[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12097]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 18, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 993

[Docket No. FV93-993-3FIR]

 

Dried Prunes Produced in California; Changes in Producer District 
Boundaries

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a 
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule 
which realigned the boundaries of seven districts established for 
independent producer representation on the Prune Marketing Committee 
(Committee). Realigning the boundaries provides for more equitable 
representation for those members, and makes provisions of the order 
consistent with current industry demographics. This rule was 
unanimously recommended by the Committee, the agency responsible for 
local administration of the federal marketing order regulating dried 
prunes produced in California.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing 
Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable 
Division, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, 
California 93721; telephone: (209) 487-5901, or FAX (209) 487-5906; or 
Valerie L. Emmer, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration 
Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, room 2523-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 
20050-6456; Telephone: (202) 205-2829, or FAX (202) 720-5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing 
Agreement and Order No. 993 (7 CFR part 993), as amended, regulating 
the handling of dried prunes produced in California, hereinafter 
referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under the 
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
    The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive 
Order 12866.
    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or 
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this 
rule.
    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted 
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the 
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a 
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any 
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance 
with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted 
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on 
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the 
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States 
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or 
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review 
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is 
filed not later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service 
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small 
entities.
    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will 
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued 
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that 
they are brought about through group action of essentially small 
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 
entity orientation and compatibility.
    There are approximately 20 handlers of dried prunes who are subject 
to regulation under the dried prune marketing order and approximately 
1,360 producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms 
are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as 
those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000, and small 
agricultural producers have been defined as those having annual 
receipts of less than $500,000. The majority of handlers and producers 
of California dried prunes may be classified as small entities.
    The interim final rule realigned the boundaries of the seven 
districts established for independent producer representation on the 
Committee. To be consistent with current industry demographics, the 
interim rule ensured that, insofar as practicable, each district 
represents an equal number of independent producers and an equal volume 
of prunes grown by such producers. The change did not impose any 
additional regulatory, informational, or cost requirements on handlers 
or producers.
    This rule finalizes an interim final rule which revised 
Sec. 993.128 of Subpart--Administrative Rules and Regulations and was 
based on a unanimous recommendation of the Committee and other 
available information.
    Section 993.24 of the order provides that the Committee shall 
consist of 22 members, of which 14 shall represent producers, 7 shall 
represent handlers, and one shall represent the public. The 14 producer 
member positions are apportioned between cooperative producers and 
independent producers in the same proportion, insofar as is 
practicable, as the percentage of the total prune tonnage handled by 
the cooperative and independent handlers during the year preceding the 
year in which nominations are made is to the total handled by all 
handlers. In recent years and currently, cooperative producers and 
independent producers each have been eligible to nominate seven 
members.
    Section 993.28 of the order provides that, for independent 
producers, the Committee shall, with the approval of the Secretary of 
Agriculture, divide the production area into districts, giving, insofar 
as practicable, equal representation throughout the production area by 
numbers of independent producers and production of prune tonnage by 
such producers. When revisions are required, the Committee must make 
its recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to change the 
district boundaries prior to January 31 of any year in which 
nominations are to be made. Nominations are made in all even-numbered 
years, including 1994.
    The Committee recommended this change at its December 8, 1993, 
meeting. Since the last redistricting in 1990, the number of producers 
and volume of production in most districts changed, causing imbalances 
among some districts. Thus, redistricting was needed to bring the 
districts in line with order requirements and current California prune 
industry demographics.
    The interim final rule established Colusa and Glenn counties as 
District 1 and added Tehama and Shasta counties to District 4. It also 
moved the boundary between the central Sutter and southern Sutter 
districts north from Oswald Road to Bogue Road, and made the central 
Sutter County area a part of District 2. That rule also designated the 
portion of District 4, which includes the San Joaquin Valley counties, 
as District 7. That rule also added northern Sutter County to Butte 
County which became a new District 5. District 6 continued to be Yuba 
County.
    The Committee calculated the percentage of total independent prune 
growers and the percentage of total independent grower prune tonnage 
for each proposed new district. The two percentages were averaged for 
each district to determine a representation factor for each district. 
The optimal representation factor was determined to be 14.29 percent 
(100 percent divided by 7 districts).
    The representation factors for the seven old and the seven new 
districts are shown below, based on the 1992-93 crop year. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Representation factor 
                                               -------------------------
                   District                         Old          New    
                                                 districts    districts 
                                                 (percent)    (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................         7.52        12.81
2.............................................        21.02        14.89
3.............................................        11.07        15.09
4.............................................        14.27        12.78
5.............................................         9.15        16.67
6.............................................        16.10        16.10
7.............................................        20.88        11.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The redistricting recommendation was deemed to be desirable because 
it allowed each district to approximate the optimal representation 
factor, while maintaining a continuous geographic boundary for each 
district. In addition, several of the districts whose representation 
factors are below the optimum are expected to experience production 
increases in the next few years which are likely to be above the 
industry average.
    The interim final rule which changed the boundaries of the 
districts established for independent producer representation on the 
Committee was issued on February 17, 1994, and published in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 8517, February 23, 1994), with an effective date of 
February 23, 1994. That rule provided a 30-day comment period which 
ended March 25, 1994. No comments were received.
    Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    After consideration of all relevant material presented, including 
the Committee's unanimous recommendation and other information, it is 
found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, will tend 
to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993

    Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is 
amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 993 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.

PART 993--DRIED PRUNES PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

    2. Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR Part 993 
which was published at 59 FR 8517 on February 23, 1994, is adopted as a 
final rule without change.

    Dated: May 12, 1994.
Robert C. Keeney,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 94-12097 Filed 5-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P