This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

66929

Vol. 60, No. 248

Wednesday, December 27, 1995

1The Louisville-Lexington-Evansville order was

dropped from Proposals 4 and 5, as contained in the

hearing notice, at the hearing.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1007

[Docket No. AO–366–A37; AO–388–A9, et

al.; DA–95–22]

Milk in the Carolina and Certain Other

Marketing Areas; Recommended

Decision and Opportunity to File

Written Exceptions on Proposed

Amendments to Marketing Agreements

and Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document recommends

adoption of proposed amendments that

would modify certain location

adjustments under the Southeast

Federal milk marketing order. The

recommended decision denies a

proposal to provide a fluid milk

surcharge during the period of

November 1995 through March 1996

and a transportation credit on bulk milk

purchased for 6 Federal milk orders in

the Southeastern United States. The

recommendations are based on the

record of a public hearing held in

Atlanta, Georgia, on September 19,

1995.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

January 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments (four copies)

should be filed with the Hearing Clerk,

Room 1083, South Building, United

States Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

Order Formulation Branch, USDA/

AMS/Dairy Division, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

administrative action is governed by the

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of

Title 5 of the United States Code and,

therefore, is excluded from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601–612) requires the Agency to

examine the impact of a proposed rule

on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator of the

Agricultural Marketing Service has

certified that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The proposed amendments would

promote orderly marketing of milk by

producers and regulated handlers.

The amendments to the rules

proposed herein have been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, 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), 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

file with the Secretary a petition stating

that the order, any provision of the

order, or any obligation imposed in

connection with the order is not in

accordance with the law and requesting

a modification of an order or to be

exempted from the order. A handler is

afforded the opportunity for a hearing

on the petition. After a hearing, the

Secretary would rule on the petition.

The Act provides that the district court

of the United States in any district in

which the handler is an inhabitant, or

has its principal place of business, has

jurisdiction in equity to review the

Secretary’s ruling on the petition,

provided a bill in equity is filed not

later than 20 days after the date of the

entry of the ruling.

Prior Documents in This Proceeding:

Notice of Hearing: Issued August 11,

1995; published August 17, 1995 (60 FR

42815).

Supplemental Notice of Hearing:

Issued September 8, 1995; published

September 13, 1995 (60 FR 47495).

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 agreements and the orders

regulating the handling of milk in the 7

Federal milk marketing areas in the

Southeastern United States. 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

Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, by

the 30th day after publication of this

decision in the Federal Register. Four

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 proposed amendments set forth

below are based on the record of a

public hearing held at Atlanta, Georgia,

on September 19, 1995, pursuant to a

notice of hearing issued August 11, 1995

(60 FR 42815), and a supplemental

notice of hearing issued September 8,

1995 (60 FR 47495).

The material issues on the record of

the hearing relate to:

1. Whether the location adjustment at

Hammond, Louisiana, should be

increased by 7 cents under Order 7.

2. Whether the location adjustment at

Mobile, Alabama, should be reduced by

7 cents under Order 7.

3. Whether a transportation credit for

supplemental milk should be adopted

for Orders 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.1

4. Whether a fluid milk surcharge

should be provided on a temporary

basis for Orders 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13.

5. Whether emergency marketing

conditions in the 6 regulated areas

warrant the omission of a recommended

decision and the opportunity to file

written exceptions thereto.

Findings and Conclusions

The following findings and

conclusions on the material issues are

based on evidence presented at the

hearing and the record thereof:

1. Whether the Location Adjustment at

Hammond, Louisiana, Should be

Increased by 7 Cents Under Order 7

The location adjustment in the

portion of Tangipahoa Parish,
66930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2Baker is 10 miles north of Baton Rouge. Both

Baker and Baton Rouge are in East Baton Rouge

Parish, which is within Zone 12 of the marketing

area.

Louisiana, south of State Highway 16,

should be increased from plus 50 cents

to plus 57 cents. The 7-cent price

increase applies to both Class I prices

applicable to handlers and blend prices

applicable to producers. However, for

the sake of simplicity, the price increase

is discussed in terms of the Class I

differential.

The vice-president of fluid milk

marketing and economic analysis for

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. (Mid-Am),

proposed the 7-cent higher location

adjustment at Hammond, Louisiana,

which is located in the southern portion

of Tangipahoa Parish. He stated that the

7-cent location adjustment increase

would provide a $3.65 Class I

differential price at Hammond, the same

price applicable at Baton Rouge and

New Orleans.

The representative explained that

Mid-Am is a cooperative owned by

approximately 18,000 dairy farmers and

a major supplier of distributing plants

pooled on the Southeast Federal milk

marketing order (Order 7). He testified

that in southeast Louisiana Mid-Am has

a full supply agreement with 5 of the 6

plants in the New Orleans/Baton Rouge/

Hammond area and a partial supply

agreement with the 6th plant. In August

1995, he indicated, Mid-Am represented

55.9 percent of both the Class I sales and

total producer milk pooled on Order 7.

The Mid-Am representative stated

that the final decision for the Southeast

order that was issued on May 3, 1995

(60 FR 25014), established a price of

$3.58 at Hammond and a price of $3.65

at Baton Rouge and New Orleans,

Louisiana. The representative argued

that the 7-cent difference in price

provides a competitive sales advantage

to the plant located in Hammond while

its ability to procure milk is no different

than plants located in Baton Rouge.

According to the Mid-Am

representative, the milk supply for

plants in Hammond and Baton Rouge

comes from direct-ship milk produced

in Louisiana’s ‘‘Florida parishes’’ (i.e.,

Tangipahoa, Washington, St. Tammany,

St. Helena, Livingston, East Feliciana,

and East Baton Rouge). He contended

that the 7-cent lower price at Hammond

is not justified since the per

hundredweight rate paid to local milk

haulers who deliver milk to Baton

Rouge and Hammond is the same. He

elaborated further that the rate per

hundredweight that is charged

producers in the Florida parishes is the

same whether the producer’s milk is

delivered to Hammond or Baton Rouge

or even New Orleans. Thus, he asserted,

competing handlers in the New Orleans/

Hammond/Baton Rouge area should

have the same Class I differential price

because the cost of procuring milk at

each of these locations is the same.

The assistant operations manager for

Fleming Dairy, which operates two

distributing plants in the Southern

United States, testified in support of the

proposal to equalize Class I prices

adjusted for location at Hammond,

Baton Rouge, and New Orleans,

Louisiana. Alternatively, the witness

stated, Fleming would support a 7-cent

price reduction at Baton Rouge and New

Orleans, which also would equalize the

Class I differential prices at these

locations. He testified that equal and

uniform Class I differential prices are

justified for these locations for

competitive reasons.

The Fleming witness indicated that

100 percent of the raw milk supply

delivered to its distributing plant in

Baker, Louisiana,2 is produced by dairy

farmers located within 45 miles of the

plant. He stated that a higher Class I

price at one location compared to

another suggests a greater shortage or

need to attract milk from distant supply

areas. However, the witness indicated,

southern Louisiana has an abundant

supply of milk available and has had to

regularly transfer milk to Florida during

short production months to supplement

Florida’s raw milk requirements.

Additionally, he argued, handlers

located in Hammond should not have a

competitive advantage over Baton Rouge

handlers because both locations are

approximately the same distance to New

Orleans, the primary population center

of southern Louisiana.

According to the Fleming witness, the

Secretary’s Final Decision issued May 3,

1995, justifying the lower price in

Hammond compared to Baton Rouge or

New Orleans was based on mistaken

conclusions of facts and

miscommunications within the newly

enlarged cooperative association (MidAm). The witness also stated that

marketing conditions in the Southern

United States have changed since the

merger hearing was held in 1993. He

explained that a single farmer-owned

cooperative now controls the milk

supply for southern Louisiana, as

opposed to three or four competing

cooperatives which previously supplied

this area. Accordingly, he agreed with

Mid-Am that the difference in price for

these locations is not justified because

there is no freight difference in

supplying New Orleans, Hammond, and

Baton Rouge with raw milk. Thus, he

urged the Secretary to correct the price

disparity at Hammond immediately.

Fleming reiterated support for the 7-

cent location adjustment increase at

Hammond, Louisiana, in its posthearing brief. Gold Star Dairy, Inc. (Gold

Star), Little Rock, Arkansas, also

supported the proposed 7-cent location

adjustment increase at Hammond in a

post-hearing brief. Gold Star stated that

the 7-cent increase will correct an

unintended inequity problem in the

Southeast order. There was no

opposition to the proposed increase at

the hearing or in post-hearing briefs.

The proposed 7-cent higher location

adjustment in the southern portion of

Tangipahoa Parish should be adopted to

provide the same prices at pool

distributing plants located at Hammond

and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. These

plants are located within a major

production area of the market and

procure their milk supplies from the

same nearby farms. As a result, the rates

paid to haulers to transport milk to

Hammond compared to Baton Rouge are

the same because the mileage from

producers’ farms to the various plants is

essentially the same. Thus, the value of

producer milk delivered to Hammond

should be no less than the value of such

milk delivered to Baton Rouge.

Therefore, the southern portion of

Tangipahoa Parish should be moved to

Zone 12, as proposed, to provide a 7-

cent higher price at Hammond.

2. Whether the Location Adjustment at

Mobile, Alabama, Should be Reduced

by 7 Cents Under Order 7

The location adjustment at Mobile,

Alabama, should be reduced from plus

57 cents to plus 50 cents.

A witness appearing on behalf of

Barber Pure Milk Company (Barber) and

Dairy Fresh Corporation (Dairy Fresh)

proposed the 7-cent reduction in the

location adjustment at Mobile, Alabama.

The witness stated that Barber and Dairy

Fresh operate pool distributing plants

under Order 7. He said the Barber plant

at Mobile and the Dairy Fresh plant at

Prichard, Alabama, are located within

20 miles of the Mobile City Hall and

handle approximately 8.5 to 9.5 million

pounds of milk per month.

The witness for Barber and Dairy

Fresh contended that the Southeast

order, which became effective July 1,

1995, established pricing zones that

created cost inequities for the Barber

Mobile plant and the Dairy Fresh

Prichard plant with other Order 7 pool

plant handlers. He argued that the final

decision lowered the Class I price

adjusted for location for Barber and

Dairy Fresh competitors while the price

at Mobile remained unchanged at $3.65.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66931

He claimed that the 7-cent difference is

a substantial amount and that Barber

and Dairy Fresh cannot continue to

operate as viable business entities with

the current pricing situation. The

proposed $3.58 Class I differential price

is the price applicable for most of Barber

and Dairy Fresh’s competitors and is

sufficient to attract an adequate supply

of milk to the Mobile area, he asserted.

The Barber/Dairy Fresh witness also

indicated that the market structure in

the Southeastern United States had

changed since the merger hearing was

held in 1993. He stated that several

plants had closed or changed ownership

and that one new large state-of-the-art

Class I plant had recently opened.

Several cooperatives serving the

Southeast marketing area at the time of

the hearing have now joined Mid-Am,

resulting in Mid-Am being the major

supply organization in the market, he

added.

The witness explained that one key

change that has occurred since the 1993

merger hearing is that Barber now

receives its entire milk supply from

Mid-Am and approximately 2.8 million

pounds are for its Mobile plant. He

added that Dairy Fresh purchases about

92 percent of its milk from nonmembers

and the remainder from Mid-Am. The

milk supply for both plants is from

producers located in the same general

area, he said, while the Class I

distribution area of the Mobile and

Prichard plants is primarily along the

Gulf Coast stretching west from Mobile

to Hancock County, Mississippi, east

from Mobile to Tallahassee, Florida, and

northeast from Mobile to Montgomery

County, Alabama. The witness argued

that the proposed price change is

needed to equalize prices between

Mobile-area handlers and handlers

located in the Upper Florida order. He

urged the Department to lower the

location adjustment by 7 cents at

Mobile, Alabama, thus changing the

location adjustment from a plus 57 cents

to a plus 50 cents.

A post-hearing brief filed on behalf of

Barber and Dairy Fresh reiterated their

support for the proposed 7-cent lower

location adjustment. The brief pointed

out that witnesses at the hearing

testified that 7 cents per hundredweight

is a significant amount for Class I milk.

The handlers asserted that the adoption

of the proposal would align the Mobile

price with the price applicable in the

northern portion of the Upper Florida

order.

At the hearing and in its post-hearing

brief, Gold Star opposed the 7-cent

lower location adjustment at Mobile,

Alabama, but presented no testimony or

evidence to support its position. There

was no other opposition testimony.

The location adjustment at Mobile,

Alabama, should be reduced by 7 cents

to provide a price of $3.58 by

eliminating the Zone 12 island around

Mobile in what is otherwise a Zone 11

region. The city of Mobile, Alabama, is

within Mobile County, which is in Zone

11 of the Southeast order. Unlike the

rest of Mobile County, the 20-mile

radius area surrounding the city of

Mobile is now part of Zone 12, which

is priced 7 cents above Zone 11.

The record of this hearing indicates

that changes in procurement patterns

have occurred since the 1993 hearing

and that the original reason for placing

the Mobile handlers in the 7-cent higher

pricing zone—i.e., to insure the two

Mobile handlers of an adequate supply

of milk—is no longer an over-riding

consideration. The record of this

hearing indicates that the Barber plant

at Mobile now has a full supply contract

with Mid-America Dairymen, Inc.,

thereby eliminating any concern that the

handler had about obtaining an

adequate supply of milk.

Although the Dairy Fresh plant at

Prichard still receives a majority of its

milk from nonmember producers, there

was no testimony at the hearing from

any cooperative association

representative or any nonmember

producer and no post-hearing briefs to

indicate that the plant would not be able

to maintain its milk supply with the

proposed 7-cent lower Class I price.

Accordingly, it must be concluded that

no valid purpose is served by pricing

the Mobile area at its current $3.65 Class

I differential price. A 7-cent lower price

at Mobile will properly align the prices

at Mobile with the Florida panhandle,

which has a Class I differential price of

$3.58, as well as with counties directly

east and west of Mobile, which are also

priced at $3.58. Most importantly, the

record indicated that the lower price at

Mobile would not jeopardize the supply

of milk at the Barber or Dairy Fresh

plants.

3. Whether a Temporary Transportation

Credit for Supplemental Milk Should be

Adopted for Orders 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and

13

The proposed amendment to provide

a transportation credit for bulk milk

received by transfer from a plant

regulated under another Federal order

for Orders 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 during

the period of July 1995 through

February 1996 should be denied. The

cooperatives withdrew their pre-hearing

request to amend the LouisvilleLexington-Evansville Federal milk

marketing order.

The transportation credit was

proposed by the Dairy Cooperative

Marketing Association, Inc. (DCMA),

whose members include Arkansas Dairy

Cooperative, Associated Milk Producers,

Inc., Carolina-Virginia Milk Producers,

Inc., Cooperative Milk Producers, Inc.,

Florida Dairy Farmers Association, Inc.,

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., and

Tampa Independent Dairy Farmers

Association, Inc. These cooperatives

represent the vast majority of milk

pooled in the 6 marketing areas.

A spokesman for DCMA testified that

a shortage of milk in the Southeast has

been brought about by lower prices,

rising costs, and extreme weather

conditions in most areas of the

Southeast. According to the spokesman,

many factors, including extreme heat

and drought conditions, contributed to

the decline in milk production in the

Southeast. He indicated that milk

production in Florida declined by 15

percent or more during 1995. During

August 1995, he noted, producer milk

pooled on the 6 Federal milk orders was

down approximately 15 million pounds

from volumes pooled during August

1994 in comparable Federal orders.

The DCMA spokesman stated that the

percentage of producer milk allocated to

Class I under the 6 orders has increased,

while total producer milk pooled under

the orders has decreased. During July

and August 1995, the spokesman

indicated, the pounds of milk purchased

as transfers from other Federal order

plants exceeded 30 and 74 million,

respectively.

According to the witness, current

milk production of producers pooled on

the 6 southeastern orders will be

insufficient to meet fluid requirements.

He argued that the current Federal order

minimum Class I price structure has not

and will not attract an adequate supply

of locally-produced milk. Some

handlers and/or cooperatives, he

complained, will incur the cost of

obtaining needed supplemental supplies

from distant marketing areas.

Additionally, he claimed, those

producers who are responsible for

supplying the needs of the market will

pay the cost of bringing in supplemental

milk. This will result in such producers

not receiving uniform prices for their

milk, he said.

The DCMA spokesman stated that the

proposal would provide a temporary

transportation credit to handlers who

purchase supplemental milk allocated

to Class I use from plants regulated

under other Federal milk marketing

orders. Milk received on a requested

Class II or III basis or milk that is simply

allocated to Class II or III would not

receive the transportation credit, he
66932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

said. He explained that the rate of the

hauling credit would be 3.9 cents per

hundredweight per 10 miles, based on

the distance between the shipping and

receiving plants, less any positive

difference between the Class I

differential applicable at the receiving

plant and the Class I differential

applicable at the shipping plant. The

rate of 3.9 cents per hundredweight per

10 miles is reflective of the actual cost

of hauling milk, he claimed.

The DCMA spokesman testified that

the transportation credit should be

made effective beginning July 1, 1995,

and extend through February 29, 1996.

Applying the transportation credit

retroactively is appropriate, he argued,

because of the substantial amount of

supplemental milk purchased during

the months of July and August.

However, he recommended that the

amount of money deducted from the

pool for transportation credits each

month be limited to 150 percent of the

funds generated by the proposed Class

I price surcharge for the month. This

approach would spread the pricereducing impact of the transportation

credits over the proposed 7-month

period. DCMA reiterated its position in

a post-hearing brief.

The marketing specialist of the

Southern Region of Associated Milk

Producers, Inc. (AMPI), testified in

support of the DCMA’s proposed

transportation credits for emergency

relief. According to the representative,

AMPI’s Southern Region represents

approximately 3,000 Grade A dairy

farmers located throughout the

Southwest United States, with the

greatest concentration of milk

production in Texas and New Mexico.

He indicated that AMPI also now has a

substantial quantity of producer milk

marketed on the Southeast order each

month that was associated with the

former Central Arkansas Federal milk

order (Order 108).

The AMPI representative stated that

AMPI assisted in supplying

supplemental milk to the Southeast

during the extreme milk shortage. He

testified that from August 23 through

September 10 AMPI delivered 10 loads

of milk per day to Schepps Dairy,

Dallas, Texas, to allow Mid-Am to

reroute an equivalent amount of milk to

southeastern handlers from the Mid-Am

reload facility in Sulphur Springs,

Texas. A total of 193 loads of milk were

delivered to Schepps, he noted.

The AMPI spokesman stated that

AMPI supplied approximately 8.8

million pounds of supplemental milk

during July and August, which includes

milk delivered to Schepps, as well as

milk transferred directly into the

Southeast marketing area. He said that

AMPI charged the purchasing handler

or cooperative $2.00 per hundredweight

for this service and that the buyer paid

the freight charge.

A representative for Fleming Dairy

(Fleming), Nashville, Tennessee,

testified in support of the proposed

transportation credit, but recommended

certain modifications. He agreed with

the testimony of DCMA that the

Southeast had suffered an unusual milk

supply crisis since early August and

that it would be equitable to provide a

method to reimburse those who have

served the market by incurring

extraordinary costs to bring

supplemental milk into the region from

distant supply markets. He said that

Fleming is supplied primarily by

independent producers, but receives

supplemental supplies from Mid-Am.

During the last week of August, he

indicated, Fleming obtained milk

supplies from the New Mexico-West

Texas and Upper Midwest marketing

areas to meet its fluid demand due to

the insufficient supply of locallyproduced milk.

According to the Fleming

representative, some additional

supplemental milk may be required

through October, but the period of

greatest crisis and demand is now over.

Thus, he stated, Fleming would favor a

transportation credit through the month

of October.

The Fleming spokesman testified that

supplemental shipments of milk in late

summer and fall are a recurring feature

of the southeastern marketing areas, and

transportation credits in some form

would be justified as a permanent

feature of the orders for the months of

July through October. However, he

recommended that the transportation

credit only apply for distances that

exceed 100 miles. He said the Secretary

should determine whether the proposed

3.9-cent rate is justified.

The Fleming representative also

observed that this is the first year in

which there has been a significant need

for supplemental milk in the southeast

region from the north-central region

since the adoption of Class III–A

pricing. The witness stated that the

transportation credit should not be

granted to a handler or cooperative

association that has any milk assigned

to Class III–A during the same period of

time. In addition, he said, Class III–A

pricing should be suspended for the

Southeast region and neighboring

marketing areas in the northeast and

north-central regions when there is a

clear demand for milk for Class I use

that is not being met. Class III–A , he

stressed, was adopted to permit the

orderly disposition of excess milk when

another use for the milk was not

available, not as a bargaining lever to

extract high give-up costs when the

need for fluid milk is great.

Fleming’s post-hearing brief reiterated

its qualified support for transportation

credits. The brief stated that

transportation credits for past services

of marketwide benefit are consistent

with the 1985 amendments to the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act.

The transportation credits, Fleming

contended, are necessarily retroactive

because the application for credit comes

only after a service has been rendered.

The president of Southern Belle Dairy

(Southern Belle) Somerset, Kentucky,

testified in opposition to the proposed

transportation credit. The representative

stated that Southern Belle is a pool

plant regulated under the Tennessee

Valley Federal milk order. He explained

that Southern Belle receives its milk

supply from Southeastern Graded Milk

Producers, Milk Marketing, Inc., and

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. He said

Southern Belle also receives

supplemental milk supplies from

Armour Foods.

According to the Southern Belle

representative, during the crisis period

Southern Belle purchased 2 loads of

milk in Buffalo, New York, at a give-up

charge of $5.50 per hundredweight. He

said that, under the DCMA proposal,

Southern Belle would receive a

transportation credit of approximately

$1,500, but claimed that the proposed 5-

cent per hundredweight surcharge to

pay for the transportation credits would

force Southern Belle to pay an amount

far in excess of its $1,500 credit.

In a post-hearing brief, Southern Belle

reiterated its opposition to the

retroactive application of the

transportation credit but did not support

or oppose the prospective issuance of

the credit for supplemental milk

purchased during months of very short

production. The brief also argued that

the record evidence shows that the

‘‘crisis’’ was due to Mid-Am’s inability

to properly manage its sales of milk and

to recover adequate over-order

premiums to cover the costs of

purchasing supplemental milk supplies.

Finally, Southern Belle argued that the

retroactive application of the proposed

transportation credit would encourage

cooperatives to request relief for a

problem that no longer exists.

The general manager of Gold Star

Dairy (Gold Star), Little Rock, Arkansas,

also testified in opposition to the

proposed transportation credit at the

hearing. In its post-hearing brief, Gold

Star opposed any retroactive application

of the transportation credit but did not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66933

support or oppose the issuance of the

credit for Class I milk purchased during

months of very short production.

Gold Star contended that there is no

record evidence to support DCMA’S

argument that supplemental milk would

be needed beyond October. According

to Gold Star’s brief, the last year of

shipments into the southeast region

from Wisconsin was in 1992, a year in

which shipments began in mid-August

and extended to October. The brief also

argued that shipments from Wisconsin

in 1995 probably have peaked already

and that no shipments will likely be

needed after October.

Gold Star and Southern Belle argued

that the Secretary does not have the

authority to issue rules that would have

a retroactive effect. Moreover, even if he

did, they contend, such authority would

invite the post-crisis demand for

modifications of the rules to alleviate

problems that may no longer exist.

A brief filed on behalf of Land-O-Sun

Dairies, Inc. (Land-O-Sun), opposed the

proposed transportation credit. Land-OSun stated that it operates pool plants

regulated under Orders 5 and 11 in

Spartanburg, South Carolina, and

Kingsport, Tennessee, respectively. The

handler also indicated it operates an

Order 5 partially regulated plant in

Portsmouth, Virginia.

Land-O-Sun argued that the Secretary

lacks the authority to grant rules

regarding transportation credits that

would have a retroactive effect absent

the expressed statutory language.

According to Land-O-Sun, the

Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) issued a rule in 1984

which applied to a cost reimbursement

calculation method and tried to recoup

costs that were incurred prior to the

effective date of the 1984 rule. However,

Land-O-Sun noted, in the case of Bowen

v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488

U.S. 204 (1988), the Supreme Court

invalidated the retroactive feature of the

HHS rule.

Land-O-Sun contends that the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act,

as amended, is wholly silent on the

issue of retroactive powers vested in the

Secretary. It argues that in 1986 the

Secretary did not have the authority to

implement retroactively the Class I

differentials mandated by the 1985 Farm

Bill and, by the same token, does not

now have the authority to implement

the proposed transportation credits

retroactively.

Land-O-Sun argues that even if the

Secretary had the authority to impose

the retroactive transportation credits, he

should deny this request because the

problem should have been addressed

through private business agreements.

The Land-O-Sun brief states that the

proposed credit penalizes both handlers

who procured their own supplies and

producers not involved in bringing in

supplemental supplies. Finally, Land-OSun stated that there is significant

competition between Order 5 plants and

plants located in Florida, Georgia,

Tennessee, Virginia, and Kentucky and

that the 5-cent higher surcharge for

Order 5 compared to Orders 7 and 11

would place Order 5 handlers at a

competitive disadvantage.

Milkco, Inc. (Milkco), a fully

regulated handler under Order 5, filed a

post-hearing brief in opposition to the

proposed transportation credit because

of its retroactive effect. Milkco stated

that if a transportation credit is granted,

it should apply to the same months that

an emergency fluid milk surcharge

would be applicable.

After carefully evaluating the record

evidence and the post-hearing briefs, we

must conclude that during the summer

of 1995 there was a need for

supplemental milk for Class I use in all

of the 6 orders and that this need was

particularly acute for the Carolina and 3

Florida orders. Furthermore, the record

clearly shows that the burden of

bringing in supplemental milk to satisfy

fluid milk demand fell, almost

exclusively, on the cooperative

associations supplying these markets.

The record also shows that during the

months of July and August 1995 overorder charges were either non-existent

or—where they did exist—appeared to

be inadequate to compensate the

cooperatives for the costs which they

incurred.

It may be true, as opponents argue,

that price adjustments should not be

made to compensate for prior marketing

costs. Any pool plant operator that

obtained milk on a direct-shipped

basis—at whatever cost it had to pay—

during July through September of 1995

would not be eligible for a credit under

the DCMA proposal; yet the handler

would now be asked to pay a higher

Class I price to subsidize someone else’s

supplemental milk expense.

Opponents argued that the Secretary

lacks the authority to retroactively apply

the proposals. Ultimately, this question

can only be clarified in a court of law.

However, in this proceeding the

threshold question of whether or not the

proposals are supported by the record

precludes any subsequent debate

concerning their legality.

While the record clearly showed that

a great deal of milk was brought into the

6 markets, it lacked comparable data for

earlier years from which to measure the

magnitude of this year’s problem. As

can be seen in Table 1, for example,

there was clearly much more bulk milk

imported to the Carolina and Florida

markets for Class I use in August of

1995 compared to August 1993, but this

picture is less clear in comparing the

bulk imports for the Southeast market in

August 1995 compared to August 1994,

and the comparison is virtually

impossible for the Tennessee Valley

market because of the restrictions on the

data. Also, while the record data

unequivocally demonstrated a

significant drop in production for some

of the markets involved in this

proceeding, it was less demonstrative

for some of the other markets involved.

For example, while producer receipts in

the Southeastern Florida market were

down by 8.5 percent in July (compared

to July 1994), they were up by 19

percent during July 1995 in the

Tennessee Valley market. Similarly, in

August 1995 producer receipts were

down (compared to a year earlier) in 4

of the 6 markets, but they were up by

4 percent in Order 7 and by 2 percent

in Order 11.

TABLE 1.—MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF BULK FLUID MILK PRODUCTS FROM OTHER ORDER PLANTS

[Not Requested for Class II or III Use, July–August, 1993–1995]

7/93 8/93 7/94 8/94 7/95 8/95

Order 5 ............................................................................. 2.3 1.8 R R 1.7 12.3

Orders 6, 12, and 13 ........................................................ 2.4 17.3 R 15.8 16.3 32.9

Order 7 ............................................................................. 4.1 12.3 6.9 27.6 10.5 29.7

Order 11 ........................................................................... .8 R 0 R R 5.2

R = Data restricted. Less than 3 handlers involved.
66934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The record also was lacking in detail

with respect to cooperatives’ over-order

charges. In the Florida markets, where

such charges were in effect during the

summer months, there is no indication

how much, if any, of the premium is

supposed to cover the cost of bringing

supplemental milk to the market. It was

also unclear how this year’s

transportation and give-up costs

compared to prior years.

A transportation credit, with or

without an accompanying surcharge,

might have merit in these seasonallydeficit markets where no other means

exist to recoup costs of servicing the

market. However, the specific proposals

under consideration in this proceeding

are not supported by the weight of

evidence in the record.

4. Whether a Fluid Milk Surcharge

Should be Provided on a Temporary

Basis for Orders 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13

The proposal to impose a Class I

surcharge in each of the 6 orders to pay

for the proposed transportation credits

should not be adopted.

A spokesman for DCMA proposed a

fluid milk surcharge for the 6 Federal

milk marketing orders for the period of

November 1, 1995, through March 31,

1996. The spokesman requested that the

proposed amendment not be considered

for the Louisville-Lexington-Evansville

Federal milk order. The DCMA

spokesman estimated that a temporary

fluid milk surcharge would generate

enough money to fund the out-of-pocket

transportation costs incurred by

handlers during the period of July 1,

1995, through March 31, 1996. This

money would be returned to dairy

farmers through the blend price by the

added specified rate to the Class I

differential for each order, he stated.

The representative testified that

DCMA’s revised proposal would

provide a fluid milk surcharge of 5 cents

per hundredweight for Orders 7 and 11,

10 cents per hundredweight for Order 5,

20 cents per hundredweight for Order 6,

25 cents for Order 12, and 30 cents for

Order 13.

According to the DCMA

representative, these proposed

temporary surcharges are designed to

help assure that an adequate supply of

milk will be made available to meet the

fluid needs of the 6 orders. The

representative proposed that the fluid

milk surcharge for each order become

effective November 1, 1995, and extend

through March 1996. The November 1

effective date is needed to provide

adequate advance notice, he stated.

The assistant operations manager for

Fleming testified in support of the

proposed fluid milk surcharge. He

stated that Fleming favors a surcharge to

offset the cost of the transportation

credit for the extraordinary

supplemental milk costs incurred by

cooperatives during the months of July

through October, but said that the

surcharge and the transportation credit

should be coordinated for each market.

Fleming reiterated its qualified support

for the proposed fluid milk surcharge in

its post-hearing brief.

The controller of Coburg Dairy

(Coburg), an Order 5 pool plant located

in North Charleston, South Carolina,

testified in support of the proposed

fluid milk surcharge at a rate of 10 cents

per hundredweight for Order 5. The

witness indicated that Coburg purchases

its raw milk supply from Edisto Milk

Producers Association, a cooperative

which purchases raw milk from

Carolina Virginia Milk Producers

Association and, on the spot market,

from brokers. He stated that Coburg has

distribution throughout South Carolina,

southeastern Georgia, and parts of North

Carolina.

The director of milk procurement and

marketing for Dean Foods Company

(Dean Foods) testified in opposition to

DCMA’s proposed fluid milk surcharge.

According to the witness, Dean Foods is

the largest fluid milk processor in the

United States and owns and operates

plants in Kentucky, Florida, and

Athens, Tennessee.

The witness for Dean Foods stated

that weather conditions in the southeast

region caused milk supply shortages in

the region in late August and early

September. As a result, he indicated,

supplemental milk was purchased from

outside the region. The witness claimed

that there has been and continues to be

a shortage of milk in portions of the

southeast region and that Dean Foods

had adjusted its bottling schedule to

accommodate the temporary shortage.

However, he said, the Dean Foods plant

at Athens, Tennessee, currently has an

adequate supply of milk available to

meet the plant’s needs.

According to the witness, Dean Foods

and other processors in the State of

Florida agreed in June to accept a 73-

cent per hundredweight increase in

over-order premiums to help producers

recover some of the costs for

transporting supplemental milk into the

region. Dean Dairies in Florida has

agreed to a 40-cent increase for the

month of October, he indicated. The

witness also testified that processors in

Florida have been paying from $1.00 to

$1.75 per hundredweight in over-order

premiums. Additionally, he stated, Dean

Foods, Athens, Tennessee, agreed to 15-

cent and 20-cent per hundredweight

increases in over-order premiums for

the months of September and October,

respectively.

The witness for Dean Foods stressed

that negotiations between buyers and

sellers of milk remain the best

mechanism to recover the costs

associated with purchasing

supplemental milk. He argued that the

Federal Order system was not designed

to remedy short-term aberrations in the

market or provide relief to cooperatives

for poor business decisions.

The general manager for Gold Star

also testified in opposition to the

proposed fluid milk surcharge for the 6

Federal milk marketing orders. The

witness indicated that Gold Star is a

handler regulated under the Southeast

order but that a significant portion of its

sales are in the Texas marketing area. If

the surcharge were imposed, Gold Star

would be at a competitive disadvantage

compared to handlers regulated under

the Texas order, he claimed, because

those handlers would not be subject to

the surcharge. These arguments were

reiterated in Gold Star’s post-hearing

brief.

The representatives of Gold Star and

Southern Belle claimed that the

proposed fluid milk surcharge would

have an impact on each handler’s fluid

milk sales. The representatives argued

that in an industry where most sales are

determined on fractions of a cent per

gallon, the handlers would not be able

to pass the cost on to its customers in

areas where its competing handlers

would not be subject to the surcharge.

The Southern Belle representative stated

that Southern Belle competes with

handlers located in Ohio, Kentucky,

West Virginia, Indiana, and Virginia, all

of whom would not be subject to the

surcharge.

Southern Belle also filed a posthearing brief in opposition to the

proposed fluid milk surcharge. Southern

Belle stated that the crisis, if there was

one, is now over for the Tennessee

Valley marketing area. Southern Belle

also indicated that it acquired its own

supplemental milk without the

assistance of cooperatives and no longer

needs any supplemental milk. The

handler added that it should not be

required to pay an additional amount

for its milk to compensate producers or

cooperatives for services that it did not

receive and will not need.

Tillamook County Creamy

Association (Tillamook), a cooperative

association located in Tillamook,

Oregon, opposed the proposed fluid

milk surcharge at the hearing and in its

post-hearing brief. Tillamook contended

that the continued existence of Class IIIA pricing was and is a major

contributing factor to any perceived
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66935

problem of production and delivery of

Grade A milk into the Southeast during

the past summer.

Tillamook indicated that the amount

of milk allocated to Class III-A in Orders

5, 11, and 46 was about 1.4 million

pounds in August 1995 compared to 270

thousand pounds in August 1994, and

further noted that Federal Order 7 had

approximately 2.1 million pounds of

milk allocated to Class III-A in August

1995. Additionally, Tillamook pointed

out that record data indicates that while

handlers and cooperatives located in the

Southeast were purchasing

supplemental milk supplies from as far

as Minnesota and El Paso, significant

volumes of milk were being allocated to

Class III-A in Federal Orders 4 (Middle

Atlantic marketing area), 33 (Ohio

Valley marketing area), 36 (Eastern

Ohio-Western Pennsylvania marketing

area), 40 (Southern Michigan marketing

area), and 126 (Texas marketing area).

Tillamook recommended that the

Secretary suspend Class III-A pricing

nationwide to free up milk needed for

fluid use in the Southeast and to

continue uniform pricing throughout

the Federal order program. The

cooperative claimed that the fluid milk

surcharge benefits a small portion of the

dairy industry, while the suspension or

alteration of Class III-A on an emergency

basis would increase all dairy farmers’

income. Therefore, Tillamook urged the

Secretary to deny the proposed fluid

milk surcharge and grant relief on Class

III-A immediately.

In a post-hearing brief, Milkco

opposed the revised proposal for a fluid

milk surcharge for the 6 Federal milk

orders, specifically the 10-cent

surcharge for Order 5. Milkco indicated

that it has approximately 44.5 percent of

its total Class I sales in the Southeast

and Tennessee Valley marketing areas.

It stated that the proposed amendment

would require it to pay 5 cents per

hundredweight more than handlers

regulated under Orders 7 and 11.

Accordingly, Milkco contended, the

amount of the surcharge should be the

same for Orders 5, 7, and 11.

The Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act, as amended, clearly

authorizes the Secretary to include

provisions for payments to handlers that

provide facilities to furnish additional

supplies of milk needed by the market,

but the Act does not provide for an

automatic increase in the Class I price

to offset such payments. If there had

been a stronger record supporting

adoption of the proposed transportation

credit, the balance might have weighed

in favor of taking the action for a

temporary period of time. However, the

evidence presented by the handler

opposition to the proposals, in

conjunction with the lack of clarity in

the record concerning the magnitude of

the problem and any needed increase in

Class I prices, leads us to conclude that

the transportation credit should not be

adopted and, consequently, the Class I

surcharge to pay for the transportation

credit need not and should not be

adopted either.

5. Whether Emergency Marketing

Conditions in the 6 Regulated Areas

Warrant the Omission of a

Recommended Decision and the

Opportunity to File Written Exceptions

Thereto

Proponents of Proposals 1–2 and 4–5

requested that the Secretary handle

these issues on an expedited basis by

omitting a recommended decision and

the opportunity to file exceptions

thereto.

The request for emergency treatment

is denied. In view of the denial of

Proposals 4 and 5, no benefit would be

gained in omitting a recommended

decision. In fact, the interests of

proponents would be furthered by

providing them with an opportunity to

file exceptions to this recommended

decision.

Although proponents of Proposals 1

and 2 also requested emergency

consideration of their proposals at the

hearing and no objections were

expressed either at the hearing or in

post-hearing briefs, interested parties

were not notified of the possible

expedited handling of these proposals

in the hearing notice that was issued. In

view of this, and in conjunction with

the normal handling of Proposals 4 and

5, the request for emergency treatment

with respect to Proposals 1 and 2 also

is denied.

Non-material Issue: Correction to

§ 1007.50(d). Paragraph (d) of Section 50

of the Southeast order should be

corrected to reflect the appropriate order

language. The changes resulting from

the 27-market Class III-A proceeding

(DA–91–13) and included in the

December 31, 1993, Federal Register at

58 FR 63286 were adopted by reference

at 60 FR 25036 in the final decision for

the Southeast order. However, in the

process of preparing the final decision

and final order for the Southeast

marketing area, the revised language in

§ 1007.50(d) was inadvertently

overlooked.

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 orders were

first issued and when they were

amended. The previous findings and

determinations are hereby ratified and

confirmed, except where they may

conflict with those set forth herein.

The following findings are hereby

made with respect to the Southeast

tentative marketing agreement and

order:

(a) The tentative marketing agreement

and the order, as hereby proposed to be

amended, and all of the terms and

conditions thereof, will tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

(b) The parity prices of milk as

determined pursuant to section 2 of the

Act are not reasonable in view of the

price of feeds, available supplies of

feeds, and other economic conditions

which affect market supply and demand

for milk in the aforesaid marketing area,

and the minimum prices specified in

the tentative marketing agreement and

the order, as hereby proposed to be

amended, are such prices as will reflect

the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient

quantity of pure and wholesome milk,

and be in the public interest; and

(c) The tentative marketing agreement

and the order, as hereby proposed to be

amended, will regulate the handling of

milk in the same manner as, and will be

applicable only to persons in the

respective classes of industrial and

commercial activity specified in, a

marketing agreement 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

Southeast marketing area is

recommended as the detailed and

appropriate means by which the

foregoing conclusions may be carried

out.
66936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 248 / Wednesday, December 27, 1995 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1007

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the following provisions in 7

CFR part 1007, are proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 1007—MILK IN THE SOUTHEAST

MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1007 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1007.2 [Amended]

2. In § 1007.2, Zone 11, the words

‘‘(more than 20 miles from the Mobile

city hall)’’ are removed following the

word ‘‘Mobile’’ and the words ‘‘(north of

State Highway 16)’’ are added following

the word ‘‘Tangipahoa’’.

3. In § 1007.2, Zone 12, the words

‘‘Alabama counties: Mobile (within 20

miles of the Mobile city hall).’’ are

removed and the words ‘‘Tangipahoa

(south of State Highway 16)’’ are added

following the word ‘‘St. Mary,’’.

§ 1007.50 [Amended]

4. In § 1007.50(d), the words ‘‘value

per hundredweight of 3.5 percent milk

and rounded to the nearest cent, and

subject to the adjustments set forth in

paragraph (c) of this section for the

applicable month’’ are removed and the

words ‘‘times 35 and rounded to the

nearest cent’’ are added in their place.

Dated: December 18, 1995.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–31272 Filed 12–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1755

Telecommunications Program—

Postloan Engineering Service Contract

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS), successor to the Rural

Electrification Administration (REA),

hereby proposes to amend its contract

for the procurement of postloan

engineering services for

telecommunications systems. This

action would codify the terms and

conditions of the agreement to be

executed between RUS

telecommunications borrowers and

consulting engineering firms hired to

design and oversee construction of

telecommunications facilities financed

with RUS financing assistance. Several

years have passed since these

regulations were last amended and

changes in common contract language

have occurred. These amendments

would allow contracts to be more

consistent with common practice.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by RUS or carry a postmark or

equivalent by January 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Orren E. Cameron,

III, Director, Telecommunications

Standards Division, Rural Utilities

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Ag Box 1598, 14th and Independence

Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250–1598.

RUS requires a signed original and 3

copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.30

(e)). Comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Orren E. Cameron III, Director,

Telecommunications Standards

Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Ag Box

1598, Washington, DC 20250–1598,

telephone number (202) 720–8663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and

therefore has not been reviewed by

OMB.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If adopted, this

proposed rule will not: (1) Preempt any

State or local laws, regulations, or

policies, unless they present an

irreconcilable conflict with this rule; (2)

Have any retroactive effect; and (3)

Require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit challenging

the provisions of this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Administrator of RUS has

determined that the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

does not apply to this rule.

Information Collection and

Recordkeeping Requirements

The reporting and recordkeeping

requirements contained in the proposed

rule were approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as

amended) under control number 0572–

0059.

Send questions or comments

regarding this burden or any other

aspect of these collections of

information, including suggestions for

reducing the burden, to F. Lamont

Heppe, Jr., Deputy Director, Program

Support Staff, Rural Utilities Service, Ag

Box 1522, Washington, DC 20250–1522.

National Environmental Policy Act

Certification

RUS has determined that this

proposed rule will not significantly

affect the quality of the human

environment as defined by the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, this

action does not require an

environmental impact statement or

assessment.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The program described by this

proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance Programs

under 10.851, Rural Telephone Loans

and Loan Guarantees. This catalog is

available on a subscription basis from

the Superintendent of Documents, the

United States Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402–9325.

Executive Order 12372

This proposed rule is excluded from

the scope of Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Consultation. A

Notice of Final Rule entitled

Department Programs and Activities

Excluded from Executive Order 12372

(50 FR 47034) exempts RUS loans and

loan guarantees to governmental and

nongovernmental entities from coverage

under this Order.

National Performance Review

This regulatory action is being taken

as part of the National Performance

Review program to eliminate

unnecessary regulations and improve

those that remain in force.

Background

Pursuant to 7 CFR part 1753, subpart

B, RUS telecommunications borrowers

must use a contract to procure

engineering services for design and

construction of facilities which qualify

as ‘‘major’’ under that part. The contract

required is the RUS Form 217, Postloan

Engineering Services Contract.

The Form 217 contract was developed

by REA (predecessor to RUS) to meet

the specific requirements of rural

telecommunications borrowers, and to

meet the objectives of the RE Act. It

contains provisions to facilitate the use

of RUS-required contract forms for the

procurement of outside plant, central

office equipment, special transmission

equipment, and exchange switching

equipment buildings. Most of the past