[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78917-78925]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de08-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 78917]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1124,
1126, and 1131
[Docket No. AO-14-A76, et al.; DA-07-01; AMS-DA-07-0116]
Milk in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Final Decision
on Proposed Amendments to Tentative Marketing Agreements and to Orders
and Termination of Proceeding
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final decision and termination of proceeding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR part Marketing area AO Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1001............... Northeast............... AO-14-A76
1005............... Appalachian............. AO-388-A20
1006............... Florida................. AO-356-A41
1007............... Southeast............... AO-366-A49
1030............... Upper Midwest........... AO-361-A42
1032............... Central................. AO-313-A51
1033............... Mideast................. AO-166-A75
1124............... Pacific Northwest....... AO-368-A37
1126............... Southwest............... AO-231-A70
1131............... Arizona................. AO-271-A42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are denying proposals that would have increased Class I and
Class II prices and modified the formulas used to determine Class I and
II prices in all Federal milk marketing orders. This document
terminates the proceeding on the five proposed amendments.
DATES: Effective December 29, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Associate Deputy
Administrator for Order Formulation and Enforcement, USDA/AMS/Dairy
Programs, Stop 0231-Room 2971, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-2357, e-mail: gino.tosi@usda.gov.
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.
Small Business Consideration
Actions under the Federal milk order program are subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This Act seeks to
ensure that, within the statutory authority of a program, the
regulatory and information collection requirements are tailored to the
size and nature of small businesses. For the purpose of the Act, a
dairy farm is a ``small business'' if it has an annual gross revenue of
less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a ``small
business'' if it has fewer than 500 employees (13 CFR 121.201). Most
parties subject to a milk order are considered as a small business.
For the purposes of determining which dairy farms are ``small
businesses,'' the $750,000 per year criterion was used to establish a
production guideline of 500,000 pounds per month. Although this
guideline does not factor in additional monies that may be received by
dairy producers, it should be an inclusive standard for most ``small''
dairy farmers. For purposes of determining a handler's size, if the
plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that
collectively exceed the 500-employee limit, the plant will be
considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500
employees.
USDA has identified that during 2005 approximately 51,060 of the
54,652 dairy producers whose milk is pooled on Federal orders are small
businesses. Small businesses represent about 93 percent of the dairy
farmers who participate in the Federal milk order program.
On the processing side, during June 2005 there were approximately
350 fully regulated plants (of which 149 or 43 percent were small
businesses) and 110 partially regulated plants (of which 50 or 45
percent were small businesses). In addition, there were 48 producer-
handlers, of which 29 were considered small businesses for the purposes
of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, who submitted reports
under the Federal milk order program during this period.
The fluid use of milk represented more than 45.0 percent of total
Federal milk marketing order producer deliveries during January 2006.
Almost 237 million Americans, approximately 80 percent of the total
U.S. population reside within the geographical boundaries of the 10
Federal milk marketing areas.
Because this action terminates the rulemaking proceeding without
amending the present rules, the economic conditions of small entities
remain unchanged. Also, this action does not change reporting, record
keeping, or other compliance requirements.
Preliminary Economic Analysis
The Notice of Hearing in this proceeding contained a Preliminary
Economic Analysis. The analysis is available at http://
www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/hearings.htm. For further information contact
Howard McDowell, Senior Economist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Office of
the Chief Economist, Room 2753, South Building, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-7091, e-mail address
howard.mcdowell@usda.gov.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued November 17, 2006; Published November 22,
2006 (71 FR 67489).
Statement of Consideration
A public hearing was held December 11-15, 2006, in Pittsburgh, PA,
with respect to proposed amendments to the tentative marketing
agreements and to the orders regulating the handling of milk in all
marketing areas.
The hearing was called pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part
900). The purpose of the hearing was to receive evidence with respect
to the economic and marketing conditions that relate to the proposed
amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders.
The hearing was held at the request of the National Milk Producers
Federation (NMPF), a trade group representing dairy farmers and dairy
farmer cooperatives, to consider proposals that would have increased
Class I and Class
[[Page 78918]]
II prices and modified the formulas used to determine Class I and Class
II prices. Consideration of the proposals was requested on an emergency
basis.
Summary of Testimony
NMPF submitted five proposals that were addressed in this
proceeding. The proposals would: (1) Increase the Federal order minimum
Class I milk price by $0.77; (2) Utilize an ``advanced cheese skim milk
price'', or (3) An ``advanced butter powder skim milk price'' and a
modified advanced butterfat price as replacements to the advance Class
III and IV skim milk prices; (4) Modify the calculation of the Class II
skim price; and (5) Modify the calculation of the Class II butterfat
price.
Proponents testified that dairy farmers have experienced an
extended period of below-average milk prices, high production costs and
low farm returns. NMPF is of the opinion that the formulas used to
price milk used in Class I and II products are outdated and inadequate
to ensure orderly marketing conditions. NMPF is also of the opinion
that although Class I and II prices move in concert with Class III and
IV prices, they do so in a way that does not properly consider the
costs of supplying fluid milk to the market. NMPF supports adoption of
Proposals 1-5 to compensate dairy farmers for increases in the costs
borne in supplying the fluid milk needs of the market. NMPF is of the
opinion that adoption of Proposals 1-5 will help maintain the
appropriate relationship between class prices and dairy product prices.
Proposal 1 would increase the Federal order minimum Class I price
by $0.77 while eliminating reference to the advanced Class III and
Class IV skim milk prices in the Class I skim milk price formula.
Proponents argue that an increase in the Class I price is necessary to
reflect increased costs faced by dairy farmers in supplying the Class I
market. The witness argued that the increased costs of maintaining a
``Grade A'' dairy farm along with marketing and transportation costs
justify a $0.77 per hundredweight (cwt) increase in the Class I price.
Specifically, NMPF testified that increased costs of maintaining Grade
A status on dairy farms require a $0.15 per cwt increase, increased
``marketing'' costs require a $0.23 per cwt increase and increased
``competitive factor'' costs require a $0.39 per cwt increase.
Proposal 1 would replace the current Class I price mover (the
higher of the Class III or Class IV price) with the higher of either:
A. Nonfat dry milk price x 8.9 - $0.63; or
B. Cheese price x 10.0 + Dry whey price x 6.1 - Butter Price x 3.9
- 1.63.
The NMPF witness stated that the costs of establishing and
maintaining ``Grade A'' status on dairy farms have increased. The
witness was of the opinion that since the Class I price is intended to
compensate producers for establishing and maintaining Grade A status,
increases in the costs of establishing and maintaining Grade A status
should be reflected in the Class I price. The witness presented USDA
Economic Research Service (ERS) data that showed a 38 percent increase
in ``non-feed'' costs for dairy farmers, including labor and utility
expenses. The NMPF witness also presented a study published by the
University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1977 \1\ detailing some of the costs
associated with maintaining a Grade A dairy farm. The witness opined
that many of the cost factors outlined in the 1977 study are the same
type of costs faced by Grade A dairy farmers in 2006. The witness
estimated that increases in non-feed costs of milk production including
hot water, animal bedding and other supplies, justify a $0.15 increase
in the Class I minimum price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Frank, Gary G., G.A. Peterson, and Harlan Hughes. ``Class I
Differential: Cost of Production Justification'', in Economic
Issues, Number 8, April 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The witness also cited increases in ``marketing'' costs to justify
increasing the Class I price. Specifically, the witness was of the
opinion that the costs of assembling, balancing and transporting milk
to meet minimum delivery standards have increased.
The NMPF witness stated that energy and processing costs to dairy
farmer cooperative owned manufacturing plants have also increased, and
should be offset by an increase in the Class I minimum price. The
witness testified that supply plants often sacrifice profits in order
to meet the demands of the Class I and II market. The NMPF witness
added that shifts in the location of milk production and consolidation
of manufacturing plants require longer hauls to Class I plants. The
witness estimated that an increase in the minimum Class I price of
$0.23 per cwt is necessary to offset these increased marketing costs.
The NMPF witness testified that other ``competitive factor'' costs
have also increased. These costs reflect the amount of money that
distributing plants are willing to pay to assure adequate supplies of
milk. The witness stated that recent increases in over-order premiums
demonstrate an increased ``competitive factor,'' which justifies the
need for an increase in the minimum Class I price. The witness
testified that increasing levels of over-order premiums indicate
inadequate Class I prices to attract supplies of milk to fluid
distributing plants, and that while certain ``load-specific'' costs are
best addressed by over-order premiums, other costs should be covered by
the regulated minimum Class I price. The witness, relying on Market
Administrator data, added that over-order premiums have increased
nearly 65 percent from 1995 to 2005 in the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin. The witness was of the opinion that increases in over-order
premiums justify an increase of $.39 per cwt in the minimum Class I
price.
Proposals 2 and 3 detail the specific changes necessary to utilize
the proposed formula in Proposal 1. Proposals 2 and 3 would implement
an advanced ``cheese skim milk price'' per cwt, an ``advanced butter-
powder skim milk price'' per cwt and an ``advanced butterfat price''
per pound to replace the current advanced Class III and Class IV skim
milk prices per cwt. Proposal 2 would change the current advanced Class
III skim milk pricing factor per cwt to an advanced cheese skim milk
price per cwt factor. The cheese skim milk pricing factor per cwt would
be determined by:
(a) Multiplying the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS
average weekly prices for block and barrel cheese by 10; multiplying
the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS average weekly survey
prices for dry whey announced before the 24th day of the month times
6.1;
(b) Multiplying the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS
weekly survey prices for butter announced before the 24th day of the
month times 3.9;
(c) Adding the amounts computed in paragraph a, then subtracting
the amount computed in paragraph b; and
(d) Subtracting $1.44.
(e) The advanced butterfat price per pound would be determined by
multiplying the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS survey
prices for butter by 1.20 and from this product subtracting $0.1307.
Proposal 3 would change the current advanced Class IV skim milk
pricing factor to an advanced ``butter-powder skim milk price.'' The
advanced butter powder skim milk price per cwt would be determined by:
(a) Multiplying the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS
weekly survey prices for nonfat dry milk announced before the 24th day
of the month by 8.9; and
[[Page 78919]]
(b) From the product subtracting $0.52.
Proposals 4 and 5 would adjust the way the Class II price is
determined. Proposal 4 would change the manner in which the Class II
skim milk price is computed. While the skim portion of milk used in
Class II would continue to be announced in advance, it is proposed to
be computed by:
(a) Multiplying the weighted average of the 2 most recent NASS
survey prices for nonfat dry milk per pound announced before the 24th
day of the month by 8.9; and
(b) From the product subtracting $0.53.
The NMPF witness testified in support of Proposal 4. The witness
was of the opinion that the current Class II skim milk formula
incorrectly accounts for the costs of drying condensed skim milk and
encourages substitution of condensed skim milk for nonfat dry milk
(NFDM) in Class II products. The witness was of the opinion that their
proposed revised formula more accurately reflects the full value of
NFDM derived from a hundredweight of skim milk.
Proposal 5 would modify the calculation of the Class II butterfat
price. The Class II butterfat price would be determined by:
(a) Multiplying the NASS AA butter survey price multiplied by 1.20;
and
(b) From the product subtracting $0.1147.
The NMPF witness testified in support of Proposal 5. The witness
was of the opinion that the proposed formula would set the Class II
butterfat price equal to the minimum Class I butterfat price, without
applying any location differential, so the price would be uniform
across the entire country. The witness stated that average butterfat
tests for Class I and II use were 1.97 percent and 7.42 percent,
respectively, in 2005. The witness noted that when Class I and II milk
marketings were combined, their average butterfat test was 3.34
percent, close to the Federal order standard of 3.5 percent. The
witness testified that milk supplies for Class I and II products are
complementary, with much Class II butterfat use coming from the surplus
butterfat at Class I bottling plants.
The NMPF witness was of the opinion that Class II butterfat, unlike
Class II skim, cannot be substituted with Class III or IV butterfat in
Class II products. The witness stated that Class III and IV butterfat
can be used to produce butter, butteroil, plastic cream and anhydrous
milkfat, however, these products are not viable economic substitutes
for cream in Class II products. The witness noted that the lack of
substitutability between Class II cream and manufactured butterfat
products requires that Class II butterfat be priced at a level near the
Class I butterfat price and their proposal meets that intent.
The NMPF witness offered as an exhibit a letter of support for
adoption of Proposals 1-5 from the National Farmers Organization (NFO).
NFO is a Capper-Volstead cooperative headquartered in Ames, Iowa. The
NFO letter stated that an increase in Class I and II minimum prices is
needed by dairy farmers who are continually experiencing increased
fuel, feed and fertilizer costs.
The NMPF witness also offered as an exhibit a letter of support for
adoption of Proposals 1-5 from Cass-Clay Creamery (Cass-Clay). Cass-
Clay is a Capper-Volstead cooperative headquartered in Fargo, North
Dakota. The Cass-Clay letter stated that adoption of Proposals 1-5 is
necessary because Class I and II price formulas should not have to
directly rely on Class III and IV prices and make allowances. According
to the letter, costs to produce Class I milk have increased and should
be reflected in the Class I formula. Cass-Clay added that the Class I
butterfat price should equal the Class II butterfat price.
The Secretary of Agriculture for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania
appeared in support of adoption of Proposals 1-5. Pennsylvania is home
to 8,600 dairy farms producing over 10.6 billion pounds of milk
annually. The Secretary testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 is
necessary to account for decreases in producer prices resulting from a
recent decision to increase make allowances as well as increases in
transportation and energy costs. The Secretary stated that Pennsylvania
has lost over 2,000 dairy farms since 1997 because of low milk prices.
The Secretary was of the opinion that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
help to ensure the viability of the Pennsylvania dairy industry in the
future. A post-hearing brief was submitted by the Pennsylvania Farm
Bureau in concurrence with the testimony of the Secretary.
A representative from Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. (Dairylea),
testified in support of emergency adoption of Proposals 1-5. Dairylea
is a Capper-Volstead cooperative whose milk is primarily pooled on the
Northeast order. The Dairylea witness testified that Proposals 1-5
should be adopted to compensate farmers for significant increases in
the costs to produce milk along with reductions in pay prices resulting
from increased make allowances for manufactured dairy products.
A witness appeared on behalf of the Northeast Farm Credit
Associations (NEFCA). The NEFCA represents four Farm Credit
associations who collectively provide credit and other financial
services to over 4,500 dairy farmers in the Northeast U.S. The witness
provided analysis showing increases in the costs to produce milk. The
witness testified that significant increases in labor, supplies,
utilities and transportation demonstrate the need to update Federal
order minimum prices.
A witness appeared on behalf of the Michigan Milk Producers
Association (MMPA) in support of expedited adoption of Proposals 1-5.
MMPA is a Capper-Volstead cooperative that pools milk on the Mideast
order. The MMPA witness testified that the costs of servicing the needs
of the Class I and II market, which include maintaining Grade A status,
assembly, hauling and balancing have substantially increased since
2000. The witness testified that MMPA supported recent increases in the
make allowances for manufactured dairy products and stressed the need
for balancing facilities. The witness testified that the increasing
costs faced by dairy farmers need to be recognized and adoption of
Proposals 1-5 would accomplish that intent.
A witness appeared on behalf of United Dairymen of Arizona (UDA) in
support of Proposals 1-5. UDA is a Capper-Volstead cooperative that
pools milk on the Arizona order. The UDA witness testified that
Proposals 1-5 represent the input and interests of dairy farmers across
the U.S. The witness stated that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
compensate dairy farmers for recent increases in make allowances for
manufactured dairy products. The witness added that adoption of
Proposals 1-5 would also simplify the calculations of the cheese-based
skim milk price and the butter-powder based skim milk price for
determining Class I and II skim milk prices.
A representative from Southeast Milk, Inc. (SMI), testified in
support of expedited adoption of Proposals 1-5. SMI is a Capper-
Volstead cooperative headquartered in Florida. The witness testified
that recent decisions to increase make allowances for manufactured
dairy products will decrease the prices received by farmers. The
witness also testified that producers who supply the fluid market are
incurring higher costs including balancing, transportation and energy.
The witness testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would help to
[[Page 78920]]
compensate producers for these increases in costs.
A witness appeared on behalf of Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) in
support of the adoption of Proposals 1-5 on an expedited basis. DFA is
a Capper-Volstead cooperative that pools milk on 9 of the 10 Federal
milk marketing orders. The DFA witness testified that the adoption of
Proposals 1-5 would more accurately reflect the cost of producing and
marketing milk. The witness was of the opinion that failure to address
this issue will be detrimental to DFA members.
The DFA witness testified that the adopted changes to the make
allowances for manufactured products were reflective of the costs of
manufacturing dairy products, especially increased energy costs.
However, when Class III and IV prices are lowered, prices for Class I
and II products are lowered at the same time and returns to dairy
farmers decrease, noted the witness.
The DFA witness also testified that the cooperative owns and
operates plants that condense milk. The witness testified that cost
data from their plants is similar to those relied upon by other
proponents for nonfat solids and re-hydration of nonfat dry milk. The
witness testified that DFA owns and operates plants that manufacture
butter and concentrated milk fat products, and the cooperative also
operates a cream marketing agency. The witness testified that typically
Class II manufacturers do not substitute butter or concentrated fat
products for cream since cream has other milk proteins and other solids
in addition to butterfat.
The DFA witness testified that the costs to provide fluid milk have
risen dramatically because of increased energy costs. The witness cited
the increasing distance between farms and difficulties in balancing as
justification to increase Class I and II minimum prices.
Two dairy farmer members of DFA also testified in support of
Proposals 1-5. Both dairy farmers testified that the adoption of
Proposals 1-5 is necessary to compensate dairy farmers for increased
make allowances and to recognize the increasing costs in producing
milk.
A witness appeared on behalf of the Association of Dairy
Cooperatives in the Northeast (ADCNE) in support of the adoption of
Proposals 1-5 on an emergency basis. The ADCNE is comprised of
Agrimark, Dairy Farmers of America, Dairylea, Land O' Lakes, Maryland &
Virginia Milk Producers, O-AT-KA Milk Producers Cooperative, St. Albans
Cooperative Creamery and Upstate Niagara Cooperative. These
organizations represent a majority of the milk pooled on the Northeast
order.
The ADCNE witness testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
update the production and marketing cost factors of the Class I and II
price formulas. The witness was of the opinion that updating these
factors is important in the Northeast since Federal Order 1 pools the
largest volume of Class I and II milk in the Federal order system.
The ADCNE witness testified that recent increases in the make
allowances for manufactured dairy products compensated dairy product
manufacturers for increased production costs. The witness stated that
dairy farmers are also experiencing increased costs in servicing Class
I and II markets and should also be compensated through adoption of
Proposals 1-5.
The ADCNE witness testified that the costs of servicing the needs
of the Class I and II market in the Northeast have increased over the
last 10 years. The witness stated that these costs are borne by dairy
farmers and dairy farmer cooperatives and should be accounted for in
Class I and II minimum prices. The witness stated that one of the
largest cost increases has been transportation due to increased fuel
costs along with consolidation of plants.
A witness testified on behalf of Lanco-Pennland Quality Milk
Producers (Lanco) in support of Proposals 1-5. Lanco is a Capper-
Volstead cooperative with members located primarily in Pennsylvania,
Maryland and West Virginia. The Lanco witness testified that recent
changes in the make allowances for manufactured dairy products will
lower the prices that dairy farmers receive for their milk. The witness
also testified that the costs in producing milk including feed and
energy have increased substantially. The witness was of the opinion
that adoption of Proposals 1-5 will compensate their dairy farmer
members for these recent cost increases.
A post-hearing brief was submitted by the Kentucky Dairy
Development Council (KDDC) in support of Proposals 1-5. The KDDC is an
organization of Kentucky dairy farmers whose purpose is to increase
profitability and address issues that foster the sustainability and
viability of the dairy industry. The KDDC brief said that adoption of
Proposals 1-5 would help maintain a direct relationship between dairy
product prices and Class I and II prices. The brief explained how dairy
farmers will face substantial financial hardship if Proposals 1-5 are
not adopted.
A witness appearing on behalf of Nestl[eacute] USA and Dreyer's
Grand Ice Cream (Nestle) testified in opposition to Proposals 1-5.
Nestl[eacute] and its subsidiaries manufacture and distribute a variety
of ice cream and frozen dessert products. The Nestl[eacute] witness was
of the opinion that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would increase the price
they pay for milk used to make Class I and II products. The witness
stated that Nestl[eacute] has not experienced difficulties in
attracting an adequate milk supply. The witness stated that U.S. milk
production is increasing and the utilization (share) of milk in Class I
and Class II products is decreasing. The witness, relying on Economic
Research Service (ERS) data, stated that per capita consumption of non-
flavored, whole, reduced, lowfat and nonfat milks declined by 21
percent from 1990 to 2005. The witness concluded from this information
that demand for milk used in Class I and II products will only increase
through innovation and marketing, not increases in the Class I and II
minimum price.
The Nestl[eacute] witness testified that they have not needed to
pay additional over-order premiums and have not experienced
difficulties in attracting an adequate supply of milk due to the
increases in costs noted by proponents. The witness testified that
Nestl[eacute] is currently building a new Class I and Class II plant in
Anderson, Indiana, and had been solicited by multiple potential milk
suppliers.
The Nestl[eacute] witness stated that an emergency situation does
not exist. The witness was of the opinion that the milk supply has been
adequate nationwide for Class I and Class II needs and encouraged the
Department to thoroughly examine whether Class I and Class II milk
needs are not being met. The witness opined that the focus of the
Federal order program is to balance and allocate milk supplies, and
that increasing Class I and II prices during a period of ample supply
does not meet this intent.
A witness appearing on behalf of the International Dairy Foods
Association (IDFA) testified in opposition to Proposals 1-5. IDFA is a
trade association that represents the nation's manufacturers,
marketers, distributors and suppliers of fluid milk and dairy products.
IDFA has a membership of 530 companies and is composed of 3 constituent
organizations that include: the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF), the
National Cheese Institute (NCI) and the International Ice Cream
Association (IIAC).
The IDFA witness stressed that the proposed changes would create
disorderly marketing conditions and that the data used to support the
proponents' positions is flawed and
[[Page 78921]]
contradictory. The witness was of the opinion that there is no need to
adopt Proposals 1-5 to ensure orderly marketing or a sufficient
quantity of pure and wholesome milk to meet current or projected needs.
The IDFA witness said that ensuring the adequacy of the fluid milk
supply is one of the fundamental purposes of the Federal order program.
The IDFA witness stated that the current U.S. milk supply is adequate
to meet the demands of the fluid milk market. The witness noted that
total milk production is growing while fluid sales are declining. The
IDFA witness said that milk production has increased in the last 30
years as a result of increased demand for manufactured dairy products,
not fluid milk products. The witness, relying on ERS data, explained
that milk production in the U.S. was 115.4 billion pounds in 1975 and
grew to 177.0 billion pounds in 2005. The witness noted that ERS
projections for 2006 showed a 4.9 billion pound increase for a total of
181.9 billion pounds of milk being produced in the U.S. As milk
production grew during 1975-2005, the IDFA witness said, fluid milk
product sales grew by 800 million pounds during that same time period.
According to the witness, fluid sales hit a record high of 55.1 billion
pounds in 1991 and have trended downward ever since. The witness
concluded that with increasing production and decreasing fluid milk
consumption, there is plenty of milk to serve a declining fluid market.
The IDFA witness acknowledged a Tentative Final Decision published
November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67467) that updated the manufacturing
allowances for Class III and Class IV products. The witness stated that
those changes accomplish what the proponents are requesting by updating
the factors representing the costs of processing for plants that
manufacture Class III and Class IV products. The witness stated that
adjusting balancing costs through Class I and Class II prices was
addressed in a January 2005 decision to reject a proposal that would
have covered the cost of balancing in the Northeast marketing area
through marketwide service payments. The decision noted, the witness
said, that opponents accurately testified that the costs of balancing
were accounted for in the Class IV product price formula make
allowances used for establishing the Class IV milk price.
The IDFA witness referenced an Interim Final Rule published October
25, 2006 (71 FR 62377) that addressed transportation costs in the
Appalachian and Southeast marketing areas. The adopted changes, that
became effective on December 1, 2006, increased the transportation
credit rate, among other things, in the Appalachian and Southeast
marketing areas. The witness was of the opinion that transportation
credits can more effectively address pricing issues than the
suggestions outlined in Proposals 1-5. The witness stated that
transportation credits are preferred to changes in the Class I
differentials. The witness noted that a similar set of regulations
exists in the Upper Midwest marketing area to help move milk from
supply plants to distributing plants.
The IDFA witness testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
lead to disorderly marketing conditions and referenced the Department's
preliminary impact analysis to support that conclusion. The witness
stated that the baseline analysis provided by the Department showed
that U.S. milk production would be adequate to meet current and future
demands for milk and dairy products. The witness highlighted points
from the baseline analysis and said Federal order marketings would
increase by over 9.6 billion pounds over the next 9 years. During that
same 9 year period, the witness stated that the baseline showed only a
147 million pound increase in Class I marketings. According to the
witness, the analysis prepared by the Department supports the claim
that milk production over the next 9 years will exceed the needs of the
Class I market.
The IDFA witness testified that the economic analysis prepared by
the Department prior to the hearing neglected to analyze the impacts of
Proposals 1-5 on a regional/marketing area basis. The witness said the
missing information could be crucial to producers when deciding their
vote in a referendum since adoption of Proposals 1-5 would create
disparities between regions with different Class I utilizations. The
witness noted that dairy farmers whose milk is pooled in marketing
areas with low Class I and Class II utilization could experience
depressed prices for their milk if Proposals 1-5 were adopted.
The IDFA witness testified that one of the initial goals of the
Federal milk marketing order program was to encourage the conversion of
Grade B farm operations to Grade A operations. The witness, relying on
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data, testified that 98
percent of the nation's milk now comes from Grade A farms. The witness
was of the opinion that since there is an adequate supply of milk for
Class I needs, there is no need to provide incentives for maintaining
or converting to Grade A status.
The IDFA witness testified that proponents did not provide data as
to the costs of operating a Grade A dairy farm versus a Grade B dairy
farm. The witness stated the most recent research on the cost
difference between Grade A and Grade B farms was published in 1977. The
IDFA witness said the request to update the 40 cent difference between
Grade A and Grade B ignores the fact that the standards for producing
Grade A and Grade B milk have narrowed over time.
The IDFA witness was also of the opinion that marketing costs,
including balancing, have not increased to the levels advanced by
proponents. The IDFA witness testified that proponents provided
inadequate evidence regarding the actual costs of balancing and instead
relied on plant cost of manufacturing data. The IDFA witness was of the
opinion that this approach overlooks relevant data, for example, the
decreasing seasonality in milk production since 1998.
The IDFA witness questioned the logic of requiring milk processors
to pay dairy producers for post farm gate marketing costs like seasonal
and daily balancing, shrinkage, administrative costs and give-up
charges. The witness was of the opinion that these costs could not be
addressed by increases in payments to dairy farmers, and need to come
from elsewhere in the marketing channel. The witness again added that
make allowances used in the Class IV price formula already account for
balancing costs.
The IDFA witness presented information from the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture to show that average hauling rates paid by
producers in Minnesota declined between 1982 and 2003. The witness said
some of the decreases in costs were probably related to subsidization
of some of the costs by the buyer of the milk, and that the adoption of
proposals 1-5 would not ensure that the entity bearing the cost of
hauling would receive the benefit of a higher Class I price.
The IDFA witness testified that adjustments in over-order premiums
serve to attract milk more efficiently than adjustments in Class I
minimum prices. The witness was of the opinion that over-order premiums
can quickly adjust to changing market conditions over time and regions,
while it could take months or years to change the Class I minimum
price.
The IDFA witness stated that the Department should also reject
proposals to increase the Class II price because a greater amount of
substitution of Class IV products for fresh cream would occur.
[[Page 78922]]
A consultant witness from Texas A&M University testified on behalf
of IDFA in opposition to Proposals 1-5. The witness testified that
adoption of Proposals 1-5 are unnecessary since disorderly marketing
conditions are not occurring. The witness testified that that there is
no economic evidence to support a change in Class I and Class II price
policies and that there is ample milk available to meet fluid milk
demands. The witnesses stated that Federal milk orders were designed to
help facilitate ``least-cost'' milk movements with a minimum of
government involvement and are successful in meeting this end. The
witness stated that the current dairy industry is not the same as when
the AMAA was enacted, nor is it the same as when order reform occurred
in the late 1990s. The dairy industry has shifted into increased
regional production and larger farms resulting from higher feed costs,
more complex dairy nutrition issues and more competition from nondairy
products, the witness noted.
The witness said that the Department's challenge is to evaluate
economic conditions relevant to Class I and Class II pricing and
determine if they warrant a change in regulation. The witness stated
that the issue of Class I and Class II pricing can not be adequately
addressed under emergency conditions. The witness cited previous
hearings such as the January 2006 Class III and Class IV make allowance
hearing where 90 days notice was given before a hearing was held to
consider changes. The witness also noted that a pre-hearing information
session was held in preparation for the upcoming Class III and Class IV
pricing hearing. Changes to Class I and Class II pricing, the witness
said, should be given the same time for consideration. When ample time
is given, the witness said, decision-makers can make critical decisions
and rely on analysis and facts.
If Proposals 1-5 were adopted, the IDFA consultant witness said, an
unintended market distortion would occur. Dairy farmers in high
utilization markets would experience higher returns than dairy farmers
in low utilization markets. The witness stated that adoption of the
proposals would also lower Class III and Class IV prices, harming dairy
farmers in the Upper Midwest region of the country.
The witness was of the opinion that it would be impossible to raise
Class I and Class II prices without adversely affecting Class III and
Class IV prices. The witness said that the benefits of an increased
Class I price become diluted by lower Class III and Class IV prices. An
additional unintended consequence for the Upper Midwest, the IDFA
expert witness said, would occur if the MILC program was extended in
the 2007 Farm Bill because of further price signals to increase
production, ultimately lowering the Class III/IV price.
The witness stated that since 98 percent of all U.S. milk is
produced on Grade A farms, the cost of conversion is no longer
relevant. The witness stated that the dairy industry converted to Grade
A decades ago and that all Federal order milk is produced to meet Grade
A standards. The witness stated that the costs of maintaining Grade A
milk is born by all classes of milk, not just Class I. The witness
stated that the Department cannot determine that the costs for
converting to Grade A status have increased since a study has not been
done. The witness stated there has not been a study conducted since
1977 that shows the differential cost between Grade A and Grade B. The
study, the witness said, was conducted by Gary G. Frank, G. A. Peterson
and Harlan Hughes and titled Class I Differential: Cost of Production
Justification. The witness said that the cost of converting to Grade A
is no longer relevant and that the proponents do nothing to show that
the costs of maintaining Grade A status on a dairy farm have increased.
The witness stated that proponents cite that marketing costs have
increased and focus mainly on balancing and transportation costs.
However, the witness said, both of those cost issues are addressed and
provided for in other Federal order provisions. Balancing, the witness
said, has been addressed in at least four hearings since 1980, said the
witness, and has been rejected because the conclusion of all four is
that balancing costs are a part of Class III and Class IV prices. The
witness also stated that the costs of balancing are a component of
contract services provided by cooperatives assessing over-order
premiums and handling charges. The witness said that considering these
costs would be double counting.
The witness also stated that there is no economic justification for
relying on increased over-order premiums as a basis for increasing the
Class I price. The witness said that over-order premiums reflect the
value of milk used in manufacturing and the amount of money required
for a manufacturing plant to give up milk for Class I uses. Some of
this, the witness said, is related to the supply obligations of
cooperatives. The witness said that increasing the Class I minimum
price does not substitute for the function of over-order premiums and
will not reduce the amount of premiums.
A witness appearing on behalf of Prairie Farms, Inc. (Prairie
Farms), testified in opposition to Proposals 1-5. Prairie Farms is a
cooperative that owns and operates a number of fluid milk plants that
are pooled under several Federal milk marketing orders. Prairie Farms
is a member of IDFA and NMPF. The Prairie Farms witness stated that the
cooperative has not had any long-term problems attracting fluid milk.
The witness was of the opinion that the adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
create confusion and inequities in the marketplace. The witness was of
the opinion that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would provide greater
benefit to dairy farmers whose milk is pooled in areas of the country
with higher Class I utilization than to dairy farmers whose milk is
pooled in areas with lower Class I utilization. The witness testified
that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would not represent the interests of all
dairy farmer member cooperatives in an equitable manner.
The Prairie Farms witness stated that the Class I price should
assign a value to fluid milk to account for the transportation costs
from production areas to deficit areas. The witness was of the opinion
that the Class I price should also reflect current market values of
manufactured dairy products. The witness stated that Prairie Farms
prefers the use of transportation credits, pooling standards, assembly
credits and over-order premiums to attract milk for Class I use rather
than increasing the Class I price. The witness said that changing the
Class I differentials is unnecessary and would not serve to attract
more milk to Class I handlers.
The witness testified that an increase in the Class I minimum price
will raise the uniform prices received by dairy farmers, who will in
turn produce more milk. More milk, the witness said, would lower Class
III and Class IV prices because more milk will be used in manufactured
products, eventually decreasing the uniform price. The witness stressed
that farmers who pool milk in orders with lower Class I utilizations
would experience greater negative impacts from the decreases in Class
III and IV prices.
A witness appearing on behalf of H.P. Hood (Hood) testified in
opposition to Proposals 1-5. Hood operates 14 Class I plants in the
Northeast marketing area and 6 plants in the Upper Midwest marketing
area. The witness was of the opinion that an adequate supply of milk is
available for Class I and Class II use and adoption of Proposals 1-5
could negatively affect dairy producers located
[[Page 78923]]
in the Upper Midwest region of the country. The Hood witness questioned
why proponents are seeking compensation for transportation costs
through increases in Class I and Class II minimum prices. The witness
was of the opinion that manufacturers of all classes of milk face
increased transportation costs and Proposals 1-5 place an inequitable
burden on Class I and II markets.
A witness appearing on behalf of Wells Dairy, Inc. (Wells),
testified in opposition to Proposals 1-5. According to the witness,
Wells is the world's largest family-owned dairy processor in the United
States. Wells is located in Le Mars, Iowa, and their ice cream can be
found throughout the United States and in 20 countries. The dairy
operates five plants: A bottling plant and two ice cream plants in
Iowa, a yogurt plant in Omaha, Nebraska, and an ice cream plant in St.
George, Utah. The witness said that Wells' procures milk from more than
70 independent producers and many cooperatives located in South Dakota,
Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa.
The Wells witness stated that they have not experienced
difficulties in procuring fluid milk and that they pay their milk
suppliers a premium. The witness stated that the proposed changes could
reduce fluid milk consumption, increase milk production and increase
regional differences in farm milk prices. The witness said the issue of
pricing is regional in nature and therefore should be addressed
regionally. The Wells witness added that a higher minimum Class II
butterfat price could cause their plants to substitute Class IV
butterfat products for Class II cream in their Class II products.
A witness appearing on behalf of Mid-West Dairymen's Company,
Manitowoc Milk Producers Cooperative, Milwaukee Cooperative Milk
Producers and Lakeshore Federated Dairy Cooperative (Mid-West, et al.)
testified in opposition to Proposals 1-5. Mid-West, et al., represents
dairy farmers whose milk is mostly pooled on Orders 30 and 32. The Mid-
West, et al., witness stated that NMPF, in seeking to have Proposals 1-
5 adopted, was not working in the best interest of the nation's dairy
farmers. The witness was of the opinion that many of NMPF's member
cooperatives did not agree with the proposals and that many of the
largest NMPF members have producers in areas not regulated or pooled on
Federal orders. The witness stated that the milk supply was adequately
meeting Class I and Class II market needs and emergency conditions did
not exist. The Mid-West, et al., witness testified that the Class I
price has historically been linked to manufacturing prices and the
adoption of Proposals 1-5 would insulate the Class I and Class II
prices from realities of marketplace changes.
The Mid-West, et al., witness testified that other than assembly or
transportation credits received from the pool, there is no direct
incentive to ship milk for fluid use because the Class I value is
shared with all pool participants. The incentive, if any, the witness
said, comes from over-order premiums; the minimum Class I price does
not cover any costs such as balancing and ``give-up'' charges.
The Mid-West et al., witness testified that adoption of Proposals
1-5 will cause regional price disparities. The witness said the Upper
Midwest could see a 15 cent increase while Florida could see an
increase of 65 cents or more. The witness reasoned that a higher Class
I price would also result in more milk production which would lead to a
lower cheese price and lower mailbox prices.
A representative from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI),
testified in opposition to adoption of Proposals 1-5 on an emergency
basis. AMPI is a Capper-Volstead cooperative whose members' milk is
pooled on Orders 30 and 32. The AMPI witness testified that although
the costs to produce and supply milk for the Class I and II market has
increased, it is an insufficient reason to raise the Class I and II
price at all locations. The witness testified that there is an adequate
supply of milk to meet the fluid needs of the market. The witness was
of the opinion that individual order regulations and over-order
premiums serve to move milk when needed with fewer burdens on consumers
and producers than increasing Class I and II minimum prices.
The witness testified that although increasing Class I and II
minimum prices may increase proceeds to dairy farmers, dairy farmers
whose milk is pooled in Federal orders with higher Class I utilizations
would receive a larger increase. The witness stated that an increase in
minimum prices would cause a supply response which would depress Class
III and IV prices. This would turn the limited Class I benefit in a low
utilization market into a net negative result, said the witness.
The witness testified that maintaining the linkage between Class
III and IV prices and Class I and II prices is important. The witness
added that the Federal milk marketing order program is a marketing
tool, not a support price program.
A professor from the University of Wisconsin-Madison testified in
opposition to adoption of Proposals 1-5. The witness testified that the
disparate regional impacts that would result from adoption of Proposals
1-5 are of major concern. The witness and other colleagues from the
University of Wisconsin performed an analysis on the possible impacts
of the proposed changes.
The witness testified that most dairy farmers and handlers across
the country have been experiencing increased energy costs. The witness
testified that if Class I prices were increased it would generate an
increase in the supply of milk. An increase in the supply of milk would
increase the volume of milk used in Class III and IV, ultimately
lowering the blend price, said the witness. These effects would be
amplified, said the witness, in Federal milk orders with lower Class I
utilizations.
A witness appeared on behalf of Kraft Foods (Kraft) in opposition
to adoption of Proposals 1-5. Kraft is a manufacturer of mostly Class
II and III products. The Kraft witness testified that adoption of
Proposals 4-5 would have a negative impact on markets for Class II
products. The witness stated that increasing the minimum Class II price
would decrease sales of Class II products and encourage the
substitution of milk powders or non-dairy based ingredients. The
witness also noted that currently a change in the Class IV formulas and
therefore the Class IV price would automatically change the Class II
price but the NMPF proposal would sever the link.
The Kraft witness was also of the opinion that adoption of the NMPF
proposals would result in benefits that are regionally
disproportionate. The witness stated that increasing the minimum Class
I and II prices would have a greater positive impact on the milk of
producers that is pooled on orders with higher Class I utilization.
A witness appeared on behalf of Dean Foods (Dean) in opposition to
adoption of Proposals 1-5 on an emergency basis. The witness stated
that Dean owns and operates distributing plants that are located in or
regulated by all 10 Federal milk marketing orders. The Dean witness
testified that there is an adequate supply of milk to meet Class I and
II demand. The witness, summarizing the economic analysis prepared by
the Department for the hearing, stated that the analysis predicts
government purchases of surplus nonfat dry milk absent of adoption of
the NMPF proposals. The witness concluded that adoption of Proposals 1-
5 would increase government outlays to purchase surplus dairy products
while increasing the retail prices of Class I and II dairy products.
The
[[Page 78924]]
witness testified that increases to Class I and II prices would
decrease demand for fluid milk.
The Dean witness testified that increases in Class I and II minimum
prices would not be returned to the dairy farmers that supply the Class
I and II market. The witness testified that an increase in the Class I
and II minimum price benefits all producers whose milk is pooled on a
market, not the producers actually supplying the Class I and II market.
The Dean witness testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would
have disparate impacts on producers depending on the Class I
utilization of the order on which their milk is pooled. This could lead
to opportunities for pool-riding, said the witness, which could require
another round of hearings to tighten pooling standards.
The Dean witness testified that adoption of Proposals 1-5 would be
a major policy shift for the Federal milk marketing order program. The
witness testified that the NMPF proposals would sever the connection
between Class I and II prices and Class III and IV prices. The witness
predicted that adoption of the NMPF proposals could also encourage the
substitution of nonfat dry milk for Class II skim milk.
A witness appeared on behalf of the Center for International Food
and Agriculture Policy at Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
CAGW is a nonprofit organization that aims to eliminate waste and
inefficiency in the Federal Government. The CAGW witness testified that
adoption of Proposals 1-5 will increase the retail price of milk,
reduce fluid milk consumption, increase costs to taxpayers and increase
regional disparities in the prices dairy farmers receive for their
milk. The witness was of the opinion that adequate amounts of milk are
available to meet fluid milk demands.
A witness appearing on behalf of New York State Dairy Foods (NYSDF)
and Queensboro Farm Products, Inc. (Queensboro), testified in
opposition to Proposals 4 and 5. According to the witness, NYSDF is a
trade organization made up of a variety of New York dairy industry
participants. Queensboro, the witness said, is a proprietary handler
pooled in the Northeast marketing area. Queensboro distributes Class I
and Class II products to metropolitan New York City. The witness stated
that NYSDF and Queensboro are concerned about possible inequities that
could result from adoption of Proposals 4 and 5.
The NYSDF/Queensboro witness explained that if Proposals 4 and 5
are adopted, the price of a 50,000 pound tanker of 40 percent cream
would increase $328. The witness said this would occur because the
proposal would increase the difference on butterfat from 0.7 cents per
pound to 2.33 cents per pound, altering the relationship between Class
IV butterfat and skim prices and Class II butterfat and skim prices.
The witness added that an increase in the price of milk used to
manufacture Class II products could encourage customers to substitute
Class II cream with butter, butter oil and anhydrous milkfat.
A witness appearing on behalf of Galloway Company (Galloway),
located in Neenah, Wisconsin, testified in opposition to Proposals 4
and 5. Galloway manufactures Class II products including sweetened
condensed milk, ice cream mixes and beverage bases that are used in
food and beverage processing. The witness stated that the changes
proposed are too complex to be properly addressed in an emergency
hearing.
The Galloway witness stated that adoption of Proposals 4 and 5
would distort the relationship between Class II and Class IV prices.
The witness was of the opinion that adoption of Proposals 4 and 5 would
increase the Class II price to a point where their customers (ice cream
and confectionary manufacturers) would substitute Class IV products or
other unregulated products as ingredients. The witness presented data
demonstrating decreased production of Class II bulk sweetened condensed
whole and skim milk from 1995-2005. The witness attributed the reduced
production to pricing disparities between Class II and IV. The witness
continued that there must be a tie between Class II and Class IV price
formulas to prevent disorderly marketing because manufacturers can
alternate between Class II and Class IV components. The witness stated
that the processes for making condensed skim milk, sweetened condensed
milk and NFDM all require the same condensing processes and costs. The
witness questioned why there would be a make allowance for a process in
one class and a different rate for the same process in another class.
The witness urged the Department to not adopt Proposals 4 and 5 and
further distort the relationship between Class II and IV.
The Galloway witness stated that 52 percent of the milk pooled in
Federal orders was Class I and Class II. Of that milk, the witness said
that 39 percent was Class I and 13 percent was Class II. The witness
stated that if the proposals are adopted, processors who use Class II
ingredients will face hardships in competing with processors who use
alternative ingredients. The witness also stated that producers will be
negatively affected because the substitution for Class II ingredients
will decrease blend prices.
Findings and Conclusions
Class I Discussion
NMPF argues that dairy farmers are experiencing increased costs in
supplying fluid milk and should be compensated by an increase in the
Class I price. NMPF attempts to justify an increase in the Class I
price through claims that on-farm and farm to plant costs associated
with Grade A milk production, transportation, balancing and
``competitive costs'' have recently increased. Specifically, NMPF
argues that the increases in milk supply costs justify an increase of
$0.77 per cwt over the current minimum Class I differential value of
$1.60.
Evidence submitted at the hearing does not support claims that the
costs incurred by dairy farmers in supplying fluid milk have increased
to the levels advanced by NMPF. Proponents do not provide adequate data
to justify that the additional costs faced by dairy farmers in
supplying the needs of the Class I market have increased. Proponents do
not reasonably analyze the actual differences in costs of maintaining
Grade A production versus Grade B production or demonstrate the cost
differences that could be expected between the two. Proponents do not
analyze the actual impacts of these cost factors on the minimum level
of the Class I differential borne by producers in servicing fluid milk
needs, or the costs of balancing in the marketplace. Proponents also do
not demonstrate how the ``competitive costs'' faced by fluid plants in
attracting milk away from manufacturing uses have increased. Multiple
opponents including dairy product manufacturers and dairy-farmer
cooperatives agree that data supplied by proponents is inadequate.
The NMPF proposals would also revise the formula used to calculate
the Class I price. The revised formula would ``de-couple'' the Class I
price from the Class III or Class IV price by using a different
formula. The Class I price is directly linked to the (higher of) Class
III or IV price to ensure that supply and demand conditions for milk
are reflected throughout all classes. All classified uses must compete
for the same supply of milk. If a change is made to the Class III or IV
price formulas, the change will equally affect the Class I price.
Rather than maintaining this direct link, the NMPF proposal essentially
``locks in'' the current Class
[[Page 78925]]
III and IV price formulas and breaks the necessary link between Class I
prices and any future changes in Class III and IV pricing formulas.
Class II Discussion
Proponents argue that the formula used to determine the Class II
price does not properly account for the costs of drying and re-
hydrating NFDM and encourages the substitution of NFDM for fresh skim
milk in Class II products. They claim that a $0.17 per cwt increase in
the Class II minimum price is necessary to reflect increased costs of
drying and re-hydrating skim milk. Additionally, they proposed that the
Class II butterfat price be the same as the Class I butterfat price.
Proponents argue that since milk supplies for Class I and II products
are complementary, and that the Class II butterfat supply is primarily
from surplus butterfat at Class I bottling plants, the butterfat values
should be the same. Proponents fail, however, to provide relevant data
demonstrating that condensing and re-hydrating costs have actually
increased to levels advanced, or a compelling argument as to why Class
I and II butterfat values should be equal.
Adoption of NMPF's proposed Class II skim milk formula would also
sever the relationship between Class IV and Class II product prices,
just as it would to the relationship of the Class I price to Class III
and IV prices. If a change was made to the Class IV price formula in
future proceedings, for example, a make allowance proceeding, the
change would not be reflected in the Class II price.
Rulings on Findings and Conclusions
All briefs, findings and conclusions, and the evidence in the
record were considered in reaching the findings and conclusions set
forth above. The petition to consider proposals that would have
increased Class I and Class II prices and modified the formulas used to
determine Class I and Class II prices is denied for the reasons stated
in this decision.
Termination of Proceeding
At issue in this proceeding is whether the level of the Class I and
II prices, and the manner in which the Class I and II prices are
determined, are successful in promoting orderly marketing conditions
and meeting the intent of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937 (AMAA). As reflected in the above Class I and Class II
discussions, the record does not demonstrate that the proposed
modifications to the Class I and Class II price formulas are
supportable. While some evidence may indicate that dairy farmers have
faced increased additional costs in supplying the needs of the fluid
market, other evidence suggests that other costs may have decreased. In
any case, the evidence is neither compelling nor provides a basis to
make a reasoned decision for either recommending adoption or denial of
the proposals. Accordingly, the proceeding is terminated.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030,
1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1000, 1001, 1005, 1006,
1007, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
Dated: December 19, 2008.
James E. Link,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E8-30697 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P