[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72909-72912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 993

[Docket No. FV00-993-1 IFR]


Dried Prunes Produced in California; Changes in Producer District 
Boundaries

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This rule realigns the boundaries of seven districts 
established for independent producer representation on the Prune 
Marketing Committee (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 993. The 
Committee is responsible for local administration of the marketing 
order which regulates the handling of dried prunes grown in California. 
Due to shifts in the production areas, the current seven production 
districts for independent producer representation on the Committee are 
out of balance. The realignment provides for more equitable independent 
producer representation on the Committee, consistent with current 
industry demographics.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim final rule is effective December 30, 1999. 
Comments which are received by January 28, 2000 will be considered 
prior to any finalization of this interim final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit 
and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, 
Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-5698; or E-mail: 
[email protected]. All comments should reference the docket 
number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal 
Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of 
the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing 
Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable 
Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, 
California 93721; telephone: (559) 487-5901; Fax: (559) 487-5906; or 
George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration 
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 
96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 
720-5698.
    Small businesses may request information on complying with this 
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration 
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 
2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: 
(202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.G[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing 
Agreement and Order No. 993, both as amended [7 CFR Part 993], 
regulating the handling of dried prunes produced in California, 
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The marketing agreement and 
order are 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 12988, 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 request a modification of the order or to be exempted 
therefrom. A 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 an action is filed not 
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec. 993.128 of the order's administrative rules 
and regulations lists and describes the boundaries of each of the seven 
independent grower districts. This rule realigns the boundaries of the 
seven districts based on a unanimous recommendation of the Committee 
made on November 30, 1999. To be consistent with current industry 
demographics, this rule ensures that, insofar as practicable, each 
district represents an equal number of independent producers and an 
equal volume of prunes grown by such producers.
    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 1 shall represent the public. The 14 producer 
member positions are apportioned between cooperative producers and 
independent producers. The apportionment, insofar as is practicable, is 
the same 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

[[Page 72910]]

and currently, cooperative producers and independent producers each 
have been eligible to nominate seven members.
    Section 993.28(a) 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.
    Since the last redistricting in 1994, the number of producers and 
volume of production in most districts has changed, causing imbalances 
among some districts. Prune orchards were planted to replace other 
crops which expanded the acreage base to new geographic areas and 
intensified the prune plantings in other districts. Thus, redistricting 
is needed to bring the districts in line with order requirements and 
current California prune industry demographics.
    This rule establishes new district alignments as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Counties in prior       Counties in new district
     District           district alignment             alignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Colusa, Glenn............  Colusa, Glenn, Solano,
                                                Yolo.
2.................  Sutter (Central).........  Sutter (North).\1\
3.................  Sutter (South), Yolo.....  Sutter (South).\1\
4.................  Alpine, Amador, Del        Alpine, Amador, Del
                     Norte, El Dorado,          Norte, El Dorado,
                     Humboldt, Lake, Lassen,    Humboldt, Lake, Lassen,
                     Mendocino, Modoc, Napa,    Mendocino, Modoc, Napa,
                     Nevada, Placer, Plumas,    Nevada, Placer, Plumas,
                     Sacramento, Shasta,        Sacramento, Shasta,
                     Sierra, Siskiyou,          Sierra, Siskiyou,
                     Sonoma, Tehama and         Sonoma, Tehama and
                     Trinity.                   Trinity.
5.................  Butte, Sutter (North)....  Butte.
6.................  Yuba.....................  Yuba.
7.................  Fresno, Kings, Merced,     Fresno, Kern, Kings,
                     San Benito, San Joaquin,   Madera, Merced, San
                     Santa Clara, Solano,       Benito, San Joaquin,
                     Tulare & all other         Santa Clara, Tulare &
                     counties not included in   all other counties not
                     Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,   included in Districts 1,
                     & 6.                       2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The north/south boundary of Sutter County will be changed to
  Franklin Road.

    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 for each district is 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 1998-99 crop year (August 1-
July 31) data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Representation factor
                                             ---------------------------
                  District                                       New
                                              Old districts   districts
                                                 (percent)    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................           9.75        15.62
2...........................................          11.94        16.87
3...........................................          12.5         16.37
4...........................................          10.33        10.33
5...........................................          23.97        12.35
6...........................................          14.43        14.43
7...........................................          17.02        13.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The redistricting is desirable because it allows each district to 
approximate the optimal representation factor, while maintaining a 
continuous geographic boundary for each district.
    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the 
economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has 
prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
    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 1,250 producers of dried prunes in the 
production area and approximately 20 handlers subject to regulation 
under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been 
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those 
having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural 
service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than 
$5,000,000.
    Last year, 13 of the 20 handlers (65%) shipped under $5,000,000 of 
dried prunes and could be considered small handlers. An estimated 1,141 
producers (91 percent) of the 1,250 producers, could be considered 
small growers with annual income less than $500,000. The majority of 
handlers and producers of California dried prunes may be classified as 
small entities.
    This rule realigns the boundaries of the seven districts 
established for independent producer representation on the Committee. 
To be consistent with current industry demographics, this rule ensures 
that, insofar as practicable, each district represents an equal number 
of independent producers and an equal volume of prunes grown by such 
producers.
    Shifts in the prune production area have lead to greater 
differences among the current districts than is desirable for equitable 
independent producer representation. As shown below, District 1 
represents less than 10% of California's independent prune producers/
production while District 5 represents nearly 24% as currently defined.
    The representation factors for the seven old and the seven new 
districts are shown below, based on the 1998-99 crop year (August 1-
July 31) data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Representation factor \1\
                                             ---------------------------
                  District                                       New
                                              Old districts   districts
                                                (percent)     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................           9.75        15.62
2...........................................          11.94        16.87
3...........................................          12.5         16.37
4...........................................          10.33        10.33
5...........................................          23.97        12.35
6...........................................          14.43        14.43
7...........................................          17.02       13.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The optimal representation factor for each district is 14.29 percent
  (100 percent divided by 7 districts).

    The economic vagaries of prune production are responsible for the

[[Page 72911]]

current imbalance among production districts. When the average grower 
return per ton reached $1,121 in 1993, prune tree sales by nurseries 
jumped to 1.5 million trees from a normal maintenance and replacement 
level of about 300,000 trees. Prune orchards were planted to replace 
other crops which expanded the acreage base to new geographic areas and 
intensified the prune plantings in others. Non-bearing acreage 
increased from 8,000 acres in 1993 to 26,000 acres in 1998.
    More recently, grower prices have steadily declined from 1993's 
peak of $1,121 per ton to $763 in 1998. This lead to the removal of 
over 5,000 acres in 1998 alone. The overall result is a shift in prune 
production which leaves imbalance in the composition of independent 
producer districts.
    The recommended realignment of district boundaries will yield more 
equitable representation. Currently, the representation factors for the 
districts range from 9.75% to 23.97%. The revised alignment narrows 
this range to 10.33% to 16.87%. The California prune industry 
considered other district alignments; however, none would not have 
improved the balance among districts as much as this rule. Since the 
weather-reduced 1998-99 prune crop (102,000 tons) was the smallest 
since 1986, the Committee also did a representation factor analysis on 
the more typical 1997-98 crop (205,000 tons) to ensure that the short 
crop year did not produce atypical results. The results were consistent 
as far as each district's percent of the total. Another alternative 
considered was to do nothing, but this would not have done anything to 
correct the representation factor imbalance, and this was not 
acceptable.
    The Committee unanimously recommended this change at its November 
30, 1999, meeting. Since the last redistricting in 1994, the number of 
producers and volume of production in most districts has changed 
causing imbalances among some districts. Thus, redistricting is needed 
to bring the districts in line with order requirements and current 
California prune industry demographics.
    This rule establishes new district alignments as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Counties in prior       Counties in new district
     District           district alignment             alignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................  Colusa, Glenn............  Colusa, Glenn, Solano,
                                                Yolo.
2.................  Sutter (Central).........  Sutter (North).\1\
3.................  Sutter (South), Yolo.....  Sutter (South).\1\
4.................  Alpine, Amador, Del        Alpine, Amador, Del
                     Norte, El Dorado,          Norte, El Dorado,
                     Humboldt, Lake, Lassen,    Humboldt, Lake, Lassen,
                     Mendocino, Modoc, Napa,    Mendocino, Modoc, Napa,
                     Nevada, Placer, Plumas,    Nevada, Placer, Plumas,
                     Sacramento, Shasta,        Sacramento, Shasta,
                     Sierra, Siskiyou,          Sierra, Siskiyou,
                     Sonoma, Tehama and         Sonoma, Tehama and
                     Trinity.                   Trinity.
5.................  Butte, Sutter (North)....  Butte.
6.................  Yuba.....................  Yuba.
7.................  Fresno, Kings, Merced,     Fresno, Kern, Kings,
                     San Benito, San Joaquin,   Madera, Merced, San
                     Santa Clara, Solano,       Benito, San Joaquin,
                     Tulare & all other         Santa Clara, Tulare &
                     counties not included in   all other counties not
                     Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,   included in Districts 1,
                     & 6.                       2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The north/south boundary of Sutter County will be changed to
  Franklin Road.

    At the November 30, 1999, meeting, the Committee discussed the 
financial impact of this change on handlers and producers. All 
independent producers regardless of size will continue to have 
representation and the overall representation will be more equitable as 
previously explained. There will be no additional costs generated by 
this rule. Since this rule affects only independent producers, there is 
no expected impact on handlers.
    This rule will realign the boundaries of seven independent grower 
districts. This rule allows each district to approximate the optimal 
representation factor, while maintaining a continuous geographic 
boundary for each district.
    This rule will impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements on either small or large entities. As with all Federal 
marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed 
to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and 
public sector agencies. In addition, the Department has not identified 
any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
this rule.
    Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout 
the California dried prune industry and all interested persons were 
invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee 
deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 
30, 1999, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and 
small, were able to express views on this issue. The Committee itself 
is composed of 22 members, of which 7 are handlers, 14 are producers 
and 1 is a public representative.
    Also, the Committee has a number of appointed subcommittees to 
review certain issues and make recommendations to the Committee. The 
Committee's Ad-Hoc Redistricting Subcommittee met on November 2, 1999, 
and discussed this issue in detail. That meeting was also a public 
meeting and both large and small entities were able to participate and 
express their views. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit 
information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action 
on small businesses.
    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and 
specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the 
following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions 
about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the 
previously mentioned address in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' 
section.
    After consideration of all relevant information presented, 
including the Committee's unanimous recommendation and other available 
information, it is found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will 
tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
    This rule invites comments on realigning the independent producer 
districts as currently prescribed in Sec. 993.128(a) of the 
administrative rules and regulations. Any comments received will be 
considered prior to finalization of this rule.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good 
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public 
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into 
effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective 
date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register because: (1) The order requires that

[[Page 72912]]

independent producer nomination meetings be held for each of the seven 
districts prior to March 8, 2000, for the term of office beginning June 
1, 2000, and this action should be in place before those meetings. The 
first meeting is scheduled on January 18, 2000; (2) the industry is 
aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the 
Committee at an open meeting on November 30, 1999; and (3) this rule 
provides a 30-day comment period, which is considered appropriate in 
view of the above, and any comments received will be considered prior 
to finalization of this rule.

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:

PART 993--DRIED PRUNES PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 993 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 993.128, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 993.128  Nominations for membership.

    (a) Districts. In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 993.28, 
the districts referred to therein are described as follows:
    District No. 1. The counties of Colusa, Glenn, Solano and Yolo.
    District No. 2. That portion of Sutter County north of a line 
extending along Franklin Road easterly to the Yuba County line and 
westerly to the Colusa County line.
    District No. 3. That portion of Sutter County south of a line 
extending along Franklin Road easterly to the Yuba County line and 
westerly to the Colusa County line.
    District No. 4. The counties of Alpine, Amador, Del Norte, El 
Dorado, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, 
Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Tehama and 
Trinity.
    District No. 5. All of Butte County.
    District No. 6. All of Yuba County.
    District No. 7. The counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera Merced, 
San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Tulare and all other counties not 
included in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
* * * * *
    Dated: December 21, 1999.
James R. Frazier,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.
[FR Doc. 99-33642 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-D