopted in all Federal orders because of 
its superior features of providing equity to both processors and 
producers, thereby helping to prevent disorderly marketing conditions. 
A marketwide pool, using the mechanism of a producer settlement fund to 
equalize on the use-value of milk pooled on an order, meets that 
objective of the AMAA of ensuring uniform prices to producers supplying 
a market.
    The California State milk order program clearly has objectives 
similar to those of the AMAA. Exhibits presented at the hearing 
indicate that the California State order program has a long history in 
the development and evolution of a classified pricing plan and in 
providing equity in pricing to handlers and producers. Important as 
classified pricing has been in setting minimum prices, the issue of 
equitable returns to producers for milk could not be satisfied by only 
the use of a classified pricing plan. Some California plants had higher 
Class I fluid milk use than did others and some plants processed little 
or no fluid milk products. As with the Federal order system, producers 
who were fortunate enough to be located nearer Class I processors had 
been receiving a much larger return for their milk than producers 
shipping to plants with lower Class I use or to plants whose main 
business was the manufacturing of dairy products. Over time, disparate 
price differences grew between producers located in the same production 
area of the state which, in turn, led to disorderly marketing 
conditions and practices. These included producers who became 
increasingly willing to make price concessions with handlers by 
accepting lower prices and in paying higher charges for services such 
as hauling. Contracts between producers and handlers were the norm, but 
the contracts were not long-term (rarely more than a single month) and 
could not provide a stable marketing relationship from which the dairy 
farmers could plan their operations.
    In 1967, the California State legislature passed and enacted the 
Gonsalves Milk Pooling Act. The law provided the authority for the 
California Agriculture Secretary to develop and implement a pooling 
plan, which was implemented in 1968. The California pooling plan 
provides for the operation of a State-wide pool for all milk that is 
produced in the State and delivered to California pool plants. It uses 
an equalization fund that equalizes prices among all handlers and sets 
minimum prices to be paid to all producers pooled on the State order. 
While the pooling plan details vary somewhat from pooling details under 
the Federal order program, the California pooling objectives are 
basically identical to those of the Federal program.
    It is clear from this review of the Federal and California State 
programs that the orderly marketing of milk is intended in both 
systems. Both plans provide a stable marketing relationship between 
handlers and dairy farmers and both serve the public interest. It would 
be incorrect to conclude that the Federal and California milk order 
programs have differing purposes when the means, mechanisms, and goals 
are so nearly identical. In fact, the Federal order program has 
precedent in recognizing that the California State milk order program 
has marketwide pooling. Under milk order provisions in effect prior to 
milk order reform, and under Sec.  1000.76(c), a provision currently 
applicable to all Federal milk marketing orders, the Department has 
consistently recognized California as a State government program with 
marketwide pooling.
    Since the 1960's the Federal milk order program recognized the harm 
and disorder that resulted to both producers and handlers when the same 
milk of a producer was simultaneously pooled on more than one Federal 
order. When this occurs, producers do not receive uniform minimum 
prices, and handlers receive unfair competitive advantages. The need to 
prevent ``double pooling'' became critically important as distribution 
areas expanded and orders merged. The issue of California milk, already 
pooled under its State-operated program and able to simultaneously be 
pooled under a Federal order, has essentially the same undesirable 
outcomes that Federal orders once experienced and subsequently 
corrected. It is clear that the Pacific Northwest order should be 
amended to prevent the ability of milk to be pooled

[[Page 78354]]

on more than one order when both orders employ marketwide pooling.
    There are other State-operated milk order programs that provide for 
marketwide pooling. For example, New York operates a milk order program 
for the western region of that State. A key feature explaining why this 
State-operated program has operated for years alongside the Federal 
milk order program is the exclusion of milk from the State pool when 
the same milk is already pooled under a Federal order. Because of the 
impossibility of the same milk being pooled simultaneously, the Federal 
order program has had no reason to specifically address ``double 
dipping'' or ``double pooling'' issues, the disorderly marketing 
conditions that arise from such practice, or the primacy of one 
regulatory program over another. The other States with marketwide 
pooling similarly do not double-pool Federal order milk.
    The record supports that the Pacific Northwest order should be 
similarly amended to preclude the ability to simultaneously pool the 
same milk on the order if the same milk is already pooled on a State-
operated order that provides for marketwide pooling.
    California milk should only be eligible for pooling on the Pacific 
Northwest order when it is not pooled on the California State order and 
when it meets the Pacific Northwest order's pooling standards. It is 
the ability of milk from California to ``double dip'' that is a source 
of disorderly marketing conditions and should be preempted in the case 
of the Pacific Northwest order.
    Proposal 1 offers a reasonable solution for prohibiting the same 
milk to draw pool funds from Federal and State marketwide pools 
simultaneously. It is consistent with the current prohibition against 
the same milk pooling simultaneously in more than one Federal order 
pool. Adoption of Proposal 1 will not establish any barrier to the 
pooling of milk from any source that actually demonstrates performance 
in supplying the Pacific Northwest market's Class I needs. Adoption of 
Proposal 1 will specifically prohibit the practice of ``double 
dipping'.
    The amendatory language provided below had been modified by the 
Department in the interim final rule but nevertheless accomplishes the 
intent of Proposal 1. The amendment adopted in this final decision to 
prohibit ``double dipping'' had been made in the order's Producer milk 
definition. This change was made because milk marketing orders do not 
regulate producers in their capacity as producers. Additionally, the 
amendatory language adopted on a permanent basis is consistent with 
that adopted in other milk orders where the practice of ``double 
dipping'' has been eliminated.

Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions

    Briefs and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf 
of certain interested parties. These briefs, proposed findings and 
conclusions and the evidence in the record were considered in making 
the findings and conclusions set forth above. To the extent that the 
suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested parties are 
inconsistent with the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the 
requests to make such findings or reach such conclusions are denied for 
the reasons previously stated in this decision.

General Findings

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement 
those that were made when the Pacific Northwest order was first issued. 
The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and 
confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein.
    (a) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby 
proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, 
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
    (b) The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to section 2 
of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available 
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market 
supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum 
prices specified in the tentative marketing agreement and the order, as 
hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the 
aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome 
milk, and be in the public interest; and
    (c) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby 
proposed to be amended, will regulate the handling of milk in the same 
manner as, and will be applicable only to persons in the respective 
classes of industrial and commercial activity specified in, (a) 
marketing agreement(s) upon which a hearing has been held.

Rulings on Exceptions

    No exceptions to the tentative final decision were received.

Marketing Agreement and Order

    Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are two documents, a 
Marketing Agreement regulating the handling of milk, and an Order 
amending the order regulating the handling of milk in the Pacific 
Northwest marketing area. An interim amended order was approved by 
producers and published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2004 (69 
FR 1654), as an Interim Final Rule. Both of these documents have been 
decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the 
foregoing conclusions.
    It is hereby ordered, that this entire decision and the two 
documents annexed hereto be published in the Federal Register.

Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period

    February 2004 is hereby determined to be the representative period 
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of the order, as 
amended in the Interim Rule published in the Federal Register on 
January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1654), regulating the handling of milk in the 
Pacific Northwest marketing area is approved or favored by producers, 
as defined under the terms of the order as amended and as hereby 
proposed to be amended on a permanent basis who during such 
representative period were engaged in the production of milk for sale 
within the aforesaid marketing area.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1124

    Milk marketing orders.

    Dated: December 23, 2004.
A. J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the Pacific 
Northwest Marketing Area(s)

    This order shall not become effective unless and until the 
requirements of Sec.  900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure 
governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing 
orders have been met.

Findings and Determinations

    The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement 
those that were made when the order was first issued and when it was 
amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified 
and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth 
herein.
    (a) Findings. A public hearing was held upon the proposed amendment 
to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the 
handling of milk in the Pacific Northwest marketing area. The hearing 
was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the

[[Page 78355]]

applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR part 900).
    Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the 
record thereof, it is found that:
    (1) The said order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and 
conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the 
Act;
    (2) The parity prices of milk, as determined pursuant to Section 2 
of the Act, are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available 
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market 
supply and demand for milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The minimum 
prices specified in the order as hereby amended are such prices as will 
reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and 
wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
    (3) The said order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk 
in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the 
respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, 
(a) marketing agreement(s) upon which a hearing has been held.

Order Relative to Handling

    It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date 
hereof, the handling of milk in the Pacific Northwest marketing area 
shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and 
conditions of the order, as amended, and as hereby amended, as follows:
    The provisions of the order amending the order contained in the 
interim amendment of the order issued by the Administrator, 
Agricultural Marketing Service, on January 5, 2004, and published in 
the Federal Register on January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1654), shall be and are 
the terms and provisions of this order.
[This marketing agreement will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.]

Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in Pacific 
Northwest Marketing Area

    The parties hereto, in order to effectuate the declared policy 
of the Act, and in accordance with the rules of practice and 
procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR Part 900), desire to enter 
into this marketing agreement and do hereby agree that the 
provisions referred to in paragraph I hereof as augmented by the 
provisions specified in paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the 
provisions of this marketing agreement as if set out in full herein.
    I. The findings and determinations, order relative to handling, 
and the provisions of Sec. Sec.  1124.1 to 1124.86, all inclusive, 
of the order regulating the handling of milk in the Pacific 
Northwest marketing area (7 CFR part 1124 which is annexed hereto); 
and
    II. The following provisions: Record of milk handled and 
authorization to correct typographical errors.
    (a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/
she handled during the month of ------------ 2004, ------ 
hundredweight of milk covered by this marketing agreement.
    (b) Authorization to correct typographical errors. The 
undersigned hereby authorizes the Deputy Administrator, or Acting 
Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing 
Service, to correct any typographical errors which may have been 
made in this marketing agreement.
    Effective date. This marketing agreement shall become effective 
upon the execution of a counterpart hereof by the Secretary in 
accordance with Section 900.14(a) of the aforesaid rules of practice 
and procedure.
    In Witness Whereof, The contracting handlers, acting under the 
provisions of the Act, for the purposes and subject to the 
limitations herein contained and not otherwise, have hereunto set 
their respective hands and seals.

Signature

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By (Name)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Title)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address)
(Seal)
Attest

[FR Doc. 04-28629 Filed 12-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P