Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24999 

fleshed and white types potatoes 

handled during the exemption period. 

This rule modified the Russet Fresh 

Potato Report established for russet type 

potatoes to include yellow fleshed and 

white types of potatoes during the 

period those types of potatoes are 

exempted from regulation. The modified 

Self-Reporting Potato Form will provide 

the Committee with information 

necessary to track shipments and collect 

assessments. AMS has submitted the 

modified form and a Justification of 

Change to OMB for approval. 

While this rule requires a reporting 

requirement for yellow fleshed and 

white types of potatoes, their exemption 

from handling regulations also 

eliminates, for the exemption period, 

the more frequent reporting 

requirements imposed under the order’s 

special purpose shipment exemptions 

(§ 946.336(d) and (e)). Under these 

paragraphs, handlers are required to 

provide detailed reports whenever they 

divert regulated potatoes for livestock 

feed, charity, seed, prepeeling, 

processing, grading and storing in 

specified counties in Oregon, and 

experimentation. 

Therefore, any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large handlers of yellow fleshed 

and white types of potatoes are expected 

to be offset by the elimination of the 

other reporting requirements currently 

in effect. In addition, the temporary 

exemption from handling regulations 

and inspection requirements for yellow 

fleshed and white types of potatoes is 

expected to reduce industry expenses. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. 

The Committee’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

Washington potato industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

participate in Committee deliberations. 

All Committee meetings where this 

action was discussed were public 

meetings. All entities, both large and 

small, were able to express views on 

this issue. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

December 23, 2013. Three comments 

were received in response to the interim 

rule. 

One comment supported exemption 

of yellow fleshed and white types of 

potatoes and urged similar action for red 

types of potatoes. An interim rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 12, 2014, (79 FR 8253) 

exempting red types of potatoes from 

the order’s handling regulations. 

A second comment raised concerns 

regarding the exemption of yellow 

fleshed and white types of potatoes with 

respect to Idaho State code and the sale 

of such potatoes in Idaho. Idaho State 

officials should be consulted regarding 

the application of state requirements, as 

applicable and as is appropriate. 

The third comment was received from 

the Committee staff. The comment 

stated that on December 10, 2013, the 

Committee met to discuss the temporary 

exemption of yellow fleshed and white 

types of potatoes from the handling 

regulations. The comment further stated 

that, since October 24, 2013, the 

Committee has evaluated industry cost 

savings and the impact on the market 

resulting from the temporary exemption. 

No negative market impacts were 

experienced as a result of the temporary 

exemption of these potatoes from the 

handling regulations. Handlers have 

continued to meet their customers’ 

specifications, either with voluntary 

inspection or with no inspection, during 

the temporary exemption. As a result, 

the Committee unanimously 

recommended extending the exemption 

period indefinitely. Such a 

recommendation would result in 

additional rulemaking. 

Accordingly, for the reasons given in 

the interim rule, USDA is adopting the 

interim rule as a final rule, without 

change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-13-0067- 

0001. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 

13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act 

(44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 62967, October 23, 

2013) will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN WASHINGTON 

Accordingly, the interim rule that 

amended 7 CFR part 946 and that was 

published at 78 FR 62967 on October 

23, 2013, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

Dated: April 28, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10036 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1006 and 1007 

[Doc. no. AMS–DA–07–0059; AO–388–A22, 

AO–356–A43 and AO–366–A51; DA–07–03] 

Milk in the Appalachian, Florida, and 

Southeast Marketing Areas; Order 

Amending the Orders 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Class I pricing provisions and the 

maximum administrative assessment for 

the Appalachian, Florida and Southeast 

marketing orders. This final rule also 

amends certain features of the diversion 

limit, touch-base and transportation 

credit provisions of the Appalachian 

and Southeast milk marketing orders. 

More than the required number of 

producers approved the issuance of the 

orders as amended. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William G. Francis, USDA/AMS/Dairy 

Programs, Order Formulation and 

Enforcement Branch, STOP 0231-Room 

2971, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 720– 

7183, email address: William.francis@

ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

provisions adopted in this final rule: (1) 

Adjust the Class I pricing surface in 

each county within the geographical 

boundaries of 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 touchbase 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) 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Official notice is taken of 73 FR 14153. 

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 $0.20 per 

hundredweight (cwt) to $0.30 per (cwt) 

in the Southeast order. This final rule 

also increases the maximum 

administrative assessment for the 

Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast 

orders from $0.05 per cwt to $0.08 per 

cwt. 

A partial tentative final decision 

concerning all of the proposed 

amendments except for increasing the 

administrative assessment rates was 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 11194). Increasing the maximum 

administrative assessment was initially 

addressed in a separate partial 

recommended decision (73 FR 11062). 

No comments were received concerning 

this recommended decision. A final 

decision concerning all proposed 

amendments was published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 12963). 

Accordingly, this final rule adopts 

proposed amendments detailed in the 

final decision (79 FR 12963). 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

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 Orders 12866 

and 13563. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have a retroactive effect. The 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674) 

(Act), provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may request 

modification or exemption from such 

order by filing with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating 

that the order, any provision of the 

order, or any obligation imposed in 

connection with the order is not in 

accordance with the law. A handler is 

afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After a hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has its 

principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction in equity to review 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. 

Executive Order 13175 

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments. The review 

reveals that this regulation will not have 

substantial and direct effects on Tribal 

Governments and will not have 

significant Tribal implications. 

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 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 may be received 

by dairy producers, it should be an 

inclusive standard for most small dairy 

farmers. For purposes of determining a 

handler’s size, if the plant is part of a 

larger company operating multiple 

plants that collectively exceed the 500- 

employee limit, the plant will be 

considered a large business even if the 

local plant has fewer than 500 

employees. 

During May 2007, the time of the 

hearing, there were 2,744 dairy farms 

pooled on the Appalachian order (Order 

5). For the Southeast order (Order 7), 

2,924 dairy farms were pooled on the 

order. For the Florida order (Order 6), 

283 dairy farms were pooled on the 

order. Of these, 2,612 dairy farms in 

Order 5 (or 95.2 percent), 2,739 dairy 

farms in Order 7 (or 94 percent) and 153 

dairy farms 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 producerhandler, and 2 exempt plants). The 

number of plants meeting small 

business criteria under the Appalachian, 

Southeast and Florida orders were 8 (or 

22.2 percent), 18 (or 32.7 percent), and 

11 (or 44 percent), respectively. 

The adopted amendments in this final 

rule provide for an increase in Class I 

prices in the Appalachian, Southeast, 

and Florida orders (southeastern 

orders). The minimum Class I prices of 

the 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. 

The adopted amendments revise the 

Appalachian and Southeast orders by 

making the diversion limit standards for 

the orders identical—not to exceed 25 

percent for the months of January, 

February, and July through November, 

and 35 percent for 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 for the 

months of July through November, and 

January and February; and 40 percent 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 25001 

for the months of December and March 

through June. For the Southeast order, 

the diversion limit standards for pool 

plants and cooperatives acting as 

handlers were not to exceed 33 percent 

during the months of July through 

December, and 50 percent in the months 

of January through June. 

In addition, the adopted amendments 

establish identical touch-base standards 

of at least one days’ milk production 

each month by 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 any 

month 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 for the months of July 

through December and not less than 4 

days’ production for the months of 

January through June. 

The adopted amendments to the 

pooling standards 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 criteria established 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 though 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 to 

receive transportation credits. In 

addition, the maximum monthly 

transportation credit assessment for the 

Southeast order is increased from the 

current $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 and 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 maximum 

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 

handler or entity. 

The adopted amendments will affect 

all producers and handlers equally 

regardless of their size. Accordingly, the 

amendments will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

A review of the reporting 

requirements was completed under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was determined 

that these amendments would have no 

impact on reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements because 

they would remain identical to the 

current requirements. No new forms are 

proposed and no additional reporting 

requirements would be necessary. 

E-Government Act 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) 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, and for other purposes. 

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). 

Final Decision: Issued February 25, 

2014; published March 7, 2014 (79 FR 

12963). 

Findings and Determinations 

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 Appalachian, 

Florida, and Southeast marketing 

orders: 

(a) Findings upon the basis of the 

hearing record. 

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 (Act) (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 is 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. 

(b) Additional Findings. The 

amendments to these orders are known 

to handlers. The final decision 

containing the proposed amendments to 

this order was issued on February 25, 

2014 and published in the Federal 

Register on March 7, 2014 (79 FR 

12963). 

The changes that result from these 

amendments will not require extensive 

preparation or substantial alteration in 

the method of operation for handlers. In 

view of the foregoing, it is hereby found 

and determined that good cause exists 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
25002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

for making these amendments effective 

following May 5, 2014. It would be 

contrary to the public interest to delay 

the effective date of these amendments 

for 30 days after their publication in the 

Federal Register. (Sec. 553(d), 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551–559.) 

(c) Determinations. It is hereby 

determined that: 

(1) The refusal or failure of handlers 

(excluding cooperative associations 

specified in section 8c(9) of the Act) of 

more than 50 percent of the milk, which 

is marketed within the specified 

marketing areas, to sign a proposed 

marketing agreement, tends to prevent 

the effectuation of the declared policy of 

the Act; 

(2) The issuance of this order 

amending the Appalachian, Florida, and 

Southeast orders is the only practical 

means pursuant to the declared policy 

of the Act of advancing the interests of 

producers as defined in the orders as 

hereby amended; 

(3) The issuance of this order 

amending the Appalachian, Florida, and 

Southeast orders is favored by at least 

two-thirds of the producers who were 

engaged in the production of milk for 

sale in the respective marketing areas. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005, 

1006 and 1007 

Milk marketing orders. 

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 amended as follows: 

■ 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 

■ 2. Section 1005.85 is revised, to read 

as follows: 

§ 1005.85 Assessment for order 

administration. 

On or before the payment receipt date 

specified under § 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 § 1000.9(c) of this 

chapter that were delivered to pool 

plants of other handlers; 

(b) Receipts from a handler described 

in § 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 § 1000.43(d) of this chapter 

and other source milk allocated to Class 

I pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3) and (8) of 

this chapter and the corresponding steps 

of § 1000.44(b) of this chapter, except 

other source milk that is excluded from 

the computations pursuant to 

§ 1005.60(d) and (e); 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 1006—MILK IN THE FLORIDA 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 3. Section 1006.85 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1006.85 Assessment for order 

administration. 

On or before the payment receipt date 

specified under § 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 § 1000.9(c) of this 

chapter that were delivered to pool 

plants of other handlers; 

(b) Receipts from a handler described 

in § 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 § 1000.43(d) of this chapter 

and other source milk allocated to Class 

I pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3) and (8) 

chapter and the corresponding steps of 

§ 1000.44(b) of this chapter, except other 

source milk that is excluded from the 

computations pursuant to § 1006.60(d) 

and (e); 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 

■ 4. Section 1007.85 is revised, to read 

as follows: 

§ 1007.85 Assessment for order 

administration. 

On or before the payment receipt date 

specified under § 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 § 1000.9(c) of this 

chapter that were delivered to pool 

plants of other handlers; 

(b) Receipts from a handler described 

in § 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 § 1000.43(d) of this chapter 

and other source milk allocated to Class 

I pursuant to § 1000.44(a)(3) and (8) of 

this chapter and the corresponding steps 

of § 1000.44(b) of this chapter, except 

other source milk that is excluded from 

the computations pursuant to 

§ 1007.60(d) and (e); 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. 

Dated: April 28, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10037 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES