7432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

districts and how the redefined districts

will rectify these inequities.

District

Current

district

(percent)

Redefined

district

(percent)

1 ................................ 11.02 13.54

2 ................................ 13.24 13.24

3 ................................ 15.57 15.00

4 ................................ 1.79 12.20

5 ................................ 4.52 12.03

6 ................................ 12.19 8.59

7 ................................ 34.25 14.65

8 ................................ 7.41 10.75

Under the new boundaries, county

lines will be kept intact as boundaries

except in Tulare and Butte Counties.

This final rule will remove Glenn, Lake,

Colusa, Sonoma, Yolo, Solano, Del

Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino,

Napa, and Marin Counties from District

4 and add them to District 1.

Sacramento, El Dorado and Amador

Counties will be removed from District

5 and added to District 1. Nevada and

Placer Counties will be removed from

District 2 and added to District 1. Sierra

County will be removed from District 3

and added to District 1. In Butte County,

the town of Gridley will remain as a

whole district—District 2. Calaveras,

Tuolumne, Contra Costa, Alpine, San

Francisco, and Alameda Counties will

be removed from District 5 and added

to District 4. Mono and Mariposa

Counties will be removed from District

6 and added to District 4. Kings County

will be removed from District 6 and

added to District 5. Inyo County will be

removed from District 7 and added to

District 6. Tulare County will be divided

into four districts. District 5 will include

Tulare County north of Highway 198 to

the Kings County boundary. District 6

will include Tulare County south of

Highway 198 to Avenue 56, excluding

the west side of Highway 65 between

Highway 137 and Avenue 56. District 7

will include Tulare County west of

Highway 65 between Highway 137 and

Avenue 56, and District 8 will include

Tulare County south of Avenue 56.

Committee members serve 2-year

terms of office beginning August 1, with

about one-half of the membership

selected each year. Of the current

members, seven members are serving

terms of office that expire on July 31,

1995, and five members are serving

terms of office that expire on July 31,

1996. The committee recommended that

all of the present committee members

continue to serve through July 31, 1995,

and that this redistricting be effective

for nominations for all members to serve

for terms beginning August 1, 1995.

One-half of the committee members

selected for terms of office beginning

August 1, 1995, will serve one-year

terms and the other half will serve twoyear terms, with the determination of

the terms for each member to be decided

by lot.

The one voter in opposition to the

recommendation wanted to allocate the

additional three committee members

and their alternates to the three districts

with the highest number of growers

rather than to the three districts with the

highest production. However, the

marketing order requires that the three

additional members and alternates be

allocated to the highest producing

districts.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on December 9, 1994 [59 FR

63731], with a 30 day comment period

ending January 9, 1995. No comments

were received.

Based on the above, the Administrator

of the AMS has determined that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register [5

U.S.C. 553] because: 1) Nomination

procedures begin in March for those

members and alternates to be selected

for terms beginning in 1995; 2) Handlers

are aware of this rule, which was

recommended by the committee at a

public meeting; and 3) a 30-day

comment period was provided for in the

proposed rule and no adverse comments

were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 920.131 is added to read

as follows:

§ 920.131 Redistricting of kiwifruit

districts.

Pursuant to § 920.31 (l) the districts

are redefined as follows:

(a) District 1 shall include the

counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc,

Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen,

Mendocino, Tehama, Plumas, Glenn,

Lake, Colusa, Sonoma, Yolo, Solano,

Napa, Marin, Sacramento, Sierra,

Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, and

Butte (with the exception of that area set

aside as ‘‘District 2’’).

(b) District 2 shall include the 95948

postal zip code area known as Gridley

in Butte County, and the area

surrounding Gridley, incorporating the

area located within the following

boundaries: The area west of the Feather

River; north of the Butte/Sutter County

line; east of Pennington and Riley

Roads; and south of Farris Road, Ord

Ranch Road and Gridley Avenue.

(c) District 3 shall include the

counties of Sutter and Yuba.

(d) District 4 shall include the

counties of San Francisco, San Mateo,

Santa Cruz, Contra Costa, Alameda,

Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito, San

Joaquin, Calaveras, Alpine, Mono,

Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Merced,

Mariposa, Madera, and Fresno.

(e) District 5 shall include Kings

county and that portion of Tulare

County north of Highway 198.

(f) District 6 shall include Inyo County

and that portion of Tulare County south

of Highway 198 to Avenue 56,

excluding the west side of Highway 65

between Highway 137 and Avenue 56.

(g) District 7 shall include that portion

of Tulare County of Tulare west of

Highway 65 and between Highway 137

and Avenue 56.

(h) District 8 shall include of Kern,

San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,

Ventura, San Bernardino, San Diego,

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Diego, Imperial Counties and that

portion of Tulare County south of

Avenue 56.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–3148 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–W

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, 1046

[DA–95–06]

Milk in the Carolina, Georgia,

Tennessee Valley, and LouisvilleLexington-Evansville Marketing Areas;

Suspension of Certain Provisions of

the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7433

ACTION: Suspension of rules.

SUMMARY: This document extends a

suspension of certain provisions of the

Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee Valley,

and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville

Federal milk orders from March 1, 1995,

through February 28, 1996, or until the

conclusion of an amendatory

proceeding (DA–94–12) which

addressed these matters.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued November 21, 1994; published

November 25, 1994 (59 FR 60572).

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 rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule lessens the regulatory burden

on small entities by removing pricing

disparities that are causing or could

cause financial hardship for certain

regulated plants.

The Department is issuing this final

rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have a retroactive effect. This rule

will 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 provisions 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.

This order of suspension is issued

pursuant to the provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

and of the order regulating the handling

of milk in the Carolina, Georgia,

Tennessee Valley, and LouisvilleLexington-Evansville marketing areas.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

November 25, 1994 (59 FR 60572),

concerning a proposed suspension of

certain provisions of the orders.

Interested persons were afforded

opportunity to file written data, views

and arguments thereon. One comment

supporting and three comments

opposing the proposed suspension were

received.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposal in the

notice, the comments received, and

other available information, it is hereby

found and determined that for the

period of March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1996, the following

provisions of the order do not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act:

1. In § 1005.7(d)(3) of the Carolina

order, the words ‘‘from’’, ‘‘there’’, ‘‘a

greater quantity of route disposition,

except filled milk, during the month’’,

and ‘‘than in this marketing area’’;

2. In § 1007.7(e)(3) of the Georgia

order, the words ‘‘, except as provided

in paragraph (e)(4) of this section,’’;

3. In § 1007.7 of the Georgia order,

paragraph (e)(4);

4. In § 1011.7(d)(3) of the Tennessee

Valley order, the words ‘‘from’’, ‘‘there’’,

‘‘a greater quantity of route disposition,

except filled milk, during the month’’,

and ‘‘than in this marketing area’’; and

5. In § 1046.2 of the LouisvilleLexington-Evansville order, the word

‘‘Pulaski’’.

Statement of Consideration

This document extends an existing

suspension that has been in effect since

March 1, 1994. This suspension allows

a distributing plant operated by Land-OSun Dairies, Inc., at Kingsport,

Tennessee, that is located within the

Tennessee Valley marketing area and

that meets all of the pooling standards

of the Tennessee Valley order (Order 11)

to be regulated under that order rather

than the Carolina order (Order 5)

despite the plant having greater sales in

the Carolina marketing area. It also

allows a distributing plant operated by

Southern Belle Dairy Company, Inc.,

located at Somerset, Kentucky, that has

been regulated under the Tennessee

Valley order for the past five years to

remain regulated there even if it

develops greater sales in the LouisvilleLexington-Evansville (Order 46)

marketing area. In addition, the

suspension allows a supply plant

operated by Armour Food Ingredients at

Springfield, Kentucky, that has been

supplying the Southern Belle plant to

remain pooled under the Tennessee

Valley order without having to make

uneconomic shipments of milk that it

contends would be necessary to remain

pooled if the Somerset plant were

regulated under Order 46.

The problems prompting the existing

suspension of these provisions were

thoroughly explained in a suspension

order (DA–93–29) issued on March 28,

1994 (published April 1, 1994 (59 FR

15315)). In that document, it was noted

that ‘‘orderly marketing will be best

preserved by adopting the proposed

suspension, for a 12-month period only,

to allow the industry time to develop

proposals for a hearing to be held before

the suspension period expires.’’

[emphasis added]

Due to significant changes that have

occurred in these markets within the

past year, the Department was delayed

in holding the promised hearing until

January 4, 1995. (The one-day hearing

was held in Charlotte, North Carolina.)

Advised that the Department would be

unable to evaluate the hearing record

and amend the orders by the time the

current suspension expires on February

28, both Southern Belle Dairy Company

and Land-O-Sun Dairies, Inc., who were

proponents of the existing suspension,

submitted requests to extend the current

suspension until the amendatory

proceeding was concluded.

Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. (MidAmerica) and Southern Milk Sales, on

behalf of their member-producers who

deliver producer milk to plants

regulated under the Orders 5, 7, 11, and

46, filed a comment letter supporting

the continued suspension. Coburg Dairy

Inc. (Coburg), Edisto Milk Producers

Association, and Purity Dairies, Inc.

(Purity), filed comment letters in

opposition to the continued suspension.

Coburg and Edisto reiterated their

opposition to the existing suspension

and questioned the rationale for

continuing it, but offered no opposition

testimony to proposals at the hearing

that would permanently regulate the

Land-O-Sun and Southern Belle plants

under Order 11. Purity Dairies, a

Nashville, Tennessee, handler that is

regulated under the Georgia order

(Order 7), stated that it cannot procure

milk from its traditional supply area in
7434 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1The Nashville, Tennessee, order was terminated

effective July 31, 1993.

central Kentucky in competition with

Armour and Southern Belle because its

blend price in Nashville is no longer

competitive with the Order 11 blend

price.

While it is true that Purity’s blend

price under Order 7 and former 1 Order

98 (Nashville, Tennessee) was

frequently close to or below the Order

11 blend price during the months of

December 1993 through April 1994, data

introduced into the record of the

Charlotte hearing indicate that since

May 1994 the Nashville-Springfield

price relationship has returned to a

more normal pattern, as shown in the

Table 1.

TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF BLEND

PRICES: JANUARY 1992–NOVEMBER

1994 NASHVILLE, TN (ORDER 98/

7)—SPRINGFIELD, KY (ORDER 11)

Average

blend

price at

Nashville, TN,

under

order

98/7

Average

blend

price at

Springfield,

KY,

under

order 11

Difference

1/92–11/93 13.85 13.58 .26

12/93–4/94 14.22 14.33 ¥.11

5/94–11/94 14.01 13.72 .28

If Purity has difficulty in attracting a

milk supply, it should direct its concern

to the open record for the proposed

Southeast marketing area, which

encompasses the Nashville area.

There was no testimony at the January

4 hearing in opposition to either the

continuation of the current suspension

or to the Southern Belle proposals,

which, as noted above, effectively

would allow Southern Belle, and

therefore Armour, to be permanently

regulated under Order 11.

Accordingly, it is necessary to

suspend the aforesaid provisions from

March 1, 1995, through February 28,

1996, or until such earlier time as an

order amending the aforesaid orders is

issued on the basis of the January 4,

1995, hearing record.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005,

1007, 1011, and 1046

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the following provisions in

Title 7, Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, and

1046, are amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1005, 1007, 1011, and 1046

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

PART 1005—MILK IN THE CAROLINA

MARKETING AREA

§ 1005.7 [Suspended in part]

2. In § 1005.7(d)(3), the words ‘‘from’’,

‘‘there’’, ‘‘a greater quantity of route

disposition, except filled milk, during

the month’’, and ‘‘than in this marketing

area’’ are suspended from March 1,

1995, through February 28, 1996;

PART 1007—MILK IN THE GEORGIA

MARKETING AREA

§ 1007.7 [Suspended in part]

3. In § 1007.7(e)(3), the words ‘‘,

except as provided in paragraph (e)(4) of

this section,’’ are suspended from March

1, 1995, through February 28, 1996;

4. In § 1007.7, paragraph (e)(4) is

suspended from March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1996;

PART 1011—MILK IN THE TENNESSEE

VALLEY MARKETING AREA

§ 1011.7 [Amended]

5. In § 1011.7(d)(3), the words ‘‘from’’,

‘‘there’’, ‘‘a greater quantity of route

disposition, except filled milk, during

the month’’, and ‘‘than in this marketing

area’’ are suspended from March 1,

1995, through February 28, 1996; and

PART 1046—MILK IN THE

LOUISVILLE-LEXINGTON-EVANSVILLE

MARKETING AREA

§ 1046.2 [Amended]

6. In § 1046.2 of the LouisvilleLexington-Evansville order, the word

‘‘Pulaski’’ is suspended from March 1,

1995, through February 28, 1996.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–3143 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 1050

[DA–95–09]

Milk in the Central Illinois Marketing

Area; Suspension of Certain

Provisions of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Suspension of rule.

SUMMARY: This document suspends the

aggregate limits on the amount of

producer milk that may be diverted

from a pool plant under the Central

Illinois Federal milk marketing order for

an indefinite period beginning with the

month of January 1995. The proposal

was submitted by Prairie Farms Dairy,

Inc., and Associated Milk Producers,

Inc. Both cooperatives contend the

suspension is necessary to ensure that

producers historically associated with

the market will continue to have their

milk pooled under the order without

having to move milk uneconomically.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1932.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

document in this proceeding:

Notice of Proposed Suspension:

Issued December 28, 1994; published

January 4, 1995 (60 FR 379).

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 rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This rule lessens the regulatory impact

of the order on certain milk handlers

and tends to ensure that dairy farmers

will continue to have their milk priced

under the order and thereby receive the

benefits that accrue from such pricing.

The Department is issuing this final

rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have a retroactive effect. This rule

will 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 provisions 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