[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72245-72247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29425]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 72245]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 927

[Doc. No. AMS-FV-12-0032; FV12-927-3 PR]


Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Committee Membership 
Reapportionment for Processed Pears

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on reapportionment of the 
membership of the Processed Pear Committee (Committee) established 
under the Oregon-Washington pear marketing order. The marketing order 
regulates the handling of processed pears grown in Oregon and 
Washington, and is administered locally by the Committee. This rule 
would reapportion the processor membership such that the three 
processor members and alternate members would be selected from the 
production area-at-large rather than from a specific district. In an 
industry with few processors, this change would provide the flexibility 
needed to help ensure that all processor member positions are filled, 
resulting in effective representation of the processed pear industry.

DATES: Comments must be received by February 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 
Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 
20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. 
All comments should reference the document number and the date and page 
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available 
for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular 
business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All 
comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the 
record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that 
the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments 
will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 
Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement 
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-
2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or Email: [email protected] or 
[email protected].
    Small businesses may request information on complying with this 
regulation by contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order and Agreement 
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-
2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing 
Order No. 927, as amended (7 CFR part 927), regulating the handling of 
pears grown in Oregon and Washington, 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 of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in 
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
    This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted 
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the 
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA 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, USDA 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 to review USDA's ruling on the petition, 
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of 
the entry of the ruling.
    This proposal invites comments on reapportionment of the membership 
of the Committee established under the Oregon-Washington pear marketing 
order. This rule would reapportion the processor membership such that 
the three processor members and alternate members would be selected 
from the production area-at-large rather than from a specific district. 
With nine members present, the Committee unanimously recommended this 
change at a meeting held on May 30, 2012, with a request that the 
change be made effective on July 1, 2013.
    Section 927.20(b) establishes the Processed Pear Committee 
consisting of ten members. Three members are growers, three members are 
handlers, three members are processors, and one member represents the 
public. For each member, there are two alternate members, designated as 
the ``first alternate'' and the ``second alternate,'' respectively. 
Committee membership is apportioned among two districts. Section 
927.11(b) defines the districts as follows: District 1--The State of 
Washington and District 2--The State of Oregon. District 1 is 
represented by two grower members, two handler members and two 
processor members. District 2 is represented by one grower member, one 
handler member, and one processor member.
    The order provides in Sec.  927.20(c) that USDA, upon 
recommendation of the Committee, may reapportion members among 
districts, may change the number of members and alternate members, and 
may change the composition by changing the ratio of members, including 
their alternate members.
    This rule would add a new Sec.  927.150 to the order's 
administrative rules and regulations reapportioning the processor 
membership such that the three processor members and alternate members 
would be selected from the production area-at-large rather than from a 
specific district. The Committee recommended this change because the 
District 2 processor member representative on the Committee is no 
longer processing pears. As a result, the

[[Page 72246]]

District 2 processor member and alternate member positions are 
currently vacant. This change would result in more effective 
representation of the processed pear industry by allowing the Committee 
to fill these vacant positions with processors from District 1. Since 
2006, pear acreage in Oregon and Washington has decreased by 10 
percent.
    Reapportioning the processor membership would allow all processor 
member and alternate member positions to be filled. The Committee 
recommended maintaining the three processor member positions, but 
specifying that such members and alternate members may be located in 
either district. The proposed regulatory language includes flexibility 
that would provide opportunity for representation from District 2 
should a processor once again process pears in that district.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 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 1,500 producers of processed pears in the 
regulated production area and approximately 46 handlers of processed 
pears subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural 
producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 
CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and 
small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual 
receipts are less than $7,000,000.
    According to the Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2011 Preliminary Summary 
issued in March 2012 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 
the total farm-gate value of summer/fall processed pears grown in 
Oregon and Washington for 2011 was $35,315,000. Based on the number of 
processed pear producers in Oregon and Washington, the average gross 
revenue for each producer can be estimated at approximately $23,543. 
Furthermore, based on Committee records, the Committee has estimated 
that all of the Oregon-Washington pear handlers currently ship less 
than $7,000,000 worth of processed pears each on an annual basis. From 
this information, it is concluded that the majority of producers and 
handlers of Oregon and Washington processed pears may be classified as 
small entities.
    There are three pear processing plants in the production area, all 
currently located in Washington. All three pear processors would be 
considered large entities under the SBA's definition of small 
businesses.
    This rule would add a new Sec.  927.150 to the order's 
administrative rules and regulations reapportioning the processor 
membership such that the three processor members would be selected from 
the production area-at-large. This rule would be effective July 1, 
2013. Authority for reapportioning the Committee is provided in Sec.  
927.20(c) of the order.
    The Committee believes that these proposed changes would not 
negatively impact producers, handlers, or processors in terms of cost. 
The benefits for this rule are not expected to be disproportionately 
greater or less for small producers, handlers, or processors than for 
larger entities.
    The Committee discussed alternatives to this rule, including 
leaving the District 2 processor member and alternate member positions 
vacant. However, the Committee believes that three members should 
continue to represent processors on the Committee, except the 
representative should be chosen from the production area-at-large 
rather than from a specific district.
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been 
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 
assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those 
requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any 
changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
    Additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements would not be 
imposed on either small or large processed pear handlers. 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.
    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.
    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, 
overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.
    In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized 
throughout the Oregon-Washington pear industry and all interested 
persons were invited to attend and participate in Committee 
deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 30, 
2012, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and 
small, were able to express views on this issue. 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: 
www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrderSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about 
the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously 
mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to 
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be 
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927

    Marketing agreements, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 927--PEARS GROWN IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 927 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. A new undesignated center heading, ``Administrative Bodies,'' is 
added before a new Sec.  927.150 which is proposed to read as follows:


Sec.  927.150  Reapportionment of the Processed Pear Committee.

    Pursuant to Sec.  927.20(c), on and after July 1, 2013, the 10-
member Processed Pear Committee is reapportioned and shall consist of 
three grower members, three handler members, three processor members, 
and one member representing the public. For each member, there are two 
alternate members, designated as the ``first alternate' and the 
``second alternate,'' respectively. District 1, the State of 
Washington, shall be

[[Page 72247]]

represented by two grower members and two handler members. District 2, 
the State of Oregon, shall be represented by one grower member and one 
handler member. Processor members may be from District 1, District 2, 
or from both.

    Dated: November 29, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29425 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P