Opinion ID: 757355
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Responsibilities of the Secretary Regarding Amendment

Text: 27 We hold that the AMAA has not spoken directly to the specific issue of when and how the Secretary should seek to amend the Class I differentials prescribed by Congress in § 608c(5). Section 608c(5)(A) provides that its differentials will remain unchanged unless modified by amendment to the order involved. However, it does not require the Secretary to propose or adopt any such amendment within any particular time. Moreover, the plain language of the statute weighs against the MMPA's assertion that [t]he 1985 Act only relieved the Secretary of the duty of monitoring the Class I prices for compliance with the § 608c(18) pricing mandates for the two years in which the Act explicitly prohibited modification, Appellees' Br. (in Nos. 97-4145, 97-4241) at 32, even accepting its contention that the 1985 amendments were implemented within an Act designed to permanently reduce surplus production of milk. Appellees' Br. (in Nos. 97-4220, 97-4224, 97-4226, 97-4331, 97-4334, 97-4361, 97-4362) at 22. 28 The crux of the MMPA's argument lies in § 608c(18) of the statute, but this reliance is misplaced. Section 608c(18) lays down requirements that the Secretary must meet before changing or amending marketing agreements or orders: prior to prescribing any term in any marketing agreement or order, or amendment thereto, ... or prior to modifying the price fixed in any such term. In that case--that is, when the Secretary wishes to amend an order--he must then: 29 ascertain the parity prices of [the milk]. The prices which it is declared to be the policy of Congress to establish in section 602 of this title [setting forth goals of statute] shall ... be adjusted to reflect the price of feeds, the available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk or its products in the marketing area to which the contemplated marketing agreement, order, or amendment relates. Whenever the Secretary finds ... that the parity prices of such commodities are not reasonable in view of [these economic conditions], he shall fix such prices as he finds will reflect such factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk to meet current needs and further to assure a level of farm income adequate to maintain productive capacity sufficient to meet anticipated future needs, and be in the public interest. Thereafter, as the Secretary finds necessary on account of changed circumstances, he shall, after due notice and opportunity for hearing, make adjustments in such prices. 30 (Emphases added.) In this case, the Secretary has not found that the prices set by Congress are unreasonable, nor that changed circumstances make adjustments necessary. The statute leaves that decision to his discretion. 31 The MMPA also contends that other sections of the statute--specifically § 608c(3), § 608c(16)(A), and § 608c(17)--place a burden on the Secretary to continuously monitor the orders and their impact to ensure that they effectuate the stated purposes of the AMAA and comply with its substantive provisions. Appellees' Br. (in Nos. 97-4145, 97-4241) at 6-7. We find the contention overstated. Section 608c(3) requires the Secretary to give notice of and opportunity for hearing on a proposed order [w]henever [he] has reason to believe that the issuance of an order will tend to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter. (Emphasis added.) Section 608c(16)(A)(i) provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall, whenever he finds that any order issued under this section ... obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, terminate or suspend the operation of such order.... (Emphasis added.) These provisions, like § 608c(18), are implicated only after the Secretary has decided that changes to the marketing orders are warranted, a situation this case does not present. Similarly, § 608c(17) requires only that the Secretary hold a hearing under specific conditions--if one-third or more of the producers as defined in a milk order apply in writing for a hearing on a proposed amendment of such order ... [and] if the proposed amendment is one that may legally be made to such order--that do not amount to an ongoing general duty of monitoring and adjustment. Ultimately, the only provision specific to milk price regulation that addresses the Secretary's duty to amend is § 608c(1): The Secretary of Agriculture shall, subject to the provisions of this section, issue, and from time to time amend, orders.... We cannot hold this statement to be a specific directive. 32 Nor does a specific duty of adjustment arise from the general precatory statements of policy in §§ 602(1) and (4), which require the Secretary to establish and maintain ... orderly marketing conditions effectuating the statute's goals of parity prices and orderly flow of market supply. These provisions are generally applicable to all the agricultural commodities covered by the AMAA, and cannot override the statutory scheme specifically devised for the regulation of milk, which has left the initiation of amendment to the Secretary's discretion. 33 We therefore hold that Congress has placed no specific conditions on the Secretary's power to maintain the status quo. Specifically, to apply § 608c(18) to the Secretary's decision not to pursue amendment--that is, to hold that the Secretary may not decline to change the differentials unless he finds that the differentials prescribed in the statute are still valid under current economic conditions--would reverse the statute's intended procedure for amendment. The burden, that is, is on those who advocate change to show that it is required; it is not on the Secretary to show that no change is necessary.