This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

9689

Vol.63, No. 37

Wednesday, February 25, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1002, 1004,

1005, 1006, 1007, 1012, 1013, 1030,

1032, 1033, 1036, 1040, 1044, 1046,

1049, 1050, 1064, 1065, 1068, 1076,

1079, 1106, 1124, 1126, 1131, 1134,

1135, 1137, 1138 and 1139

[DA–97–12]

Milk in the New England and Other

Marketing Areas; Proposed Rule and

Opportunity to File Comments,

Including Written Exceptions, on

Proposed Amendments to Marketing

Agreements and Orders

Correction

In proposed rule document 98–1758,

beginning on page 4802 in the issue of

Friday, January 30, 1998, page 4954 was

inadvertently omitted. The online

version is correct. Page 4954 should

read as follows:

* * * * *
9690 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 37 / Wednesday, February 25, 1998 / Proposed Rules

administrators be given the authority to

adjust shipping requirements in all

orders.

A number of comments addressed the

issue of where a plant should be

regulated and whether there should be

a ‘‘lock-in’’ provision which would keep

a distributing plant regulated under the

order where it is located rather than

where it may have the most sales. SDFA

supports the adoption of lock-in

provisions in the consolidated southeast

orders. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. states

that pool distributing plants should be

regulated where located rather than

where route disposition occurs. Another

cooperative association, Milk Marketing

Inc. (MMI), states that competition for

local milk supply and a competitive pay

price with neighboring plants is much

more important to both producers and

processors than a price that is

competitive with other plants that

compete for sales in a given area.

Therefore, MMI recommends regulating

a distributing plant in the market where

it is located rather than on the location

of its sales. MMI contends that the

Federal milk order program should be

concerned with attracting milk to a

plant, not the retail location. The

cooperative states that plants in

unregulated areas should continue to be

regulated based on sales areas. Some comments received addressed

supply plant requirements. SDFA

recommends that for the southeastern

orders the supply plant shipping

requirement be 60% of a plant’s receipts

during July through November and 40%

during December through June.

However, SDFA also acknowledges that

specific exceptions to this principle may

be necessary to accommodate specific

needs and should be considered on a

case by case basis. SDFA states that supply plant

performance requirements should not be

changed in an effort to allow all Grade

A milk to be included in a marketwide

pool. Such a change, it contends, would

result in disorderly marketing and

jeopardize the viability of local

supplies. SDFA requested year-round

shipping requirements for supply plants

under Orders 5, 6, and 7.

SDFA also states that automatic

pooling should be provided for

manufacturing or receiving plants

located in the marketing area if the plant

is operated by a cooperative association,

but only if the cooperative has a

substantial association with the market.

MMI maintains that southeastern

orders would be well-served by

provisions which allow reserve supply

plants in the North and West to

participate in higher blend prices

throughout the year, in exchange for

greater assurance of a milk supply in the

short production months when

additional milk is needed. Land O’Lakes

(LOL) recommended the elimination of

shipping requirements for supply

plants, but suggested that supply plant

operators make a commitment to supply

the market when additional milk is

needed. LOL also supports the adoption

of a ‘‘call’’ provision in each order that

would allow the market administrator to

require supply plant shipments on an

as-needed basis.

Another cooperative operating in the

Southeast wrote that reserve supply

plant qualification should be based on

total cooperative performance but that

such plants should not be required to be

located in the marketing area. This

cooperative contends that if a

cooperative is performing a balancing

function for the market, it should not be

discriminated against just because its

plant is not located in the marketing

area.

Suggestions were also received

concerning certain specialty plants that

are located in the Southeast. SDFA

recommended amending the route

disposition definition to accommodate a

specialty fluid milk plant in

Jacksonville that disposes of long shelf

life dairy products. SDFA states that

although a large portion of its fluid

supply is disposed for Class I use,

because of the nature of its business, it

is likely that the plant would not meet

the 50% route disposition requirement

for pool status. Proposal: The Secretary proposes that

the pool plant provisions for the

Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast

orders under consideration should

closely follow the provisions now

contained in the southeast orders. The

performance standards proposed are

appropriate for the needs of these

seasonally-deficit markets. Section 7(a) of each Federal milk

order describes the pooling standards

for a distributing plant. To qualify for

pooling under each of the 3 orders, a

distributing plant must dispose of 50

percent of the total fluid milk products

received at the plant as route

disposition. In addition, at least 10

percent of the plant’s receipts must be

disposed of as route disposition in the

marketing area. These standards would

indicate that a distributing plant is

closely associated with the fluid market

and, therefore, should be part of the

marketwide pool. Paragraph (b) of Section 7 would

accommodate the pooling of plants that

specialize in aseptically-packaged

products. There are at least two such

plants in the southeast markets: the

Ryan Foods Company plants in

Jacksonville, Florida and Murray,

Kentucky. Unlike a typical distributing plant, a

plant specializing in aseptically

packaged products may have a more

erratic processing schedule, reflecting

the longer shelf life of the products

packaged at the plant. Consequently, a

plant’s Class I utilization may vary

considerably from month to month. In

the past, such variability has resulted in

shifting pool status for some of these

plants from one order to another. In

some months, the plant may have been

partially regulated, even though all of

the milk received at the plant was

priced under the order. This type of

regulatory instability is not conducive to

orderly marketing. To guarantee greater

regulatory stability for these plants, they

should be fully regulated pool plants if

they are located in the marketing area

and have route disposition in the

marketing area. However, if the plant

has no route disposition in the

marketing area during the month, the

plant operator may request nonpool

status for the plant. The Secretary proposes that each of

the three orders also should specify

pooling standards for a supply plant.

For the Appalachian and Southeast

orders, a supply plant must ship at least

50 percent of the milk physically

received during the month from dairy

farmers and cooperative bulk tank

handlers. In the case of the Florida

order, the shipping percentage should

be slightly higher at 60 percent. Unlike supply plant provisions in

other orders, the supply plant

provisions in the three southeast orders

should not recognize shipments directly

from producers’ farms as qualifying

shipments for a supply plant. At the

present time, there are no plants

qualifying as ‘‘pool supply plants’’

under any of the southeast orders. Almost all of the plants that balance

the fluid needs of the Southeast are

operated by cooperative associations.

These ‘‘balancing plants’’ qualify for

pooling based upon the performance of

the cooperative association and not

based upon shipments from the plant

alone. The Secretary proposes that

balancing plant provisions should be

maintained for the three southeast

orders.

A balancing plant may qualify based

upon shipments directly from

producers’ farms as well as shipments

from the plant. To qualify as a balancing

plant, the plant must be located within

the order’s marketing area. This

requirement ensures that milk pooled

through the balancing plant is

economically available to processors of

fluid milk if needed. However, in the

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D