Milk in the Florida Marketing Area; Decision on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and Order
Proposed rule.
CFR Part: "7 CFR Part 1006"
Citation: "83 FR 13691"
Document Number: "AMS-DA-17-0068; AO-18-0008"
Page Number: "13691"
"Proposed Rules"
SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt, on an emergency basis, amendments to the Florida Federal milk marketing order (FMMO) that would implement a temporary assessment on Class I milk. Revenues collected through the assessment would be disbursed to handlers and producers who incurred extraordinary marketing losses and expenses due to Hurricane Irma, which caused considerable market disruptions in
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule, in accordance with 7 CFR 900.13a, is the Secretary's final decision in this proceeding and proposes the issuance of a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j).
This administrative action is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because it does not meet the definition of a "regulation" or "rule" under Executive Order 12866.
The proposed amendments have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed rule will not preempt any state or local law, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674 and 7253), provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the AMAA, any handler subject to a marketing order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed action on small entities and has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the purpose of the RFA, a dairy farm is considered a small business if it has an annual gross revenue of less than
AMS estimates that 248 dairy farms produced milk pooled on the Florida FMMO in 2017. One hundred forty-one farms delivered milk to
Considering all 248 farms that had producer milk on the Florida FMMO, AMS estimates that 101 farms had less than
Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the possible regulatory impact of the proposals on small businesses. Four witnesses testified at the hearing, each representing one or all of the proponent cooperatives. Each of the witnesses indicated their cooperatives include dairy farmer members who would be considered small businesses.
AMS data indicates that six dairy farmer cooperatives, in their capacity as handlers, pooled producer milk on the Florida FMMO in 2017. AMS estimates that two of those cooperative handlers have fewer than 500 employees and would be considered small businesses. Thirty-eight processing plants received producer milk in 2017, of which AMS estimates that 13 would be considered small businesses. Two of the 13 small businesses are fully regulated distributing plants on the Florida FMMO. The remaining 11 small business are nonpool or exempt plants.
The proposed amendments recommended in this final decision will provide temporary reimbursement to handlers (cooperative associations and proprietary handlers) who incurred extraordinary losses in connection with Hurricane Irma in
Hurricane Irma disrupted the orderly flow of milk movements within the
One of the functions of the FMMO program is to provide for the orderly exchange of milk between the dairy farmer and the handler (first buyer) to ensure the Class I needs of the market are met. The record evidence clearly shows that the movements of bulk milk in the
The proposed amendments would reimburse handlers for marketing expenses and losses in four categories: Transportation costs to deliver loads to other than their normal receiving plants; lost location value due to selling milk in lower location value zones; milk dumped at farms or on tankers, and skim milk dumped at plants; and distressed milk sales. Reimbursement would be funded through an assessment on Class I milk at a maximum rate of
Handlers in the
A review of reporting requirements was completed in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
The primary sources of information that would be required for application for reimbursements are documents currently generated in customary business transactions. These documents include--but are not limited to--invoices, receiving records, bulk milk manifests, hauling bills, and contracts. These documents are routinely inspected by the market administrator during handler audits. Thus no new information would be collected as a result of the amendments.
Prior Documents in This Proceeding
Notification of Hearing: Issued
Supplemental Notice of Hearing: Issued
Secretary's Decision
Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this final decision with respect to proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreement and order regulating the handling of milk in the
The proposed amendments set forth below are based on the record of a public hearing held in
The material issues on the record of this proceeding relate to:
1. Temporary Class I assessment for reimbursement of extraordinary expenses and losses resulting from Hurricane Irma; and
2. Determination of whether emergency marketing conditions exist that warrant the omission of a recommended decision and the opportunity to file written exceptions.
Overview of Proposal
Proposal 1 was submitted by an association of cooperative dairy producers who operate in the
Proposal 1 would provide for emergency relief for
Findings and Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:
1. Temporary reimbursement for extraordinary expenses and losses resulting from Hurricane Irma. At issue in this proceeding is the consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida FMMO to provide reimbursement to qualifying handlers (handlers and dairy farmer-owned cooperative associations in their capacity as handlers) for certain categories of extraordinary losses and expenses due to market disruptions caused by Hurricane Irma in
A witness appearing on behalf of the Cooperatives testified in support of Proposal 1. The witness explained that normal milk movements in the
The Cooperative witness stated that Proposal 1 would provide reimbursement across four categories to handlers who experienced extraordinary marketing expenses and losses. The witness categorized the costs as extra transportation costs for hauling milk to more distant plants; revenue lost due to the difference in location value as a result of delivering milk to more distant plants; revenue lost on milk that was dumped due to plant unavailability or logistical delays; and revenue lost on sales of milk to unregulated manufacturing plants at distressed milk prices.
In regards to transportation cost reimbursement, the Cooperative witness clarified Proposal 1 only seeks reimbursement for transportation costs in excess of what handlers would have normally paid if the hurricane had not forced them to find alternative market outlets. The witness explained the modification also would allow handlers to receive hauling cost reimbursement for milk rerouted to plants outside of
The Cooperative witness explained that Proposal 1 seeks reimbursement for revenue lost due to receiving a lower location value than the milk would have normally received. The witness also modified Proposal 1 to allow milk rerouted to plants outside of the
The Cooperative witness also clarified they are only seeking a net reimbursement, on a load-by-load basis, between losses in location value and any savings or losses on transportation costs. In this way, the witness explained, proponents would not receive reimbursement in excess of the actual cost incurred as a result of the hurricane.
The Cooperative witness explained that Proposal 1 also seeks reimbursement for milk dumped on farms, in tankers, or skim milk dumped at plants at the lowest classified value for the month. According to the witness, there are documented cases where milk was dumped at the farm because roads were impassable or tanker trucks or drivers were unavailable to haul the milk. In other cases, milk was dumped from tankers when no plants were available to receive it, or delivered to plants that were able to skim off and market the butterfat, but the skim milk had to be dumped. The witness noted that there may be loads of dumped milk that were not reported in a handlers'
The last reimbursement category, said the Cooperative witness, is reimbursement for distressed milk sales. The witness modified the original proposal and testified that proponents are now seeking reimbursement for distressed milk sales equal to the difference between the announced price applicable to the milk at its classified use value and the actual price received for the distressed milk moved to nonpool plants. The witness explained that the purpose of this modification was to seek reimbursement on distressed milk sales at the milk's actual classified use value, as opposed to the lowest classified value, which in
The Cooperative witness explained the proposed reimbursement categories would be funded through a temporary assessment on Class I milk at a maximum rate of
The witness said that in the Cooperatives' proposal, the Market Administrator would determine and announce the temporary assessment on Class I milk for each month the provisions are in effect. As the witness explained, during each applicable month, the Market Administrator would pay out verified eligible costs and losses, up to the amount of funds collected under the assessment for that month, uniformly prorating reimbursements if the eligible claims exceed funds available for the month. The witness testified that if the total dollars collected across all months exceed the total eligible claims, the Market Administrator should reduce the temporary assessment in the final month so as to not collect excess funds.
The Cooperative witness testified that because Class I prices are announced in advance of the month, there is a possibility that in the last month of the reimbursement period there could be a difference between the amount of money generated and the amount needed to pay final claim reimbursements. According to the witness, if the additional funds exceed the final costs, the extra funds could be added to the marketwide pool and distributed to producers, or they could be returned pro rata to the handlers. If funds from the assessment are less than the total eligible claims due to handlers, the Market Administrator could prorate available funds for reimbursement.
The same witness later appeared on behalf of
According to the witness,
The witness testified that
The Lone Star witness testified regarding how
A witness testified in support of Proposal 1 on behalf of
The SMI witness presented testimony regarding the
The SMI witness also cited data released by the
The SMI witness noted
The SMI witness testified that more than 15 million people were without power as a result of the storm and cited state agency reports indicating that on
In addition to the disruption caused by power outages, the SMI witness described fuel shortages that impacted farmers who rely on fuel to run on-farm generators. Without power or fuel to run generators, many farmers were unable to milk cows or keep bulk tanks cold. Farmers that were able to run generators had difficulty getting milk tankers to pick up their milk and deliver to plants in time for the milk to be pasteurized in accordance with health and sanitation standards. These factors, along with processing plant and road closures, led SMI producers to dump over 2 million pounds of milk on the farm or from tankers during and after the storm. SMI estimates the value lost due to dumped milk at approximately
The witness testified SMI also incurred losses from milk sold at distressed prices. According to the witness, SMI estimates the lost value of selling milk that normally services the Class I market to a cheese processor at distressed prices to be at around
The SMI witness explained that when electric power was restored and plants began to reopen, demand for fluid milk was extremely high. The witness noted that SMI experienced additional disorder and expenses as they worked to fill the pipeline. The witness said the demand to restock the
A witness testified on behalf of
During
Ultimately, the witness testified, Premier's marketing losses had a significant impact on producer pay prices. The witness stated that reduced pay, in combination with farm losses due to structural damage and lost production, meant some of Premier's members had not been able to pay all their bills during the months after the hurricane.
The witness estimated Premier's total losses to be approximately
A witness representing
The DFA witness explained its members suffered marketing losses from Hurricane Irma and were seeking emergency relief in the form of reimbursement through the provisions of Proposal 1, as modified at the hearing. The DFA witness reiterated Proposal 1's intent to only seek compensation for net market losses resulting from the hurricane's disruption. The witness testified that DFA supports implementing the temporary maximum
The DFA witness highlighted Market Administrator data that demonstrated changes in daily milk deliveries before, during and after the storm. The witness also referenced additional Market Administrator data showing a substantial amount of milk dumped on farms in
The DFA witness estimated the cooperative's losses due to the hurricane at approximately
The DFA witness stated that at the rate of
The Cooperatives submitted a post-hearing brief reiterating the effects Hurricane Irma had on milk marketing conditions in
The Cooperatives' brief stressed that Hurricane Irma impacted the entire state of
The Cooperatives' brief summarized the marketing expenses and losses for which handlers are seeking reimbursement, organized by four categories: Extra transportation expenses; lost location value; revenue lost due to dumped milk; and revenue lost due to distressed milk sales to unregulated manufacturing plants. The brief explained the differences between the proposal as published in the Notice of Hearing and the modified proposal submitted at the hearing. The Cooperatives wrote that the modifications were made following further review of actual milk movements and data, as well as adapting the proposal to account for the regulatory impact of Florida FMMO diversion limits.
Regarding transportation costs, the Cooperative brief clarified their intention to reimburse handlers for only the transportation costs of milk that exceed what the handler would have paid had there been no hurricane. The brief also explained that after reviewing data on milk movements, the Cooperatives realized that some milk was delivered to plants fully regulated on another FMMO, and therefore the milk was pooled on the other FMMO. Under the language submitted in the Notice of Hearing, this milk would have been excluded from receiving reimbursement for additional transportation costs because the milk was not pooled on the
The Cooperatives' brief explained a similar modification made to the provisions seeking reimbursement for lost location value. As with transportation cost reimbursement, the proposed modifications clarify that milk rerouted to plants outside of
The Cooperatives brief reviewed the proposed reimbursement for dumped milk and distressed milk sales, and clarified that reimbursement for distressed milk sales should be equal to the actual classified use value of the milk rather than the lowest classified use value for the month of
The Cooperatives brief emphasized the necessity of obtaining regulatory relief by outlining the difficulties, in absence of a regulatory scheme, associated with ensuring all Class I milk is assessed and all Class I handlers are treated uniformly. In addition, the brief restated hearing testimony noting there is no market process for repooling reimbursable costs and no market arbiter to administer a private surcharge and repooling program.
Dean Foods Company (Dean), while not present at the hearing, submitted a post-hearing brief in support of Proposal 1. Dean is a dairy processor that owns and operates three distributing plants fully regulated by the Florida FMMO. To supply its
The Cooperatives are seeking regulatory relief though a temporary assessment on Class I milk to provide financial assistance to the area's handlers and producers that experienced extraordinary marketing expenses and losses as a result of the hurricane. This decision evaluated the entire hearing record to determine whether Hurricane Irma impacted the orderly marketing conditions in the Florida FMMO marketing area to an extent that justifies regulatory relief.
The record of this proceeding clearly demonstrates that Hurricane Irma impacted the entire
The record contains extensive evidence detailing the difficulties of marketing milk
The record contains detailed information regarding the extraordinary losses for which the proponents are seeking reimbursement through this proceeding. Record evidence provided shows total losses for the Cooperatives are estimated to exceed
The AMAA provides authority for payments to handlers for services of marketwide benefit. /1/ These payments are authorized to come from marketwide pool monies before a producer blend price is computed. The record of this proceeding contains substantial evidence that from
FOOTNOTE 1 7 U.S.C. 608c(5)(J). END FOOTNOTE
Accordingly this decision finds a temporary assessment of
This decision finds it appropriate that handlers be required to submit all claim requests to the market administrator during the first month the assessment would become effective. This would provide handlers adequate time to assemble and submit necessary records, and give the market administrator sufficient time to determine the total amount of eligible claims and adjust the assessment accordingly in the last month, ensuring that, as accurately as possible, only the necessary funds are collected.
For all claims submitted to the market administrator, documents substantiating the claims may include, but are not limited to, invoices, receiving records, bulk milk manifests, hauling billings, transaction records and contract agreements. Handlers would not be eligible to obtain reimbursement through these temporary provisions if they have applied for or received reimbursement through insurance claims or through any State, Federal, or other programs for the same losses.
Transportation Costs: This decision finds that handlers should be reimbursed for transportation expenses in excess of costs associated with customary shipping routes for milk that would have been considered part of the regular producer milk supply of the order, but was delivered to plants outside of the marketing area from
This decision finds it reasonable to reimburse handlers for the increase in transportation costs for each eligible load over what would be considered transportation costs during normal market conditions. Record evidence demonstrates that handlers faced unprecedented challenges and additional transportation costs and it is reasonable to provide these handlers with limited reimbursement for additional transportation costs incurred. Limiting transportation cost reimbursement to only the increase in transportation costs due to the hurricane will ensure that handlers are not being reimbursed for costs associated with marketing milk under normal market conditions.
This decision finds that while the milk on eligible loads did not have to be pooled as producer milk on the Florida FMMO during
The record testimony reflects that the Florida FMMO diversion limitations, combined with milk deliveries to alternative outlets, caused some milk normally pooled on the Florida FMMO to instead be pooled on another FMMO. Much of the milk was delivered to plants in the Southeast and Appalachian marketing areas and may have been pooled on those respective orders. The Southeast and Appalachian order provisions provide for transportation credits on supplemental milk supplies sourced from outside of those combined marketing areas. Therefore, there could be instances where milk normally associated with the Florida FMMO was instead pooled on the Southeast or Appalachian order and may have received a transportation credit. This decision finds that transportation credits received on loads eligible for transportation cost reimbursement through this proceeding would have the transportation credits received netted out of any final transportation cost reimbursement due to the requesting handler.
Lost Location Value: This decision finds that handlers should be reimbursed for lost location value on milk that would have normally been delivered to fluid milk plants within the marketing area but was instead rerouted to plants outside of the marketing area because of Hurricane Irma. The location value of milk is the Class I differential associated with plant of first receipt. The FMMO system has a coordinated national set of Class I differentials that set a Class I differential level for each county in the contiguous
FOOTNOTE 2 7 CFR 1000.52 as adjusted by SUBSEC 1005.51(b), 1006.51(b), and 1007.51(b). END FOOTNOTE
The hearing record shows that from
Record evidence estimates the Cooperatives incurred a total loss in location value of
Record testimony indicates that in some instances, while loads that were rerouted to a plant outside the marketing area did receive a lower location value, the transportation cost to move some of those loads was actually less than if the milk was delivered to its normal outlet. In those instances, this decision finds that the reimbursement owed to the handlers should be the net value when considering both change in location value and change in transportation costs, on a load-by-load basis.
Dumped Milk: This decision finds that handlers should be reimbursed, at the lowest classified use value for
The record indicates that the market administrator allowed pooling handlers to pool the dumped milk. The milk was classified as "other use" milk and assigned a Class IV value (the lowest classified value for
Record evidence clearly indicates the hurricane was an extraordinary weather event, and despite the best efforts from pooling handlers, not all milk could find a market outlet, which led to unusual milk dumping situations. This decision finds that pooling handlers should be reimbursed for the lost value of dumped milk that was reported to the market administrator and reflected on their
Distressed Milk: This decision finds handlers who sold milk at distressed prices due to Hurricane Irma should be reimbursed for the difference between the end-use classified value and the price the handler actually received for the milk. The hearing record indicates that in an effort to find an alternative outlet for the regular milk supply of the
This decision finds that reimbursement for distressed milk sales at the milks end-use classification is justified. Similar to the requirements for other cost reimbursement categories recognized in this decision, handlers of distressed milk loads would need to submit documentation to the market administrator demonstrating that while the milk may or may not have been pooled on the
2. Determination of whether emergency marketing conditions exist that warrant the omission of a recommended decision and the opportunity to file written exceptions.
Record evidence supports the adoption of Proposal 1, as modified at the hearing and in this decision, on an emergency basis due to Hurricane Irma's significant impact on the orderly marketing conditions of the entire
The Rules of Practice and Procedure governing FMMO rulemaking proceedings allow the Department to omit issuing a recommended decision should such omission be found warranted on the basis of the hearing record. /3/
FOOTNOTE 3 7 CFR 900.12(d). END FOOTNOTE
Record evidence clearly indicates that the marketing of bulk milk for the entire
The record shows that the timely implementation of the proposed amendments would provide much needed relief to handlers and producers who incurred this marketing expenses and losses as a direct result of Hurricane Irma. No record evidence was presented opposing the omission of a recommended decision. Accordingly, this decision finds that emergency marketing conditions exist that warrant the omission of a recommended decision and the opportunity to file written exceptions.
Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions
Briefs and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf of certain interested parties. These briefs, proposed findings and conclusions, and the evidence in the record were considered in making the findings and conclusions set forth above. To the extent that the suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested parties are inconsistent with the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the requests to make such findings or reach such conclusions are denied for the reasons previously stated in this decision.
General Findings
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the Florida FMMO was first issued and when it was amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein.
(a) The tentative marketing agreement and the order, as hereby proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the AMAA;
(b) The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to section 2 of the AMAA are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions that affect market supply and demand for milk in the
(c) The tentative marketing agreement and order, as hereby proposed to be amended, will regulate the handling of milk in the same manner as, and will be applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial and commercial activity specified in, marketing agreements upon which a hearing has been held.
Marketing Agreement and Order Amending the Order
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are two documents, a Marketing Agreement regulating the handling of milk, and an Order amending the order regulating the handling of milk in the
It is hereby ordered that this entire decision and the two documents annexed hereto be published in the
Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period
August 2017 is hereby determined to be the representative period for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of the order, as amended and as hereby proposed to be amended, regulating the handling of milk in the
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1006
Milk marketing orders.
Dated:
Acting Administrator,
Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Milk in the Florida Marketing Area
(This order shall not become effective unless and until the requirements of
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement those that were made when the orders were first issued and when they were amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set forth herein.
(a) Findings. A public hearing was held upon certain proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreement and to the order regulating the handling of milk in the
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the record thereof, it is determined that:
(1) The said order as hereby amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The parity prices of milk, as determined pursuant to section 2 of the Act, are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market supply and demand for milk in the aforesaid marketing area. The minimum prices specified in the order as hereby amended are such prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest; and
(3) The said order as hereby amended regulates the handling of milk in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in, marketing agreements upon which a hearing has been held.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, the handling of milk in the
PART 1006--MILK IN THE
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1006 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.
2. Section 1006.60 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (g) and adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(a) Multiply the pounds of skim milk and butterfat in producer milk that were classified in each class pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.44(c) by the applicable skim milk and butterfat prices, and add the resulting amounts; except that for the months of__2018 through __2018, the Class I skim milk price for this purpose shall be the Class I skim milk price as determined in 7 CFR 1000.50(b) plus
* * * * *
(g) For transactions occurring during the period of
(1) The additional cost of transportation on loads of milk rerouted from pool distributing plants to plants outside the state of
(2) The lost location value on loads of milk rerouted to plants outside the state of
(3) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of
(4) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of
(5) The value per hundredweight at the lowest classified price for the month of
(6) The difference between the announced class price applicable to the milk as classified by the market administrator for the month of
(h) The total amount of payment to all handlers under paragraph (g) of this section shall be limited for each month to an amount determined by multiplying the total Class I producer milk for all handlers pursuant to 7 CFR 1000.44(c) times $0.09 per hundredweight.
(i) If the cost of payments computed pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section exceeds the amount computed pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, the market administrator shall prorate such payments to each handler based on each handler's proportion of transportation and other use milk costs submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) through (6). Costs submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1) thought (6) which are not paid as a result of such a proration shall be paid in subsequent months until all costs incurred and documented through (g)(1) through (6) have been paid.
[This marketing agreement will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.]
Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in the Florida Marketing Area
The parties hereto, in order to effectuate the declared policy of the Act, and in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), desire to enter into this marketing agreement and do hereby agree that the provisions referred to in paragraph I hereof, as augmented by the provisions specified in paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the provisions of this marketing agreement as if set out in full herein.
I. The findings and determinations, order relative to handling, and the provisions of SUBSEC 1006.1 to 1006.86, all inclusive, of the order regulating the handling of milk in the
II. The following provision:
(a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/she handled during the month of [insert representative period], ______hundredweight of milk covered by this marketing agreement.
(b) Authorization to correct typographical errors. The undersigned hereby authorizes the Deputy Administrator, or Acting Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs,
SEC 1006.87 Effective Date. This marketing agreement shall become effective upon the execution of a counterpart thereof by the Secretary in accordance with
In Witness Whereof, The contracting handlers, acting under the provisions of the Act, for the purposes and subject to the limitations herein contained and not otherwise, have hereunto set their respective hands and seals.
Signature
By (
(Title)
(Address)
(Seal)
Attest
[FR Doc. 2018-06286 Filed 3-29-18;
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Men arrested for starting church fire
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News