1976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

considerable discussion the Committee 

unanimously determined that 1,196,109 

pounds and 53 percent would be the 

most effective salable quantity and 

allotment percentage, respectively, for 

the 2009–2010 marketing year. 

As noted earlier, the Committee’s 

recommendation to establish salable 

quantities and allotment percentages for 

both classes of spearmint oil was made 

after careful consideration of all 

available information, including: (1) The 

estimated quantity of salable oil of each 

class held by producers and handlers; 

(2) the estimated demand for each class 

of oil; (3) the prospective production of 

each class of oil; (4) the total of 

allotment bases of each class of oil for 

the current marketing year and the 

estimated total of allotment bases of 

each class for the ensuing marketing 

year; (5) the quantity of reserve oil, by 

class, in storage; (6) producer prices of 

oil, including prices for each class of oil; 

and (7) general market conditions for 

each class of oil, including whether the 

estimated season average price to 

producers is likely to exceed parity. 

Based on its review, the Committee 

believes that the salable quantity and 

allotment percentage levels 

recommended would achieve the 

objectives sought. 

Without any regulations in effect, the 

Committee believes the industry would 

return to the pronounced cyclical price 

patterns that occurred prior to the order, 

and that prices in 2009–2010 would 

decline substantially below current 

levels. 

As stated earlier, the Committee 

believes that the order has contributed 

extensively to the stabilization of 

producer prices, which prior to 1980 

experienced wide fluctuations from 

year-to-year. National Agricultural 

Statistics Service records show that the 

average price paid for both classes of 

spearmint oil ranged from $4.00 per 

pound to $11.10 per pound during the 

period between 1968 and 1980. Prices 

have been consistently more stable since 

the marketing order’s inception in 1980, 

with an average price for the period 

from 1980 to 2007 of $12.77 per pound 

for Scotch spearmint oil and $9.98 per 

pound for Native spearmint oil. 

According to the Committee, the 

recommended salable quantities and 

allotment percentages are expected to 

achieve the goals of market and price 

stability. 

As previously stated, annual salable 

quantities and allotment percentages 

have been issued for both classes of 

spearmint oil since the order’s 

inception. Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements have remained the same 

for each year of regulation. These 

requirements have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

OMB Control No. 0581–0178, Vegetable 

and Specialty Crops. Accordingly, this 

rule would not impose any additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large spearmint oil 

producers and handlers. As with all 

Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

spearmint oil industry, and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the 

October 15, 2008, meeting was a public 

meeting, and all entities, both large and 

small, were able to express views on 

this issue. Finally, interested persons 

are invited to submit comments on this 

proposed rule, including the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/

ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=

TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons the 

opportunity to respond to this proposal. 

All written comments timely received 

will be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985 

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Spearmint oil. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR Part 985 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER 

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF 

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE 

FAR WEST 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 985 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. A new § 985.228 is added to read 

as follows: 

Note: This section will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

§ 985.228 Salable quantities and allotment 

percentages—2009–2010 marketing year. 

The salable quantity and allotment 

percentage for each class of spearmint 

oil during the marketing year beginning 

on June 1, 2009, shall be as follows: 

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable 

quantity of 842,171 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 42 percent. 

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable 

quantity of 1,196,109 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 53 percent. 

Dated: January 8, 2009. 

James E. Link, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–604 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 1000 and 1033 

[AMS–DA–08–0049; AO–166–A77; Docket 

No. DA–08–06] 

Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; 

Recommended Decision and 

Opportunity To File Written Exceptions 

on Proposed Amendments to Tentative 

Marketing Agreement and Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; recommended 

decision. 

SUMMARY: This decision recommends 

adoption of a proposal to adjust Class I 

prices in certain counties of the Mideast 

Federal milk marketing order. Class I 

prices are recommended to be 

unchanged in 193 counties within the 

marketing area and to be increased by 

up to $0.20 per hundredweight in 110 

counties in the southern portion of the 

marketing area. The original hearing 

proposal to adjust Class I prices is 

recommended for adoption, except it is 

modified to recommend a $0.20 increase 

in the Class I price at Charleston, West 

Virginia. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1977 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before March 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: All comments received will 

be posted without change, including 

any personal information provided. 

Comments (six copies) should be filed 

with the Hearing Clerk, United States 

Department of Agriculture, STOP 9200– 

Room 1031, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20250– 

1031. You may send your comments by 

the electronic process available at the 

Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Reference should 

be made to the title of the action and 

docket number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

C. Taylor, Order Formulation and 

Enforcement Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy 

Programs, STOP 0231–Room 2963, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20250–0231, (202) 720–7183, e-mail 

address: erin.taylor@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

decision recommends adoption of 

amendments that would adjust the Class 

I pricing surface in certain counties 

within the geographical marketing area 

of the Mideast milk marketing order. 

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 

proposed 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) (the 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 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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities and has 

certified that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

For the purpose of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is 

considered a ‘‘small business’’ if it has 

an annual gross revenue of less than 

$750,000, and a dairy products 

manufacturer is a ‘‘small business’’ if it 

has fewer than 500 employees. For the 

purposes of determining which dairy 

farms are ‘‘small businesses,’’ the 

$750,000 per year criterion was used to 

establish a production guideline of 

500,000 pounds per month. Although 

this guideline does not factor in 

additional monies that may be received 

by dairy producers, it should be an 

inclusive standard for most ‘‘small’’ 

dairy farms. For purposes of 

determining a handler’s size, if the plant 

is part of a larger company operating 

multiple plants that collectively exceed 

the 500-employee limit, the plant will 

be considered a large business even if 

the local plant has fewer than 500 

employees. 

During August 2008, the time of the 

hearing, there were 7,376 dairy farms 

pooled on the Mideast order. Of these, 

approximately 6,927 dairy farms (or 

93.9 percent) were considered small 

businesses. 

During August 2008, there were 53 

handler operations associated with the 

Mideast order (27 fully regulated 

handlers, 9 partially regulated handlers, 

2 producer-handlers and 15 exempt 

handlers). Of these, approximately 43 

handlers (or 81 percent) were 

considered small businesses. 

Minimum Class I prices are 

determined in all Federal milk 

marketing orders by adding a location 

specific differential, referred to as a 

‘‘Class I differential,’’ to the higher of an 

advance Class III and Class IV price 

announced by USDA. The amendments 

recommended for adoption in this 

decision provide for adjusting Class I 

prices for certain counties within the 

geographic boundaries of the Mideast 

marketing area. Minimum Class I prices 

charged to regulated handlers are 

applied uniformly to both large and 

small entities. Class I price increases 

would generate a higher marketwide 

pool value in the Mideast order by 

approximately $280,000 to $300,000 per 

month. Therefore, the proposed Class I 

price adjustments will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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. 

A review of reporting requirements 

was completed under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). It was determined that 

these proposed amendments would 

have no impact on reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements because they would 

remain identical to the current 

requirements. No new forms are 

proposed and no additional reporting 

requirements would be necessary. 

This recommended decision does not 

require additional information 

collection that requires clearance by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) beyond currently approved 

information collection. The primary 

sources of data used to complete the 

approved forms are routinely used in 

most business transactions. The forms 

require only a minimal amount of 

information which can be supplied 

without data processing equipment or a 

trained statistical staff. Thus, the 

information collection and reporting 

burden is relatively small. Requiring the 

same reports for all handlers does not 

significantly disadvantage any handler 

that is smaller than the industry 

average. 

Interested parties were invited to 

submit comments on the probable 

regulatory and informational impact of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Prior Documents in This Proceeding 

Notice of Hearing: Issued July 21, 

2008; published July 24, 3008 (73 FR 

43160). 

Preliminary Statement 

Notice is hereby given of the filing 

with the Hearing Clerk of this 

recommended decision with respect to 

proposed amendments to the tentative 

marketing agreement and the order 

regulating the handling of milk in the 

Mideast marketing area. This notice is 

issued pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

and the applicable rules of practice and 

procedure governing the formulation of 

marketing agreements and marketing 

orders (7 CFR Part 900). 

Interested parties may file written 

exceptions to this decision with the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1978 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1See Tentative Partial Decision, Published 

February 29, 2008 (73 FR 11194). 

Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, STOP 9200–Room 1031, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington DC 20250–9200, by March 

16, 2009. Six copies of the exceptions 

should be filed. All written submissions 

made pursuant to this notice will be 

made available for public inspection at 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk during 

regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). 

The hearing notice specifically invited 

interested persons to present evidence 

concerning the probable regulatory and 

informational impact of the proposals 

on small businesses. Some evidence was 

received that specifically addressed 

these issues and some of the evidence 

encompassed entities of various sizes. 

A public hearing was held upon 

proposed amendments to the marketing 

agreement and the order regulating the 

handling of milk in the Mideast 

marketing area. 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 Cincinnati, Ohio, 

pursuant to a notice of hearing issued 

July 21, 2008. 

The material issues on the record of 

hearing relate to: 

1. Class I Prices—Adjustments and 

Pricing Surface 

Findings and Conclusions 

This decision recommends adoption 

of a proposal, published in the hearing 

notice as Proposal 1, with one 

modification. The proposal would 

increase Class I prices in 110 of 303 

counties within the Mideast marketing 

area. The minimum Class I prices of the 

Mideast order are determined by adding 

a location-specific differential, referred 

to as a Class I differential, to the higher 

of an advance Class III or Class IV price 

announced by USDA. Class I 

differentials are location-specific by 

county and parish for all States of the 

48 contiguous United States. Class I 

differentials for the Mideast order are 

specified in 7 CFR 1000.52. 

A witness appeared on behalf of the 

proponents of Proposal 1, Dairy Farmers 

of America, Michigan Milk Producers, 

Inc., Foremost Farms USA Cooperative, 

Inc., Dairylea Cooperative, Inc., and 

National Farmers Organization, Inc., 

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DFA, et al.,’’ 

in support of increasing Class I prices in 

the southern tier of the Mideast milk 

marketing area. All of these 

organizations are Capper-Volstead 

cooperatives. According to the witness, 

DFA, et al., markets the majority of the 

milk that is pooled and priced under the 

terms of the Mideast marketing order. 

The witness testified that DFA, et al., 

members market milk in the Mideast 

marketing area through MEMMA. The 

witness described MEMMA as a 

common marketing agency that shares 

customer orders, milk availability, 

balancing capacity and other 

information to provide for the efficient 

assembly and transportation of milk. 

The witness stated that DFA, et al., are 

supporters of Federal milk marketing 

orders and emphasized that the 

economic livelihood of dairy farmers 

would be diminished in their absence. 

The DFA, et al., witness testified that 

recent changes to the Class I price 

surface and transportation credit 

provisions in the Appalachian, 

Southeast and Florida marketing 

orders 1 (southeastern orders) have 

caused difficulties in supplying fluid 

milk processing plants in the southern 

tier of the Mideast marketing area. The 

witness testified that those changes 

increase the blend prices received by 

farmers whose milk is pooled on the 

southeastern orders and also provide 

more money to offset transportation 

costs of supplemental milk delivered to 

southeastern plants. The witness 

testified that these combined changes to 

the southeastern orders attract milk 

away from Mideast order fluid milk 

plants and justify the need for a 

temporary increase in the Class I price 

surface in the southern tier of the 

marketing area. 

The DFA, et al., witness testified 

regarding the need for making regional, 

temporary changes to the Class I price 

surface. The witness testified that 

adequate data do not currently exist to 

revise the Class I price surface on a 

national basis, and that the problem in 

the Mideast order should be addressed 

now. The witness noted that Proposal 1 

should be considered a temporary 

adjustment that may be changed in the 

future if a national hearing should 

occur. 

The DFA, et al., witness asserted that 

the purpose of Class I differentials are 

to generate adequate revenue to assure 

that the fluid milk market is adequately 

supplied. The witness testified that 

increases in transportation costs 

combined with recent changes affecting 

Class I prices to the southeastern orders 

have made it more difficult to service 

Mideast fluid milk plants. Therefore, the 

witness concluded, a temporary 

increase in the Class I prices in the 

southern tier of the Mideast marketing 

area is warranted. 

The DFA, et al., witness relied on data 

prepared by the Market Administrator to 

compare the volume of milk produced 

within the marketing area boundaries 

with the volume of milk actually pooled 

on the Mideast order. The data revealed 

total milk production by state and 

county that is either: Pooled on the 

Mideast order; usually associated with 

but not pooled on the order during the 

specified month; or pooled on another 

Federal order. The witness was of the 

opinion that milk produced within the 

boundaries of the Mideast marketing 

area but not pooled on the Mideast 

order can be assumed to have been 

marketed elsewhere for a higher return. 

The witness concluded from these data 

that the milk supply for the Mideast 

marketing area is concentrated in the 

central to northern regions of the 

marketing area. 

The DFA, et al., witness described the 

analysis used to examine the milk 

supply and demand situation in the 

Mideast marketing area. The witness 

explained how they divided the Mideast 

marketing area into northeast, northwest 

and southern regions. DFA, et al., then 

requested that the Market Administrator 

calculate summary statistics for each 

region for January, April, August and 

November of 2007, and January and 

April of 2008. 

The DFA, et al., witness reviewed 

market administrator data that they had 

requested prior to the hearing that 

showed: (1) The volume of milk 

produced on farms located in the 

defined supply regions either pooled on 

the Mideast order or pooled on another 

Federal order and delivered to a pool 

distributing plant in the defined supply 

region; (2) The pounds of bulk milk 

physically received at distributing 

plants located in the defined supply 

regions; (3) The net of the two figures to 

demonstrate a milk deficit or surplus 

situation in each of the three regions; 

and (4) The hauling distances of 

producer milk to distributing plants 

within each of the three regions. 

The DFA, et al., witness described the 

northwest region of the marketing area 

as Michigan, northern Indiana and 

northwest Ohio. According to the 

witness, the northwest area has the 

largest volume of milk production and 

the largest volume of Class I demand 

when compared to the other two areas, 

while also being subject to the two 

lowest valued Class I differential zones 

in the Mideast marketing area. The 

witness characterized the northwest 

region as the reserve supply region for 

the Mideast marketing area since milk 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1979 

production is greater than fluid milk 

demand and milk is frequently 

transported from this region into the 

other two regions. The witness said that 

the data indicated that the average 

hauling distance for milk delivered to 

distributing plants in the northwest 

region is 72 miles. 

The DFA, et al., witness described the 

northeast region of the Mideast 

marketing area as the northeastern half 

of Ohio and the western portion of 

Pennsylvania. The witness testified that 

the northeast region is also an area 

where milk production exceeds fluid 

milk demand and that the average 

hauling distance for milk delivered to 

distributing plants in the region is 70 

miles. 

The DFA, et al., witness described the 

southern region of the marketing area as 

the southern portion of Indiana, 

southern portion of Ohio, northeast 

portion of Kentucky and the western 

half of West Virginia. The witness 

testified that, on average, the local milk 

supply for this region meets only 60 

percent of fluid milk demand, making it 

the only deficit region of the marketing 

area. The southern region of the 

marketing area absorbs all of the local 

milk supply that is not attracted to the 

Appalachian or Southeast orders and 

relies on milk supplies from the 

northern tier of the marketing area to 

balance fluid milk needs, the witness 

said. The witness noted that the average 

hauling distance of milk delivered to 

distributing plants in the region is 133 

miles, which in the witness’ opinion 

represents milk produced outside the 

region being delivered to plants within 

the region. The witness added that the 

average hauling distance in this region 

is over 60 miles further than in the other 

two regions. 

The DFA, et al., witness, relying on 

Market Administrator data, detailed the 

competition for milk supplies from nonpool plants within the marketing area. 

The witness concluded from the data 

that there are a significant number of 

non-pool manufacturing plants located 

near the reserve supply regions of the 

marketing area. The witness was of the 

opinion that the Class I prices in the 

southern tier of the marketing area 

should be increased to attract milk away 

from these manufacturing operations for 

higher-valued fluid use by 

compensating farmers for the higher 

transportation costs they incur to 

service these fluid plants. 

The DFA, et al., witness testified that 

Class I differentials have only been 

modified twice in the past 23 years, 

once as a result of the 1985 Farm Bill, 

and another as a result of Federal order 

reform in 2000. The witness noted that 

the changes made to the Class I price 

surface during Federal order reform in 

2000 were based on data from the mid1990’s. The witness said that there have 

been significant changes in marketing 

conditions since then, notably the 

number of dairy farms, the increase in 

size of existing dairy farms, population 

increases in the southern region of the 

Mideast marketing area and a shift in 

milk production to the northern region 

of the marketing area. The witness was 

of the opinion that the Class I price 

surface currently in place in the Mideast 

marketing area is too ‘‘flat,’’ and does 

not encourage the movement of milk 

from the supply region in the north to 

deficit regions in the south. The witness 

noted that the difference in Class I 

differentials between southern Michigan 

and Cincinnati, Ohio, for example, is 

$0.40, which according to the DFA, et 

al., calculation represents only 26 

percent of the actual transportation cost 

that a milk hauler would incur. 

The DFA, et al., witness relied on two 

methodologies to illustrate the 

inadequacies of the Class I price surface 

in the southern tier of the Mideast 

marketing area. The witness said that 

the first method examined milk 

transportation data provided by 

MEMMA, and the second method 

paralleled the methodology relied on to 

implement the adjustments to Class I 

prices in the southeastern orders. The 

witness used Market Administrator data 

to select eleven high milk production 

counties that, according to the witness, 

represent ‘‘reserve’’ supply areas for the 

Mideast market. 

The DFA, et al., witness described the 

MEMMA methodology used to 

determine the differences between 

actual transportation costs and Class I 

differential levels. The witness first 

presented diesel fuel cost data from the 

Energy Information Agency (EIA) that 

showed recent increases in fuel costs, 

with an average fuel cost of $4.52 a 

gallon from the beginning of 2008 until 

the time of the hearing (August 2008). 

The witness described how fuel costs 

are used to determine milk hauling costs 

and testified that MEMMA utilizes a 

$2.20 base hauling rate plus a monthly 

fuel surcharge to calculate total hauling 

rates. The witness relied on a 47 percent 

fuel surcharge for this calculation which 

is, according to the witness, MEMMA’s 

average surcharge from the beginning of 

the year to the time of the hearing. The 

witness said that this results in a 

hauling rate of $3.23 per loaded mile, or 

$1.59 per cwt for the 235 mile haul from 

Clinton County, Michigan, (reserve area) 

to Eastside Dairy in Anderson, Indiana 

(deficit area). 

The DFA, et al., witness then 

calculated the net dollars provided by 

the differences in the Class I 

differentials to offset transportation 

costs between the eleven reserve 

counties they had previously selected 

and the ten fluid plants located in the 

deficit southern region. For example, 

the differences in the Class I differential 

levels would provide $0.20 per cwt to 

offset the transportation cost of the haul 

from Clinton County, Michigan, to 

Eastside Dairy in Anderson, Indiana. 

The witness used these data to 

determine the portion of transportation 

costs that are not covered by the 

differences in the Class I differential 

levels. For all of the supply counties 

and plant locations, the average shortfall 

was $1.76 per cwt, noted the witness. 

Accordingly, the witness concluded 

from the MEMMA methodology that the 

current Class I differential levels in the 

southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area are inadequate. 

The DFA, et al., witness then 

examined the methodology used to 

determine temporary increases in the 

Class I prices in the southeastern 

marketing orders to formulate the 

proposed Class I price adjustments in 

the southern tier of the Mideast 

marketing area. The witness noted that 

the basic foundation for deriving the 

temporary adjustments to the Class I 

price surface in the southeastern orders 

was the identification of potential 

supply areas. Once identified, the areas 

were relied upon to calculate the leastcost Class I price adjustment based on 

the farthest point of milk demand. 

The DFA, et al., witness testified that 

this methodology utilized the same 

diesel fuel rate from the EIA as was used 

in the previously discussed MEMMA 

example. Using the same methodology 

as in the proceeding for the southeastern 

orders, the witness determined a base 

period for fuel costs (May–June 2003), 

determined the increase in costs from 

the base period to the present and 

determined the fuel cost adjustor ($0.44) 

to be added to the $2.20 MEMMA base 

haul rate. This rate was divided by the 

480 cwt of milk in a typical tanker load 

to determine that rate per cwt per mile 

of $0.00521. This rate was then used to 

compare the costs of alternative reserve 

supplies for the three regions of the 

Mideast marketing area. 

The DFA, et al., witness further 

explained that they relied on the 

methodology previously used to 

formulate the Class I price adjustments 

in their proposal. The witness offered 

the methodology used in the 

southeastern Class I pricing. The 

witness noted that the record of the 

southeastern proceeding identified five 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

potential alternative supply points 

surrounding the southeastern region of 

the country that could potentially 

supply the Miami market. The witness 

testified that the distances between the 

supply points and the demand point 

were multiplied by the mileage rate 

(described in the prior paragraph), and 

was further reduced by 20 percent to 

avoid having minimum prices set at 

actual transportation costs. The adjusted 

haul rate was then added to the current 

Class I differential for the supply point, 

yielding an ‘‘acquisition cost’’ as 

described by the witness. The witness 

explained that the difference between 

the acquisition cost and the actual Class 

I differential were used to suggest a 

reasonable temporary adjustment to 

Class I prices. 

The DFA, et al., witness testified that 

this methodology was repeated for six 

plants in the southern tier of the 

Mideast marketing area. The six plant 

locations were Indianapolis, IN, 

Marietta, OH, Newark, OH, Cincinnati, 

OH, Springfield, OH, and Charleston, 

WV. The witness stated that these plant 

locations represent the geographic 

spread of plants within the southern tier 

of the marketing area. DFA, et al., then 

chose six potential supply points from 

the eleven previously determined 

counties which serve as the reserve 

supply of the order. The witness 

testified that for Indianapolis, IN, 

Elkhart County, IN, the least-cost 

alternative, was $2.55 per cwt. As 

compared to the current differential of 

$2.00, the $2.55 per cwt figure suggested 

an adjustment of $0.55 per cwt. The 

witness conducted the same least-cost 

alternative comparison for each of the 

five other plant locations. 

The DFA, et al., witness summarized 

the above conclusions in the context of 

the existing Class I differential levels 

and Class I price adjustments. The 

witness testified that under Proposal 1 

the plants in the current $2.00 

differential zone would be in a newly 

proposed zone that has a 15-cwt Class 

I price adjustment which should not 

substantially change existing 

competitive relationships. Similarly, 

noted the witness, plants in the current 

$2.20 differential zone, except the 

United Dairy plant in Charleston, WV, 

would be in a newly proposed zone that 

has a 40-cent Class I price adjustment. 

The witness explained how the location 

of the United Dairy plant in Charleston, 

WV, justified a greater adjustment to the 

Class I price than any other plant in the 

southern tier of the marketing area 

because of its distance from reserve 

supplies. Accordingly, DFA et al., 

proposed that a $0.40 adjustment 

(increase) in the Class I price at 

Charleston, WV, will better align with 

the Class I prices applicable to their 

nearest three competitors, Dean Foods, 

Louisville, KY; Winchester Farms Dairy, 

Winchester, KY; and Flav-O-Rich Inc., 

London, KY. The witness noted that 

these competitor’s Class I price levels 

include the $0.15 transportation credit 

balancing fund assessment for 

supplemental milk needed for Class I 

use that is administered in the 

Appalachian order. 

The DFA, et al., witness explained 

how they analyzed the cost of moving 

packaged milk between reserve supply 

locations and distributing plants 

(demand points) in the southern tier of 

the marketing area to gauge the expected 

impacts on the competitive 

relationships between handlers in the 

southern tier of the Mideast marketing 

area. The witness testified that although 

they do expect the competitive 

relationships between handlers to be 

affected by the proposed adjustment in 

Class I prices, they did not find any 

instance wherein the proposed changes 

exceeded the cost of moving packaged 

milk between handlers. The witness 

explained that by calculating the total 

acquisition and distribution costs for 

each supply and demand combination 

as the Class I differential at the supply 

location plus the cost of moving the 

packaged milk to the demand location, 

they found no instances where the cost 

of acquiring and moving packaged milk 

exceeded the proposed Class I price 

levels. Therefore, the witness 

concluded, the proposed Class I price 

adjustments are reasonable because they 

do not provide an incentive for 

uneconomic movements of milk. 

The DFA, et al., witness withdrew the 

proponents’ original contention that 

emergency conditions exist to warrant 

the omission of a recommended 

decision, contingent, the witness said, 

on this proceeding adhering to the 

deadlines established by the 2008 Farm 

Bill. The witness was of the opinion that 

a recommended decision issued within 

90 days of the close of the hearing 

would be reasonable. 

A post-hearing brief filed by DFA, et 

al., reiterated their testimony describing 

the market conditions for fluid milk in 

the Mideast marketing area. The brief 

reasserted proponent’s claims that: the 

southern region of the marketing area is 

a deficit market; that the Class I 

differentials are too low to cover the 

costs of transporting an adequate supply 

of milk from the surplus northern 

regions to distributing plants in the 

southern region; and that, recent 

changes to the Class I prices in the 

southeastern orders has made it difficult 

for local distributing plants in the 

southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area to attract and maintain 

an adequate supply of fluid milk. 

The DFA, et al., brief addressed 

opposition that existing price 

relationships between plants should not 

be disturbed by adjusting Class I prices. 

DFA, et al., wrote that the record shows 

that costs of supplying fluid plants have 

increased and the Class I price 

adjustments for plants in the 

southeastern orders has changed such 

that the competitive relationships 

between plants has already been altered. 

DFA, et al., also asserted that the 

opponents to their proposal claiming 

that the Class I price surface should be 

changed via a national hearing is, in 

actuality, an attempt aimed at stalling 

any increase in their regulated 

minimum prices. In this regard, DFA, et 

al., wrote that the proposed Class I price 

adjustments are justified by local supply 

and demand conditions. 

The DFA, et al., brief also expressed 

opposition to Dean’s proposal of 

decreasing Class I differentials in the 

northern regions of the marketing area 

(to be discussed later in this decision). 

DFA, et al., found fault with Deans’ 

premise that the appropriate remedy to 

the increased cost of supplying plants in 

the southern region of the marketing 

area is to lower prices paid to dairy 

farmers in the northern regions. 

A witness testifying on behalf of 

United Dairy, Inc. (United Dairy) 

opposed the adoption of Proposal 1. 

United Dairy operates three fluid milk 

processing plants in the Mideast 

marketing area. The witness was of the 

opinion that Proposal 1 singles out the 

United Dairy plant in Charleston, WV, 

for an unnecessarily large increase in its 

Class I price of $0.40 per cwt. The 

witness said that such a large increase 

would put the Charleston plant at a 

competitive disadvantage to its primary 

competitor, the Dean Foods’ Broughton 

Foods plant in Marietta, OH, located 85 

miles to the north. 

The United Dairy witness explained 

that the Charleston, WV, plant is located 

in the $2.20 differential zone (the same 

as Cincinnati, OH), while the Marietta, 

OH, plant is located in the $2.00 

differential zone. Proposal 1 seeks to 

increase the Class I price at the Marietta, 

OH, plant by $0.15, while it proposes a 

$0.40 Class I price increase for the 

Charleston, WV, plant, stated the 

witness. The witness highlighted that 

the Charleston plant would be the only 

regulated distributing plant in 

essentially a new price zone. The 

witness said that despite already paying 

a higher regulated milk price because of 

the difference in Class I differentials 

($2.20 versus $2.00), the Charleston, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1981 

WV, plant has been able to compete for 

sales with the Marietta, OH, plant. 

However, if Proposal 1 is adopted, the 

witness explained, the Charleston, WV, 

plant will be subject to a $0.45 cost 

disadvantage relative to their Marietta, 

OH, plant competitor. 

The United Dairy witness testified 

that despite proponent claims that the 

Charleston, WV, plant is the hardest 

plant in the marketing area to service, 

United Dairy has had no difficulty in 

attracting an adequate milk supply to 

meet its demand. The witness also 

countered proponent claims that it is 

difficult to attract milk supplies to the 

southern region of the marketing area. 

The witness said that MEMMA supplies 

most of the plants in the region, and is 

therefore able to shift its farm routes 

between customers to meet demand. 

The United Dairy witness estimated 

that a 40-cent increase in its Class I 

price equates to a 3.5 cent increase per 

gallon of milk they produce. The 

witness asserted that competition for 

sales between plants can be won, or lost, 

over pennies. An increase of 3.5-cents 

per gallon would place the Charleston 

plant at a severe disadvantage and most 

likely result in lost sales, concluded the 

witness. While seeing no need to 

increase in the Class I price, the witness 

said that any increase found needed by 

USDA should assure that the 

competitive relationship between the 

Charleston, WV, and Marietta, OH, 

plants be maintained. 

A post-hearing brief filed on behalf of 

United Dairy faulted DFA, et al’s., 

reasoning for increasing the Class I 

prices in the Mideast marketing area as 

being tied to recent changes to the Class 

I prices in the three southeastern orders. 

United Dairy stated that the changes in 

the southeastern orders were made 

because the chronic milk deficit 

situation in those orders necessitated 

higher Class I prices aimed at attracting 

milk from states such as Ohio and 

Michigan to supply those fluid plants. 

United Dairy asserted that increasing 

Class I prices in the southern tier of the 

Mideast marketing area would 

undermine the steps taken in the 

southeastern orders to alleviate the milk 

supply problem. 

United Dairy also argued in brief that 

proponents did not demonstrate that 

plants in the southern tier of the 

Mideast market are having difficulties 

attracting an adequate supply of fluid 

milk. United Dairy claimed that at the 

time of the hearing there was no data 

available to support the proponents 

claim because the changes in the 

southeastern orders did not become 

effective until May 1, 2008, and data 

from that month had not yet been 

released. Regardless, United Dairy 

asserted that the states comprising the 

Mideast order have experienced an 

increase in milk production while Class 

I demand has decreased 8.8 percent 

January 1, 2000. 

United Dairy’s brief reiterated 

testimony that its Charleston, WV, plant 

has not had difficulty acquiring an 

adequate milk supply. The brief stated 

that the Charleston, WV, plant provides 

a market outlet for independent 

producers in the Mideast order, and 

serves a vital role in supplying milk to 

school and rural customers in West 

Virginia. United Dairy wrote that 

increasing the Class I price of that plant 

by $0.40 would put it at a competitive 

disadvantage to plants located in areas 

where Class I prices are not also 

increased by $0.40. Lastly, United Dairy 

argued that emergency conditions that 

would warrant the omission of a 

recommend decision do not exist. 

An Ohio dairy farmer supplier of 

United Dairy testified in opposition to 

Proposal 1. The witness agreed with 

proponent testimony that transportation 

costs have increased, but said that 

adjusting Class I prices could financially 

harm certain plants. The witness stated 

that it is important for plants to remain 

viable so that farmers have numerous 

market outlets for their milk. 

The witness testified that their farm 

supplies the United Dairy plant in 

Martins Ferry, OH. The witness said 

that out of a total $0.92 per cwt that the 

milk hauler charges, they pay $0.82 and 

United Dairy pays $0.10. The witness 

disagreed with the methodology used by 

proponents in determining the proposed 

Class I price adjustments because, in the 

witness’ opinion, the proposed 

adjustments are not equitable across 

distributing plants. 

A witness testifying on behalf of The 

Kroger Company Manufacturing Group 

(Kroger) opposed the adoption of 

Proposal 1. According to the witness, 

Kroger operates three fluid distributing 

plants regulated by the Mideast order. 

The witness testified that two Kroger 

plants, Crossroad Farms Dairy located in 

Indianapolis, Indiana, and Tamarack 

Farms Dairy located in Newark, Ohio, 

are located in the pricing zones that 

would be increased if Proposal 1 was 

adopted. The witness testified that 

Kroger pays its suppliers over-order 

premiums and fuel surcharges which 

have increased recently due to higher 

fuel costs. The witness indicated that 

none of their suppliers have indicated 

problems in supplying any Kroger 

plants. The witness said that if Proposal 

1 is adopted the Class I prices at both 

Kroger plants would increase by $0.15 

per cwt. 

The Kroger witness asserted that the 

proposed Class I price adjustments 

would alter plant price relationships 

that date back to the 1985 Farm Bill. 

These proposed differentials would 

place the Kroger plants in a difficult 

competitive situation, the witness said. 

According to the witness, the Kroger 

plants compete for sales with plants 

located to the north that, under Proposal 

1, would not see a price adjustment. 

The Kroger witness argued that much 

of the milk produced in the Mideast 

marketing area is actually committed to 

supplying plants located in the deficit 

southeastern orders. The witness 

concluded that if the southern region of 

the Mideast marketing area was really a 

deficit market, as the proponents 

purport, then much of the milk that 

currently goes south would instead stay 

in the Mideast marketing area. The 

witness was of the opinion that current 

milk supplies in the Mideast are more 

than adequate to meet demand 

rendering an increase in Class I prices 

unnecessary. 

The Kroger witness indicated that, in 

the future, if the southern region of the 

marketing area has problems acquiring a 

milk supply, then a hearing to consider 

the promulgation of a new order in the 

southern region should be held. The 

witness stated that if such a new order 

was created then the monies generated 

within the new order would only be 

shared amongst producers serving that 

market, instead of being shared with all 

the producers in the Mideast market 

through the blend price. The witness 

also noted that emergency conditions do 

not exist to warrant exclusion of a 

recommended decision. 

A witness testifying on behalf of Dean 

Foods (Dean) opposed the adoption of 

Proposal 1. According to the witness, 

Dean owns and operates eleven 

distributing plants regulated by the 

Mideast milk marketing order. The 

witness’ testimony regarding the 

opposition to Proposal 1 was supported 

by Prairie Farms. The witness said that 

if Proposal 1 is adopted, three of the 

eleven Dean plants would see an 

increase in their Class I price. 

The Dean witness was of the opinion 

that this rulemaking proceeding is the 

result of regulatory changes made to the 

Class I prices in the southeastern orders 

effective May 1, 2008. The witness 

stated that the Class I pricing changes in 

those orders and the proposed changes 

in the Mideast order essentially run 

counter to USDA’s policy of a nationally 

coordinated Class I price surface. The 

witness reviewed the nine key criteria 

used by USDA in establishing the 

nationally coordinated Class I price 

surface (effective January 1, 2000), in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the context of the changes proposed in 

this rulemaking proceeding. The 

witness was of the opinion that the 

proposed increases would send 

inappropriate market signals to farmers 

to produce more milk despite the 

overall milk surplus observed in the 

Mideast order. The witness said that 

adjusting Class I prices not only changes 

the value of milk at that location, but it 

also changes the relative value of that 

milk at other locations, as was the case 

in the southeastern orders. The witness 

insisted that this underscores the 

importance of a nationally coordinated 

Class I price surface. In keeping with 

this rationale, the witness claimed that 

adjustments to Class I prices on an 

order-by-order basis would lead to 

disorderly marketing conditions. 

The Dean witness noted that the 

proposed Class I price increases could 

lead to increased payouts from the 

Southeast and Appalachian 

transportation credit funds which use 

the differential in the county where 

milk is produced to compute the 

payout. The witness said that this 

would lead the transportation credit 

funds to be drawn down faster than 

otherwise would occur. On cross 

examination the witness admitted that 

the Southeast and Appalachian order 

transportation credit funds would only 

be drawn down faster if milk produced 

in the southern region of the Mideast 

order was pooled in the Southeast or 

Appalachian orders on a seasonal basis. 

The Dean witness was of the opinion 

that it is too soon to tell if Class I price 

adjustments in the southeastern markets 

has provided handler equity in regards 

to raw product costs. Until the effect on 

handler equity can be determined in the 

Southeast, there should be no changes 

in the Class I prices in the Mideast, the 

witness said. The witness also stated 

that higher Class I prices will alter the 

competitive structure in the region and 

negatively affect handlers in the 

Mideast. 

The Dean witness argued that the 

proposed Class I price increases would 

provide more incentive than is 

necessary to encourage milk to move 

into the southern region of the 

marketing area. The witness also 

objected to the proponent’s attempt to 

divide the Mideast market into three 

regions. The witness said that the data 

are insufficient to determine whether 

the regions as proposed by proponents 

are accurate depictions of three separate 

regions within the marketing area. 

The Dean witness was of the opinion 

that the marketing conditions in the 

Mideast order are different than the 

marketing conditions in the 

southeastern orders. Therefore, the 

witness said, USDA should consider a 

different approach to solving the 

problem in the Mideast marketing area. 

The witness stated that the easiest way 

to solve the milk supply issues of the 

Mideast would be for the USDA to 

reverse the decision to increase Class I 

prices in the southeastern orders and 

then deny the adoption of Proposal 1. 

Alternatively, the witness said that 

USDA could suspend the current 

hearing until such time as more data 

capable of documenting the impact 

southeastern order changes have had on 

Mideast milk movements becomes 

available. Alternative proposals, 

including those seeking to divide the 

marketing area into three separate 

orders, could then be made, the witness 

said. The witness then offered data that 

purported to reveal the marketwide 

pools that would result, if the Mideast 

order were divided into three separate 

marketing orders. 

The Dean witness offered an 

alternative proposal at the hearing to 

lower the Class I differentials (and thus 

Class I prices) in the northern regions of 

the Mideast marketing area. The witness 

said that proponents have relied on 

Class I differential relationships 

between the northern surplus area and 

the southern deficit area to justify the 

proposed Class I price adjustments 

(increases). The witness insisted that 

decreasing the differentials in the north 

would also provide market signals to 

encourage milk to move from north to 

south. The witness proposed that the 

Class I prices in the northern surplus 

regions of the Mideast marketing area be 

decreased by anywhere between $0.05 

to $0.15 per cwt. 

The Dean witness stated that 

emergency conditions warranting the 

omission of a recommended decision do 

not exist. 

Another Dean witness testified in 

opposition to the adoption of Proposal 

1. The witness said that data provided 

by the proponents demonstrate that the 

milk supply in the Mideast marketing 

area is, on the whole, sufficient to meet 

in-area demand. The problem, the 

witness said, is the lack of incentives to 

move milk into the southern deficit 

region. From these data, the witness 

concluded that the defined marketing 

area is too large for marketwide pooling 

to properly function because Class I 

revenues from the south are being 

shared with all producers in the 

marketing area and diluting the 

incentives to supply plants in the deficit 

region. 

The Dean witness was of the opinion 

that blend price differences between 

marketing orders encourages milk 

movements to deficit areas. The witness 

insisted that the proponent’s data 

supports the theory that there should be 

three separate orders within the Mideast 

marketing area. The witness argued that 

if a separate order were in place for the 

southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area, the Class I utilization 

would be higher than that of the existing 

marketing area. The witness concluded 

that separate orders would generate 

blend price differences large enough to 

encourage milk to move south without 

the need for higher Class I prices. 

A witness testifying on behalf of 

National Dairy Holdings (NDH) also 

opposed the adoption of Proposal 1. 

According to the witness, NDH is a fluid 

processor that owns and operates two 

distributing plants regulated by the 

Mideast order. The witness said that 

Meyer Dairy is the only fluid 

distributing plant owned and operated 

by National Dairy Holdings (NDH) that 

would be affected by the proposed Class 

I price increases. The witness stated that 

Meyer Dairy has not experienced any 

difficulty in acquiring a milk supply. If 

USDA determines that additional 

incentives are necessary to move milk to 

the southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area, then the witness is 

supportive of Dean’s alternative 

proposal to lower Class I differentials in 

the northern region of the marketing 

area. The witness was of the opinion 

that the same desired results could be 

obtained by lowering differentials in the 

northern region of the marketing area 

thus making the price relationships 

more attractive so as to move milk 

south. 

The NDH witness estimated that 

adoption of Proposal 1 would increase 

their milk costs anywhere from 2 cents 

to 3.5 cents per gallon relative to their 

competitors. However, the witness said 

that some of their competitors would 

also see an increase in their Class I 

differentials, albeit at a lesser amount 

than Meyer Dairy. The witness 

speculated that the proposed cost 

increases could result in lost contracts. 

The NDH witness concurred with 

proponents that fuel and transportation 

costs have increased since the current 

Class I price surface became effective on 

January 1, 2000, and that one way of 

combating the resulting milk supply 

problem is to increase Class I prices in 

the deficit markets. However, the 

witness argued that the best solution 

would be to lower differentials in the 

north so that the new price relationship 

would encourage milk to service the 

deficit south. According to the witness, 

this change would provide the same 

result as Proposal 1, but without raising 

costs to consumers. The witness 

purported that checkout scanner data 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1983 

from retail stores show a correlation 

between the Class I price increases in 

the southeastern orders and a reduction 

in fluid milk sales. During the months 

of June and July 2008, fluid milk sales 

in Atlanta and Miami were down 8.5 

percent and 7.9 percent, respectively, 

relative to the same period in 2007. 

A post-hearing brief submitted on 

behalf of Dean, National Dairy Holdings 

and Prairie Farms, hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘opponents brief,’’ expressed 

continued opposition to the adoption of 

Proposal 1. The brief explained that 

proponents provided little evidence to 

prove that recent changes to Class I 

prices in the southeastern orders have 

made obtaining an adequate milk 

supply difficult for fluid plants located 

in the southern tier of the Mideast order. 

The brief noted that since the changes 

in the southeastern orders did not 

become effective until May 1, 2008, 

complete data capable of accounting for 

the impacts of the changes has yet to be 

compiled and published by the Market 

Administrator offices. To counter 

proponents claim that more milk is 

moving into the southeastern orders, the 

opponents brief cited Dairy Market 

News Statistics showing that, for the 

week ending on October 10, 2008, fewer 

loads of milk were shipped into Florida 

and other southeastern States than in 

the same week in 2007. 

The opponents brief also argued that 

proponents attempt to divide the 

Mideast marketing area into three subregions resulted in arbitrary data. 

Opponents claimed that in defining the 

available milk supply for any of the 

three sub-regions, proponents did not 

take into account what milk was 

actually available and whether other 

near-by milk supplies were available. 

The opponent’s brief stated that the 

Mideast marketing area as a whole is a 

reserve supply of milk for the 

southeastern orders. It contended that 

the purpose of nationally coordinated 

Class I price surface is to bring forth an 

adequate supply of milk, therefore there 

is no justification for increasing Class I 

prices in reserve supply areas such as 

the Mideast. The brief further argued 

that increasing the Class I prices in the 

southern tier of the Mideast marketing 

area would cause disorderly marketing 

conditions because milk that is 

ineligible for transportation credits in 

the southeastern orders would seek to 

move to the higher priced zones in the 

Mideast marketing area. However, the 

opponents brief disagreed with the DFA, 

et al.’s, use of transportation credits in 

the Appalachian and Southeast orders 

as a factor in determining appropriate 

Class I price adjustments. Opponents 

stated that transportation credits serve a 

different economic purpose and should 

not be a factor in considering if Class I 

prices should be increased in the 

Mideast. 

The opponents brief also argued that 

Class I prices should be addressed on a 

national, not order-by-order basis, as 

was done in the southeastern orders and 

as is proposed in the Mideast. 

According to Dean, the proponents 

provided no justification to abandon 

past USDA precedent for maintaining a 

nationally coordinated Class I price 

structure. 

The opponents brief summarized the 

alternative proposal they offered at the 

hearing to decrease Class I differentials 

in the northern surplus areas of the 

Mideast marketing area. (Prairie Farms 

did not offer support of Dean’s 

alternative proposal.) In brief, Dean 

wrote that in areas of milk surplus, the 

correct market signal to farmers is a 

lower price to encourage them to 

produce less. Dean concluded that the 

subsequent decrease in production 

would, in turn, lead to an increase in 

milk prices. 

In brief, opponents continued to argue 

that proponents provided no evidence 

demonstrating an emergency situation 

that would warrant omission of a 

recommended decision. The brief stated 

that the significant period of time 

between when the proponents first 

requested data for a Mideast Class I 

price surface hearing (September 2007) 

and their actual hearing request (June 

2008) demonstrates that no emergency 

exists. Therefore, Dean wrote, the public 

should be provided an opportunity to 

comment on USDA’s decision before 

implementation of any proposed 

changes. 

A witness appearing on behalf of 

Nestle USA (Nestle) testified in 

opposition to Proposal 1. According to 

the witness, Nestle is a milk 

manufacturer who operates one fluid 

distributing plant regulated by the 

Mideast order which is located in 

Anderson, IN, where the proponents 

have proposed a $0.15 adjustment in the 

Class I price. The witness said that 

Nestle’s milk supplier has not indicated 

any difficulty supplying milk to the 

Nestle plant. The witness stated that the 

Nestle plant only recently opened, but 

when Nestle was originally considering 

a location for the plant they were 

approached by multiple suppliers in the 

Mideast marketing area, all of whom 

indicated that providing a reliable milk 

supply to the plant in Anderson, IN, 

would not be difficult. 

The Nestle witness referred to 

proponent data indicating that the 

average cost to supply a plant in 

Anderson, IN, was $1.60 per cwt more 

than the Class I differential at the 

location. According to the witness, 

Nestle already pays its supplier, on 

average, over-order premiums in excess 

of this amount as well as a fuel 

surcharge for milk delivered to the 

plant. 

The Nestle witness testified that the 

Anderson plant primarily produces 

flavored milk products that exhibit a 

great deal of sensitivity to price changes. 

The witness also asserted that the Nestle 

flavored milk products compete more 

directly with soft drinks, bottled water 

and orange juice, than with milk. 

Therefore, the witness said, any price 

increase in their products would result 

in lost sales to competing non-dairy 

products. The witness also testified that 

products produced at the Anderson 

plant are marketed nationwide and must 

compete with products produced at 

plants located in counties that are not 

subject to a proposed increase to their 

Class I price. The witness concluded 

that there is no milk shortage problem 

in the southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area and as such, Proposal 1 

should be denied. 

A post-hearing brief was submitted on 

behalf of Associated Milk Producers 

Inc., Bongards Creamery, Family Dairies 

USA, First District Association, 

Manitowoc Milk Producers Association, 

Mid-West Dairymen’s Company, 

Milwaukee Cooperative Milk Producers 

and the Wisconsin Department of 

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer 

Protection. The brief stated that 

collectively these organizations are 

members of the Midwest Dairy Coalition 

(MDC). MDC argued that proponents 

have not demonstrated that there is a 

milk deficit in the Mideast marketing 

area and as such, they are opposed to 

the adoption of Proposal 1. MDC stated 

that if there is a milk supply problem in 

the Mideast as a result of effectively 

changing Class I differential levels in 

the southeastern orders then the 

proponents have the ability to negotiate 

higher over-order premiums to cover 

any higher supply costs. 

MDC also addressed the broader issue 

of effectively changing Class I 

differentials on an order-by-order, rather 

than national basis. They argued that 

such changes not only have local, but 

also national implications and should 

therefore be addressed in a larger 

national framework. 

Discussion and Findings 

At issue in this proceeding is the 

consideration of proposed adjustments 

to Class I prices in the southern region 

of the Mideast milk marketing area as a 

means of ensuring an adequate supply 

of milk for fluid use. Adjustments to 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2Official notice is taken of Appalachian 

Marketing Order Statistics: Producer Milk Pounds 

by States 2006–2008, found at http:// 

www.malouisville.com. 

Class I prices in the southern tier of 

counties in the marketing area are 

recommended for adoption herein and 

result in a change to the Class I pricing 

surface. The adjustments to Class I 

prices are specified in the order 

language. Providing for higher Class I 

prices under the order in the counties 

that make up the southern tier of the 

marketing area will help attract an 

adequate supply of fluid milk to 

distributing plants and will increase the 

blend prices to dairy farmers who 

deliver milk to those plant locations. 

The minimum Class I prices of the 

Mideast order are set by adding a 

location-specific differential, referred to 

as a Class I differential, to the higher of 

an advance Class III or Class IV price 

announced by USDA. The Class I 

differentials are location-specific by 

county, parish or city for all States of 

the 48 contiguous United States. These 

Class I differentials were adopted on 

January 1, 2000, and are specified in 

CFR section 1000.52. 

The proponents, DFA, et al., who 

collectively market more than 50 

percent of the producer milk pooled on 

the Mideast order maintain that it has 

become increasingly costly to supply 

fluid distributing plants located in the 

southern tier of the Mideast marketing 

area. Their claim is based on two 

factors: (1) Recent adjustments to Class 

I prices of the southeastern orders have 

drawn milk, that previously would have 

been utilized by fluid milk plants in the 

southern region, away from the Mideast 

order; and (2) Transportation costs have 

increased such that the current Class I 

differentials do not offer sufficient 

pricing incentives to cover the cost of 

transporting milk from reserve northern 

surplus regions to the deficit southern 

region of the marketing area. 

Proponents divided the marketing 

area into three separate regions and 

presented data to examine marketing 

conditions within the marketing area 

and to explain how the southern region 

of the marketing area is consistently 

milk deficit. Record evidence 

demonstrates a significant difference in 

the volume of milk delivered to pool 

distributing plants in the southern 

region relative to the volume of milk 

produced in the region and either 

pooled on the Mideast order, or pooled 

on another order and delivered to a pool 

distributing plant located in the 

southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area. For example, during 

April 2008, 189.8 million pounds of 

producer milk was received at 

distributing plants located in the 

southern region. However, during that 

month only 74.6 million pounds were 

produced in and delivered to pool 

distributing plants in the same region, 

indicating a net deficit of 115.2 million 

pounds. The data does not reflect the 

amount of milk produced in the 

southern region that is then pooled and 

delivered to plants in another order. 

However, it is reasonable to conclude 

that if additional milk supplies are 

produced in, but not delivered to 

southern region plants, then such milk 

has found a higher priced alternative 

outlet. 

Record evidence indicates that milk 

delivered to distributing plants in the 

southern tier of the marketing area must 

travel further distances than milk 

delivered to other plants in the 

marketing area. The record contains 

hauling data for the months of January, 

April, August and November 2007, and 

January and April 2008. The data reveal 

that during these six months, milk 

delivered to plants in the southern 

region traveled an average of 133 miles 

from farm to plant. In comparison, the 

average distance for milk delivered to 

the Northwest and Northeast regions 

during that same time period was 72 

miles and 70 miles, respectively. 

Proponents contend that this data 

demonstrates that the local milk supply 

in the southern region of the marketing 

area is not adequate to meet the demand 

of the local plants. 

DFA, et al., utilized two different 

methodologies to derive their proposed 

adjustments to Class I prices to 

compensate for greater transportation 

costs. These methods demonstrate that 

that the cost of transporting milk from 

surplus to deficit regions in the 

marketing area far exceed the 

differences in Class I differential levels. 

The first methodology uses a 

transportation model derived from 

transportation cost data supplied by 

MEMMA. The data indicate that 

MEMMA’s cost of moving milk within 

the Mideast marketing area (at the time 

of the hearing) was $3.23 per loaded 

mile. Using this cost basis, a per cwt 

cost of moving milk from 11 

predetermined alternative supply points 

to each of the fluid distributing plants 

in the marketing area’s southern region 

was established. Record evidence 

compares how much of the estimated 

hauling cost is covered by the 

differences in Class I differential levels 

between supply points and each of the 

southern fluid distributing plants 

(demand points). The average difference 

for the supply/demand point 

combinations was $1.76 per cwt, with a 

range of $0.45 to $3.25 per cwt. This 

transportation cost model demonstrates 

that the current differential levels in the 

southern region of the marketing area 

fall significantly short of the cost of 

transporting needed milk to those 

distributing plants. 

The second transportation cost model 

proponents relied upon was utilized in 

a recent three market southeastern order 

hearing that adjusted the Class I prices 

in those orders (73 FR 11194). Utilizing 

the same methodology, the model 

established a fuel adjusted 

transportation rate of $2.64 per mile, or 

$0.0055 per cwt per mile. This model 

compared the acquisition cost (Class I 

differential of alternative supply area 

plus transportation cost) of delivering 

milk from 6 of the 11 potential 

alternative supply locations to 6 fluid 

distributing plants in the southern 

region of the Mideast marketing area. 

The model then compared the least-cost 

supply alternative for each distributing 

plant with the current Class I 

differential of that plant. For example, 

the least cost alternative for the 

Charleston, WV, plant was Wayne 

County, OH, with an acquisition cost of 

$2.89 per cwt. The Class I differential at 

Charleston, WV, is $2.20, suggesting 

that a Class I price adjustment of $0.69 

would be appropriate. 

Opponents to the proposed changes 

claimed that DFA, et al., provided 

inadequate data to support their claim 

that changes in the Class I prices for the 

southeastern orders has made it more 

costly to supply plants in the southern 

region of the Mideast marketing area. 

This criticism is misplaced. As 

cooperative producer-member 

organizations that supply the majority of 

the marketing areas Class I needs, they 

clearly demonstrated the higher costs 

associated with supplying plants in the 

southern region of the marketing area. 

Almost all opposition witnesses for 

providing Class I price increases at the 

hearing agreed that differences in blend 

prices between orders moves milk. Thus 

it can be concluded that higher blend 

prices, through higher Class I prices, 

attract milk to plants in those orders by 

providing the economic incentive to 

supply milk to plants located in the 

southeastern order marketing areas. 

Monthly data recently released by the 

Appalachian Market Administrator 

reveals that there has been a significant 

increase in the amount of producer milk 

being received from Ohio at plants 

regulated by the Appalachian order 

since May 1, 2008, when the Class I 

prices were increased.2 The data reveal 

that producer milk deliveries from Ohio 

from May through August 2006 

averaged 17.7 million pounds per 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1985 

month and 16.5 million pounds per 

month for the same time period in 2007. 

From May through August 2008, 

monthly Ohio producer milk deliveries 

averaged 44.6 million pounds—an 

increase of 161 percent from the average 

of the previous two years. Average 

monthly deliveries from Ohio from 

January through August were 21.3 

million pounds, 18.2 million pounds 

and 35.1 million pounds in 2006, 2007 

and 2008, respectively. This represents 

an increase in deliveries from Ohio of 

61 percent from 2006 to 2008, and a 92 

percent increase from 2007 to 2008. 

Recently released data from the 

Appalachian order supports the 

proponents’ claim that higher Class I 

prices brought about by providing Class 

I price adjustments in the southeastern 

orders have resulted in more milk 

servicing those orders from farms 

located in the Mideast marketing area. It 

is reasonable to conclude from this 

record evidence, that when coupled 

with evidence of increased 

transportation costs, the Class I prices in 

the southern region of the marketing 

area provide inadequate incentives to 

farmers to supply the fluid milk needs 

of those plants. The recommended 

adjustments to the Class I prices will 

provide, under the order, the economic 

incentives to supply fluid distributing 

plants located in the southern tier of 

counties of the Mideast marketing area. 

DFA, et al’s., proposed Class I price 

adjustments differ from those calculated 

in the transportation models. The 

proposed Class I adjustments as 

presented align with the differentials in 

the northern regions of the marketing 

area, as well as with neighboring 

marketing areas. These adjustments also 

ensure that similarly situated Class I 

handlers in the southern region of the 

marketing area have similar minimum 

regulated Class I prices. Providing 

similar regulated prices for similarly 

situated handlers is consistent with the 

requirements of the AMAA. 

The proposed Class I price 

adjustments provide a steeper price 

surface and reasonable alignment with 

the current Class I price surface of the 

marketing areas beyond the 

geographical boundaries of the Mideast 

order. The proposed Class I price 

adjustments result in price relationships 

that are different from those that exist 

under the current pricing structure. 

Despite criticism that the proposed 

Class I price adjustments change price 

relationships between plants, the key 

requirement that similarly located 

plants have similar regulated minimum 

prices is maintained. 

DFA, et al., analyzed acquisition and 

distribution costs (Class I differential 

plus the cost of transportation) of 

packaged milk in an effort to assure the 

reasonableness of the level of the 

proposed Class I price adjustments and 

determine the effect the proposed 

adjustments would have on the 

competitive relationship among 

handlers in the southern region. The 

record reflects that the proposed Class I 

differentials at all locations do not 

exceed the cost of moving packaged 

milk to those same locations. From this 

analysis it is concluded that the 

proposed Class I adjustments will not 

encourage uneconomic movements of 

milk. This method of evaluating the 

proposed Class I pricing changes in 

comparison to packaged milk movement 

forms a rational basis to conclude that 

the proposed changes to Class I pricing 

are reasonable. 

Record evidence cites specific 

opposition testimony regarding the 

proposed $0.40 per cwt Class I price 

adjustment at Charleston, WV. This 

increase would create a price zone 

where only one fluid distributing plant 

operates, the United Dairy plant in 

Charleston, WV. DFA, et al., claimed 

that this Class I price adjustment reflects 

the higher cost of servicing that plant 

due to its further distance from potential 

reserve supplies. In its post-hearing 

brief, DFA, et al., clarifies that the 

proposed adjustment will align 

Charleston more properly with the Class 

I prices of its competitors located and 

regulated by the Appalachian order. 

DFA derived the proposed $0.40 Class 

I price adjustment by taking into 

account the $0.15 per cwt transportation 

credit balancing fund assessment that is 

charged year-round in the Appalachian 

order on Class I milk. 

This decision does not find it 

appropriate to consider the Appalachian 

transportation credit balancing fund 

assessment in determining needed Class 

I price adjustments in the Mideast 

marketing area. The transportation 

credits applicable in the Appalachian 

order, as asserted by opponents, serve as 

an economic incentive for needed 

supplemental milk supplies and should 

have no bearing on the appropriate 

adjusted Class I price at Charleston, WV. 

The United Dairy witness testified at 

great length regarding the competitive 

disadvantage that would be placed on 

the Charleston, WV, plant when 

compared to its nearest competitor—the 

Dean Foods plant in Marietta, OH. The 

United Dairy plant is currently located 

in the $2.20 zone, while the Dean Foods 

plant is located in the $2.00 zone. This 

means that when competing for sales, 

the United Dairy plant faces a raw milk 

cost that is $0.20 per cwt higher. The 

proposed Class I price adjustment 

would put the United Dairy plant in a 

$2.60 price zone (Class I differential 

plus the Class I price adjustment) and 

the Dean Foods plant in a $2.15 zone 

price, increasing the raw milk cost 

spread to $0.45 per cwt. 

This decision finds that a $0.40 

increase in the Class I price at 

Charleston, WV, would unnecessarily 

change the competitive relationship 

between the United Dairy plant and its 

nearest competitors. While the record 

reflects that the cost of transporting milk 

to Charleston, WV, is greater than the 

cost of transportation to other parts of 

the marketing area, the record does not 

justify an increase of $0.40 because of 

the competitive sales relationship with 

other plants in the southern tier of the 

marketing area. This decision 

recommends that the Class I price at 

Charleston, WV, be increased by $0.20. 

The recommended Class I price 

adjustments are presented in Figure 1. 

While the Class I differentials in the 

Mideast marketing area are not changed 

in this decision, the Class I price 

adjustments have been 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed Class I price 

adjustments will not result in the 

uneconomic movement of milk as 

asserted by opponents. The proposed 

Class I pricing surface provides greater 

pricing incentives under the order to 

transport needed milk from alternative 

surplus northern regions to the deficit 

southern region of the marketing area. 

The location value of milk is higher in 

the southern region because of the cost 

involved in transporting milk to 

locations in that milk-deficit region. The 

recommended Class I price adjustments 

result in a steeper Class I price surface 

that correlates with the higher location 

value fluid milk has in the southern 

region of the marketing area. 

Opponents argued that the proposed 

Class I price adjustments will cause 

uneconomic movements of milk because 

milk in the southeastern orders that is 

not eligible to receive transportation 

credits will seek to serve plants north 

and west. As discussed above, it is 

inappropriate to consider transportation 

credits in any aspect of adjusting Class 

I prices. 

Opponents to DFA, et al’s., Class I 

price adjustments asserted that there is 

an adequate supply of milk in the order 

to meet fluid demands. Record evidence 

shows that there is an adequate supply 

of milk in the order as a whole to meet 

fluid demand. However, in the deficit 

southern region of the Mideast 

marketing area, there must be sufficient 

price incentives provided under the 

order to encourage the movement of 

milk from surplus areas to the deficit 

area. In this regard, the location value of 

milk needs to account for prevailing 

marketing conditions which in this 

proceeding is largely the cost of 

transportation. The recommended Class 

I price adjustments should provide the 

additional incentive needed under the 

order by offsetting a greater portion of 

the costs associated with transporting 

milk longer distances for Class I use. 

Opponents also argued that any 

increase in the Class I prices will be 

distributed to all producers whose milk 

is pooled on the Mideast order, and thus 

there will be no actual incentive to 

service plants in the deficit southern 

region. This argument is misplaced. 

Blend prices paid to producers are 

adjusted to the location to which milk 

is delivered. In the Mideast order, the 

blend price announced each month is 

for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which has 

a current Class I differential of $2.00. 

Producers whose milk is pooled by 

plants within the $2.00 zone receive the 

announced blend price. Producers 

whose milk is received by plants located 

outside the $2.00 zone receive the 

announced blend price adjusted for the 

location to which delivered. For 

example, a producer whose milk is 

received at a plant located in the $2.15 

zone will receive the announced blend 

price plus $0.15. Therefore, producers 

delivering milk to plants located in the 

areas where the Class I prices are 

proposed to be increased will receive 

more for that milk. Producers supplying 

plants located outside of the proposed 

increased zones will see no change to 

the prices they receive. 

At the hearing, Dean Foods proposed 

that instead of increasing Class I prices 

in the southern region, Class I 

differentials should be decreased in the 

northern regions of the marketing area. 

Dean argued that this would accomplish 

the same goal as the proponents— 

moving milk to deficit plants—without 

increasing costs to consumers through 

higher Class I prices. 

This decision finds no justification for 

such an action. The proposed Class I 

price adjustments represent the location 

value of Class I milk which is largely 

reflective of the costs of servicing fluid 

distributing plants at a particular 

location. The record of this proceeding 

did not examine the location value of 

milk in the northern regions of the 

marketing area and the record contains 

no evidence to indicate that the cost of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP14JA09.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1987 

servicing plants in the northern regions 

of the marketing area has decreased. 

Rulings on Proposed Findings and 

Conclusions 

Briefs and proposed findings and 

conclusions were filed on behalf of 

certain interested parties. These briefs, 

proposed findings and conclusions and 

the evidence in the record were 

considered in making the findings and 

conclusions set forth above. To the 

extent that the suggested findings and 

conclusions filed by interested parties 

are inconsistent with the findings and 

conclusions set forth herein, the 

requests to make such findings or reach 

such conclusions are denied for the 

reasons previously stated in this 

decision. 

General Findings 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth supplement those 

that were made when the Mideast order 

was first issued and when it was 

amended. The previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

confirmed, except where they may 

conflict with those set forth herein. 

(a) The tentative marketing agreement 

and the order, as hereby proposed to be 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

(b) The parity prices of milk as 

determined pursuant to Section 2 of the 

Act are not reasonable in view of the 

price of feeds, available supplies of 

feeds, and other economic conditions 

which affect market supply and demand 

for the milk in the marketing area, and 

the minimum prices specified in the 

tentative marketing agreement and the 

order, as hereby proposed to be 

amended, are such prices as will reflect 

the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient 

quantity of pure and wholesome milk, 

and be in the public interest; and 

(c) The tentative marketing agreement 

and the order, as hereby proposed to be 

amended, will regulate the handling of 

milk in the same manner as, and will be 

applicable only to persons in the 

respective classes of industrial and 

commercial activity specified in, the 

marketing agreement upon which a 

hearing has been held. 

Recommended Marketing Agreement 

and Order Amending the Order 

The recommended marketing 

agreement is not included in this 

decision because the regulatory 

provisions thereof would be the same as 

those contained in the order, as hereby 

proposed to be amended. The following 

order amending the order, as amended, 

regulating the handling of milk in the 

Mideast marketing area is recommended 

as the detailed and appropriate means 

by which the foregoing conclusions may 

be carried out. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1000 and 

1033 

Milk marketing orders. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR Parts 1000 and 1033, 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

parts 1000 and 1033 continues to read 

as follows: 

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

PART 1000—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING 

ORDERS 

2. In § 1000.50 paragraphs (b) and (c) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 1000.50 Class prices, component prices 

and advanced pricing factors. 

* * * * * 

(b) Class I skim milk price. The Class 

I skim milk price per hundredweight 

shall be the adjusted Class I differential 

specified in § 1000.52 plus the 

adjustment to Class I prices specified in 

§ 1005.51(b), § 1006.51(b), § 1007.51(b) 

and § 1033.51 (b) plus the higher of the 

advanced pricing factors computed in 

paragraphs (q)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(c) Class I butterfat price. The Class I 

butterfat price per pound shall be the 

adjusted Class I differential specified in 

§ 1000.52 divided by 100, plus the 

adjustments to Class I prices specified 

in § 1005.51(b), § 1006.51(b), 

§ 1007.51(b) and § 1033.51 (b) divided 

by 100, plus the advanced butterfat 

price computed in paragraph (q) (3) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

PARTS 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST 

MARKETING AREA 

3. Revise § 1033.51 to read as follows: 

§ 1033.51 Class I differential, adjustments 

to Class I prices, and Class I price. 

(a) The Class I differential shall be the 

differential established for Cuyahoga 

County, Ohio, which is reported in 

§ 1000.52. The Class I price shall be the 

price computed pursuant to § 1033.50 

(a) for Cuyahoga County Ohio. 

(b) Adjustments to Class I prices. 

Class I prices shall be established 

pursuant to § 1000.50(a), (b), and (c) 

using the following adjustments: 

State County/parish FIPS Class I price 

adjustment 

IN .................................................................................... ADAMS ............................................................................... 18001 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... ALLEN ................................................................................ 18003 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... BARTHOLOMEW ............................................................... 18005 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... BENTON ............................................................................. 18007 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... BLACKFORD ...................................................................... 18009 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... BOONE ............................................................................... 18011 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... BROWN .............................................................................. 18013 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... CARROLL ........................................................................... 18015 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... CASS .................................................................................. 18017 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... CLAY .................................................................................. 18021 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... CLINTON ............................................................................ 18023 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... DE KALB ............................................................................ 18033 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... DEARBORN ....................................................................... 18029 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... DECATUR .......................................................................... 18031 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... DELAWARE ....................................................................... 18035 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... ELKHART ........................................................................... 18039 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... FAYETTE ........................................................................... 18041 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... FOUNTAIN ......................................................................... 18045 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... FRANKLIN .......................................................................... 18047 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... FULTON ............................................................................. 18049 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... GRANT ............................................................................... 18053 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... HAMILTON ......................................................................... 18057 0.15 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

State County/parish FIPS Class I price 

adjustment 

IN .................................................................................... HANCOCK .......................................................................... 18059 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... HENDRICKS ...................................................................... 18063 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... HENRY ............................................................................... 18065 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... HOWARD ........................................................................... 18067 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... HUNTINGTON .................................................................... 18069 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... JACKSON ........................................................................... 18071 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... JASPER .............................................................................. 18073 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... JAY ..................................................................................... 18075 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... JEFFERSON ...................................................................... 18077 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... JENNINGS ......................................................................... 18079 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... JOHNSON .......................................................................... 18081 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... KOSCIUSKO ...................................................................... 18085 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... LA PORTE .......................................................................... 18091 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... LAGRANGE ........................................................................ 18087 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... LAKE .................................................................................. 18089 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... LAWRENCE ....................................................................... 18093 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... MADISON ........................................................................... 18095 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... MARION ............................................................................. 18097 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... MARSHALL ........................................................................ 18099 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... MIAMI ................................................................................. 18103 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... MONROE ........................................................................... 18105 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... MONTGOMERY ................................................................. 18107 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... MORGAN ........................................................................... 18109 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... NEWTON ............................................................................ 18111 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... NOBLE ............................................................................... 18113 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... OHIO .................................................................................. 18115 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... OWEN ................................................................................ 18119 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... PARKE ............................................................................... 18121 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... PORTER ............................................................................. 18127 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... PULASKI ............................................................................ 18131 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... PUTNAM ............................................................................ 18133 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... RANDOLPH ........................................................................ 18135 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... RIPLEY ............................................................................... 18137 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... RUSH ................................................................................. 18139 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... SHELBY ............................................................................. 18145 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... ST. JOSEPH ...................................................................... 18141 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... STARKE ............................................................................. 18149 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... STEUBEN ........................................................................... 18151 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... SWITZERLAND .................................................................. 18155 0.20 

IN .................................................................................... TIPPECANOE .................................................................... 18157 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... TIPTON .............................................................................. 18159 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... UNION ................................................................................ 18161 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... VERMILLION ...................................................................... 18165 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... VIGO ................................................................................... 18167 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... WABASH ............................................................................ 18169 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... WARREN ............................................................................ 18171 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... WAYNE .............................................................................. 18177 0.15 

IN .................................................................................... WELLS ............................................................................... 18179 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... WHITE ................................................................................ 18181 0.00 

IN .................................................................................... WHITLEY ............................................................................ 18183 0.00 

KY ................................................................................... BOONE ............................................................................... 21015 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... BOYD ................................................................................. 21019 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... BRACKEN .......................................................................... 21023 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... CAMPBELL ........................................................................ 21037 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... FLOYD ................................................................................ 21071 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... GRANT ............................................................................... 21081 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... GREENUP .......................................................................... 21089 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... HARRISON ......................................................................... 21097 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... JOHNSON .......................................................................... 21115 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... KENTON ............................................................................. 21117 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... LAWRENCE ....................................................................... 21127 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... LEWIS ................................................................................ 21135 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... MAGOFFIN ......................................................................... 21153 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... MARTIN .............................................................................. 21159 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... MASON .............................................................................. 21161 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... PENDLETON ...................................................................... 21191 0.20 

KY ................................................................................... PIKE ................................................................................... 21195 0.00 

KY ................................................................................... ROBERTSON ..................................................................... 21201 0.20 

MI .................................................................................... ALCONA ............................................................................. 26001 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ALGER ............................................................................... 26003 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ALLEGAN ........................................................................... 26005 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ALPENA ............................................................................. 26007 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ANTRIM .............................................................................. 26009 0.00 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1989 

State County/parish FIPS Class I price 

adjustment 

MI .................................................................................... ARENAC ............................................................................. 26011 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BARAGA ............................................................................. 26013 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BARRY ............................................................................... 26015 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BAY .................................................................................... 26017 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BENZIE ............................................................................... 26019 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BERRIEN ............................................................................ 26021 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... BRANCH ............................................................................ 26023 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CALHOUN .......................................................................... 26025 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CASS .................................................................................. 26027 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CHARLEVOIX .................................................................... 26029 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CHEBOYGAN ..................................................................... 26031 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CHIPPEWA ........................................................................ 26033 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CLARE ................................................................................ 26035 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CLINTON ............................................................................ 26037 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... CRAWFORD ...................................................................... 26039 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... EATON ............................................................................... 26045 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... EMMET ............................................................................... 26047 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... GENESEE .......................................................................... 26049 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... GLADWIN ........................................................................... 26051 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... GRAND TRAVERSE .......................................................... 26055 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... GRATIOT ............................................................................ 26057 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... HILLSDALE ........................................................................ 26059 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... HOUGHTON ....................................................................... 26061 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... HURON .............................................................................. 26063 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... INGHAM ............................................................................. 26065 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... IONIA .................................................................................. 26067 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... IOSCO ................................................................................ 26069 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ISABELLA ........................................................................... 26073 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... JACKSON ........................................................................... 26075 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... KALAMAZOO ..................................................................... 26077 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... KALKASKA ......................................................................... 26079 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... KENT .................................................................................. 26081 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... KEWEENAW ...................................................................... 26083 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LAKE .................................................................................. 26085 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LAPEER ............................................................................. 26087 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LEELANAU ......................................................................... 26089 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LENAWEE .......................................................................... 26091 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LIVINGSTON ...................................................................... 26093 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... LUCE .................................................................................. 26095 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MACKINAC ......................................................................... 26097 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MACOMB ........................................................................... 26099 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MANISTEE ......................................................................... 26101 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MARQUETTE ..................................................................... 26103 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MASON .............................................................................. 26105 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MECOSTA .......................................................................... 26107 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MIDLAND ........................................................................... 26111 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MISSAUKEE ....................................................................... 26113 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MONROE ........................................................................... 26115 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MONTCALM ....................................................................... 26117 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MONTMORENCY ............................................................... 26119 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... MUSKEGON ....................................................................... 26121 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... NEWAYGO ......................................................................... 26123 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OAKLAND .......................................................................... 26125 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OCEANA ............................................................................ 26127 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OGEMAW ........................................................................... 26129 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OSCEOLA .......................................................................... 26133 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OSCODA ............................................................................ 26135 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OTSEGO ............................................................................ 26137 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... OTTAWA ............................................................................ 26139 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... PRESQUE ISLE ................................................................. 26141 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ROSCOMMON ................................................................... 26143 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... SAGINAW ........................................................................... 26145 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... SANILAC ............................................................................ 26151 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... SCHOOLCRAFT ................................................................ 26153 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... SHIAWASSEE .................................................................... 26155 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ST. CLAIR .......................................................................... 26147 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... ST. JOSEPH ...................................................................... 26149 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... TUSCOLA ........................................................................... 26157 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... VAN BUREN ...................................................................... 26159 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... WASHTENAW .................................................................... 26161 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... WAYNE .............................................................................. 26163 0.00 

MI .................................................................................... WEXFORD ......................................................................... 26165 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... ADAMS ............................................................................... 39001 0.20 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1990 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

State County/parish FIPS Class I price 

adjustment 

OH ................................................................................... ALLEN ................................................................................ 39003 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... ASHLAND ........................................................................... 39005 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... ASHTABULA ...................................................................... 39007 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... ATHENS ............................................................................. 39009 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... AUGLAIZE .......................................................................... 39011 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... BELMONT .......................................................................... 39013 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... BROWN .............................................................................. 39015 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... BUTLER ............................................................................. 39017 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... CARROLL ........................................................................... 39019 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... CHAMPAIGN ...................................................................... 39021 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... CLARK ................................................................................ 39023 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... CLERMONT ....................................................................... 39025 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... CLINTON ............................................................................ 39027 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... COLUMBIANA .................................................................... 39029 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... COSHOCTON .................................................................... 39031 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... CRAWFORD ...................................................................... 39033 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... CUYAHOGA ....................................................................... 39035 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... DARKE ............................................................................... 39037 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... DEFIANCE ......................................................................... 39039 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... DELAWARE ....................................................................... 39041 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... FAIRFIELD ......................................................................... 39045 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... FAYETTE ........................................................................... 39047 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... FRANKLIN .......................................................................... 39049 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... FULTON ............................................................................. 39051 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... GALLIA ............................................................................... 39053 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... GEAUGA ............................................................................ 39055 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... GREENE ............................................................................ 39057 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... GUERNSEY ....................................................................... 39059 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... HAMILTON ......................................................................... 39061 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... HANCOCK .......................................................................... 39063 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... HARDIN .............................................................................. 39065 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... HARRISON ......................................................................... 39067 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... HENRY ............................................................................... 39069 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... HIGHLAND ......................................................................... 39071 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... HOCKING ........................................................................... 39073 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... HOLMES ............................................................................ 39075 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... JACKSON ........................................................................... 39079 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... JEFFERSON ...................................................................... 39081 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... KNOX ................................................................................. 39083 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... LAKE .................................................................................. 39085 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... LAWRENCE ....................................................................... 39087 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... LICKING ............................................................................. 39089 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... LOGAN ............................................................................... 39091 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... LORAIN .............................................................................. 39093 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... LUCAS ................................................................................ 39095 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MADISON ........................................................................... 39097 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MAHONING ........................................................................ 39099 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MARION ............................................................................. 39101 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MEDINA .............................................................................. 39103 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MEIGS ................................................................................ 39105 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MERCER ............................................................................ 39107 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MIAMI ................................................................................. 39109 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MONROE ........................................................................... 39111 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MONTGOMERY ................................................................. 39113 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MORGAN ........................................................................... 39115 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... MORROW .......................................................................... 39117 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... MUSKINGUM ..................................................................... 39119 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... NOBLE ............................................................................... 39121 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... PAULDING ......................................................................... 39125 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... PERRY ............................................................................... 39127 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... PICKAWAY ......................................................................... 39129 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... PIKE ................................................................................... 39131 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... PORTAGE .......................................................................... 39133 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... PREBLE ............................................................................. 39135 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... PUTNAM ............................................................................ 39137 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... RICHLAND ......................................................................... 39139 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... ROSS ................................................................................. 39141 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... SANDUSKY ........................................................................ 39143 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... SCIOTO .............................................................................. 39145 0.20 

OH ................................................................................... SENECA ............................................................................. 39147 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... SHELBY ............................................................................. 39149 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... STARK ................................................................................ 39151 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... SUMMIT ............................................................................. 39153 0.00 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 1991 

State County/parish FIPS Class I price 

adjustment 

OH ................................................................................... TRUMBULL ........................................................................ 39155 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... TUSCARAWAS .................................................................. 39157 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... UNION ................................................................................ 39159 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... VAN WERT ........................................................................ 39161 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... VINTON .............................................................................. 39163 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... WARREN ............................................................................ 39165 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... WASHINGTON ................................................................... 39167 0.15 

OH ................................................................................... WAYNE .............................................................................. 39169 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... WILLIAMS .......................................................................... 39171 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... WOOD ................................................................................ 39173 0.00 

OH ................................................................................... WYANDOT ......................................................................... 39175 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... ALLEGHENY ...................................................................... 42003 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... ARMSTRONG .................................................................... 42005 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... BEAVER ............................................................................. 42007 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... BUTLER ............................................................................. 42019 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... CLARION ............................................................................ 42031 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... CRAWFORD ...................................................................... 42039 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... ERIE ................................................................................... 42049 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... FAYETTE ........................................................................... 42051 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... GREENE ............................................................................ 42059 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... LAWRENCE ....................................................................... 42073 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... MERCER ............................................................................ 42085 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... VENANGO .......................................................................... 42121 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... WASHINGTON ................................................................... 42125 0.00 

PA ................................................................................... WESTMORELAND ............................................................. 42129 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. BARBOUR .......................................................................... 54001 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. BOONE ............................................................................... 54005 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. BROOKE ............................................................................ 54009 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. CABELL .............................................................................. 54011 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. CALHOUN .......................................................................... 54013 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. DODDRIDGE ...................................................................... 54017 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. FAYETTE ........................................................................... 54019 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. GILMER .............................................................................. 54021 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. HANCOCK .......................................................................... 54029 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. HARRISON ......................................................................... 54033 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. JACKSON ........................................................................... 54035 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. KANAWHA ......................................................................... 54039 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. LEWIS ................................................................................ 54041 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. LINCOLN ............................................................................ 54043 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. LOGAN ............................................................................... 54045 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. MARION ............................................................................. 54049 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. MARSHALL ........................................................................ 54051 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. MASON .............................................................................. 54053 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. MINGO ............................................................................... 54059 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. MONONGALIA ................................................................... 54061 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. OHIO .................................................................................. 54069 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. PLEASANTS ...................................................................... 54073 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. PRESTON .......................................................................... 54077 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. PUTNAM ............................................................................ 54079 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. RALEIGH ............................................................................ 54081 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. RANDOLPH ........................................................................ 54083 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. RITCHIE ............................................................................. 54085 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. ROANE ............................................................................... 54087 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. TAYLOR ............................................................................. 54091 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. TUCKER ............................................................................. 54093 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. TYLER ................................................................................ 54095 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. UPSHUR ............................................................................ 54097 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. WAYNE .............................................................................. 54099 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. WETZEL ............................................................................. 54103 0.00 

WV .................................................................................. WIRT .................................................................................. 54105 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. WOOD ................................................................................ 54107 0.20 

WV .................................................................................. WYOMING .......................................................................... 54109 0.20 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: January 8, 2009. 

James E. Link, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–607 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0015] 

RIN 1904–AB86 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products: Public Meeting 

and Availability of the Framework 

Document for Walk-In Coolers and 

Walk-In Freezers; Date Change; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; date change; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on January 6, 2009, of a public 

meeting and availability of the 

framework document regarding energy 

conservation standards for walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers. This notice 

corrects the date of the public meeting, 

the date of the deadline for requesting 

to speak at the public meeting, and the 

date of the deadline for submitting 

written comments on the framework 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2192. e-mail: 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. e-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

Date Change/Corrections 

In the Federal Register of January 6, 

2009, FR Doc. E8–31405, on page 411, 

the following correction is made to the 

DATES section: 

DATES: The Department will hold a 

public meeting on Wednesday, February 

4, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in 

Washington, DC. Any person requesting 

to speak at the public meeting should 

submit such request along with a signed 

original and an electronic copy of the 

statement to be given at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Wednesday, 

January 28, 2009. Written comments on 

the framework document are welcome, 

especially following the public meeting, 

and should be submitted by Thursday, 

February 12, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As noted 

above, DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Wednesday, February 4, 2009, in 

Washington, DC, the purpose of the 

meeting is to discuss the analyses 

presented and issues identified in the 

Framework Document. For additional 

information regarding the document and 

the meeting, the agency refers readers to 

the prior January 6, 2009 notice. 74 FR 

411. 

The Department welcomes all 

interested parties, whether or not they 

participate in the public meeting, to 

submit written comments regarding 

matters addressed in the Framework 

Document, as well as any other related 

issues by February 12, 2009. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 8, 

2009. 

David E. Rodgers, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–591 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 120 

RIN 3245–AF83 

Business Loan Program Regulations: 

Incorporation of London Interbank 

Offered Rate (LIBOR) Base Rate and 

Secondary Market Pool Interest Rate 

Changes 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

ACTION: Interim Final Rule, notice of 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: SBA is reopening the 

comment period for an additional 90 

days. 

DATES: Comments on the interim final 

rule on Business Loan Program 

Regulations: Incorporation of London 

Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Base 

Rate and Secondary Market Pool Interest 

Rate Changes, must be received on or 

before April 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 3245–AF83, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Grady 

Hedgespeth, Director, Office of 

Financial Assistance, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20416. 

All comments will be posted on 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish 

to include within your comment 

confidential business information (CBI) 

as defined in the Privacy and Use 

Notice/User Notice at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and you do not 

want that information disclosed, you 

must submit the comments by either 

Mail or Hand Delivery and you must 

address the comment to Grady 

Hedgespeth, Director, Office of 

Financial Assistance. In the submission, 

you must highlight the information that 

you consider to be CBI and explain why 

you believe this information should be 

held confidential. SBA will make a final 

determination, in its discretion, of 

whether information is CBI and, 

therefore, the comments will not be 

published. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Grady Hedgespeth, Director, Office of 

Financial Assistance, 202–205–7562, or 

grady.hedgespeth@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 13, 2008, SBA published in 

the Federal Register an interim final 

rule permanently adding a base rate of 

LIBOR for lenders to use when pricing 

7(a) loans and allowing for secondary 

market loan pools to be formed with 

weighted average coupon rates. (73 FR 

67099). This rule was added to help 

ensure continued availability of capital 

to small businesses and to improve 

liquidity in and efficiency of the 

secondary market for SBA loans. The 

original comment period ended on 

December 15, 2008. SBA is reopening 

the comment period for a limited time 

until April 14, 2009 in order to solicit 

additional comments as our lending 

partners and secondary market 

participants continue to implement the 

two changes allowed in the interim final 

rule. Some SBA partners are still 

updating their systems to incorporate 

LIBOR based loans. SBA’s recently 

published Procedural Notice No. 5000– 

1081: One Month LIBOR Plus 3 Percent 

Allowed as SBA Base Rate (Nov. 14, 

2008) and SBA Information Notice: 

Implementation of SBA’s Addition of 

LIBOR Plus 3 Percent as a Base Rate 

(Nov. 20, 2008), both of which can be 

found at http://www.sba.gov. 

Additionally, procedures for weighted 

average coupon pools were recently 

released by SBA. SBA Procedural Notice 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS