[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21082]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 26, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 989

[Docket No. FV94-989-3FR]

 

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Removal of an 
Exemption for Raisins Produced in Southern California and Exported to 
Mexico

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the administrative rules and 
regulations established under the Federal marketing order for raisins 
produced from grapes grown in California. It removes a provision that 
currently exempts raisins produced from grapes dried on the vine in 
southern California and exported to Mexico from all marketing order 
requirements. This rule is based on a unanimous recommendation of the 
Raisin Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for 
local administration of the order. Elimination of the exemption will 
facilitate administration and improve enforcement efforts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 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 
Mark A. Slupek, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration 
Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, Room 2523-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 
20090-6456; Telephone: (202) 205-2830, or FAX (202) 720-5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing 
Agreement and Order No. 989 [7 CFR Part 989], both as amended, 
regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in 
California. 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 of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in 
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This 
action 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. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the 
petition. After a hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The 
Act provides that the district court of the United States in any 
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or 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 California raisins who are 
subject to regulation under the raisin marketing order, and 
approximately 5,000 producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural 
producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration [13 
CFR 121.601] as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and 
small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual 
receipts are less than $5,000,000. A majority of producers and a 
minority of handlers of California raisins may be classified as small 
entities.
    This final rule removes a provision that exempts raisins produced 
from grapes dried on the vine in southern California and exported to 
Mexico in natural condition from all marketing order requirements. It 
is based on a unanimous recommendation of the Committee and other 
available information.
    Section 989.60 of the order provides that the Committee may 
establish, with the approval of the Secretary, rules and procedures to 
exempt from regulations raisins produced in southern California (i.e., 
the counties of Riverside, Imperial, San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, 
Los Angeles, and San Diego) and disposed of for distillation, livestock 
feed, or by export in natural condition to Mexico.
    Paragraph (b) of section 989.160 of Subpart--Administrative Rules 
and Regulations (7 CFR 989.102-989.176) currently exempts raisins 
produced from grapes dried on the vine in those southern California 
counties, which are disposed of for use in distillation, livestock 
feed, or by export in natural condition to Mexico, from all marketing 
order requirements. This final rule eliminates the exemption that 
applies to those raisins exported in natural condition to Mexico.
    When that exemption provision was established in the early 1970's, 
the quantities of raisins exported to Mexico were relatively small and 
were of off-grade quality. It was determined at that time that the 
export exemption would not interfere with order regulations or with 
accomplishing program objectives.
    Diminished demand in recent years for off-grade raisins and raisin 
residual material for distillation in California has made export in 
natural condition to Mexico a relatively lucrative market. The 
Committee has confirmed reports that large volumes of poor quality 
raisins, including lots as large as forty to fifty thousand pounds, 
have been exported into Mexico from southern California and other areas 
of California. This is a significant departure from the situation which 
existed when the exemption was first implemented. Raisins from areas 
which are not exempt from the provisions of the order appear to be 
passing into Mexico in violation of the regulations.
    The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has effected the 
removal of import duties and license requirements, opening the Mexican 
market to raisins which meet the quality requirements of the order. 
Hence, there is now an opportunity to build an export market in Mexico 
for high quality raisins. The Committee believes that all raisins 
eligible for export to Mexico need to be subject to the quality 
requirements of the order. The Committee also believes that the 
regulation of such raisins is essential to meeting program objectives 
and improving compliance efforts.
    On the basis of this information, the Committee, on April 16, 1994, 
unanimously recommended the removal of the exemption that applies to 
raisins produced from grapes dried on the vine in southern California 
and exported in natural condition to Mexico.
    Notice of this action was published in the Federal Register on July 
15, 1994 [59 FR 36093]. The proposed rule provided a 15-day comment 
period which ended August 1, 1994. No comments were received.
    Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined 
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    After consideration of all relevant information presented, 
including the Committee's unanimous recommendation and other 
information, it is found that the issuance of this final rule, will 
tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good 
cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this final rule 
until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) 
The 1994-95 crop year began August 1, 1994, and the final rule should 
cover as much of the crop year as possible to accomplish program 
objectives and improve compliance efforts; (2) handlers are aware of 
this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a 
public meeting; and (3) the proposed rule provided a 15-day comment 
period, and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

    Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is 
amended as follows:

PART 989--RAISINS PRODUCED FROM GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 989 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 989.160 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 989.160  Exemptions.

* * * * *
    (b) Disposition of raisins produced in Southern California. Raisins 
produced from grapes dried on the vine in the counties of Riverside, 
Imperial, San Bernardino, Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego, 
which are disposed of for use in distillation or livestock feed, shall 
be exempt from the provisions of this part.


    Dated: August 22, 1994.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 94-21082 Filed 8-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P