```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12963-12985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04692]

========================================================================
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. 79, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2014 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 12963]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1006 and 1007

[AMS-DA-07-0059; AO-388-A22; AO-356-A43 and AO-366-A51; Doc. No. DA-07-
03]

Milk in the Appalachian, Florida and Southeast Marketing Areas; 
Final Decision on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreements and to 
Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final decision proposes to permanently adopt amendments 
that adjust the Class I pricing surface of the Appalachian, Florida, 
and Southeast Federal milk marketing orders. In addition, this decision 
seeks to adopt proposals that amend certain features of the diversion 
limit, touch-base, and transportation credit provisions for the 
Appalachian and Southeast milk marketing orders. This decision also 
proposes to adopt amendments that increase the maximum administrative 
assessment for the Appalachian, Florida and Southeast marketing orders. 
The orders as amended are subject to approval by producers in the 
affected markets. Producer approval for this action will be determined 
concurrently with amendments adopted in a separate final decision that 
amends the transportation balancing fund and other provisions of the 
Appalachian and Southeast milk marketing orders.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Taylor, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, 
Order Formulation and Enforcement Branch, STOP 0231-Room 2971, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-7311, 
email address: erin.taylor@ams.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final decision adopts amendments that: 
(1) Adjust the Class I pricing surface in the Appalachian, Florida, and 
Southeast marketing orders; (2) Make diversion limit standards 
identical for the Appalachian and Southeast orders: 25 percent of 
deliveries to pool plants during the months of January, February, July, 
August, September, October, and November, and 35 percent in the months 
of March, April, May, June, and December; (3) Reduce touch-base 
standards to one day each month for the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders; (4) Add January and February as months when transportation 
credits are paid for the Appalachian and Southeast orders; (5) Provide 
for the payment of transportation credits in the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders for full loads of supplemental milk; (6) Provide more 
flexibility in the qualification requirements for supplemental milk 
producers to receive transportation credits for the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders; and (7) Increase the monthly transportation credit 
assessment from $.20 per hundredweight (cwt) to $0.30 per cwt in the 
Southeast order. This decision also increases the maximum 
administrative assessment for the Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast 
orders from $0.05 per cwt to $0.08 per cwt. Increasing the maximum 
administrative assessment was initially addressed in a separate 
recommended decision (73 FR 11062). Comments concerning the recommended 
decision were requested but none were received. Accordingly, this 
document is the final decision on all proposals addressed in both the 
tentative final decision (73 FR 11194) for items 1 through 7 above and 
the recommended decision (73 FR 11062) that were simultaneously 
published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2008.
    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.
    The amendments to the rules proposed herein have been reviewed 
under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not 
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the amendments would 
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) (AMAA), provides that administrative proceedings must 
be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 
608c(15)(A) of the AMAA, any handler subject to an order may request 
modification or exemption from such order by filing a petition with the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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, USDA would rule on the 
petition. The AMAA 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 
USDA'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-
612), the Agricultural Marketing Service has considered the economic 
impact of this action on small entities and has certified that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. For the purposes 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 
marketing guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this 
guideline does not factor in additional monies that dairy producers 
receive, 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 May 2007, the time of the hearing, there were 2,744 dairy 
farmers pooled on the Appalachian order (Order 5), 2,924 dairy farmers 
pooled on the Southeast order (Order 7), and 283 dairy farmers pooled 
on the Florida order (Order 6). Of these, 2,612 dairy farmers

[[Page 12964]]

in Order 5 (or 95 percent), 2,739 dairy farmers in Order 7 (or 94 
percent), and 153 dairy farmers in Order 6 (or 54 percent) were 
considered small businesses.
    During May 2007, there were a total of 36 plants associated with 
the Appalachian order (22 fully regulated plants, 10 partially 
regulated plants, 2 producer-handlers, and 2 exempt plants). A total of 
55 plants were associated with the Southeast order (33 fully regulated 
plants, 9 partially regulated plants, 2 producer-handlers, and 11 
exempt plants). A total of 25 plants were associated with the Florida 
order (13 fully regulated plants, 9 partially regulated plants, 1 
producer-handler, and 2 exempt plants). The number of plants meeting 
small business criteria under the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida 
orders were 8 (or 22 percent), 18 (or 33 percent), and 11 (or 44 
percent), respectively.
    The adopted amendments in this final decision provide for an 
increase in Class I prices in the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida 
orders. The minimum Class I prices of the three southeastern orders, as 
with all other Federal milk marketing orders, are set by using the 
higher of an advance Class III or Class IV price as determined by USDA 
and adding a location-specific differential, referred to as a Class I 
differential. Minimum Class I prices charged to regulated handlers are 
applied uniformly to both large and small entities. At the time of the 
hearing, the Department estimated that the proposed Class I price 
increases would generate higher marketwide pool values in all three 
southeastern orders of approximately $18-19 million for the Appalachian 
order, $17.5 million for the Southeast order, and $38 million for the 
Florida order, on a monthly basis. It was estimated that monthly 
minimum prices paid to dairy farmers (blend prices) would increase 
approximately $0.26 per cwt for the Appalachian order, $0.64 per cwt 
for the Southeast order, and $1.20 per cwt for the Florida order.
    The Class I price increases were implemented on an interim basis 
effective May 1, 2008.\1\ As a result of those increases, marketwide 
pool values were increased in 2011 by approximately $16 million in the 
Appalachian order, $38 million in the Florida order, and $16 million in 
the Southeast order. This resulted in an increase in 2011 monthly 
minimum prices paid to dairy farms of $0.25 per cwt for the Appalachian 
order, $1.25 per cwt in the Florida order, and $1.25 per cwt in the 
Southeast order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 14153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adopted amendments revise the Appalachian and Southeast orders 
by making the diversion limit standards for the orders identical--not 
to exceed 25 percent in each of the months of January, February, and 
July through November, and 35 percent in each of the months of March 
through June and for the month of December. Prior to their interim 
adoption, the diversion limit standards of the Appalachian order for 
pool plants and cooperatives acting as handlers were not to exceed 25 
percent in each of the months of July through November, January, and 
February; and 40 percent in each of the months of December and March 
through June. For the Southeast order, prior to their interim adoption, 
the diversion limit standards for pool plants and cooperatives acting 
as handlers were not to exceed 33 percent in each of the months of July 
through December and 50 percent in each of the months of January 
through June.
    In addition, the adopted amendments establish identical touch-base 
standards of at least one day's milk production every month for a dairy 
farmer in the Appalachian and Southeast orders. Prior to their interim 
adoption, the Appalachian order had a touch-base standard of 6 days' 
production in each of the months of July through December and not less 
than 2 days' production in each of the months of January through June. 
Prior to their interim adoption, the Southeast order had a touch-base 
standard of not less than 10 days' production in each of the months of 
July through December and not less than 4 days' production in each of 
the months of January through June.
    The adopted amendments to the pooling standards serve to revise 
established criteria that determine those producers, producer milk, and 
plants that have a reasonable association with and are consistently 
serving the fluid needs of the Appalachian and Southeast marketing 
areas. Criteria for pooling are established on the basis of performance 
levels that are considered adequate to meet the Class I needs and 
determine those producers who are eligible to share in the revenue that 
arises from the classified pricing of milk. The criteria for pooling 
are established without regard to the size of any dairy industry 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 entities as opposed to large entities.
    The adopted amendments add January and February to the months of 
July through December as months when transportation credits may be paid 
to those handlers who incur the costs of providing supplemental milk 
for the Appalachian and Southeast orders. The amendments also expand 
the payment of transportation credits for supplemental milk to include 
the full load of milk rather than the calculated Class I portion and 
provide more flexibility in the qualification requirements for 
supplemental milk producers to receive transportation credits. In 
addition, the maximum monthly transportation credit assessment for the 
Southeast order is increased from $0.20 per cwt to $0.30 per cwt on all 
milk assigned to Class I use. The transportation credit provisions are 
applicable only to the Appalachian and Southeast orders, are applied in 
an identical fashion to both large and small businesses, and will not 
have any different impact on those businesses producing manufactured 
milk products. The changes will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    The adopted amendments also allow the Market Administrators of the 
Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders to increase the 
administrative assessment from the current $0.05 per cwt to $0.08 per 
cwt if necessary to maintain adequate funds for the operation of the 
orders. Administrative assessments are charged without regard to the 
size of any dairy industry or entity. Therefore, the proposed 
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    The Agricultural Marketing Service is committed to complying with 
the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other 
information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen 
access to Government information and services.
    This action does not require additional information collection that 
needs 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 that 
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.
    Interested parties were invited to submit comments on the probable 
regulatory and informational impact of this proposed rule on small 
entities.

[[Page 12965]]

Prior Documents in This Proceeding

    Notice of Hearing: Issued May 3, 2007; published May 8, 2007 (72 FR 
25986).
    Partial Tentative Final Decision: Issued February 25, 2008; 
published February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11194).
    Partial Recommended Decision: Issued February 25, 2008; published 
February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11062).
    Interim Final Rule: Issued March 12, 2008; published March 17, 2008 
(73 FR 14153).
    Correcting Amendments: Issued May 6, 2008; published May 9, 2008 
(73 FR 26513).

Preliminary Statement

    A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing 
agreement and the orders regulating the handling of milk in the 
Appalachian, Florida and Southeast marketing areas. The hearing was 
held, pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the 
applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of 
marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900).
    The proposed amendments set forth below are based on the record of 
a public hearing held in Tampa, Florida, on May 21-23, 2007, pursuant 
to a notice of hearing issued May 3, 2007, published May 8, 2007 (72 FR 
11194).
    Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing and the 
record thereof, USDA issued a Tentative Final Decision and a 
Recommended Decision on February 25, 2008, containing notice of the 
opportunity to file written exceptions thereto.
    The materials issues on the hearing record relate to:
    1. Class I Prices--adjustments and pricing surface.
    2. Producer milk--diversion limit and touch-base standards.
    3. Transportation credit balancing fund provisions.
    4. Administrative assessment provisions.

Findings and Conclusions

    This final decision proposes to adopt proposals, published in the 
hearing notice as Proposals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, seeking to make 
various changes to the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida milk 
marketing orders (hereinafter these marketing areas and marketing 
orders will collectively be referred to as the southeastern marketing 
areas or orders as appropriate). These amendments form a package of 
changes that simultaneously provide for an increase in Class I prices 
and the Class I pricing surface in the three southeastern orders; and 
for the Appalachian and Southeast orders, more stringent diversion 
limit standards, lower touch-base standards, and other specific changes 
to the transportation credit balancing fund provisions. This final 
decision also adopts proposals, published in the hearing notice as 
Proposals 4, 5, and 6, for increasing the maximum administrative 
assessment rate on producer milk from the current $0.05 per cwt to 
$0.08 per cwt for the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders.
    While the summary of testimony is presented as four separate 
material issues, the discussion and findings on all material issues are 
provided after the summary of comments and exceptions.
    The minimum Class I prices of the three southeastern orders, as 
with all other Federal milk marketing orders, are set by using the 
higher of an advance Class III or Class IV price as determined by USDA 
and adding a location-specific differential, referred to as a Class I 
differential. The Class I differentials are location-specific by county 
and parish for all States of the 48 contiguous United States. These 
Class I differentials are specified in 7 CFR 1000.52.
    The diversion limit standards of the Appalachian and Southeast milk 
orders are described in the Producer milk definition of the orders (7 
CFR 1005.13 and 7 CFR 1007.13, respectively). The standards specify the 
maximum volume of milk that may be diverted to a nonpool plant and 
still pooled and priced under each respective order. Prior to their 
interim adoption, the diversion limit standards of the Appalachian 
order for cooperatives acting as handlers (and pool plant operators 
that are not cooperatives) were not to exceed 25 percent in each of the 
months of July through November and the months of January and February. 
Those limits changed to 40 percent in each of the months of March 
through June as well as the month of December. Prior to their interim 
adoption for the Southeast order, the diversion limit standards for 
cooperatives acting as handlers (and pool plant operators that are not 
cooperatives) were not to exceed 33 percent in each of the months of 
July through December and 50 percent in each of the months of January 
through June. As adopted herein, the diversion limit standards of both 
orders are made identical--not to exceed 25 percent for the months of 
January, February, and each of the months of July through November, and 
35 percent for each of the months of March through June and for the 
month of December. This represents a modest tightening of the diversion 
limit standards for the Appalachian order and a significant tightening 
of the diversion limit standards for the Southeast order.
    This decision adopts identical touch-base standards of at least 1 
day's milk production per month for a dairy farmer to be considered a 
producer under each respective order's Producer milk definition and for 
making a producer's milk eligible for diversion to nonpool plants. This 
represents a significant change from the touch-base standards for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders. Prior to their interim adoption, the 
Appalachian order touch-base standard was 6 days' production in each of 
the months of July through December and not less than 2 days' 
production in each of the months of January through June. For the 
Southeast order, the touch-base standard was not less than 10 days' 
production in each of the months of July through December and not less 
than 4 days' production in each of the months of January through June.
    Currently, of the three southeastern orders, only the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders contain provisions for a transportation credit to 
partially offset handler costs of transporting supplemental milk for 
Class I use during certain times of the year from producers located 
outside of the two marketing areas. These producers are not part of the 
regular and consistent supply of Class I milk to the Appalachian and 
Southeast marketing areas.
    Transportation credit balancing funds were first established for 
the Appalachian and Southeast (or predecessor orders) in 1996 and 
operate independently of the producer settlement funds. A monthly per 
cwt assessment is charged to Class I handlers on a year-round basis on 
the volume of milk assigned to Class I use at a rate of $0.15 per cwt 
in the Appalachian order and, prior to its interim adoption, $0.20 per 
cwt in the Southeast order. Payments from the transportation credit 
balancing fund are made during the months of July through December 
(when milk supplies are tightest) in both orders to those handlers that 
incur the costs of providing supplemental milk. The transportation 
credit balancing fund provisions were amended in a separate rulemaking 
and made effective on an interim basis on December 1, 2006 (71 FR 
62377), and were again amended by this rulemaking proceeding on an 
interim basis effective March 18, 2008 (73 FR 14153).
    Changes proposed in this final decision to the Appalachian and 
Southeast order transportation credit balancing fund provisions 
continue the

[[Page 12966]]

previous amendments that were adopted on an interim basis (73 FR 
14153). The amendments: (1) Extend the number of months that 
transportation credit balancing funds may be paid from the current 
months of July through December to include the months of January and 
February, with the option of the month of June if requested and 
approved by the market administrator; (2) expand the payment of 
transportation credits for supplemental milk to include the entire load 
of milk rather than the current calculated Class I utilization; (3) 
provide more flexibility in the qualification requirements for 
supplemental milk producers to receive transportation credits; and (4) 
increase the monthly transportation credit assessment rate from the 
current $0.20 per cwt to $0.30 per cwt for the Southeast order.
    The final decision also recommends adoption of three proposals 
published in the hearing notice as Proposals 4, 5, and 6 seeking to 
increase the maximum administrative assessment rates of the 
Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders. Specifically, the maximum 
administrative assessment rates collected on pooled producer milk in 
the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders will be increased from 
the current maximum administrative assessment rate of $0.05 per cwt to 
$0.08 per cwt. Proposal 4 was submitted by the Appalachian Market 
Administrator and Proposals 5 and 6 were submitted by the Market 
Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders. These proposals 
were addressed in a separate recommended decision that solicited 
comments and exceptions to the proposed assessment rate increase. No 
comments or exceptions to the recommended decision were received.

1. Class I Prices--Adjustments and Pricing Surface

    A witness appearing on behalf of the proponents, Dairy Cooperative 
Marketing Association (DCMA) testified in support of temporarily 
increasing minimum Class I prices in the three southeastern milk 
marketing orders. The witness testified that all elements of their 
proposals are offered as a ``single package'' to address the needs of 
all the southeastern region's dairy industry stakeholders. It was the 
opinion of the witness that the supply of milk for fluid use in these 
marketing areas is threatened and that several simultaneous changes to 
the provisions of the three orders are needed to attract a sufficient 
quantity of milk to meet the fluid needs of the markets.
    According to the witness, DCMA consists of nine Capper-Volstead 
cooperative members that include Arkansas Dairy Cooperative 
Association, Damascus, AR; Cooperative Milk Producers Association, 
Inc., Blackstone, VA; Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), Kansas City, MO; 
Dairymen's Marketing Cooperative, Inc., Mt. Grove, MO; Lone Star Milk 
Producers, Inc., Windthorst, TX; Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers 
Cooperative Association, Inc. (MD-VA), Reston, VA; Select Milk 
Producers, Inc., Artesia, NM; Southeast Milk, Inc. (SMI), Belleview, 
FL; and Zia Milk Producers, Inc., Roswell, NM. The witness testified 
that each of the DCMA members marketed and pooled milk in one or more 
of the three southeastern milk marketing order areas during 2006.
    According to the DCMA witness, during December 2006 members of DCMA 
pooled more than 87 percent of cooperative and non-member producer milk 
on the Appalachian order, more than 87 percent of the cooperative and 
non-member producer milk on the Southeast order, and more than 96 
percent of the cooperative and non-member producer milk on the Florida 
order.
    The DCMA witness testified that their proposed changes to the Class 
I pricing surface better reflect the actual cost of transporting milk 
and the pattern in which milk produced outside of the marketing areas 
moves into the three marketing areas. According to the witness, the 
cost of procuring milk for fluid use for the southeast region has 
increased because local production is in serious decline and continues 
to decline at an increasing rate. The witness noted that the three 
southeastern orders collectively import more than one-third of the 
region's milk supply during the most deficit months of the year to 
cover the fluid milk needs. Fluid demand exceeds 300 million pounds of 
milk each month in the three southeastern marketing areas, the witness 
said. The witness characterized the economic situation of the dairy 
industry in the region as dire and marketing conditions as disorderly. 
The witness asserted that producers currently experience inequitable 
prices for their milk, that handlers have unequal costs, and that there 
are insufficient economic incentives for the procurement of milk 
supplies.
    The DCMA witness characterized the southeastern region as having 
rapid population growth. The witness indicated that the U.S. Census 
Bureau population growth estimates for the states of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee have collectively increased by 8.4 percent from 
2000 to 2006, while the population of the U.S. as a whole increased 6.2 
percent.
    Using market administrator statistics on in-area milk production 
for the three southeastern marketing order areas, the DCMA witness 
contrasted population growth to the region's milk production to 
demonstrate that the dairy industry is in serious decline. The witness 
said that during 2006 milk was delivered into the three southeastern 
orders from at least 27 States. The witness explained that local in-
area milk production (milk produced within the geographic marketing 
area boundaries) during 2006 for both the Appalachian and Southeast 
areas supplied the entire Class I needs of these two areas only 4 
months of the year and Florida's in-state milk production was 
insufficient to supply the Class I needs in every month of 2006. The 
witness estimated that the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas 
are able to supply only about 76 percent of the milk necessary to meet 
Class I, Class II, and reserve demands, while in Florida in-area 
producers are able to supply only about 66 percent of the milk 
necessary to meet Class I and reserve demands annually. The DCMA 
witness asserted that minimum Federal order Class I prices have 
increased only twice in the past 22 years--as a part of the 1985 Farm 
Bill and as part of Federal milk order reform made effective in January 
2000. Specifically, the witness related that the Class I differential 
for Atlanta increased from $2.30 to $3.08 per cwt in 1985 but was 
increased by only $.02 to $3.10 in January 2000. According to the 
witness, under Federal order reform, some Class I differentials in 
distant milk surplus areas were increased more than in the milk-deficit 
regions of the southeast.
    The DCMA witness was also of the opinion that changes to the Class 
I price surface resulted in a flattened price surface and narrowed 
producer blend price differences between orders. The witness testified 
that such changes diminished the economic incentives to move milk 
within the southeastern marketing areas as well as to move milk into 
the deficit southeastern region of the U.S. According to the witness, 
minimum Class I price differences and returns to producers are simply 
not high enough to move milk into these deficit markets without 
substantial over-order premiums.
    The DCMA witness explained that since 1986 diesel fuel prices have 
risen more rapidly than Class I differentials (and thus Class I prices) 
in the southeastern region. Relying on data of

[[Page 12967]]

the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of 
Energy, the witness noted that the U.S. average diesel fuel price 
increased by 187 percent from 1986 and 2006 (from $0.94 per gallon to 
$2.07 per gallon.) The witness compared this increase to the 0.64 
percent or $0.02 per cwt increase in the Class I differential for 
Atlanta since 1986.
    The DCMA witness testified that the slope of the Class I pricing 
surface should be changed to progressively increase Class I prices as 
milk moves to the east and south within the three marketing areas. The 
witness was of the opinion that changing the slope of the Class I price 
surface inside the three marketing areas in this way would better 
encourage milk to move within the marketing areas. Additionally, the 
witness was of the opinion that pricing signals to producers would 
direct their supplies to the most milk-deficit portions of the region. 
In this regard, the witness added that simply raising Class I prices 
uniformly throughout the three marketing areas would not result in 
improved pricing signals to producers.
    The DCMA witness explained that in developing the proposed Class I 
price structure and adjustments to current Class I price levels, DCMA 
considered two alternatives. According to the witness, in one pricing 
alternative all the Class I price relationships between plants in the 
three southeastern orders could be retained. However, under this 
alternative, the witness explained, the Class I prices for the plants 
on the outer edges of the Appalachian and Southeast marketing area 
boundaries would increase considerably, resulting in significant 
changes in price relationships between those plants and plants 
regulated by adjoining Federal orders.
    Alternatively, the DCMA witness said that the slope of the Class I 
price surface within the three marketing areas could be altered to 
minimize plant-to-plant Class I price relationship changes. The witness 
testified that this approach would result in a pricing structure that 
better reflected actual milk movements from within and outside of the 
marketing areas. The witness pointed out that in either approach, 
plant-to-plant price relationships would change and that the method 
they chose provided the least change in plant-to-plant price 
relationships.
    The DCMA witness also stressed the need for the proposed Class I 
price adjustments to remain aligned with the Class I price structure in 
adjoining marketing areas. The witness said that the proposed Class I 
price surface outside of the three southeastern marketing areas would 
not be changed. The witness was of the opinion that the proposed Class 
I price adjustments are reasonably aligned with Class I prices in 
adjoining marketing areas. Through an analysis of plant-to-plant 
movements of packaged milk, the witness indicated that DCMA's proposed 
Class I pricing structure provides pricing adjustments that are 
reasonable and improves the slope of the Class I price surface.
    The DCMA witness explained that both a most distant demand point 
and several supply locations were identified in developing the proposed 
Class I price surface. The witness indicated that Miami, FL, was 
identified as the most distant demand point in the southeastern region 
from any alternative milk supply area. According to the witness, the 
five possible major supply locations and their distance to Miami were 
also identified. These locations included: Wayne County, OH; Jasper 
County, IN; Hopkins County, TX; Lancaster County, PA; and Franklin 
County, PA.
    The witness indicated that of the five possible supply sources, 
Wayne County, OH, was determined as the least cost supply location with 
a calculated Class I price adjustment of $6.14 per cwt at Miami, FL. 
The witness testified that Class I price adjustments were progressively 
adjusted to smaller and smaller values as plant location values in the 
southeastern region were adjusted by their distance from the supply 
locations.
    According to the DCMA witness, the plant-to-plant cost of moving 
packaged milk was analyzed. The witness testified that successive 
movements of packaged fluid milk from the outer edge of the Appalachian 
and Southeast marketing areas towards Miami, FL, were analyzed. As with 
bulk milk movements, the witness explained, at each plant location the 
minimum cost of moving packaged milk was determined and compared to the 
minimum costs of moving bulk milk. The witness concluded that the bulk 
and plant-to-plant packaged milk movements were very similar.
    The DCMA witness testified that the calculated Class I pricing 
adjustments were re-adjusted so that plants located near each other 
would have a similar Class I price adjustment. The witness also 
acknowledged that the proposed pricing structure could not maintain 
current Class I price relationships because the current Class I price 
surface does not reflect actual hauling costs. According to the 
witness, the west-to-east proposed increase in Class I price 
adjustments reflects higher hauling costs.
    The DCMA witness characterized the proposed adjustments to the 
calculated Class I price surface as being the result of ``smoothing.'' 
The witness explained that deviation from the calculated Class I price 
adjustment represents the incorporation of best professional judgment 
in assuring that plants located near each other have the same Class I 
price adjustment and the need to maintain alignment with Class I prices 
in adjoining marketing areas.
    According to the DCMA witness, the proposed adjustments for plant 
locations regulated by the Appalachian order would increase in the 
range of $0.10 per cwt to $1.00 per cwt; plants regulated by the 
Southeast order would increase in the range of $0.10 per cwt to $1.15 
per cwt; and plants regulated by the Florida order would increase 
between $1.30 per cwt to $1.70 per cwt. Relying on market administrator 
data, the DCMA witness concluded that the proposed Class I price 
increases would generate higher marketwide pool values in all three 
southeastern orders. According to the witness, the estimated annual 
increase of the Appalachian order pool for 2004, 2005, and 2006 
resulting from the proposed Class I prices alone would have totaled 
$19.3 million, $18.6 million, and $18.3 million, respectively. For the 
Southeast order, the witness said, the annual pool value increase would 
have totaled $16.8 million, $17.1 million, and $17.7 million, 
respectively. For the Florida order, the witness said, the annual 
increase in pool value would have totaled $36.4 million, $38.3 million, 
and $39.2 million, respectively. In estimating the impact on minimum 
prices paid to dairy farmers, the witness said that average annual 
minimum uniform prices (as announced at current locations) would have 
increased by approximately $0.25 per cwt to $0.26 per cwt for the 
Appalachian order, approximately $0.64 per cwt higher for the Southeast 
order, and $1.19 per cwt to $1.22 per cwt higher for the Florida order.
    The DCMA witness acknowledged and explained that changes in Class I 
price relationships between plant locations resulting from any changed 
Class I price surface would be inevitable. In this regard, the witness 
asserted that the price adjustment differences between plant locations 
under the DCMA proposal would not exceed the cost of moving Class I 
fluid milk products and therefore would not result in the uneconomic 
movement of milk.
    The DCMA witness concluded by testifying that orderly marketing 
would be improved with a Class I price

[[Page 12968]]

structure that is more reflective of the true hauling costs to supply 
the milk-deficit southeastern region. The witness urged that the 
proposed Class I price adjustments and pricing surface be adopted 
immediately. The witness reiterated that the proposed Class I price 
adjustments be temporarily adopted pending any system-wide changes to 
the Class I differential level and pricing surface.
    A total of 11 dairy farmers whose milk is pooled on at least 1of 
the 3 southeastern orders testified at the hearing in support of DCMA's 
package of proposals, but suggested modifications on how the package 
should be changed.
    Three of the dairy farmers who testified were cooperative members 
of MD-VA, DFA, and SMI (cooperatives previously described as member 
organizations of DCMA). These witnesses testified that the dairy 
industry in the southeastern region is in need of changes to the three 
marketing orders to respond to the decline in regional milk production. 
Their testimonies joined that of the DCMA witness supporting the DCMA 
proposals.
    A dairy farmer whose milk is marketed on the Southeast and Florida 
marketing orders testified on behalf of Cobblestone Milk Producers, 
Inc. and Mountain View Farms of Virginia in limited support of the 
Class I price surface feature of DCMA's package of proposals provided 
certain modifications were made. This witness agreed with proponents 
concerning the decline of milk production in the southeastern region 
and the need to import supplemental milk supplies. According to the 
witness, lower producer pay prices in the southeastern region have led 
to rapidly declining production that is not being replaced by new farms 
or the expansion of existing farms. It was the opinion of this witness 
that the projected increases in producer pay prices arising from the 
proposed increase in Class I prices would not be enough to affect 
production trends in the southeastern region. The witness expressed 
concern that Class I processors would demand their over-order premiums 
be lowered to compensate for increases in the three orders' minimum 
Class I prices. The witness requested that the proposed Class I price 
adjustments for the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas be 
increased but did not offer specific amounts.
    Four dairy farmers from North Carolina testified in general support 
of the proposed Class I price adjustments. Three of the witnesses 
represented organizations that were part of the Southeast Producers 
Steering Committee (SPSC), whose members include North Carolina Dairy 
Producers Association, Georgia Milk Producers Association, Upper South 
Milk Producers Association, Kentucky Dairy Development Council (KDDC), 
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the 
North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation. All four witnesses were of the 
opinion that the proposed Class I price adjustments would not be 
adequate to increase prices paid to dairy farmers in order to stem the 
decline of milk production in the southeastern region. The witnesses 
were of the opinion that additional efforts should be made to enhance 
local milk production. One dairy farmer witness testifying on behalf of 
the KDDC said that other adjustments needed to be made to the proposed 
Class I price adjustments because Kentucky dairy farmers would benefit 
less from the proposed adjustments than dairy farmers located in the 
Southeast and Florida marketing areas. Another North Carolina dairy 
farmer witness offered the opinion that Appalachian producers would 
need to receive at least a $1.00 to $1.50 per cwt increase in their 
mailbox price to stimulate local milk production. A third North 
Carolina dairy farmer witness stressed that more emphasis should be 
made on increasing local milk production rather than seeking better 
ways to import milk into the region. Another dairy farmer, also from 
North Carolina, expressed concern that over-order premiums might fall 
because of the proposed Class I prices adjustments. In addition, an 
SPSC witness, as well as others, called for a comprehensive study to 
identify problems and alternatives to the proposals regarding the 
decline of milk production in the southeastern region.
    A witness appearing on behalf of National Dairy Holdings (NDH) 
testified in limited opposition to the Class I price adjustments of the 
DCMA package. According to the witness, NDH is a national dairy 
processor with facilities located throughout the United States. The 
witness indicated no specific opposition to Class I price increases but 
conditioned such increases on the fair distribution of the revenue to 
producers in the southeastern region. While the witness testified that 
NDH has no difficulty procuring milk for its plants located in the 
southeastern region, the witness acknowledged other testimony that 
identified milk production problems of the southeastern region and that 
the region's producers are in need of relief. The witness expressed 
concern on how the proposals would impact NDH's wholesale packaged milk 
sales. The witness also suggested that issues discussed at the hearing 
could be addressed by utilizing a point-of-sale or plant-point pricing 
method.
    A witness appearing on behalf of the Kroger Company (Kroger) 
testified in opposition to the proposed Class I price adjustments for 
the Appalachian and Southeast marketing orders. According to the 
witness, Kroger operates four fluid distributing plants regulated by 
the Appalachian and Southeast orders (Winchester Farms, Westover Dairy, 
Heritage Farms Dairy, and Centennial Farms Dairy). The opinion of the 
witness was that the proposed Class I price adjustments would disrupt 
traditional pricing relationships, which were established by the 1985 
Farm Bill, and would generate competitive discrepancies with adjoining 
markets.
    The Kroger witness testified that the proposed Class I price 
adjustments would place their plants in an unacceptable competitive 
situation with each other in the Appalachian and Southeast marketing 
areas. Specifically, the witness requested that the Class I price 
adjustments for Louisville, KY; Lynchburg, VA; Murfreesboro, TN; and 
Atlanta, GA be unchanged. The witness also suggested that Winchester, 
KY, be increased by no more than $0.10 per cwt in order to maintain 
competitive milk procurement price relationships with other plants 
located in the Cincinnati area of the Mideast milk marketing area. The 
witness opposed the proponent's position that the proposal be 
considered on an emergency basis.
    A witness appearing on behalf of the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF) 
testified in opposition to the Class I price adjustments of DCMA's 
package of proposals. According to the witness, MIF is a member 
organization of the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) which 
represents 115 member companies that market approximately 85 percent of 
the nation's milk and dairy products. The witness testified that the 
proposed changes are not necessary because an adequate of supply of 
milk already exists for the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders. 
The witness stated that because the Federal order system is a national 
market, milk is available from anywhere in the country. The witness 
noted over-order premiums compensate those entities who supply the 
deficit regions. The witness was of the opinion that declining milk 
production in the southeastern region has been occurring for many years 
and as such does not warrant an increase in Class I prices.

[[Page 12969]]

Accordingly, the witness said, emergency action is not warranted.
    The MIF witness was of the opinion that Class I prices cannot be 
changed in one region of the country without affecting milk marketings 
in other regions. The witness said that the proposed Class I price 
adjustments would change the competitive relationships between plants 
located within and outside of the three southeastern marketing areas. 
The witness argued that Class I sales would be discouraged because all 
Class I plants in the three marketing areas would be required to pay a 
higher price for milk. The witness requested a comprehensive analysis 
of the national market before adopting the proposed Class I price 
adjustments.
    A witness appearing on behalf of Dean Foods Inc. (Dean) testified 
in opposition to the proposed Class I price adjustments of DCMA's 
package of proposals. The witness agreed with testimony of other 
witnesses indicating the deficit milk supply conditions in the three 
southeastern marketing areas and the need to increase prices paid to 
the region's local dairy farmers.
    The Dean witness was of the opinion that a comprehensive analysis 
of the potential impacts of changing the Class I price surface in the 
three marketing areas had not been conducted. The witness characterized 
DCMA's package of proposals as containing ``too many moving parts'' 
that make it difficult to evaluate the impact of the proposed Class I 
price adjustment features. The witness was of the opinion that 
Appalachian and Southeast marketing area dairy farmers are in greater 
need of higher producer prices than dairy farmers in the Florida 
marketing area and noted that the proposed Class I price adjustments 
would benefit Appalachian and Southeast marketing area producers the 
least. In this regard, the witness worried that the prices received by 
dairy farmers across the southeastern region would be unfairly 
distributed if the proposed Class I price changes were adopted.
    The Dean witness was of the opinion that the proposed Class I price 
surface and Class I pricing adjustments would change how milk moves to 
and between plants located within and outside of the three marketing 
areas. The Dean witness testified that the assumptions used by DCMA in 
laying the foundation for the proposed Class I price adjustments and 
Class I pricing structure are flawed. In this regard, the witness noted 
that the USDA 1999 Final Decision on Federal milk order reform 
indicated that the cost of hauling raw milk was linear [cost increases 
as the distance milk is transported increases at a constant rate], but 
that the cost of hauling packaged milk was nonlinear. Accordingly, the 
Dean witness argued that the proposed Class I pricing changes could 
give distributing plants located outside the marketing areas incentive 
to change their route dispositions in order to become regulated on one 
of the three marketing orders.
    According to the Dean witness, distributing plants located outside 
the area could become regulated at the expense of plants located in the 
area. As a result, the witness concluded, Class I revenue generated by 
out-of-area distributing plants would be returned to dairy farmers 
located far outside of the three southeastern marketing areas. The 
witness offered that perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the proposed 
Class I pricing changes could be producers located as far away as 
Illinois and Indiana.
    The Dean witness also criticized reliance on Wooster, OH, (located 
in Wayne County) as a supply area for the southeastern region and being 
a basis of DCMA's proposed Class I price adjustments. The witness noted 
while DCMA identifies Wooster, OH, as a supply area for the 
southeastern region, a Pennsylvania State proceeding held in 2006 
indicated the testimony of a DFA witness saying that milk was not 
available in the Wooster, OH, area to supply Pennsylvania.
    The Dean witness offered nine modifications to DCMA's package of 
proposals. The witness explained that their proposed modifications to 
the package of proposals would not seek to provide higher Class I 
prices or change the Class I pricing surface. According to the witness, 
the Appalachian and Southeast marketing orders' pooling provisions 
should be identical to those of the Florida marketing order (discussed 
further below).

2. Producer Milk--Diversion Limit and Touch-Base Standards

    The DCMA witness testified that the diversion limit standards of 
the Appalachian and Southeast orders should be identical. According to 
the witness, diversions to nonpool plants allows for the pooling of 
milk that is transferred from pool to nonpool plants without milk first 
needing to be delivered to pool plants. In setting a reasonable limit, 
the witness was of the opinion that diversion limit standards must take 
into account reserve supplies needed for Class I use, the balancing 
needs of the markets, and the seasonality of production.
    The DCMA witness testified that milk-deficit Federal orders tend to 
have lower diversion limit standards relative to orders with 
substantial reserve milk supplies. The witness testified that while the 
Appalachian and Southeast order diversion limit standards generally 
reflect their milk-deficit marketing conditions, they are in need of 
tightening. Specifically, the DCMA witness proposed that the diversion 
limit standards be 25 percent during each of the months of January, 
February, and July through November, and 35 percent for each of the 
months of March through June and for the month of December.
    In explaining the analysis conducted in arriving at the proposed 
new diversion limit standards for the Appalachian and Southeast orders, 
the DCMA witness testified that daily producer milk receipts by 
distributing plants regulated by the two orders from January 2004 
through December 2006 were compared to the day of the month when daily 
receipts at distributing plants were the greatest. The witness 
explained that the differences between the day of the greatest receipts 
and each day's actual receipts for the month at distributing plants 
were then summed. According to the witness, the resulting value 
represents the amount of additional milk that would need to be pooled 
as reserve milk to be able to satisfy Class I demands at a distributing 
plant on the day of their greatest need. The witness stated that the 
analysis showed that an additional milk volume of 12 to 13 percent of 
distributing plant receipts would be the minimum reserve necessary to 
cover daily fluctuations in the demand for fluid milk at distributing 
plants. On an annual basis, the minimum average reserve needed as 
calculated is about 22 percent, the witness said.
    The witness explained that the proposed diversion limit standards 
of 25 percent for both orders for each of the months of January, 
February, and July through November, are based on the analysis 
described above and the need to provide for an additional reserve in 
the tightest supply months. The witness explained that the proposed 
diversion limit standards of 35 percent for each of the months of March 
through June and the month of December accommodate seasonal 
fluctuations in supply. The witness explained that this standard would 
allow regular producers who supply the Class I needs of the marketing 
areas in the tight supply months to pool all of their additional 
production in the flush months and accommodate the regular decline in 
Class I sales that occurs when schools close for the summer months. 
According to the witness, Class I plants also

[[Page 12970]]

temporarily close or severely limit their receiving operations over the 
holiday period in December resulting in substantial surplus milk.
    Relying on market administrator data, the DCMA witness estimated 
that the impact on the minimum uniform prices from lowering the 
diversion limit standards alone would raise blend prices approximately 
$0.02 per cwt and $0.07 per cwt annually for the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders, respectively. The witness indicated that a change in 
the blend price for any particular producer would vary based on where 
the producer's milk was delivered.
    The DCMA witness stressed that the proposed changes in the two 
orders' diversion limit standards do not fully capture the true volume 
of milk likely to no longer be eligible to be pooled on the two orders. 
The witness explained that if the volume of producer milk delivered to 
pool plants were the same each month, then the volume of producer milk 
no longer pooled and priced by the orders would drop about 6.67 percent 
and 29.72 percent on the Appalachian and Southeast orders, 
respectively. The witness further explained that lowering the diversion 
limit standards also should result in increasing minimum order blend 
prices paid to producers. According to the witness, proposed changes to 
the diversion limit standards of the orders, together with expected 
increases in revenue arising from Class I price adjustments and Class I 
pricing surface, will likely encourage local milk production, the 
movement of milk into the region from distant sources, or some 
combination of both.
    The DCMA witness testified that the package of proposals also 
includes the lowering of the touch-base standards of the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders and makes them identical. According to the 
witness, this would discourage uneconomic movements of milk and offer 
operational savings for cooperatives supplying the Class I needs of the 
marketing area.
    The DCMA witness explained that because of the continuing decline 
in local milk production, an increasing amount of milk that is produced 
further from the marketing areas is becoming a regular part of the 
supply of Class I milk. The witness characterized this milk of distant 
dairy farmers as the reserve supply needed for balancing the Class I 
needs of the two marketing areas.
    The DCMA witness was of the opinion that reducing the touch-base 
standard to one day each month in both orders is necessary for the 
efficient pooling of reserve supplies. The witness testified that 
lowering the touch-base standard would prevent local milk already 
supplying the markets' Class I needs from being displaced by milk 
produced farther from the marketing areas, which is shipped in simply 
to meet pooling standards. According to the witness, requiring 
producers to deliver more days to pool plants when the milk is not 
truly needed results in increasing the cost of supplying the Class I 
needs of the two markets.
    Eight dairy farmers testified in general support of DCMA's proposed 
changes to the two orders' diversion limit and touch-base standards. 
Some were of the general opinion that the regular reserve supply for 
the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas should be pooled when not 
delivered to Class I plants. While all supported the pooling of milk 
that regularly supplies the Class I needs of the two marketing areas, 
several dairy farmers expressed caution that the diversion limits were 
not being lowered enough while touch-base standards were needlessly 
being lowered. According to these witnesses, this would encourage 
pooling milk not truly supplying the markets and result in lower blend 
prices paid to local dairy farmers. The dairy farmers testifying 
supported adopting needed changes on an emergency basis.
    A witness representing Dean testified that the proposed changes to 
the diversion limit and touch-base standards would not be sufficient to 
deter the uneconomic movement of milk or to enhance producer prices in 
the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas. According to the 
witness, current diversion limit standards are in excess of the 
markets' balancing needs and should be lowered immediately.
    The Dean witness characterized the Appalachian and Southeast orders 
as being very similar to the Florida order in terms of milk consumption 
and production. The witness was of the opinion that the pooling 
standards of the Florida order work well and pooling milk not 
consistently serving the market's Class I needs rarely occurs. The 
witness specifically proposed that diversion limit standards be changed 
to 15 percent for each of the months of December through February, 20 
percent for each of the months of March through June, and 10 percent 
for each of the months of July through November.
    According to the Dean witness, dairy farmers will receive higher 
blend prices if diversion limits are made even lower than proposed by 
DCMA. Relying on market administrator data, the witness stated that 
January 2004 had shown the highest ``need'' of reserve milk during 
2004-2006 for the Southeast order at approximately 22 percent of total 
milk pooled on the order. The witness contrasted this with October 2004 
when the ``needed'' reserve was approximately 7 percent. In this 
regard, the witness suggested that diversion limits could be reduced 
below that proposed by DCMA. According to the witness, if made too low, 
the market administrator has the authority to change the diversion 
limit standards if warranted.
    The Dean witness opposed DCMA's proposed one day per month touch-
base standard if DCMA's proposed diversion limit standards are adopted. 
The witness was of the opinion that inefficient movements of milk would 
result if the one day touch-base standard were adopted. However, the 
witness indicated support for a two-day touch-base standard provided 
the diversion limit standards of the Florida order are simultaneously 
adopted.
    The Dean witness explained that when touch-base requirements are 
low, locally produced milk can be displaced by milk located far from 
the marketing area because it needs to be transported to the marketing 
area fewer times to qualify for pooling and receiving a higher blend 
price. The witness was of the opinion that only milk that is necessary 
to serve the Class I needs of the market should be delivered to that 
market. According to the witness, reserve milk supplies located far 
from the market should not be pooled on the market if they are not 
delivered to the market.

3. Transportation Credit Provisions

    The DCMA witness explained that on September 1, 2006, the Secretary 
issued a tentative partial decision (71 FR 54118) which amended the 
transportation credit provisions of the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders. Specifically, the witness noted that the decision established a 
fuel cost adjuster to determine a variable mileage rate factor used to 
compute the payout of transportation credits and higher maximum 
transportation credit assessments on Class I milk for the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders. To accompany these adopted changes that were 
implemented on December 1, 2006, (71 FR 62377) the witness proposed 
four other changes to the transportation credit provisions that are 
part of the package of changes proposed for the two southeastern 
orders.
    According to the DCMA witness, the four additional changes to the 
transportation credit provisions for both orders include: (1) extending 
the months during which transportation credits may be paid to include 
the

[[Page 12971]]

months of January and February with June being an optional 
transportation credit payment month; (2) expanding the payment of 
transportation credits to apply to the full load of milk, rather than 
the current calculated Class I portion of milk loads; (3) providing 
greater flexibility for supplemental milk producers to be eligible to 
receive transportation credit payments; and (4) raising the maximum 
monthly transportation credit assessment for the Southeast order from 
the current $0.20 per cwt to $0.30 per cwt.
    According to the DCMA witness, the need for supplemental milk in 
the Appalachian and Southeast orders has increased during the months of 
January and February. The witness offered evidence showing that during 
January 2004 through December 2006, January and February are months 
with increasing Class I use in the Appalachian and Southeast orders. 
The witness claimed that during January and February, local milk is not 
sufficient to supply the Class I milk needs. It is this combination of 
Class I need and available local producer supplies that show January 
and February as being more like the current transportation credit 
payment months of July through December than the flush months of March 
through May, the witness concluded. According to the witness, adding 
January and February as transportation credit payment months would give 
suppliers of supplemental milk an opportunity to recoup a portion of 
the hauling costs to supply the marketing areas with milk for fluid 
use.
    In explaining this proposed change, the DCMA witness said, in part, 
current transportation credit payment provisions result in 
reimbursements that are much lower than the real cost of hauling. The 
witness explained that the cost of hauling milk to Class I plants is 
the same regardless of the plant's use or the Class I utilization of 
the market. The witness was of the opinion that expanding the 
transportation credit payments to full loads of milk delivered only to 
pool distributing plants would enhance orderly marketing and better 
ensure that sufficient supplemental milk is delivered to pool 
distributing plants. The witness supported continuing transportation 
credit payments on supplemental milk deliveries to pool distributing 
plants only.
    The DCMA witness proposed simplifying the process for determining 
what supplemental milk is eligible for transportation credit payments. 
The witness noted that currently, a dairy farm must be located outside 
either the Appalachian or the Southeast marketing areas, the dairy 
farmer must not meet the Producer provision under the two orders during 
more than two of the immediately preceding months of February through 
May, and not more than 50 percent of the dairy farmer's milk production 
during those two months, in aggregate, can be received as producer milk 
under the order during those 2 months.
    The DCMA witness was of the opinion that the requirements for 
transportation credit payment eligibility should be changed to provide 
flexibility in meeting the criteria while limiting the receipt of 
transportation credits to only that milk which is truly supplemental 
and that is not part of the consistent and regular supply of milk 
serving the Class I needs of the two markets. Specifically, the witness 
proposed that: (1) A dairy farmer must not meet the Producer definition 
on the orders in more than 45 of the 92 days in the months March 
through May, or (2) a dairy farmer must have less than 50 percent of 
their producer milk pooled on the orders during those 3 months 
combined. The witness argued that limiting the producer association 
with the orders to no more than half the time or to no more than half 
their milk production is sufficient to identify a dairy farmer as a 
supplemental supplier of milk to the marketing areas. These changes, 
the witness asserted, offer substantial cost savings to cooperatives 
that bear the burden of sourcing and supplying the supplemental milk 
needs of the markets from distant locations.
    The DCMA witness testified that the maximum transportation credit 
assessment for the Southeast order needs to be increased from the 
current $0.20 per cwt to $0.30 per cwt given the proposed expansion of 
the transportation credit payments on full loads of milk to Class I 
distributing plants regulated by the two orders. The witness was of the 
opinion that otherwise the current assessment rate would be 
insufficient to cover anticipated shortfalls in the transportation 
credit balancing fund.
    While the DCMA witness proposed a higher transportation credit 
assessment rate for the Southeast order only, the witness projected 
that the proposed changes to Class I prices and the Class I pricing 
surface in the Appalachian and Southeast orders would lessen payments 
from the transportation credit balancing funds. The witness explained 
this may occur because of the greater positive differences (increases) 
from adopting the proposed Class I price adjustments and Class I 
pricing surface. The witness did acknowledge that the additions of the 
months of January and February as transportation credit payment months 
would tend to increase transportation credit payouts.
    Relying on market administrator data, the DCMA witness estimated 
that for the months of July through December 2006 the Southeast order 
transportation credit payments would total $15,704,872 as a result of 
their proposal, and January and February 2006 payments would total 
approximately $2,900,000, resulting in an overall amount of 
approximately $18,604,872. At the current assessment rate of $0.20 per 
cwt, the witness concluded that transportation credit balancing funds 
would not have been sufficient to pay all transportation credit claims 
in 2006. At the proposed $0.30 per cwt assessment rate, the witness was 
of the opinion that sufficient revenue would be generated to satisfy 
all transportation credit claims.
    Relying on market administrator data for the Appalachian order, the 
witness said that during July 2006 through January 2007, transportation 
credit payments would have totaled approximately $4,073,312. According 
to the witness, February 2006 would have included a payment of 
approximately $313,000, bringing the total estimated transportation 
credit payments to $4,383,312. According to the witness, the current 
$0.15 per cwt assessment rate for the Appalachian order would have been 
sufficient and no increase in the assessment rate would be needed.
    The DCMA witness supported continuing to provide for market 
administrator discretion in setting the transportation credit 
assessment rates at less than the maximum allowed. The witness was of 
the opinion that doing so will prevent the needless collection of 
revenue when the transportation credit balancing funds are sufficient 
to meet claims.
    Four dairy farmers testified in support of DCMA's proposal to 
provide additional flexibility in determining which producers are 
supplying supplemental milk to the two marketing areas. As with other 
features of DCMA's proposals, these dairy farmers supported adoption of 
these proposed changes on an emergency basis.
    The witness appearing on behalf of Dean expressed support for 
adding the months of January and February as transportation credit 
payment months for the Appalachian and Southeast orders on the 
condition that tighter diversion limits be adopted. The witness said 
these months should be considered as payment-eligible months because 
the tentative decision implemented in December 2006 eliminated the 
ability to divert milk on loads of milk seeking the payment of a 
transportation credit. However, the

[[Page 12972]]

Dean witness opposed expanding transportation credit payment 
eligibility to entire loads of milk. In this regard, the witness 
expressed concern that this would essentially result in Class I sales 
funding the supply of supplemental milk in lower-valued Class II uses.

4. Administrative Assessment Rate

    According to the Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian 
order, Proposal 4 was offered to ensure that sufficient funds are 
available for administering the Appalachian order. The witness added 
that Proposal 4 would amend section 1005.85 (7 CFR 1005.85) to provide 
for all of the administrative assessment language pertinent to the 
Appalachian order provisions and would discontinue the reference to 
section 1000.85 (7 CFR 1000.85). The witness explained that 
administration and operating costs include administrative, accounting, 
human resources, economic, pooling and audit staff expenses.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order stated 
that the market administrator is required to maintain a specific level 
of operating reserves. The reserve level, the witness said, must be 
maintained in the event that an order is terminated and would fund the 
necessary costs for closing out an order, completing pools and audits 
and paying severance and leases. The reserve level is detailed in the 
MA Instruction 207 that is issued by the Dairy Programs Deputy 
Administrator, said the witness.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order said 
that the majority of the administrative assessment revenue comes from 
pooled producer milk. Additionally, the witness said, assessments are 
also collected on other source receipts assigned to Class I and certain 
route disposition in the marketing area by partially regulated 
distributing plants. The witness stated that although the maximum 
administrative assessment rate allowable on pooled producer milk is 
$0.05 per cwt, the rate currently collected each month is $0.04 per 
cwt, which has remained unchanged since January 2000.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order said 
that during 2000-2002, producer milk pooled on the Appalachian order 
averaged 547 million pounds per month. According to the witness, the 
$0.04 per cwt assessment rate at this volume of milk created enough 
revenue to fund Appalachian order operations and maintain the mandated 
operating reserve. The witness stated that from 2003-2005, producer 
milk pooled on the order averaged 525 million pounds per month and in 
2006, producer milk pooled on the order averaged 520 million pounds per 
month. The witness also compared the first 4 months of 2007 to the 
first 4 months of 2006 and stated that producer milk pooled on the 
order was down 3.45 percent.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order 
explained that about $215,000 is needed each month to cover basic 
operating expenses. By keeping the assessment rate of $.04 per cwt, the 
witness said 538 million pounds of producer milk would be needed each 
month to cover monthly order expenses. The witness further explained 
that the Appalachian order was in an operating deficit in 2003, 2004, 
and 2006 and had a balanced budget in 2005. During 2003-2006, the 
witness said, the volumes of pooled producer milk did not generate 
sufficient revenue to fund order operations and lowered the mandated 
operating reserves.
    According to the Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian 
order, a decision effective December 1, 2006 (71 FR 62377), established 
a zero diversion limit standard on Class I milk receiving 
transportation credits. The decision, the witness said, reduced the 
amount of milk that could be pooled on the order and reduced the amount 
of assessment revenue collected during the period of July through 
December, when those volumes of milk would be pooled. In addition, the 
witness said that Proposal 1, if adopted, would add January and 
February as additional transportation credit payout months, further 
reducing the amount of milk that could be pooled on the Appalachian 
order. The witness stressed that tightening pooling provisions of the 
order impacts the amount of producer milk pooled on the order. The 
witness expressed concern that less milk pooled on the order would 
reduce administrative assessment revenue and the ability to fund order 
operations while maintaining the mandated reserve level.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order said 
that the market administrator makes efforts to control costs of 
carrying out order operations. According to the witness, cost control 
efforts include a reduction of office staff by 29 percent through 
attrition since January 2003, contracting with outside computer 
services, negotiating a telecommunications contract, consolidating a 
field office, and reducing travel and mail expenses. The witness 
stressed that regardless of the market administrator's efforts to 
control costs and efficiently administer the order, gains in efficiency 
cannot make up for revenue lost due to a reduction in milk volumes.
    The Assistant Market Administrator for the Appalachian order 
concluded by emphasizing that increasing the maximum administrative 
assessment rate to $.08 per cwt would be the maximum rate allowable and 
not necessarily the rate assessed. The witness said the actual rate 
assessed would only be as high as determined by the market 
administrator with approval by the Dairy Programs Deputy Administrator.
    According to the Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida 
orders, Proposals 5 and 6 were offered to ensure that there are 
sufficient funds to carry out administration of the orders. The witness 
said the proposals would amend sections 1006.85 (7 CFR 1006.85) and 
1007.85 (7 CFR 1007.85) to provide for all of the administrative 
assessment language pertinent to the Southeast and Florida orders, and 
would discontinue the reference to section 1000.85 (7 CFR 1000.85). The 
witness explained that administration and operating expenses of the 
order include pooling, auditing, and providing market information.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders 
explained that the order is required to maintain a specified level of 
operating reserves. The reserve level, the witness said, is detailed in 
the MA Instruction 207 that is issued by the Dairy Programs Deputy 
Administrator. The witness said the reserve level is kept to cover 
necessary costs of closing out an order, such as completing pools, 
audits, and paying severance and lease payments.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders 
explained that the majority of the monthly administrative assessment is 
collected from pooled producer milk. The witness added that additional 
assessments are also collected from other source receipts associated 
with Class I and certain route disposition in the marketing area by 
partially regulated distributing plants. The witness stated that the 
market administrator largely depends on the administrative assessment 
revenue to fund the operations of the orders. The witness noted that 
since 2000, the administrative assessments for both the Southeast and 
Florida orders have contributed over 80 percent of the total income of 
the market administrator office.
    According to the Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida 
orders, the combined monthly average of pooled producer milk for the 
two orders in 2000 was 862.8 million

[[Page 12973]]

pounds. In 2001, the witness said, the combined monthly average of 
producer milk pooled in both orders was 878.4 million pounds and in 
2002, the combined monthly average was 885.0 million pounds. The 
witness said that during 2000-2002, the assessment rates charged in the 
Southeast and Florida orders of $0.035 and $0.03 per cwt, respectively, 
along with the volume of producer milk, were sufficient to fund order 
operations and maintain the mandated reserve funds.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders said 
that in 2003, although producer milk in the Florida order increased by 
5 percent, producer milk in the Southeast order decreased 11 percent, 
resulting in a considerable decrease in assessment collections. 
According to the witness, during 2003, funds were drawn from the 
operating reserves, reducing the reserve level near the mandated 
minimum. The witness said that as a result, effective with January 2004 
milk deliveries, the administrative assessment rates increased by $0.01 
to $0.045 and $0.04 per cwt for the Southeast and Florida orders, 
respectively.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders 
stated that in 2004, the monthly average pounds of producer milk pooled 
increased over 2003 by 1 percent and 5 percent in the Southeast and 
Florida orders, respectively. The witness added that in 2005, producer 
milk increased over 2004 by 5 percent and 8.8 percent in the Southeast 
and Florida orders respectively, and in 2006, producer milk increased 
over 2005 by 6.8 percent and stayed the same in the Southeast and 
Florida orders, respectively.
    According to the Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida 
orders, the administrative assessments implemented in 2004, with the 
increase in producer milk during 2004-2006 and efforts to control 
costs, have been sufficient to cover operating expenses and build an 
adequate reserve level. The witness added that they continue to take 
measures to control costs. The witness said that from 2000-2006, cost 
control measures included a 15 percent reduction in staff through 
attrition, increased use of technology to hold meetings and conduct 
audits, a reduction in travel expenses, and a decrease in communication 
costs.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders 
explained that Proposal 2 seeks to limit an average of 12.3 percent of 
allowable diversions in the Southeast order which would reduce the 
amount of milk pooled on the order, as well as the value of 
administrative assessments used to fund order operations. The witness 
also noted a decision effective December 1, 2006, (71 FR 62337) that 
reduced allowable diversions by the volume of transportation credit 
claims. The witness also expressed concern that the downward trend in 
Southeast milk production and marketing decisions made by handlers 
provides an increased potential for variability in the revenue 
available for order operations.
    The Market Administrator for the Southeast and Florida orders 
concluded that while the proposals seek to increase the maximum 
assessment rate from $0.05 per cwt to $0.08 per cwt, the $0.08 per cwt 
would not necessarily be the rate charged. The witness stressed that 
the assessed rate would only be high enough to cover operating expenses 
and maintain the mandated reserve level as approved by the Deputy 
Administrator for Dairy Programs.

Post-Hearing Briefs

    Post-hearing briefs were filed by: Dairy Cooperative Marketing 
Association (DCMA), Southeast Producers Steering Committee (SPSC), Dean 
Foods Company and National Dairy Holdings (Dean/NDH), and the Milk 
Industry Foundation (MIF).
    The DCMA post-hearing brief echoed the association's support for 
adoption of their proposals on an emergency basis. The brief stated 
that its proposals were developed as an integrated package and that the 
package of proposals better assures the Appalachian, Southeast, and 
Florida milk orders' ability to attract a sufficient quantity of milk 
for fluid use. The brief said this is accomplished by increasing the 
Class I prices in the three milk marketing orders, lowering the 
diversion limit and touch-base standards, and modifying the 
transportation credit provisions. The brief reiterated the deficit milk 
supply situation in the southeastern region. The brief emphasized that 
procuring milk for Class I use for the region is a major challenge that 
is borne disproportionately by cooperative associations and their dairy 
farmer members.
    The DCMA brief explained that the proposed Class I price 
adjustments and changes to the Class I pricing surface in the 
Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders would accomplish two needed 
results. According to the brief, the changes would likely encourage 
local producers to increase milk production and provide pricing 
incentives for producers located outside the marketing areas to deliver 
milk to the three marketing areas for fluid use.
    The DCMA brief stated that, while plant price relationships would 
inevitably change as a result of its proposals, the Class I prices 
proposed are strikingly similar to plant price differences adopted in 
the 1999 Order Reform final rule. The brief indicated that this is 
proof that its method of developing the proposed Class I price 
adjustments and Class I pricing surface is valid and meets the 
requirements of a regulated Class I price system.
    The DCMA brief commented on the method used in developing its Class 
I pricing proposals as deviating from a model developed by Cornell 
University that was relied upon in the adoption of current Class I 
pricing structure. The brief addressed opponent arguments that the cost 
of shipping bulk versus packaged milk follows distinct cost equations 
and, therefore, different cost curves. According to the brief, the 
marginal costs involved in shipping bulk milk long distances (over 900 
miles) are still greater than zero and subsequently do not invalidate 
their proposed pricing structure. The brief characterized the proposed 
Class I pricing portion of the proposal package as containing all the 
elements used by the Department in the current Class I pricing 
structure. The brief also argued that DCMA's proposals generate Class I 
pricing relationships consistent with the objectives of marketing 
orders in assuring an adequate supply of milk for the three marketing 
areas, not encouraging the uneconomic movement of milk, and being 
reflective of the supply and demand conditions for milk within the 
marketing areas.
    The DCMA brief explained that lowering the diversion limit 
standards in the Appalachian and Southeast orders would serve to 
enhance producer blend prices while the decrease in the producer touch-
base standard would act to encourage more efficient milk movements and 
offer cost savings to milk suppliers. The brief maintained that while 
some witnesses testified in support of even lower (tighter) diversion 
limits, no evidence to support such changes was presented. The brief 
added that diversion limit standards in both orders will effectively be 
much lower than the proposed standards because no diversions may 
accompany supplemental milk pooled on the order which receives a 
transportation credit payment. The brief also noted that DCMA's 
proposal for extending transportation credit pay-out months also 
effectively lowers pooling milk by diversion.
    The DCMA brief stated that extending the payment of transportation 
credits to include the months of January and February and to the entire 
loads of milk would offer the suppliers of

[[Page 12974]]

supplemental milk greater assurance that more of the actual costs of 
hauling milk to the southeastern region would be covered. According to 
the brief, simplifying the criteria that determines if producers are 
supplemental suppliers of milk to the marketing areas offers both 
administrative and marketing efficiencies. Finally, the brief explained 
that the proposed increase in the transportation credit assessment for 
the Southeast milk order will ensure that transportation credit payment 
claims are adequate to meet anticipated needs.
    The DCMA brief maintained that the record contains abundant 
evidence supporting the existence of emergency conditions in the three 
marketing areas affecting the ability to adequately supply fluid milk. 
The brief stressed that providing adjustments for higher Class I prices 
and modifying the Class I pricing surface, if even on a temporary 
basis, is necessary immediately. The brief indicated that milk 
production in the Southeastern states during the first quarter of 2007 
declined at a faster rate than the annual decline during 2006 and 2005, 
and that this increasing rate of milk production decline cannot be 
ignored. The brief reiterated the continuing increases in hauling costs 
and the longer distances milk must be shipped to provide sufficient 
supplies to meet fluid demands.
    A post-hearing brief was submitted on behalf of SPSC. The SPSC 
brief indicated support for the Class I portions of DCMA's proposals 
but was not fully supportive of the proposed diversion limit standards, 
touch-base standards, and transportation credit provisions. The brief 
agreed with the DCMA proposals to increase Class I prices in the 
Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders on an emergency basis 
because it would promote milk production within the three marketing 
areas by enhancing local producer income--the primary suppliers of 
fluid milk for the three southeastern markets. The SPSC brief did 
express concern that even with expected higher blend prices to 
producers accruing from higher Class I prices, the current trend of 
lower local milk production may not be slowed.
    The SPSC brief indicated support to lower (tighten) diversion limit 
standards in the Appalachian and Southeast orders. However, the brief 
expressed the opinion that diversion limit standards for both orders 
could and should be reduced more than that proposed by the DCMA. The 
SPSC brief asserted that record evidence had not determined the 
appropriate base and reserve milk supply volumes, the proper diversion 
limit and touch-base standards for the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders, or who should bear the costs of maintaining reserve milk 
supplies for the Southeastern region.
    The SPSC brief was of the opinion that record evidence also did not 
clearly indicate that the volume of milk pooled on the orders for other 
than Class I use actually would be lowered by adopting DCMA's proposed 
diversion limit and touch-base standards. According to its brief, the 
majority of the producer milk removed under the DCMA proposals would be 
unavailable in only a few months of the flush production months for the 
Appalachian order and in the months of January and February for the 
Southeast order. The brief expressed concern that milk could actually 
be added in both orders in the other months due to the decrease in the 
touch-base standard. The brief maintained that in-area producers and 
those who provide the primary supply of milk for fluid use on a regular 
basis should receive the greatest share of revenue attributable to that 
service. According to the brief, pooling more milk than needed would 
only continue to depress the income of Southeastern producers.
    The SPSC brief found agreement with Dean's testimony that proposed 
a more aggressive lowering of diversion limit standards for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders. The brief agreed with Dean's position 
that tighter diversion limits would sharply reduce the volumes of 
pooled milk in the two orders and the relative impact on producer pay 
prices would be more substantial. The brief indicated support for 
continuing to provide discretionary authority for the market 
administrators to tighten diversion limits and raise touch-base 
standards if necessary and without the need to resort to the formal 
rulemaking process.
    The SPSC brief indicated conditioned support for DCMA's proposed 
changes to the transportation credit provisions of the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders. However, the brief questioned the proper role of 
transportation credits in both marketing orders. The brief requested 
the Department consider the proper levels of producer delivery day 
requirements, diversion limits, and transportation credit provisions to 
achieve the stated goals of the DCMA package of proposals.
    A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of Dean and NDH (Dean/NDH) 
agreed that the Southeastern region of the U.S. is a deficit milk 
production region and that the deficit is growing. The brief said that 
dairy farmers who regularly and consistently supply milk to fluid milk 
plants in the southeastern region should be appropriately compensated 
for their raw milk and receive the blend price of the order they 
supply. However, the brief argued that adopting the proposed Class I 
price adjustments and the Class I price surface proposals is not 
supported by record evidence or by rule of law and should be denied. 
While the Dean/NDH brief expressed agreement that long-term problems 
exist regarding the viability of the southeastern region dairy 
industry, it doubted that correcting problems that have prevailed for 
25 years could be solved overnight through emergency rulemaking.
    According to the Dean/NDH brief, there is no evidence of an 
emergency that would warrant adopting the Class I price proposals by 
the omission of a Recommended Decision. To the extent that conditions 
warrant the need to rely on milk orders to return higher prices to 
dairy farmers, the brief asserted that an alternative method of 
returning higher prices can be achieved by simply lowering the orders' 
diversion limit standards. The Dean/NDH brief noted that Dean and NDH 
operate several fluid milk processing plants in the Southeastern region 
and that other processors testifying at the hearing opposed the Class I 
price adjustments and Class I pricing surface changes. The brief argued 
that such changes may have unintended consequences which may worsen the 
situation in the southeastern region. According to the Dean/NDH brief, 
adopting changes to Class I pricing may create incentives for plants 
located outside the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas to direct 
their fluid milk sales in the marketing areas and become pooled on 
those orders. The brief argued that while plants may gain in blend 
price changes by altering where they become pooled, the price surface 
may not change for their competitors. The brief also asserted that 
since January 2000, Class I prices were intentionally linked nationwide 
as part of Federal milk order reform and concluded that any change in 
Class I differentials or the Class I price surface, even at one price 
location, would change the economic incentive nationwide to serve that 
location. The brief therefore contended that the entire national Class 
I price surface needs to be evaluated.
    According to the Dean/NDH brief, DCMA's Class I price proposals 
fail to rely on accepted economic models and fail to follow the 
Department's established policies for making adjustments to the Class I 
price surface. Specifically, the brief argued that the economic 
calculations failed to take into consideration ``shadow pricing,'' 
which the brief characterized as how a market could react to changes 
such that an

[[Page 12975]]

additional price change would alter distribution. The brief also argued 
that the Class I price proposals fail to calculate unique prices for 
each location by considering relevant reserve supply areas and fail to 
account for differences in raw milk movements versus packaged milk 
movements.
    According to the Dean/NDH brief, the rationale for setting a target 
price for Miami, FL, and then backing off that price and ``smoothing'' 
the result is arbitrary and capricious. The brief contended that 
determining Class I prices in this way applied non-uniform methodology 
and did not meet the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. In 
addition, the brief noted that no evidence or economic data backs up 
the ``smoothing'' process as described by DCMA testimony.
    The Dean/NDH brief asserted that Wooster, OH, should not be 
identified as a supply area because it has never been relied upon as 
any kind of basing point for pricing milk and doing so now would be 
specifically contrary to testimony given at a Pennsylvania State 
hearing for a recent State of Pennsylvania rulemaking. Accordingly, the 
brief contended that DCMA's entire Class I pricing proposals should be 
rejected.
    According to the Dean/NDH brief, although the Class I price changes 
sought are ``temporary,'' competitive impacts of such changes can be 
long-term and result in permanent harm to Class I handlers. The brief 
asserted that any decision should be considered permanent unless it has 
a specific sunset provision. According to the brief, no specific sunset 
provision had been proposed or discussed in the hearing record.
    The Dean/NDH brief pointed out that, at the time of the hearing, 
the dairy industry was also experiencing record high Class I prices for 
milk further demonstrating the lack of need for emergency action. The 
brief noted that the May 2007 uniform price for Fulton County, GA, was 
$18.37 per cwt. According to the brief, this price is $1.37 per cwt 
higher than April 2007 and is $5.83 per cwt, or 45.3 percent, higher 
than in May 2006. The brief also noted that the Class I price for June 
2007 at Fulton County was $1.92 per cwt higher than May 2007, and the 
July 2007 price increased by $3.07 per cwt. The brief indicated that 
even a proponent witness acknowledged that such higher prices were 
likely to continue through the fall 2007.
    The Dean/NDH brief agreed that diversion limit standards for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders should be lowered on an emergency 
basis and made identical to those of the Florida order. The brief 
indicated that the Florida order currently functions well by having 
lower diversion limit standards and this has supported the prevailing 
over-order premiums. The brief opined that because of the order's tight 
pooling provisions, the need for transportation credits and the need 
for holding numerous formal rulemaking hearings has been avoided. 
According to the brief, the Florida order's tight diversion limit 
standards have continually assisted that order in retaining strong 
blend prices paid to dairy farmers and attracting sufficient amounts of 
milk supplies.
    The Dean/NDH brief asserted that pool revenues should be shared 
only among those producers who truly and regularly serve the Class I 
market and that diversion limit standards of the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders are not adequately identifying those true and regular 
suppliers. The brief asserted that both orders can be made more 
effective by requiring a genuine association of a milk supply with the 
market as intended by the AMAA.
    The Dean/NDH brief indicated that if Dean's proposal for adopting 
the diversion limit standards of the Florida order for the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders is adopted, Dean would support the DCMA's one-day 
per month touch-base standard proposals. As Dean/NDH does not consider 
DCMA's proposed diversion limit standards as being any change at all, 
it opposed any change to the touch-base standards of the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders.
    The Dean/NDH brief opposed the expansion of the payment of 
transportation credits to include the entire load of milk and stated 
that payments should only be paid on Class I milk as currently provided 
under the Appalachian and Southeast orders. The brief expressed concern 
that adopting the proposed changes would create the wrong economic 
incentives. The brief noted that suppliers of milk to a Class I plant 
with a higher than market average of Class II use would be receiving a 
larger economic benefit than Class I plants with below market average 
Class II use. According to the brief, this would be contrary to 
assuring equal minimum milk prices among similar handlers.
    The Dean/NDH brief was of the opinion that transportation credits 
have been a key factor in contributing to the decline of the dairy 
industry in the southeastern region. In this regard, the brief noted 
the proponents acknowledgement that in some cases current touch-base 
provisions in conjunction with transportation credits cause inefficient 
movements of milk. The brief asserted that transportation credits, not 
touch-base standards, give rise to inefficient movements of milk.
    A post-hearing brief by MIF reiterated its opposition to adopting 
DCMA's proposals and asserted the absence of emergency marketing 
conditions that warrant emergency action. The brief noted awareness of 
declining milk production in the southeastern region but indicated this 
is not a sufficient basis for the adoption of the proposals on an 
emergency basis. The brief further argued that no emergency exists to 
warrant adoption of the proposals because the trends of declining milk 
production in the region and rising fuel costs have existed for many 
years.
    The MIF brief stressed that the key purpose of the Federal milk 
marketing order program is to ensure an adequate supply of milk for 
Class I needs. In this regard, the brief noted that no witnesses 
testified on the inability to procure milk for Class I use. The brief 
reiterated that in a survey of its membership conducted before the 
hearing, no member indicated difficulty securing milk for Class I needs 
in the three southeastern marketing areas. The brief also mentioned 
that over-order premiums are paid by Class I handlers to secure milk 
for fluid use and the proponents testified that current over-over 
premiums currently offset higher fuel costs.
    The MIF brief noted that some southeastern dairy producers who 
testified at the hearing also participated in a herd-removal program 
called Cooperatives Working Together (CWT). In this regard, the brief 
cited this as an example of misplaced concern for declining milk 
production in the southeastern region.
    The MIF brief asserted Class I sales would suffer if higher Class I 
prices were adopted because higher raw milk costs would increase 
wholesale costs and result in higher retail prices paid by consumers. 
The brief noted that the current, general structure of Class I location 
differentials has been in place for 22 years and that milk bottlers 
have made significant investments in plants and equipment during this 
time.
    According to the MIF brief, plants could be disadvantaged in the 
marketplace solely because of increases in the Class I price relative 
to the Class I price of its competitors. The brief argued that a $0.005 
difference per gallon could result in lost customers for a distributing 
plant and that a $0.025 increase is enough to lose a supermarket 
account. The brief asserted that increasing a Class I price by $0.10 
per cwt ($0.0086 per gallon) could yield

[[Page 12976]]

dire results for a Class I plant. The brief indicated that an 
unexpected consequence could be that plants distant to the three orders 
could become associated with one of the three orders due to differences 
between transportation costs and increased Class I prices resulting in 
out-of-area plants taking away sales from in-area plants.
    The MIF brief said that a comprehensive study and analysis on a 
national scale of all potential consequences and on demand for packaged 
milk was needed before any changes to Class I pricing were adopted. The 
brief reasserted the opinion that Class I prices could not be changed 
in the southeastern region alone because that would change marketing 
conditions in all marketing areas.
    A post-hearing brief submitted on behalf of DCMA expressed support 
for the market administrator assessment increase for the Appalachian, 
Southeast, and Florida milk orders in Proposals 4, 5, and 6, 
respectively.

Comments and Exceptions

    Comments and exceptions to the tentative partial decision (73 FR 
11194) were filed by Dairy Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. 
(DCMA), Arkansas Milk Stabilization Board (AMSB), Southeast Producers 
Steering Committee (SPSC), Dean Foods Company and National Dairy 
Holdings (Dean/NDH), and the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF).
    In comments and exceptions regarding the adopted Class I price 
surface, DCMA wrote that the amended Class I differentials will send 
appropriate signals to maintain and increase milk production within the 
three marketing areas, as well as create incentives to increase the 
movement of supplemental milk to these areas when needed. DCMA also 
expressed agreement that the Class I price surface changes will 
generate producer price increases in all three marketing areas. DCMA 
reiterated that the reduction in the volume of diverted milk in the 
Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas should also lead to increased 
uniform prices in those marketing areas. DCMA predicted that decreases 
in the touch-base standard will offer greater flexibility in moving 
pooled milk and will offer cost savings on pooled reserve supplies. 
Lastly, DCMA supported USDA's decision to maintain and update the 
transportation credit balancing fund provisions.
    Comments and exceptions filed on behalf of the AMSB expressed 
support for the tentative partial decision, but proposed additional 
changes to Class I price adjustments for certain county locations in 
Arkansas. AMSB requested that the Class I differentials for Pulaski 
county be increased from $2.80 to $3.20 per cwt, Sebastian county from 
$2.80 to $3.10 per cwt, and Washington and Benton counties from $2.60 
to $3.00 per cwt. AMSB also proposed that the touch-base standard be 
changed from 2 days for each of the months of July through December and 
to 6 days for each of the months of January through June. According to 
AMSB, significant decreases in milk production in Arkansas, as well as 
in Mississippi and Louisiana, are due, in part, to the Federal milk 
marketing orders. AMSB was of the opinion that their proposed changes 
are needed to stabilize dairy production in the State of Arkansas.
    Comments and exceptions filed on behalf of the SPSC expressed 
support for adjusting the Class I price surface in each of the three 
marketing areas but asserted that the price adjustment increases 
adopted in the tentative partial decision will not sufficiently 
increase local milk production in the three marketing areas. SPSC 
reiterated a number of positions given in record testimony and brief: 
(1) lowering the touch-base standards will have a negative impact on 
milk prices and production in the three marketing areas, (2) changes to 
the transportation credit balancing fund provisions will encourage 
unnecessary milk movements to the detriment of producer mailbox prices 
in the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas, and (3) milk produced 
on farms located far from the marketing areas will seek to capture 
higher transportation credit payments by taking advantage of the lower 
touch-base standards along with the extension of transportation credit 
eligibility on the full loads of milk.
    Comments and exceptions filed on behalf of Dean/NDH expressed 
opposition to the tentative partial decision by reiterating its 
positions given in record testimony and post-hearing brief: (1) USDA 
has deserted utilizing a nationally coordinated pricing surface for 
Class I milk; (2) current economic conditions demand a nationally 
coordinated price surface; and (3) abandonment of a nationally 
coordinated Class I price surface does not follow the requirements of 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act (AMAA). Similarly, Dean/NDH comments and exceptions also 
continued to criticize the method used to create the Class I price 
surface adjustment.
    Comments and exceptions filed on behalf of the MIF reiterated its 
opposition given in record testimony and post-hearing brief to 
adjusting the Class I price surface in the Appalachian, Southeast, and 
Florida Federal milk marketing areas and USDA's conclusion to implement 
the proposed changes on an interim basis. According to MIF's comments 
and exceptions, increasing Class I prices and adjusting the Class I 
price surface will not solve the problem of covering procurement costs 
of fluid milk. MIF asserted that over-order payments are already used 
to compensate cooperatives that bear the costs of balancing the supply 
and that increasing Class I prices will only increase costs for 
processors, retailers and consumers and discourage Class I sales.
    No comments and exceptions were received regarding the proposed 
increase in the maximum administrative assessment for the Appalachian, 
Southeast, and Florida orders.

Discussion and Findings

    The record of this proceeding reveals that for many years milk 
production has declined in the southeastern region and supplying the 
region with supplemental milk has demanded the sourcing of milk 
supplies from ever farther distances from the marketing areas. Not only 
has the decline in milk production been in absolute terms, but when 
balanced with population increases, milk production in the region has 
failed to satisfy fluid demands year-round.
    The proposed amendments in this proceeding to the Appalachian, 
Florida, and Southeast milk marketing orders aim to assure an adequate 
supply of milk for fluid use in the southeastern region of the U.S. As 
proposed by DCMA, the amendments to the three marketing orders seek 
simultaneous changes with the aim of providing incentives for assuring 
a reliable supply of milk for fluid use. The amendments integrate: (1) 
Higher regulated minimum prices for Class I milk, (2) changes to assure 
that the revenue accruing from higher minimum Class I prices will be 
shared with those producers who regularly and consistently serve the 
region's Class I needs of the region, (3) cost savings for entities who 
have made the commitment to supply the region, and (4) flexibility and 
incentives for supplying the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas 
with supplemental milk by offsetting the cost of transportation.

Class I Prices and Class I Price Surface

    Adjustments to the Class I prices for the three southeastern orders 
continue to be proposed for adoption in this final decision and result 
in a change to the Class I price surface. The changes are

[[Page 12977]]

specified in the order language. Assuming no other changes to the three 
southeastern orders, increasing Class I prices will continue to 
increase Class I prices as provided for in the interim rule and 
increase the value of each order's marketwide pool. The higher Class I 
prices also will attract milk to all locations and increase blend 
prices for dairy farmers whose milk is pooled on the three southeastern 
milk marketing orders.
    The basic foundation for deriving the temporary adjustments to 
Class I prices begins with DCMA's identification of potential supply 
areas and reliance on the areas to yield the lowest Class I price 
adjustment based on the farthest point of milk demand. The potential 
supply point meeting these criteria was Wooster, OH, and the farthest 
demand point was identified as Miami, FL. After identification of the 
lowest cost supply and demand point, the distance between these two 
points was relied upon to determine calculated price adjustments at all 
other county and parish locations within the marketing area boundaries 
of the three southeastern orders. The selection of Miami as the 
farthest point of milk consumption is consistent with recognition in 
the current pricing structure that Miami is the point with the highest 
Class I differential resulting in a Class I price designed to attract 
an adequate supply of Class I milk.
    As the proposal indicated, the selection of Wooster, OH, (Wayne 
County) as a supply point is one of several that were considered by the 
proponents. The selection of Wooster was made after consideration of 
other supply points because it would represent the least-cost point 
from which a milk supply could potentially be sourced from locations in 
the southeastern region. All other supply points considered would have 
resulted in much higher Class I price adjustments.
    The Class I price adjustment calculated for every county and parish 
location relies upon a mileage rate factor implemented in December 
2006. This factor is further reduced by 20 percent. While this formed 
DCMA's basic foundation for adjusting Class I prices, it is not the 
proposed Class I price adjustments at all locations in the southeastern 
region.
    The DCMA's Class I price adjustments differ from those calculated. 
What the proponents have described as ``smoothing'' of the Class I 
price adjustments is essentially price alignment. In this regard, it is 
clear that the adopted Class I price adjustments are different from 
strictly calculated values. The adopted Class I price adjustments 
provide reasonable alignment with the current Class I price surface 
beyond the geographical boundaries of the southeastern orders.
    Similarly, DCMA's Class I price adjustments differ from calculated 
adjustments by adjusting calculated values to correspond to Class I 
processing plant locations. This establishes pricing zones that are 
conceptually identical to current pricing zones and assures that 
similarly situated Class I handlers will have the same minimum 
regulated Class I prices. Providing similar regulated prices for 
similarly situated handlers is consistent with the requirements of the 
AMAA. While conceptually identical, maintaining price alignment with 
adjoining milk marketing orders together with pricing zones, the 
adopted Class I price adjustments result in price relationships that 
are different from those that existed at the time of the hearing. 
Despite criticism that DCMA's adjustments change price relationships 
between plants of the same ownership, the key requirement that 
similarly located plants have similar regulated minimum prices is 
maintained.
    In an effort to examine both the level and the reasonableness of 
the Class I price adjustments that were zoned and aligned with 
adjoining orders, DCMA evaluated the cost of shipping packaged milk. 
According to the record, there are some differences between what the 
resulting Class I price adjustments would be under the cost analysis of 
shipping packaged milk. Nevertheless, the similarities between the 
adopted Class I price adjustment and the cost adjustment analysis of 
shipping packaged milk are very similar. Since the Class I price 
adjustment at all locations does not exceed the value of milk at 
alternative locations, in either bulk or packaged form, the Class I 
price adjustments are reasonable. Despite criticism in comments and 
exceptions, this final decision continues to find that this method of 
evaluating the Class I pricing changes forms a rational basis to 
conclude that the proposed changes to Class I pricing are reasonable. 
The adopted Class I price adjustments are presented in Figure 1. While 
the Class I differentials in the southeastern region are not changed in 
this decision, the Class I price adjustments are added to the current 
Class I differentials for illustrative purposes. Figure 1 provides a 
graphic presentation of the combined value of Class I differentials 
plus the adjustment values adopted in this decision.
    On the basis of a pricing surface alone, the adopted Class I price 
adjustments will not likely result in the uneconomic movement of milk 
as asserted by opponents. The adopted pricing surface better reflects 
the economic conditions affecting the supply and demand for milk in the 
three southeastern marketing areas by providing greater pricing 
incentives indicative of actual milk movements and the cost of 
supplying milk from alternative locations. The adopted Class I price 
adjustments result in a steeper Class I price surface that correlates 
with the higher location value fluid milk has in the southeastern 
region. The location value of milk is higher because of the cost 
involved in transporting milk to locations in the milk-deficit 
southeastern region from alternative milk-surplus locations.
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P

[[Page 12978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR14.001

BILLING CODE 3410-02-C
    Opponents to DCMA's Class I price adjustments assert that there is 
no reason to increase Class I prices because all Class I demands are 
being met. This decision continues to find that DCMA's proposed 
adjustments to the pricing provisions of the three orders are 
reasonable and necessary. The record of this proceeding reveals that it 
is the cooperative member organizations of DCMA who supply the majority 
of the Class I needs of the three marketing areas. In making the 
commitment to supply the fluid needs of the markets, the supplying 
cooperatives have largely reduced the burden on Class I handlers to 
source their supply. Similarly, it is the cooperative organizations 
that provide the service of balancing the three southeastern markets.
    Opponents to DCMA's Class I price adjustments noted that there is 
an adequate supply of milk to meet fluid demands. There is an adequate 
national supply of milk to meet the national demands for fluid milk. 
However, in the deficit areas of the southeastern

[[Page 12979]]

marketing areas, there must be sufficient incentives provided by the 
orders to encourage the movement of milk from reserve areas to these 
deficit markets. In this regard, the location value of milk needs to 
consider local milk supplies, local demand, and transportation costs. 
After consideration of comments and exceptions, this decision continues 
to find that the adopted Class I price adjustments should provide the 
additional incentives needed to offset some of the costs associated 
with the decreases in local supply, increases in local demand, and 
increases in transportation costs.
    Opponents criticized DCMA's Class I adjustments by identifying that 
other means and methods are available which would return greater 
revenue to dairy farmers instead of increasing minimum prices. Other 
changes adopted in this decision will, all other things being equal, 
tend to increase minimum regulated prices paid to producers. However, 
these changes are founded on the very limited improvement gained from 
lowering the diversion limit standards of the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders. In light of the chronic milk deficit conditions of the 
southeastern region, only higher minimum regulated prices can 
reasonably generate the additional revenue needed to assure that the 
Class I needs of the region can be met continuously. According to 
market administrator analyses, the estimated annual increase of the 
Appalachian order pool for 2004, 2005, and 2006 resulting from DCMA's 
proposed Class I price adjustments would have been $19.3 million, $18.6 
million, and $18.3 million, respectively. For the Southeast order, the 
annual pool value increase would have been $16.8 million, $17.1 
million, and $17.7 million, respectively. For the Florida order, the 
annual increase in pool value would have been $36.4 million, $38.3 
million, and $39.2 million, respectively. While alternative methods 
such as a tightening of pooling standards will, among other things, 
tend to enhance producer revenue to those producers who regularly and 
consistently supply the market's Class I needs, this alone will not 
establish minimum regulated prices high enough to attract an adequate 
supply for chronic milk-deficit marketing areas from alternative 
distant locations.
    Opponents expressed concern about producers in the region being 
involved with a voluntary producer-funded program known as the 
Cooperatives Working Together (CWT). CWT is a non-government program 
that includes a herd retirement program, which reduces the number of 
cows in the national dairy herd. This decision rejects this argument as 
it is not germane to the issues at hand. This decision is derived on 
the basis of record evidence which supports the adoption of the Class I 
pricing surface.
    AMSB, in its comments and exceptions, proposed additional Class I 
price surface changes for certain counties in Arkansas with the aim of 
raising local milk production. This decision rejects adoption of the 
proposed increases for the Arkansas county locations for two 
fundamental reasons. First, doing so would not result in a reasonably 
aligned Class I price surface with the current national Class I price 
surface. Second, the proposed additional increases are based on the 
narrow objective of raising local Arkansas milk production. It is the 
purpose of milk marketing orders to set minimum prices that result in 
an adequate supply of milk for fluid uses. In this regard, it is not 
important where the milk is produced. A function of the minimum prices 
set by the orders is to ensure that a sufficient supply of milk will be 
delivered to where it is demanded. While AMSB's proposed additional 
Class I price increases for certain Arkansas counties would provide an 
even greater incentive to deliver milk to those locations, the 
adjustments are justified with the goal of increasing local milk 
production. Accordingly, AMSB's proposed Class I pricing increases for 
certain Arkansas county locations cannot be deemed superior to those of 
the DCMA proposal that clearly seeks price increases necessary to 
assure an adequate supply of milk from any source while also 
maintaining reasonable alignment with a nationally coordinated Class I 
price surface.

Diversion Limit and Touch-Base Standards--Appalachian and Southeast 
Orders

    DCMA's proposed diversion limit and touch-base standards for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders continue to be proposed for adoption 
in this final decision. The proposed changes make the diversion limit 
and touch-base standards of the two orders identical. Specifically, the 
proposed diversion limit standards are: (1) 25 percent of deliveries to 
pool plants during each of the months of January, February, July, 
August, September, October, and November, and (2) 35 percent in each of 
the months of March, April, May, June, and December. Both orders' 
touch-base standards are amended to require at least one day's milk 
production of a producer be delivered to a pool plant during the month 
in order for a producer to be eligible to divert milk to nonpool 
plants.
    Based on record evidence, adoption of a one-day per month touch-
base standard for both orders and making the diversion limit standards 
of both orders identical accomplishes three important pooling standard 
objectives. Specifically, the changes: (1) provide a standard necessary 
to identify producers supplying the markets' Class I needs, (2) provide 
the criteria to identify the milk of producers who may be eligible for 
receiving a transportation credit in supplying supplemental milk for 
Class I use, and (3) allows milk that is part of the milk supply which 
regularly and consistently services the markets' Class I needs to be 
pooled on the orders.
    Providing for the diversion of milk is a desirable and needed 
feature of an order because it facilitates the orderly and efficient 
disposition of milk when not needed for fluid use. When producer milk 
is not needed by the market for Class I use, some provisions should be 
made for that milk to be diverted to nonpool plants but remain pooled 
and priced under the order. The lower diversion limits adopted in this 
decision will likely reduce the volume of milk eligible to be pooled by 
diversion to a significant degree on the Southeast order and less so on 
the Appalachian order. Assuming all other conditions being equal, the 
adopted changes in diversion limit standards will result in higher 
blend prices paid to producers. This is a desirable outcome, especially 
for the Southeast order where there is the need to better identify the 
milk of those producers who regularly and consistently service the 
Class I needs of the Southeast marketing area. An examination of the 
Southeast order's utilization of milk belies the fact that the 
marketing area is chronically short of in-area milk production to meet 
the Class I demand of the marketing area. This can only be the result 
of pooling much more milk on the order than is necessary as part of the 
legitimate reserve supply of milk available to service the Class I 
needs of the market.
    The record reveals that according to market administrator analyses, 
the estimated impact on minimum order uniform prices of the proposed 
diversion limit standards in both orders would have average annual 
increases in uniform prices of $0.02 per cwt for the Appalachian order 
and $0.07 per cwt for the Southeast order. Increased blend prices will 
help to provide greater incentives to maintain milk production from 
current producers and provide greater economic incentives for dairy 
farmers located outside of the marketing

[[Page 12980]]

area to be regular and consistent suppliers of Class I milk to these 
two marketing areas.
    Milk diverted to nonpool plants is milk not physically received at 
a pool plant. However, it is included as a part of the total producer 
milk receipts of the diverting plant or cooperative entity pooling milk 
for its own account. A diversion limit establishes the amount of 
producer milk that may be associated with the integral milk supply of a 
pool plant or cooperative acting in its capacity as a handler. With 
regard to the pooling issues of the Southeast order, the record reveals 
that current diversion limit standards contribute to the pooling of 
large volumes of milk on the order that does not regularly and 
consistently service Class I market needs. Therefore, lowering the 
diversion limit standard is appropriate to better assure that only milk 
which regularly and consistently services the Class I market is pooled. 
Associating more milk than is actually part of the legitimate reserve 
supply available for Class I use unnecessarily reduces the potential 
blend price paid to dairy farmers who regularly and consistently 
service the Class I needs of a marketing area. Not having reasonable 
diversion limit standards weakens the orders' ability to provide for 
orderly marketing. Diversion limit standards that are too high can open 
the door for pooling more milk on the markets than necessary. The 
record supports concluding that a 33 percent diversion limit for the 
Southeast order during each of the months of January through June and 
50 percent for each of the months of July through December has not only 
resulted in lower blend prices harming local producers, but has also 
resulted in Class I utilization rates that obscure that area as a 
deficit market.
    For the Appalachian and Southeast orders, the record reveals that 
since the average reserve requirements did not differ greatly over the 
36 month period (January 2004 through December 2006), having the same 
diversion limit standards for both orders is justifiable. In addition, 
by having identical diversion limit standards, the blend prices paid to 
producers increase as milk is supplied to locations generally in an 
easterly and southern direction. To the extent that this diversion 
limit standard may warrant future adjustments, the orders already 
provide the market administrator authority to adjust diversion 
standards as marketing conditions may warrant. Given the total milk 
demands of the marketing areas revealed by the record, a minimum of 
about 12 to 13 percent of monthly pool distributing plant receipts 
would be needed to meet the minimum daily, weekly, monthly, and 
seasonal needs, as well as a modest margin for unanticipated changes in 
the supply and demand relationship for Class I milk needs. Accordingly, 
the proposed diversion standards for the orders are reasonable and 
continue to be proposed for adoption in this final decision.
    Touch-base delivery standards define the minimum number of days of 
milk production each month that a dairy farmer must supply a pool plant 
of an order to be associated with that market and thus qualify to have 
their milk pooled by diversion. On the basis of the record evidence, 
this decision finds reason to support adopting a 1 day touch-base 
standard for both orders. Conditional supporters have voiced concern 
for DCMA's package of proposed amendments that lower the touch-base 
standards of the Appalachian and Southeast order because, they believe, 
it represents an easing of a feature of the orders' pooling standards 
at a time when the opposite is needed to improve producer income in the 
two orders. While this concern might be conceptually valid, it does not 
consider that the volume of milk pooled on the two orders will be 
appropriately restricted by the adopted diversion limit standards. In 
part, because the diversion limit standards of the orders are 
tightened, an easing of the touch-base standard can be made without 
fear of pooling the milk of producers who are not part of the regular 
and consistent supply of milk serving the Class I needs of the two 
marketing areas.
    While diversion limit standards are a key feature of the pooling 
standards of an order for defining the total volume of milk that can be 
pooled, an argument could be made that perhaps a touch-base standard is 
not necessary at all if other pooling standard features are 
appropriately tailored. However, a touch-base standard for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders remains a critical feature of both 
orders because some criteria are needed to identify producers who are 
suppliers of supplemental milk to the two marketing areas and who 
thereby may be eligible to receive a transportation credit.
    Record evidence indicates that by reducing the touch-base standard 
to 1 day per month, producers, especially cooperative member producers 
who bear the burden of supplying the vast majority of milk to the 
southeastern marketing areas, would avoid the cost of delivering their 
milk to pool plants when not necessarily needed. While a higher touch-
base standard tends to support the integrity of the orders' performance 
standards, the current touch-base standards result in the uneconomic 
movement of milk solely for the purpose of meeting a pooling standard. 
The current touch-base standards of the two orders too often result in 
the substitution of local milk with the milk of more distant producers, 
thus displacing the milk of local producers supplying the market. The 
milk of local producers needlessly incurs the cost of being transported 
to more distant locations. As a result of the current touch-base 
standard, hauling and marketing costs are needlessly higher and the 
supply of milk from distant producers may still not be available to 
serve the Class I needs of the two marketing areas.
    Despite comments and exceptions received by SPSC and AMSB and for 
the reasons discussed above, this decision continues to find that the 
diversion limit standards of the Appalachian and Southeast orders at 
the time of the hearing resulted in the pooling of more milk than could 
reasonably be considered as actually serving the markets' Class I 
needs. Therefore, this final decision continues to support the reduced 
diversion limits proposed by DCMA. Additionally, the lowering of the 
touch-base standard, in light of the tightening of the diversion limit 
standards, does not compromise the integrity of the orders' pooling 
standards. Together with the adopted diversion limit standards, a lower 
touch-base standard for the two orders offers operational cost savings 
to producers supplying the market with Class I milk while 
simultaneously providing for identification of the milk of those 
producers who regularly and consistently service the markets' Class I 
needs.
    Until December 2006, the transportation credit balancing provisions 
of the Appalachian and Southeast orders allowed supplemental milk loads 
to be used as a platform to pool additional milk on the order through 
the diversion process. Official notice is taken of the tentative 
partial decision concerning milk in the Appalachian and Southeast 
marketing areas issued September 1, 2006, and published September 13, 
2006, (71 FR 54118) and the Interim Rule issued October 19, 2006, and 
published October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62337). In discussing the need for 
revised diversion limit standards for the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders it is necessary to consider the findings of that decision.
    The September 2006 decision referenced above established a zero 
diversion limit standard on supplemental milk supplies seeking a 
transportation credit payment. An

[[Page 12981]]

important finding in that decision regarding diversions associated with 
supplemental milk supplies was that pooling such diverted milk would 
provide additional revenue to help offset hauling costs not covered by 
the transportation credit payments then in place for the Appalachian 
and Southeast orders. The adoption of a variable mileage rate factor 
that reimburses hauling costs on supplemental milk at a level more 
reflective of actual costs was found to diminish the need to seek and 
generate such revenue to offset hauling costs at the expense of the 
local producers who are regularly and consistently supplying milk for 
Class I needs. This final decision adopts tighter diversion limit 
standards, especially for the Southeast order. Together with providing 
for higher Class I prices, tighter diversion limit standards should 
result in more orderly marketing conditions. The ability to pool more 
milk on the orders than the amount needed to regularly and consistently 
serve the Class I needs of the markets needlessly lowers the blend 
price of producers who regularly and consistently service such Class I 
needs.

Transportation Credit Balancing Fund Provisions

    DCMA's proposed changes to the Appalachian and Southeast order 
transportation credit balancing fund provisions continue to be proposed 
for adoption in this final decision. Specifically, these changes 
include: (1) Extending the number of months that transportation credit 
balancing funds will be paid to include the months of January and 
February. The month of June will continue to be a month for the payment 
of transportation credits if requested and approved by the market 
administrator; (2) Expanding the payment of transportation credits for 
supplemental milk to include the full load of milk; (3) Providing more 
flexibility in determining the qualification requirements for 
supplemental milk producers to receive transportation credit payments; 
and (4) Increasing the monthly transportation credit balancing fund 
assessment rate for the Southeast order from $0.20 per cwt to $0.30 per 
cwt.
    The transportation credit balancing fund provisions for both orders 
(and predecessor orders) were established in 1996 as a result of the 
consistent need to import supplemental milk for fluid use during 
certain times of the year when local production is not sufficient to 
meet the markets' fluid needs. Specifically, the market administrator 
applies a monthly transportation credit balancing fund assessment on 
all dispositions of Class I milk. The assessment rate adopted on an 
interim basis through a separate rulemaking proceeding (71 FR 62377, 
published October 25, 2006) was $0.15 per cwt and $0.20 per cwt for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders, respectively. At the time of the 
hearing, transportation credit payments were paid from each order's 
transportation credit balancing fund during the months of July through 
December to help offset the cost of transporting such supplemental milk 
for Class I use. As a result of this proceeding, January and February 
were added on interim bases as transportation credit payout months 
effective March 18, 2008 (73 FR 14153). The transportation credit 
balancing funds operate independently from the producer settlement 
funds of the two orders. Milk from producers located outside of the two 
marketing areas who are not part of the regular and consistent supply 
of Class I milk, is commonly referred to as supplemental milk.
    The record reveals that the seasonal swings in milk production lead 
to inadequate milk supplies for fluid use in certain months and surplus 
supplies in other months. In the Appalachian and Southeast orders, the 
summer and fall (and sometimes winter) months are generally considered 
those months with inadequate (tight) milk supplies for fluid use, while 
the spring months are generally characterized as having sufficient 
supplies of milk for fluid use. Transportation credits are used as a 
method to compensate handlers that provide supplemental milk during the 
tight supply months by offsetting some of the costs of transporting 
milk to the two marketing areas.
    Prior to the interim final rule issued in this proceeding (73 FR 
14153) the payment of transportation credits under the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders was only made during the months of July through 
December. A feature of DCMA's proposal seeks to extend such payments to 
also include the months of January and February. Record evidence 
demonstrates reliance on supplemental milk supplies for each order's 
marketing area during July through December and the months of January 
and February showing similar demand for supplemental milk supplies.
    Declining local milk production in the southeastern region of the 
country is well-known and is a chronic problem. Record evidence 
indicates milk marketings from dairy farmers located in both the 
Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas (pooled on any order) has 
continued to decrease since 2004. Specifically, evidence shows that 
annual milk marketings pooled on the Appalachian order have decreased 
from approximately 3.94 billion pounds in 2004 to about 3.77 billion 
pounds in 2006. For the Southeast order, milk marketings from in-area 
dairy farmers declined from 5.0 billion pounds in 2004 to 4.76 billion 
pounds in 2006. Furthermore, record evidence illustrates that total 
milk production in the southeastern states of the U.S. has declined on 
average almost 2 percent each year since 1986 and has decreased a total 
of 34.6 percent since 1986--from 18.29 billion pounds in 1986 to 11.96 
billion pounds in 2006.
    In each of the years of 2004, 2005, and 2006, the months of July 
through January were deficit in terms of monthly in-area milk 
marketings (milk marketed by dairy farmers within the geographical 
boundaries of the two marketing areas) being consistently less than the 
monthly Class I producer milk pooled on the Appalachian and Southeast 
orders. The in-area deficit in January for both orders for all 3 years 
combined totaled 8.4 million pounds. While February in-area milk 
marketings for all 3 years exceeded Class I demands, that surplus 
decreased from over 44 million pounds in 2004 to just under 14 million 
pounds in 2006--a decrease of over 68 percent.
    Record evidence reveals that the months of January and February are 
likely to become months during which local in-area milk marketings will 
no longer satisfy Class I demands and the Appalachian and Southeast 
marketing areas will need to increasingly rely on supplemental milk 
supplies to satisfy Class I demands. Accordingly, this decision 
continues to find that expanding the transportation credit payment 
months to include the months of January and February for the payment of 
transportation credits is reasonable. June will continue to be an 
optional month for transportation credit payments, if requested, to be 
reviewed and authorized by the market administrator.
    Currently, transportation credits are paid on loads of milk at the 
lower of the receiving plant's Class I use or the marketwide Class I 
utilization. DCMA's proposals seek to change these criteria by having 
the entire load of supplemental milk eligible to receive a 
transportation credit. The major justification offered by DCMA is that 
the cost of transporting supplemental milk, regardless of the plant's 
use of that milk, is the same. This decision finds that a supplier of 
supplemental milk sources and assembles milk demanded by distributing 
plants for fluid uses, but no distributing plant disposes 100 percent 
of its milk receipts as Class I sales. The supplemental milk supplier 
does not

[[Page 12982]]

know how a receiving plant will use the supplemental milk it receives. 
However, it is reasonable to conclude that plants do not seek 
supplemental milk supplies without first having the demand for Class I 
use. In other words, the need for supplemental milk supplies is fueled 
by Class I demands that cannot be satisfied in the absence of 
transportation credits. It is unlikely that supplemental milk suppliers 
would supply full milk loads to Class I plants if the demand for milk 
was not at least equal to its Class I disposition, even if it has some 
actual lower-valued use of milk.
    The current calculation of transportation credit payments in the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders contain a number of features to 
prevent offsetting the full cost of transporting supplemental milk into 
the marketing areas. They also contain features to prevent the pooling 
of milk on the orders that do not regularly and consistently supply the 
fluid needs of the two marketing areas. Most important is the feature 
denying the ability to pool milk by diversion on the basis of 
supplemental milk deliveries to plants in the two orders. Current 
transportation credit provisions prohibit pooling diverted milk on the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders on loads of supplemental milk seeking 
a transportation credit and this prohibition is continued by its 
adoption in this decision. Since supplemental milk can no longer form a 
basis from which to pool milk through the diversion process, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the marketwide Class I utilization 
percentage of the orders will likely increase. However, this 
improvement alone will not likely result in offsetting the costs 
incurred by supplemental milk suppliers who both assemble and transport 
milk to plants regulated by the two orders to satisfy Class I demands.
    Record evidence reveals that the Appalachian and Southeast 
marketing areas incur different costs in attracting supplemental milk 
to meet Class I needs. In recent years, the transportation credit 
reimbursement on claims for the Southeast order has been prorated at 
greater rates and more often than those of the Appalachian order. As 
discussed in the September 13, 2006, tentative decision for the 
Appalachian and Southeast orders (71 FR 54118), the Appalachian 
marketing area receives the majority of its supplemental milk supplies 
from the northern Mid-Atlantic States. The Southeast marketing area 
receives the majority of its supply from the Midwest and Southwest 
States. The location of supplemental milk supplies for the Southeast 
marketing area therefore tends to be more distant from the marketing 
area than for the Appalachian marketing area.
    The need to again raise the monthly transportation credit 
assessment rate for the Southeast order is in part explained by the 
continuing need of the Southeast marketing area to reach ever farther 
to source milk supplies to satisfy fluid demands. Additionally, 
expanding the payment of transportation credits on the entire load of 
supplemental milk also will likely increase the payment of 
transportation credit claims. At the same time, payment of 
transportation credit claims will be partially offset by the adopted 
changes to the Class I pricing surface because the calculation for 
determining payment considers the change in Class I pricing values 
between the origin of supplemental milk and the point where it is 
delivered. As discussed above, the need for supplemental milk supplies 
is fueled by the marketing area's Class I demand.
    The current transportation credit provisions provide precautionary 
measures such that the rate of assessments beyond actual handler claims 
is unlikely. The transportation credit provisions provide the market 
administrators the authority to reduce or waive assessments as 
necessary to maintain sufficient fund balances to pay the 
transportation credits claims. Therefore, increasing the maximum 
transportation credit assessment rates will not result in an 
accumulation of funds beyond what is needed to pay transportation 
credit claims.
    The record supports concluding that local milk production is 
expected to continue declining within both marketing areas. This will 
result in an even greater reliance on supplemental milk to meet the 
fluid milk needs of the markets. Record evidence shows a constant 
increase in both the volume and distance of supplemental milk supplies, 
especially for the Southeast marketing area. As such, it is reasonable 
to conclude that future transportation credit claims will increase. In 
this regard, it is important to prevent exhausting the transportation 
credit balancing fund before the payment of claims on supplemental 
milk. Doing so is consistent with the fundamental purposes of the 
transportation credit provisions.
    The adopted increases in Class I prices will likely alter the 
payout of transportation credit claims because the differences in 
origin and delivery point Class I prices are increased. However, 
adoption of expanded transportation credit payment months to include 
January and February, as well as payments on the entire load of milk, 
will tend to offset the payout on transportation credit claims 
resulting from the adopted changes in Class I pricing.
    An increase in the transportation credit assessment rate for the 
Appalachian order was not requested because 100 percent of the 
transportation credit requests were paid in 2006 and in January 2007. 
Hearing record data indicates that even with adoption of the proposed 
Class I prices, pooling requirements and transportation credit 
provisions, the transportation credit assessment rate of $0.15 per cwt 
in the Appalachian order should continue to be sufficient to pay future 
transportation credit requests.
    The record indicates that the actual transportation credits paid in 
2006 for the Appalachian order totaled $3,313,590. Had the current 
mileage rate factor (MRF) been in effect for all of 2006, 
transportation credit payments for the Appalachian order would have 
totaled $4,433,854, including the actual payment for January 2007 and 
an estimated payment for February. Analysis suggests that with the 
current MRF and proposed Class I prices in place, the total 
transportation credits paid during 2006 would have been about $456,000 
less than the actual total transportation credit payments. Using market 
administrator data with the variable MRF based on 2006 calculated 
monthly averages ($0.044 per cwt per 10 miles), paying of 
transportation credit claims on full loads of milk, and the proposed 
Class I price adjustments, the total transportation credits paid for 
2006 in the Appalachian order would have totaled $4,073,312. This is 
$360,000 less than what would have been paid with the MRF and the lower 
of a plant's Class I use or marketwide Class I utilization. 
Accordingly, the current $0.15 assessment rate for the Appalachian 
order appears to be sufficient to meet all claims even when paying 
transportation credits on full loads of milk delivered to Class I 
plants regulated by the order.
    The record indicates that the transportation credit balancing fund 
for the Southeast order has been insufficient to pay transportation 
credit claims. Record evidence indicates that during 2006, Southeast 
order transportation credit payments were prorated to 81, 36, 39, and 
64 percent of the transportation credit claims for the months of 
September, October, November, and December, respectively. Such 
transportation credit claims also have increased in number of pounds 
and in number of miles. Specifically, the total pounds claimed for the 
receipt of transportation credits has increased from 374 million pounds 
for July

[[Page 12983]]

through December 2000 to 820 million pounds for July through December 
2006--an increase of 119 percent.
    Increasing the maximum transportation credit assessment rate for 
the Southeast order should not result in an unnecessary accumulation of 
funds. For the Southeast order, the record indicates that 
transportation credits paid in 2006 would have totaled $15,704,872 for 
the months of July through December and would have totaled $18,604,872 
by including the months of January and February. This analysis is based 
on using the same MRF of $0.044 as in the Appalachian order analysis, 
paying of transportation credit claims on full loads of milk, and with 
the proposed Class I price adjustments. However, the assessment rate of 
$0.20 per cwt falls far short of the total revenue needed to pay all 
expected transportation credit claims. Even a $0.30 per cwt assessment 
may not generate sufficient revenue to meet all expected claims on full 
loads of supplemental milk. Nevertheless, a $0.30 cwt assessment is 
more likely to be sufficient to cover all expected transportation 
credit claims.
    Determining those producers eligible to receive a transportation 
credit on their supplemental milk deliveries requires that the dairy 
farmer be located outside either the Appalachian or the Southeast 
marketing areas, the producer must not meet the Producer definition of 
the orders during more than 2 of the immediately preceding months of 
February through May, and not more than 50 percent of the milk 
production of the dairy farmer during those 2 months, in aggregate, can 
be received as producer milk under the order during those 2 months.
    DCMA has proposed that these requirements for the Appalachian and 
Southeast orders be made more flexible without substantially changing 
the identification of milk that is not a regular part of the supply of 
milk to the two orders. Specifically proposed is that a dairy farmer 
must not be a producer on the orders for more than 45 of the 92 days in 
the months March through May or must have less than 50 percent of the 
producer's milk pooled on the orders during those 3 months combined. On 
the basis of record testimony, this change is warranted. Specifically, 
it represents a change that provides flexibility in identifying 
supplemental milk producers and may result in lower operational costs 
to those producers incurring the costs of supplying supplemental milk 
to the Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas. Additionally, prior 
to the interim adoption, February was a month used to determine the 
qualification of supplemental milk producers to be eligible for a 
transportation credit payment. Since this decision adopts providing for 
the month of February as a month in which transportation credit 
payments can be made, it is necessary to redefine the months that a 
producer may qualify to receive transportation credits on either order.

Administrative Assessment Increase

    The hearing record reveals that fluctuations in the volumes of milk 
pooled on the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders can be 
attributed to a combination of declining milk supplies and the 
tightening of diversion limits in all three marketing areas. This 
combination can reduce market administrator revenues to a level too low 
for the proper administration of the orders while maintaining the 
mandated reserve level. The adoption of Proposals 4, 5, and 6 will 
create a more stable revenue stream for the administration of the three 
southeastern orders.
    It is reasonable to increase the maximum administrative assessment 
rate to $0.08 per cwt in the Appalachian, Southeast and Florida orders 
to ensure that the market administrators have the proper funds to carry 
out all of the services provided by the three marketing areas. While 
the maximum administrative assessment rate is increased to $0.08 per 
cwt in the Appalachian, Southeast, and Florida orders, the actual rate 
charged will only be as high as necessary to properly administer the 
orders and provide necessary services to market participants.

Conforming Changes

    Conforming changes were made to 7 CFR 1000.50 Class prices, 
component prices, and advanced pricing factors. Specifically, the Class 
I skim milk price and the Class I butterfat price provisions were 
changed to conform to the amendments adopted in this proceeding as 
provided for in Proposal 7 of the hearing notice. The changes made to 7 
CFR 1000.50 (b) and (c) included reference to the adjustments adopted 
to Class I prices specified in 7 CFR 1005.51(b), 1006.51(b), and 
1007.51(b). The conforming changes were presented in the partial 
tentative final decision (73 FR 11194) and implemented by the interim 
final rule (73 FR 14153).

Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions

    Briefs, 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 
claims 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 Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast 
orders were first issued and when they were amended. The previous 
findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except 
where they may conflict with those set forth herein.
    The following findings are hereby made with respect to the 
aforesaid marketing agreements and orders:
    (a) The tentative marketing agreements and the orders, 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 with respect to the price of feeds, 
available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions that affect 
market supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the 
minimum prices specified in the tentative marketing agreements and the 
orders, as hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will 
reflect the aforesaid factors, ensure a sufficient quantity of pure and 
wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
    (c) The tentative marketing agreements and the orders, 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, the 
marketing agreements upon which a hearing has been held.

Rulings on Exceptions

    In arriving at the findings and conclusions, and the regulatory 
provisions of this decision, each of the exceptions received was 
carefully and fully considered in conjunction with the record evidence. 
To the extent that the findings, conclusions, and regulatory provisions 
of this decision are at variance with any of the exceptions, such 
exceptions are hereby overruled for the reasons previously stated in 
this decision.

[[Page 12984]]

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 Appalachian, 
Florida, and Southeast marketing areas, that was approved by producers 
and published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2008 (73 FR 14153) 
and on May 9, 2008 (73 FR 26513) as an Interim Final Rule and 
Correcting Amendments, respectively. 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 Marketing 
Agreement annexed hereto be published in the Federal Register.

Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period

    The month of July 2013 is hereby determined to be the 
representative period for the purpose of ascertaining whether the 
issuance of the order, as amended and as hereby proposed to be amended, 
regulating the handling of milk in the Appalachian, Southeast, and 
Florida marketing areas is approved or favored by producers, as defined 
under the terms of the order as hereby proposed to be amended, 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 Parts 1005, 1006 and 1007

    Milk Marketing Orders.

Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the 
Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast Marketing Areas

    This order shall not become effective 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 orders were first issued and when they 
were 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 certain proposed 
amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders 
regulating the handling of milk in the Appalachian, Florida, and 
Southeast marketing areas. 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 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 orders 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 areas. The 
minimum prices specified in the orders 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 orders as hereby amended regulate the handling of milk 
in the same manner as, and are applicable only to persons in the 
respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, a 
marketing agreement 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 Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast 
marketing areas shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the 
terms and conditions of the orders, as amended, and as hereby amended, 
as follows:
    The provisions of the order amending the orders contained in the 
interim amendments of the orders issued by the Administrator, 
Agricultural Marketing Service, on March 12, 2008, and published in the 
Federal Register on March 17, 2008, (72 FR 14153) and as corrected in 
the correcting amendments issued May 6, 2008, and published May 9, 
2008, (73 FR 26513) are adopted and shall be the terms and provisions 
of these orders.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 1005, 1006 
and 1007 are proposed to be amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 1005, 1006 and 1007 continues 
to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.

PART 1005--MILK IN THE APPALACHIAN MARKETING AREA

0
2. Section 1005.85 is revised, to read as follows:

Sec.  1005.85  Assessment for order administration.

    On or before the payment receipt date specified under Sec.  
1005.71, each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro 
rata share of the expense of administration to the order at a rate 
specified by the market administrator that is no more than $.08 per 
hundredweight with respect to:
    (a) Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own 
production) other than such receipts by a handler described in Sec.  
1000.9 (c) of this chapter that were delivered to pool plants of other 
handlers;
    (b) Receipts from a handler described in Sec.  1000.9(c) of this 
chapter;
    (c) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated 
supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk products assigned to Class 
I use pursuant to Sec.  1000.43(d) of this chapter and other source 
milk allocated to Class I pursuant to Sec.  1000.43(a)(3) and (8) of 
this chapter and the corresponding steps of Sec.  1000.44(b) of this 
chapter, except other source milk that is excluded from the 
computations pursuant to Sec.  1005.60(d) and (e) of this chapter; and
    (d) Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially 
regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat 
subtracted pursuant to Sec.  1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this chapter.

PART 1006--MILK IN THE FLORIDA MARKETING AREA

0
3. Section 1006.85 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1006.85  Assessment for order administration.

    On or before the payment receipt date specified under Sec.  
1006.71, each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro 
rata share of the expense of administration of the order at a rate 
specified by the market administrator that is no more than $.08 per 
hundredweight with respect to:
    (a) Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own 
production) other than such receipts by a handler described in Sec.  
1000.9(c) of this chapter that were delivered to pool plants of other 
handlers;
    (b) Receipts from a handler described in Sec.  1000.9(c) of this 
chapter;
    (c) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated 
supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk

[[Page 12985]]

products assigned to Class I use pursuant to Sec.  1000.43(d) of this 
chapter and other source milk allocated to Class I pursuant to Sec.  
1000.44(a)(3) and (8) and the corresponding steps of Sec.  1000.44(b) 
of this chapter, except other source milk that is excluded from the 
computations pursuant to Sec.  1007.60(d) and (e) of this chapter; and
    (d) Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially 
regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat 
subtracted pursuant to 1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this chapter.

PART 1007--MILK IN THE SOUTHEAST MARKETING AREA

0
4. Section 1007.85 is revised, to read as follows:

Sec.  1007.85  Assessment for order administration.

    On or before the payment receipt date specified under Sec.  
1007.71, each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro 
rata share of the expense of administration of the order at a rate 
specified by the market administrator that is no more than $.08 per 
hundredweight with respect to:
    (a) Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own 
production) other than such receipts by a handler described in Sec.  
1000.9(c) of this chapter that were delivered to pool plants of other 
handlers;
    (b) Receipts from a handler described in Sec.  1000.9(c) of this 
chapter;
    (c) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated 
supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk products assigned to Class 
I use pursuant to Sec.  1000.43(d) of this chapter and other source 
milk allocated to Class I pursuant to Sec.  1000.44(a)(3) and (8) of 
this chapter and the corresponding steps of Sec.  1000.44(b) of this 
chapter, except other source milk that is excluded from the 
computations pursuant to Sec.  1007.60(d) and (e) of this chapter; and
    (d) Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially 
regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat 
subtracted pursuant to 1000.76(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this chapter.

    [Note: The following will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.]

Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in Certain 
Marketing Areas

    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.  ---- to ----\2\ all inclusive, of the order 
regulating the handling of milk in the ------\3\ marketing area (7 CFR 
part ----\4\) which is annexed hereto; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ First and last section of order.
    \3\ Name of order.
    \4\ Appropriate part number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    II. The following provisions: Sec.  ----\5\ Record of milk handled 
and authorization to correct typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Next consecutive section number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/she 
handled during the month of ------\6\, ------ hundredweight of milk 
covered by this marketing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Appropriate representative period for the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 Department 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-----------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 25, 2014.

Rex A. Barnes,
Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-04692 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```