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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7435

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 Central Illinois marketing

area.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

January 4, 1995 (60 FR 379), concerning

a proposed suspension of the aggregate

diversion limits for a pool distributing

plant regulated under Order 50.

Interested persons were afforded

opportunity to file written data, views

and arguments thereon. No comments

were received.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposal in the

notice and other available information,

it is hereby found and determined that

for an indefinite period beginning

January 1, 1995, the following provision

of the order does not tend to effectuate

the declared policy of the Act:

In § 1050.13(d)(2), the words ‘‘:

Provided, That the total quantity of

producer milk diverted does not exceed

35 percent of the physical receipts of

producer milk at the handler’s pool

plant during the month, exclusive of

milk of producers who are members of

a cooperative association that is

diverting milk and the milk of other

producers that is diverted pursuant to

paragraph (d)(3) of this section’’.

Statement of Consideration

This rule suspends the aggregate limit

on the amount of milk that may be

diverted from a pool plant during the

months of August through April. At the

present time, for each day’s production

of a producer’s milk that is delivered to

a pool plant during these months,

another day’s production may be

diverted to a nonpool plant. However,

in addition to this individual producer

limit, there is an aggregate limit of 35

percent that applies to the total amount

of milk that a pool plant operator may

divert during the month. The

suspension removes this 35 percent

aggregate limit, effectively increasing

the aggregate limit to 50 percent of a

pool plant operator’s total producer

receipts during the month.

In their letter requesting the

suspension, Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

(Prairie Farms) and the Morning Glory

Farms region of Associated Milk

Producers, Inc. (AMPI), explained that

Prairie Farms now operates the only

distributing plant under the Central

Illinois order (Order 50) and that both

cooperatives supply milk to this plant,

which is located in Peoria. For several

reasons, including the availability of

abundant quantities of good quality

feed, milk production is up

substantially in recent months

compared to the same period of last

year. This has resulted in both

cooperatives having to divert additional

milk to nearby unregulated

manufacturing plants on weekends,

holidays, and other days when the

Peoria plant is not in operation.

Prairie Farms and AMPI state that the

suspension will allow them to continue

to balance the supply of milk needed at

the Peoria plant while at the same time

eliminate the need to haul milk in and

out of the plant merely to keep their

milk pooled under the order.

Market statistics indicate that the

average daily milk marketed per farm in

the Central Illinois marketing area

during August through November 1994

was about 300 pounds greater than for

the same period in 1993. This increase

in production, in conjunction with the

single pool plant outlet available in this

market, supports a suspension of the

aggregate diversion limitations for an

indefinite period so that producers

whose milk has long been associated

with the Central Illinois marketing area

will continue to benefit from pooling

and pricing under the order.

It is hereby found and determined

that thirty days’ notice of the effective

date hereof is impractical, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest in

that:

(a) The suspension is necessary to

reflect current marketing conditions and

to assure orderly marketing conditions

in the marketing area, in that such rule

is necessary to permit the continued

pooling of the milk of dairy farmers who

have historically supplied the market

without the need for making costly and

inefficient movements of milk;

(b) This suspension does not require

of persons affected substantial or

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date; and

(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking

was given interested parties and they

were afforded opportunity to file written

data, views or arguments concerning

this suspension. No comments were

received.

Therefore, good cause exists for

making this order effective less than 30

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1050

Milk marketing orders.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the following provision in

Title 7, Part 1050, is amended as

follows:

PART 1050—MILK IN THE CENTRAL

ILLINOIS MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1050 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stat 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 1050.13 [Suspended in part]

Note: This amendment will not be

published in the annual Code of Federal

Regulations.

2. In § 1050.13(d)(2), the words ‘‘:

Provided, That the total quantity of

producer milk diverted does not exceed

35 percent of the physical receipts of

producer milk at the handler’s pool

plant during the month, exclusive of

milk of producers who are members of

a cooperative association that is

diverting milk and the milk of other

producers that is diverted pursuant to

paragraph (d)(3) of this section’’ are

suspended for an indefinite period

beginning January 1, 1995.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–3149 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 1212

[FV–93–707FR]

RIN 0581–AB19

Lime Research, Promotion, and

Consumer Information Order;

Amendments

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Lime

Research, Promotion, and Consumer

Information Order. These amendments

revise the definition of the term ‘‘lime’’

in order to cover seedless rather than

seeded limes; increase the exemption

level from less than 35,000 pounds

annually to less than 200,000; alter the

size, composition, and term of office of

the Lime Board; and make necessary

conforming changes. This document is

necessary to implement amendments to

the Lime Research, Promotion, and

Consumer Information Act of 1990.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Richard Schultz, Research

and Promotion Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, Room 2535–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456.