[Federal Register: October 28, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 208)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62829-62831]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28oc04-16]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 932
[Docket No. FV04-932-2 PR]
Olives Grown in California; Redistricting and Reapportionment of
Producer Membership on the California Olive Committee
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on the redefinition of the producer
districts and reapportionment of each district's membership on the
California Olive Committee (committee). The Federal marketing order for
California olives (order) regulates the handling of canned ripe olives
grown in California and is administered locally by the committee. This
rule would reduce the number of producer districts in the production
area from four to two and would reapportion the committee
representation from each district to reflect the consolidation. These
changes would reflect recent shifts in olive acreage and producer
numbers within the production area and would provide equitable
committee representation from each district.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 27, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC
20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov;
or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference
the docket 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//http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel L. May, Marketing Specialist,
California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, 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, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone (202) 720-
2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932),
regulating the handling of olives grown 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 of Agriculture (USDA) 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 proposal 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 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. Such
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 rule would consolidate the four existing producer districts
into two larger districts. Producer representation on the committee
would be reapportioned accordingly. These changes would reflect recent
shifts in olive acreage and producer numbers within the production area
and would assure equitable committee
[[Page 62830]]
representation from each district. This action was unanimously
recommended by the committee at a meeting on July 8, 2004.
Section 932.21 of the order defines the producer districts as
geographical areas of the State of California. Section 932.25
establishes an administrative committee of olive handlers and producers
and provides for the allocation of committee membership to assure
equitable producer representation from the districts. Section 932.35(k)
authorizes the redefinition of the producer districts and the
reapportionment of committee membership as needed to reflect shifts in
olive acreage within the districts and area, numbers of growers in the
districts, and the tonnage produced to assure equitable producer
representation on the committee.
Currently, Sec. 932.121 of the order's administrative rules and
regulations lists and defines four producer districts within the
production area. District 1 includes Glenn, Tehama and Shasta Counties.
District 2 includes the counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, San Benito,
Monterey, and all counties south thereof excluding Tulare County.
District 3 includes the counties of Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, and all counties north thereof except those in
District 1. District 4 includes Tulare County.
Section 932.125 specifies the producer representation on the
committee. Currently, District 1 is represented by two producer members
on the committee. District 2 is represented by one producer member.
District 3 is represented by one producer member. District 4 is
represented by four producer members.
At its meeting on July 8, 2004, the committee recommended
redefining the producer districts to consolidate the four existing
districts into two. The committee also recommended reapportionment of
the producer membership on the committee to reflect the consolidation
of the districts. The committee believes that redistricting and
reapportioning the eight producer member positions and alternates would
provide equitable representation throughout the production area. The
committee based this recommendation on the current olive acreage and
number of producers as required under the marketing order.
Total canned ripe olive acreage in the production area has declined
by approximately four percent since 1994. Although production acreage
in District 1 has increased by approximately 21 percent, shifts in
varietal preference and challenging production conditions have led to
declining acreages in the other districts. Production acreages in
Districts 2, 3, and 4 have declined by approximately 34 percent, 99
percent, and 1 percent, respectively.
The number of producers in the entire production area has declined
by approximately 23 percent since 1994. Some of the decline has been
caused by changes in ownership of productive acreage, and some
producers have stopped growing olives for cannery use. While District 1
has lost only two percent of its producers since 1994, Districts 2, 3,
and 4 have lost 49 percent, 89 percent, and 29 percent, respectively.
Some districts no longer have enough available or eligible producers to
fill all the member seats currently allocated them on the committee.
Revisions to both the district definitions and committee membership
apportionment were last made in 1987. At that time District 4 was
created because Tulare County represented more than 45 percent of the
average production, number of producers, and acreage of the entire
production area. District 4 now represents approximately 56 percent of
the canned ripe olive acreage as well as approximately 51 percent of
the producers in the production area. District 4 is represented by 50
percent of the producer members and alternates on the committee.
Other districts are less equitably represented. District 1
currently has 36 percent of the total acreage in the production area
and 46 percent of the producers, but is represented by only 25 percent
of the committee's producer members and alternates. District 2, with
nine percent of the acreage and two percent of the producers is
represented by 12.5 percent of the committee members. District 3, with
less than 1 percent of both the total acreage and number of producers
is likewise represented by 12.5 percent of the committee's producer
members and alternates.
Recent shifts in production acreage as well as the decline in
producer numbers in the districts prompted the committee to recommend
the consolidation of the two northern districts into one producer
district, and the two southern districts into one producer district.
The shifts in production acreage and the declines in producer numbers
reflect similar changes in the tonnage produced.
The committee believes that it would be easier for each district to
provide equitable representation on the committee if the districts with
declining acreages and producer numbers were combined with districts
having higher acreages and producer numbers. The pool of available
producers from which to select committee members would then be
increased for each producer district.
Accordingly, it was proposed that Districts 1 and 3 be combined to
form a new District 1. District 1 would then include the counties of
Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and all other
counties north thereof. Districts 2 and 4 would be combined to form a
new District 2, which would include the counties of Mono, Mariposa,
Merced, San Benito, Monterey and all other counties south thereof.
Producer representation on the committee would then be reapportioned to
provide three members (and alternates) from District 1 and five members
(and alternates) from District 2.
These changes would benefit producers by maintaining an equitable
representation on the committee as to production acreage and number of
producers in each district. Under this proposal, District 1, with 36
percent of the total production acreage and 47 percent of the total
number of producers would be represented by 38 percent of the producer
members and alternates on the committee. District 2, with 64 percent of
the total acreage and 53 percent of the total number of producers would
be represented by 62 percent of the committee's producer members and
alternates.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule 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 to ensure that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the 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 850 producers of olives in the production
area and 3 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order.
The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) defines small
agricultural producers as those with annual receipts less than
$750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those with annual
receipts less than $5,000,000.
[[Page 62831]]
Based upon information from the committee, the majority of olive
producers may be classified as small entities, but only one of the
three handlers may be classified as a small entity.
This rule would revise Sec. 932.121 of the order's administrative
rules and regulations pertaining to producer districts, and Sec.
932.125 pertaining to producer representation on the committee. The
changes would decrease the number of producer districts from four to
two and would reapportion producer membership on the committee to
reflect the consolidation. District 1, comprising the northern part of
the production area, would be apportioned three producer members (and
alternates) on the committee. District 2, comprising the southern part
of the production area, would be apportioned five producer members (and
alternates) on the committee. These changes would reflect recent shifts
in olive acreage and producer numbers within the production area and
would provide equitable committee representation from each district.
The committee unanimously recommended these changes.
This rule would consolidate producer districts and reallocate
producer membership on the committee; thus, there would be no
additional anticipated costs to handlers or producers.
The only alternative to these changes discussed by the committee
was to leave the districts and producer membership allocation as they
currently exist. However, the committee believes that the recent shifts
in acreage and producer numbers within the districts and production
area have made these changes necessary to assure equitable producer
representation from the districts.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on California olive 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized
throughout the California olive industry and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee
deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the July 8,
2004, 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: 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.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received
will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
The proposed redistricting and reapportionment would coincide with the
2005 committee selection, which is scheduled to take place in the
spring of 2005 for the new term to begin June 1, 2005.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 932.121 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 932.121 Producer districts.
Pursuant to the authority in Sec. 932.35(k), commencing with the
term of office beginning June 1, 2005, district means any of the
following geographical areas of the State of California:
(a) District 1 shall include the counties of Alpine, Tuolumne,
Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and all counties north thereof.
(b) District 2 shall include the counties of Mono, Mariposa,
Merced, San Benito, Monterey and all counties south thereof.
3. Section 932.125 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 932.125 Producer representation on the committee.
Pursuant to the authority in Sec. Sec. 932.25 and 932.35(k),
commencing with the term of office beginning June 1, 2005,
representation shall be apportioned as follows:
(a) District 1 shall be represented by three producer members and
alternates.
(b) District 2 shall be represented by five producer members and
alternates.
Dated: October 22, 2004.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 04-24089 Filed 10-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P