Winter Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Recommended Decision and Opportunity To File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 927, 2520-2540 [05-579]

Agencies

• Agricultural Marketing Service
• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2520-2540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-579]



[[Page 2519]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



Agricultural Marketing Service



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



7 CFR Part 927



Winter Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Recommended Decision and 
Opportunity To File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendments to 
Marketing Agreement and Order No. 927; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2520]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 927

[Docket No. AO-F&V-927-A1; FV04-927-1 PR]


Winter Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington; Recommended Decision 
and Opportunity To File Written Exceptions to Proposed Amendments to 
Marketing Agreement and Order No. 927

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule and opportunity to file exceptions.

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

SUMMARY: This recommended decision invites written exceptions on 
proposed amendments to the marketing agreement and order (order) for 
winter pears grown in Oregon and Washington. The amendments are jointly 
proposed by the Winter Pear Control Committee and the Northwest Fresh 
Bartlett Marketing Committee, which are responsible for local 
administration of orders 927 and 931, respectively. Marketing Agreement 
and Order No. 931 regulates the handling of fresh Bartlett pears grown 
in Oregon and Washington. The amendments would combine the winter pear 
and fresh Bartlett orders into a single program under marketing order 
927, and would add authority to assess pears for processing. All of the 
proposals are intended to streamline industry organization and improve 
the administration, operation, and functioning of the program.

DATES: Written exceptions must be filed by February 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written exceptions should be filed with the Hearing Clerk, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, room 1081-S, Washington, DC 20250-9200, 
Facsimile number (202) 720-9776 or www.regulations.gov. All comments 
should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this 
issue of the Federal Register. Comments will be made available for 
public inspection in the Office of the Hearing Clerk during regular 
business hours, or can be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/
moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order 
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, USDA, Post Office Box 1035, Moab, UT 84532, 
telephone: (435) 259-7988, fax: (435) 259-4945.
    Small businesses may request information on this proceeding 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice 
of Hearing issued on March 24, 2004, and published in the March 30, 
2004, issue of the Federal Register (69 FR 16501).
    This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 
of title 5 of the United States Code and is therefore excluded from the 
requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Preliminary Statement

    Notice is hereby given of the filing with the Hearing Clerk of this 
recommended decision with respect to the proposed amendment of 
Marketing Agreement and Order 927 regulating the handling of winter 
pears grown in Oregon and Washington, and the opportunity to file 
written exceptions thereto. Copies of this decision can be obtained 
from Melissa Schmaedick, whose address is listed above.
    This recommended decision is issued pursuant to the provisions of 
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the applicable 
rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing 
agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).
    The proposed amendments are based on the record of a public hearing 
held on April 13 and 14, 2004, in Yakima, Washington and on April 16, 
2004, in Portland, Oregon. Notice of this hearing was published in the 
Federal Register on March 30, 2004 (69 FR 16501). The notice of hearing 
contained order changes proposed by both the Winter Pear Control 
Committee and the Northwest Fresh Bartlett Marketing Committee, which 
are responsible for local administration of orders 927 and 931, 
respectively. Marketing order 927 regulates the handling of winter 
pears grown in Oregon and Washington. Marketing order 931 regulates the 
handling of Bartlett pears in the same production area.
    At a joint meeting of the Winter Pear Control Committee and the 
Northwest Fresh Bartlett Pear Marketing Committee on November 13, 2003, 
both Committees voted unanimously to recommend amendments to Marketing 
Order 927. The amendments are intended to streamline industry and 
program organization by placing both Marketing Order 927, regulating 
the handling of winter pears, and Marketing Order 931, regulating the 
handling of Bartlett pears, under one program: Marketing Order 927. If 
this proposal were implemented, Marketing Order 931 would be 
terminated. The amendments would also add pears for processing to the 
order, and would update various provisions of the order.
    The Committees proposed amendments to marketing order 927 include:
    1. Expanding the definition of pears to include all varieties of 
pears classified as summer/fall pears in addition to winter pears; 
adding Concorde, Packham, and Taylor s Gold pears to the current list 
of winter pear varieties; and adding a third category of pears which 
would include varieties not classified as summer/fall or winter pears. 
This amendment would extend program coverage to all pears grown in 
Oregon and Washington.
    2. Revising the definition of size to include language currently 
used within the industry.
    3. Extending the order's coverage to pears for processing by 
revising the definition of handle, and adding definitions of processor 
and process.
    4. Establishing districts for pears for processing. This amendment 
would divide the order s production area into two districts for pears 
for processing: one being the State of Oregon and the other being the 
State of Washington.
    5. Dissolving the current Winter Pear Control Committee and 
establishing two new administrative committees: the Fresh Pear 
Committee and the Processed Pear Committee (Committees). This proposal 
would add a public member and public alternate member seat to both of 
the newly established Committees and would remove Section 927.36, 
Public advisors. The Committees would coordinate administration of 
Marketing Order 927, with each Committee setting assessments and 
administering program functions specific to their commodity. 
Coordinated administration would allow each Committee to make decisions 
on behalf of the commodity they represent, yet combine administrative 
functions, when applicable, to maximize efficiencies and minimize 
program costs.
    Additionally, related changes would be made to order provisions 
governing nomination and selection of members and their alternates, 
terms of office, eligibility for membership, and quorum and voting 
requirements, to reflect the proposed dual committee structure.
    6. Authorizing changes in the number of Committee members and 
alternates, and allowing reapportionment of committee membership among 
districts and groups (i.e., growers, handlers, and

[[Page 2521]]

processors). Such changes would require a Committee recommendation and 
approval by the Department.
    7. Adding authority to establish assessment rates for each category 
of pears, including: Summer/fall pears, winter pears, and all other 
pears. In addition, rates of assessment could be different for fresh 
pears and pears for processing in each category, and could include 
supplemental rates on individual varieties.
    8. Adding authority for container marking requirements for fresh 
pears.
    9. Removing the order provision allowing grower exemptions from 
regulation. This is a tool no longer used by the industry and, thus, is 
considered obsolete.
    10. Amending Sec.  927.70, Reports, to update order language 
regarding confidentiality requirements to conform to language under the 
Act.
    11. Clarifying inspection requirements and adding authority to 
eliminate those requirements if an alternative, adequate method of 
ensuring compliance with quality and size standards in effect under the 
order can be developed.
    12. Eliminating the current exemptions for pears for processing and 
for pears shipped to storage warehouses.
    13. Providing that separate continuance referenda be held every 6 
years for fresh pears and processing pears.
    14. Adding the authority for the Committees to conduct post-harvest 
research, in addition to production research and promotion (including 
paid advertising).
    15. Updating several order provisions to make them more current.
    16. Revising order provisions to reflect the two-committee 
structure being recommended for administration of the program.
    Twenty-one industry witnesses testified at the hearing. These 
witnesses represented fresh winter and summer/fall pear producers and 
handlers, and processors of summer/fall pears in the production area. 
All witnesses supported the Committees recommended changes; no 
opposition was present at the hearing.
    Witnesses addressed the need to simplify the operations of the 
Northwest pear industry by combining the activities of the fresh winter 
pear, the fresh summer/fall pear and the processed pear industries 
under a single federal marketing order. Witnesses stated that the 
proposed amendments would streamline pear industry activities, 
including assessment collection, administration, regulation, promotion, 
and research. The three industries are currently regulated under two 
Federal marketing orders and two State commissions. If this proposal 
were implemented, the two federal programs would be combined under one 
federal program that would also assume functions similar to those under 
the current state programs. Witnesses stated that the state programs 
would likely be dissolved if this proposal were implemented.
    Witnesses explained that the proposal would require expanding the 
definition of pears under 927 to include all varieties of pears grown 
in the production area. The proposed amendments would also include 
revising the definition of handle, and adding definitions for process 
and processor.
    Witnesses stated that expanding the scope of the order to include 
pears for processing would require a restructuring of the order s 
administrative committee. The new committee structure would include one 
committee with oversight for all fresh pear activities, and a second 
committee with oversight for all activities related to pears for 
processing. Additionally, witnesses spoke in favor of amending order 
provisions governing nomination and selection of members and their 
alternates, terms of office, eligibility for membership, and quorum and 
voting requirements to reflect the proposed dual committee structure.
    The order's production area, the States of Oregon and Washington, 
would remain the same under the proposed amendments. However, the 
subdivision of the production area into districts would be different 
for pears for processing than for fresh pears. While four districts 
would be established for fresh pears, pears for processing would only 
have two districts: the State of Oregon and the State of Washington.
    Witnesses also proposed adding a public member and public alternate 
member seat to both of the newly established committees. The public 
member and his or her alternate would be residents of the production 
area, and would have no financial ties to the production, handling or 
processing of pears. Witnesses stated that this proposal would also 
result in the removal of Sec.  927.36, Public advisors, as unnecessary, 
since the public advisors would be replaced by public members of the 
committees.
    Witnesses favored adding authority to the order to allow the 
committees, each independently, to recommend changes in the number of 
committee members and alternates of each committee, as well as 
recommend reapportionment of committee membership among districts and 
groups (i.e., growers, handlers, and processors). Witnesses stated that 
this authority would allow the committees more flexibility in 
responding to industry changes over time that may merit adjustments in 
committee structure. These recommendations would be based on an 
assessment of several industry indicators and would require approval by 
the Department.
    Witnesses stated that the order's assessment structure should also 
be revised. Specifically, witnesses advocated adding authority to 
establish assessment rates for each category of pears, including: 
Summer/fall pears, winter pears, and all other pears. In addition, 
rates of assessment could be different for fresh pears and pears for 
processing in each category, and could include supplemental rates on 
individual varieties. The Fresh Pear Committee would recommend 
assessment rates for fresh pears and the Processed Pear Committee would 
recommend assessment rates for pears for processing.
    Proponents of this amendment stated that authority to establish 
assessment rates by category would allow the committees to maintain 
different assessment levels for each category of Northwest pears (based 
on different budget needs), as well as providing the committees with 
additional flexibility through the ability to apply supplemental rates 
of assessments for individual varieties within each category. 
Supplemental rates would be used to fund specific research or 
promotional efforts for individual varieties, whereas categorical 
assessment rates would be used to fund activities for an entire 
category of pears.
    Witnesses explained that authority for production research and 
promotion, including paid advertising, currently exists under marketing 
order 927. Expanding the order's definition of pears to include summer/
fall varieties and pears for processing would extend those authorities 
to all Northwest pears.
    In addition, witnesses stated their support for adding the 
authority to conduct post-harvest research. Post-harvest research could 
include activities such as storage and treatment of pears between the 
field and the marketplace. Proponents stated that the authority for 
production and post-harvest research, and promotion activities 
including paid advertising, would enhance the order's ability to 
support Northwest pear growers, handlers and processors.
    In discussing the order's authority to regulate fresh pears, 
witnesses supported adding authority to establish container marking 
regulations. Witnesses stated that this authority, which could include 
the use of generic industry logos, would provide the

[[Page 2522]]

industry with a marketing tool to enhance the presentation of fresh 
Northwest pears in the marketplace.
    Witnesses also advocated adding authority to recommend modification 
or elimination of inspection requirements provided that an alternative 
method of ensuring compliance with quality and size standards were 
developed. Any alternative system would have to be approved by the 
Department through the rulemaking process.
    Witnesses stated their approval of the Committees' recommendations 
to: Eliminate the current exemption for pears for processing and for 
pears shipped to storage warehouses as this provision is considered 
obsolete; remove the order provision allowing grower exemptions from 
regulation as this tool is also no longer used by the industry; and, 
amend Sec.  927.70, Reports, to add confidentiality provisions of the 
order concerning the handling of information provided to the Committees 
and to specify in the order provisions that handlers maintain records 
for at least two years.
    Finally, witnesses supported requiring continuance referenda as a 
means of determining grower sentiment on the order's operations. As 
proposed, separate continuance referenda would be held every 6 years 
for the fresh pear and processing pear provisions of the order (each 
independently).
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge 
stated that the final date for interested persons to file proposed 
findings and conclusions or written arguments and briefs based on the 
evidence received at the hearing would be June 1, 2004. The deadline 
was subsequently extended to June 16, 2004. One brief on behalf of the 
joint Winter Pear Control Committee and the Northwest Fresh Bartlett 
Marketing Committee was filed. The brief contained an overview of the 
industry's proposals and reiterated support for amending the order.

Material Issues

    The material issues presented on the record of hearing are as 
follows:
    (1) Whether to amend the definition of ``pears'' to include all 
varieties of pears grown in the production area;
    (2) Whether to revise the definition of ``size'' to reflect current 
industry usage of the term;
    (3) Whether to add authority to regulate pears for processing, by 
revising the definition of ``handle'', and adding definitions of 
``processor'' and ``process'';
    (4) Whether to establish districts for pears for processing;
    (5) Whether to terminate the current Winter Pear Control Committee, 
to establish two new administrative committees (the Fresh Pear 
Committee and the Processed Pear Committee), to add a public member and 
public alternate member seat to both of the newly established 
committees, to remove Sec.  927.36, Public advisors, and to make 
related changes to order provisions governing nomination and selection 
of members and their alternates, terms of office, eligibility for 
membership, and quorum and voting requirements;
    (6) Whether to add authority for the proposed committees to 
recommend changes in the number of committee members and alternates, 
and the allocation of membership among groups and districts;
    (7) Whether to add authority for the committees to recommend rates 
of assessment for pears by category (summer/fall pears, winter pears, 
and all other pears) and supplemental rates of assessment by variety;
    (8) Whether to add authority for container marking requirements for 
fresh pears;
    (9) Whether to remove Sec.  927.54, Exemption Certificates, which 
allows grower exemptions from regulations;
    (10) Whether to amend Sec.  927.70, Reports, to add confidentiality 
provisions concerning the handling of information provided to the 
Committees and to specify in the order provisions that handlers 
maintain records for at least two years;
    (11) Whether to add authority to recommend modification or 
elimination of inspection requirements, provided that an alternative, 
USDA approved method of ensuring compliance with order quality and size 
standards could be used;
    (12) Whether to eliminate current exemptions for pears for 
processing and for pears shipped to storage warehouses;
    (13) Whether to provide that separate continuance referenda be held 
every 6 years for fresh pears and processing pears;
    (14) Whether to add authority for the proposed committees to 
conduct post-harvest research, in addition to production research and 
promotion (including paid advertising); and
    (15) Whether to update several order provisions to make them more 
current.

Findings and Conclusions

    The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are 
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof.

Material Issue Number 1--Revision of the Definition of Pears

    Section 927.4 of the order should be amended to include all 
varieties of pears grown in the States of Oregon and Washington. This 
amendment would entail adding a category for all pear varieties 
characterized as summer/fall varieties, and would add the Concorde, 
Packham and Taylor s Gold varieties to the current list of pear 
varieties characterized as winter pear varieties. In addition, a third 
category of pears should be added that would include all varieties not 
classified as summer/fall or winter pears, that are grown within the 
production area.
    The winter pear order currently defines pears as any and all of the 
Beurre D'Anjou, Beurre Bosc, Winter Nelis, Doyenne du Comice, Forelle, 
and Seckel varieties of pears. It also includes any other varieties or 
subvarieties characterized as winter pears that are grown in the 
production area and are recognized by the committee and approved by the 
Department.
    The proposed amendment would broaden the scope of Federal marketing 
order 927 to cover all pears produced within the production area. 
Witnesses stated that without this proposed change in the definition of 
pears covered by marketing order 927, all other proposed amendments 
would not be possible as they entail bringing the fresh winter and 
summer/fall pear industries and the processed pear industry under one 
Federal regulatory program.
    According to the record, there are eight principal varieties of 
pears grown in the States of Washington and Oregon. These pear 
varieties are split into categories of summer/fall and winter pears. 
These references stem from the differences in the crop harvest and 
marketing cycles of the different varieties.
    Winter pears, such as the red and green Anjou, Bosc, Comice, 
Seckel, Forelle, Concorde, Packham and Taylor's Gold varieties, are 
typically harvested in early September. Winter pear varieties are 
generally able to be stored longer than summer/fall varieties, and thus 
can be sold throughout the winter, spring and summer. The marketing 
season for Comice, Seckel, and Forelle generally runs through April. 
The marketing season for Bosc pears extends into May, and Anjou pears 
can be available into July or later.
    Summer/fall varieties include the Bartlett and Starkrimson pear 
varieties. Summer/fall pears are harvested in late summer and are 
marketed throughout the fall, sometimes into January. Bartlett

[[Page 2523]]

pears can either be red or green, with the green Bartlett being more 
prevalent in the marketplace. Bartlett pears are also the variety of 
pear that is most commonly used for processing. The Starkrimson variety 
is a summer/fall variety that has recently become more important in the 
overall volume of pear production in Oregon and Washington.
    Witnesses also indicated that establishing an ``other'' category 
would be prudent in the event that future varieties of pears were 
developed that do not fall into the other established categories. The 
industry would gain flexibility in responding to new developments in 
the Oregon and Washington pear industry by providing for the structure 
to classify such pears appropriately for program purposes. This would 
allow the industry to avoid having to pursue amendment of the marketing 
order in the future, if new varieties of pears are developed that are 
not considered winter or summer/fall pears.
    USDA is also recommending that Sec.  927.4, the definition of pears 
proposed by industry, be revised to include language stating that all 
pears with the genus name ``Pyrus'' produced within the production area 
would be included under the order. This language was also included in 
the brief filed by the joint Winter Pear Control Committee and the 
Northwest Fresh Bartlett Marketing Committee in support of the proposed 
amendments to marketing order 927. Accordingly, USDA recommends 
revising Sec.  927.4, Pears, to include the genus name ``Pyrus'' in the 
definition.
    Witnesses stated that this proposed amendment would provide the 
basis for many of the other proposed amendments discussed later in this 
document. The industry intends to expand the scope of Federal marketing 
order 927 to include all varieties of pears grown in Oregon and 
Washington, to regulate both fresh pears and pears for processing, as 
well as to establish two administrative committees for local oversight 
and administration of the order. In order to effectuate these changes, 
the definition of pears needs to be amended to provide authority to 
regulate all pears under one order. This would be accomplished by 
amending the order's definition of pears.
    Witnesses explained that the winter, summer/fall, fresh and 
processed pear industries are closely inter-related. Growing, 
harvesting, packing, processing and marketing activities of all of 
these industries impact each other to the extent that regulating them 
under one Federal marketing order would be logistically beneficial for 
the Oregon and Washington pear industry. Proponents of this amendment 
stated that this amendment, in conjunction with the proposed amendments 
discussed in later material issues, would help to improve the orderly 
marketing of product within the industry.
    To illustrate the interaction of the different pear industries, 
witnesses used the example of a large crop of Bartlett pears. In this 
example, communication between the fresh and processing sides of the 
pear industry would be helpful in assuring timely movement of a 
perishable product and maximizing returns for that product. Crop 
estimates and harvest information, for example, could be shared between 
the fresh and processed committees to anticipate market distribution 
strategies for the large crop. The committees would facilitate 
information sharing at the administrative, grower and handler levels to 
enhance coordination of fresh and processed industry activities. For 
example, potential overflow from the fresh market needs to be able to 
move efficiently to the processed industry in order to prevent loss of 
product. Timely movement of a perishable product is essential to 
securing the highest grower return for that product.
    Similarly, witnesses stated that regulating all varieties of pears 
(winter and summer/fall) under one marketing order would synchronize 
activities and facilitate inter-industry discussions and decision-
making.
    There was no opposition testimony on this issue. For the above 
reasons, it is recommended that section 927.4 be amended to include all 
pears characterized as winter and summer/fall varieties and 
subvarieties grown within the production area. A category for all pears 
not classified as either winter or summer/fall pears should also be 
established. USDA recommends including a reference to the genus name 
``Pyrus'' as part of this definition.
    A conforming change is needed in the title of 7 CFR Part 927. It is 
proposed to be revised to ``Pears Grown in Oregon and Washington'' to 
reflect the fact that the program no longer would cover only winter 
pears.

Material Issue Number 2--Revision of the Definition of Size

    Section 927.5, Size, should be revised to reflect contemporary 
definition of the term as used by the industry today.
    Witnesses explained that the current definition of ``size'' in the 
order is outdated as it defines size according the number of pears that 
can be packed in a standard western pear box. A standard western pear 
box is described as a box that is 18 inches long, 11\1/2\ inches wide 
and 8\1/2\ inches deep. At the time marketing order 927 was 
established, the standard western pear box was the common receptacle 
used for packing fresh pears. Over time, different forms of packing 
containers with different dimensions have evolved. Thus, this 
definition no longer accurately reflects the variety of containers used 
within the industry.
    Alternatively, witnesses proposed that the definition be revised to 
include language describing a 44-pound net weight standard box or 
container equivalent. According to the record, industry currently 
describes a 44-pound box as a standard container, and uses this 
definition to measure crop size and changes in crop volumes from year 
to year.
    Witnesses also explained that, given the proposal to add authority 
to regulate pears for processing to the order, a size definition solely 
based on a fresh pear packing box would not be appropriate. Witnesses 
proposed a size definition that would also include a physical 
measurement: The greatest transverse diameter of the pear taken at 
right angles to a line running from the stem end. Proponents of the 
revised definition stated that a diameter-based definition would 
accurately describe pear sizes in both the fresh and processed pear 
industries, and would more accurately reflect current sizing procedures 
and technology. As one witness stated, the physical description for 
measuring pears provides the basis for determining what size actually 
goes into a box. Representatives from the pear processing industry also 
explained that processors require a minimum-diameter size of 2\1/4\ 
inches for pears for processing. Thus, the revised definition of size 
would better reflect current practices of both industries.
    There was no opposition testimony on this issue. For the above 
reasons, it is recommended that Sec.  927.5, Size, be revised to more 
accurately reflect the contemporary definition used within the 
industry.

Material Issue Number 3--Adding Authority to Regulate Pears for 
Processing

    Federal marketing order 927 should be amended to include authority 
to regulate pears for processing by revising Sec.  927.7, Handler, and 
Sec.  927.8, Ship or handle. These terms should be amended to include 
persons receiving pears for processing. In addition, definitions of 
``processor'' and ``process'' should be added to the order to further 
clarify the amended terms ``handler'' and ``ship or handle.''
    The order currently does not include authority to regulate pears 
for

[[Page 2524]]

processing. However, the regulation of pears for processing is 
authorized under the Act and, therefore, can be added as a provision of 
marketing order 927. Given the proposal described in Material Issue 1, 
revising the definition of ``pears,'' the authority to regulate pears 
for processing would apply to all pear varieties grown in the states of 
Oregon and Washington.
    There are five processing plants in the production area, with one 
in Oregon and four in Washington. Seventy five percent of the 
processing tonnage produced within the production area originates from 
the State of Washington, with 73 percent of the total located in the 
Yakima area. Processed pear production totaled 842.2 million pounds in 
the 2001/2002 crop year, compared to 1086.3 million pounds of fresh 
pear production in the same year.
    According to the hearing record, adding authority to regulate pears 
for processing would complement the Oregon and Washington pear 
industries' desire to coordinate and streamline industry-wide research, 
promotion, and administrative activities. To accomplish this, the 
definition of ``handle'' should be expanded to include receiving pears 
for processing. Processing would be defined as canning, reducing to 
concentrate, freezing, dehydrating, pressing or pureeing pears, or in 
any other way converting pears commercially into a processed product. A 
processor would be any person who commercially processes pears.
    Most pear producers within the production area produce both winter 
and summer/fall pear varieties for both the fresh and processed product 
markets. Record evidence indicates that the fresh and processed product 
markets compliment each other, as the latter provides a market for 
product that cannot be profitably distributed in the fresh market. 
Combining the activities of the fresh and the processed pear industries 
under a single Federal marketing order would facilitate communication 
among industry participants and would allow for more efficient 
marketing and research.
    Representatives of the processed pear industry testifying at the 
hearing stated their support for adding authority to regulate pears for 
processing under the order. Witnesses stated that a Federal marketing 
order would provide a stable, unified, and constant vehicle to 
accomplish industry production and marketing objectives, mainly 
promoting consumption of fresh and processed Northwest pears, and 
increasing grower returns. Witnesses expanded on the many benefits they 
believed would result from collective industry action, and stated that 
coordination of marketing and research efforts is essential to 
maintaining market share in an increasingly competitive marketplace. 
Moreover, witnesses explained that combining fresh and processed pear 
activities under one program would represent a natural progression of 
the long-existing cooperation between the two industries.
    According to the record, pear growers in Oregon and Washington have 
a 50-year history of dedicated funding to promote canned pears to 
consumers and foodservice users. Formal support of the processed pear 
industry began in 1954 with the establishment of the Pacific Northwest 
Canned Pear Service (PNCPS), a non-profit marketing organization funded 
through voluntary grower assessments.
    The PNCPS continues to operate under the direction of growers from 
Washington and Oregon through two State grower organizations: the 
Washington State Fruit Commission and the Oregon Bartlett Pear 
Commission. The two State organizations annually approve a budget based 
on a per-ton assessment on pears delivered to processors. This 
mandatory assessment is collected from shippers and processors by both 
organizations, and provides the funds for the PNCPS to operate through 
an annually approved contract.
    Due to the mandatory collection of marketing dollars from 
Washington and Oregon Bartlett pear growers who sell their tonnage for 
processing, all of those growers are members of the PNCPS. Each of the 
two State grower organizations appoints board members to the PNCPS 
board of directors.
    In addition, processor members pay an annual associate membership 
fee and pay assessments on pears transported to the Northwest for 
processing from California, Idaho, or Canada. Associate processor 
members include all five pear processors operating in the production 
area.
    Witnesses testified, if implemented, the proposal to include 
regulatory authority for pears for processing could lead to the 
dissolution of the two State commissions. Collection of assessments and 
administration of the marketing order program would become the 
responsibility of the proposed Processed Pear Committee, described and 
discussed under Material Issue 5.
    Witnesses did not expect the proposed change in the structure of 
processed pear organizations to result in a change to the combined 
federal and state assessments that handlers are currently paying. The 
proposed amendment is expected to result in a reorganization of 
entities representing processed pear interests, reducing the number of 
regulatory entities from two to one. Assessment collection would be 
simplified, but the level of assessment is not expected to increase or 
decrease significantly. According to the hearing record, current 
assessments equal roughly $5 per ton of pears received for processing.
    Handler assessments would be levied on the first individual 
receiving pears from the producer for packing or processing. For 
example, if a producer were to transport pears directly to a processor, 
that processor would be considered the first handler and would be 
responsible for submitting the appropriate assessment to the 
administrative committee. If a producer delivers pears to a 
packinghouse, where pre-sizing or grading for fresh market may take 
place prior to selecting tonnage to be directed to the processor, then 
the packinghouse would be considered the first handler and would be 
responsible for the assessment amount due. If a producer were to 
deliver pears to a packinghouse or processing facility outside of the 
production area, then the producer would be considered the first 
handler. The definition of handler would exclude any person receiving 
pears solely for the purpose of transporting them to a packinghouse or 
processor, such as a contract carrier.
    Subject to approval by the Department, Federal processed pear 
assessments could be allocated to a promotional organization to conduct 
promotional activities on a contract basis, much like the current 
contractual arrangement between the PNCPS and the State commissions. 
Record evidence demonstrated that promotional activities, such as 
consumer education campaigns, distributor rebate programs, and other 
marketing, such as recipe development, have helped to sustain a stable 
market share for processed pears. In spite of increasing competition 
from imported pears and a growing preference among consumers for take-
out or fast food meal service, demand for processed pear products has 
remained relatively stable over the past three decades.
    The record evidence shows that over the last three years, imported 
canned pears have become an increasingly competitive challenge to the 
Northwest canned pear industry. Witnesses cited imports from China, 
South Africa and Australia as the industry's top three foreign 
competitors, with imported product accounting for nearly 10 percent of 
domestic canned pear sales. Promotional activities geared towards

[[Page 2525]]

large-volume end users, including school foodservice, health care, and 
other on-site foodservice operators and distributors, have helped the 
Northwest processed pear industry to maintain a stable share of these 
market sectors. Witnesses stated that incorporating processed pears 
under the Federal marketing order for Oregon and Washington pears would 
assist the industry and assure that promotional activities continue to 
receive coordinated industry support.
    Information presented at the hearing suggests that over the past 
century a number of factors have converged to change consumer food 
consumption patterns and encourage the emerging dominance of food 
service over the retail sector. In an increasingly demanding work-life 
environment, many consumers are becoming increasingly dependent on 
dining out or purchasing prepared foods. With consumers turning to 
foodservice with their food dollars, canned pear consumption has moved 
away from the home and into foodservice operations.
    As a result, representatives from the PNCPS explained that current 
promotional activities related to this sector are largely oriented 
towards consumer education and public relations efforts via food 
editors and nutrition professionals, and consumer retail promotion. 
According to the record, consumer promotion efforts, including 
lifestyle brochures, newspaper recipe releases and consumer 
newsletters, have helped to stabilize home consumption.
    While witnesses stated that promotional activities are essential to 
the continued vitality of the processed pear industry, they also 
expressed their view that grade and size regulatory authority for 
processed pears should not be included under the order. In other words, 
supporters of this proposal only favored regulatory oversight of the 
collection of assessments on pears for processing for the use of 
funding research and promotion. This amendment would not include 
authority to establish grade and size regulations for pears for 
processing.
    Representatives from the processed pear industry stated that during 
the drafting of the proposal to amend marketing order 927 to include 
pears for processing, processors were polled by members of the Winter 
Pear Control Committee regarding support for grade and size regulatory 
authority. Given that the processed pear industry currently operates 
under established USDA grades and standards, processors opted against 
including this authority in the proposed amendment. When asked at the 
hearing if such authority might be desirable at some point in the 
future, processors responded that they would be prepared to pursue 
amendment of the order at such time. Thus, authority for grade and size 
regulation is not included as part of this proposal.
    Based on the record testimony and the reasons outlined above, Sec.  
927.7, Handler, and Sec.  927.8, Ship or handle, should be amended to 
include the activity of receiving pears for processing. In addition, 
two new definitions should be added to the order: Sec.  927.14, 
Processor, and Sec.  927.15, Process. No opposition to these proposed 
amendments was presented at the hearing.

Material Issue Number 4--Districts

    Section 927.11, Districts, should be amended to include two sets of 
representative districts: one for fresh pear production and one for 
processed pear production. This section of the order needs to be 
revised to reflect the proposed establishment of two administrative 
committees: the Fresh Pear Committee and the Processed Pear Committee, 
discussed in Material Issue 5. The geographic boundaries of the total 
production area under Marketing Order 927, which includes the states of 
Oregon and Washington, would not change.
    Marketing order 927 currently defines four districts for fresh 
winter pear production. Given the proposal to expand marketing order 
coverage to all varieties of pears produced and handled in the fresh 
and processed pear industries of Oregon and Washington, these 
representative districts need to be adjusted. The proposed amendment 
would retain a four-district division of the production area for fresh 
pear production, but would slightly modify the current district 
boundaries to reflect the addition of summer/fall pear varieties. In 
addition, two districts for processed pears would be established. These 
would be defined along State boundary lines, with Oregon as one 
district and Washington as the other.
    The current Winter Pear Control Committee consists of 12 members 
allocated among 4 geographic districts: Medford, Yakima, Mid-Columbia 
and Wenatchee. The Medford and Yakima Districts each have one grower 
and one handler member, and the Mid-Columbia and Wenatchee Districts 
each have two grower and two handler members. There is also a non-
voting public advisor.
    The current Northwest Fresh Bartlett Marketing Committee, which 
represents Oregon and Washington summer/fall fresh production, has 14 
members allocated among 4 districts: Medford, Yakima, Mid-Columbia and 
Wenatchee. The Medford and Yakima Districts each have two grower and 
two handler members, and the Mid-Columbia and Wenatchee Districts each 
have two grower and one handler members. There is also one non-voting 
public advisor.
    Geographically, these districts are nearly identical to the winter 
pear districts, with the exception of the division of production along 
the Columbia River Gorge and southern Oregon. The differences in 
district committee representation reflect the regional differences in 
summer/fall pear production and winter pear production.
    According to the record, the proposed Fresh Pear Committee 
districts are based on the existing structure of the Winter Pear 
Control Committee, which has been updated several times and which 
accurately represents the interests of the fresh summer/fall pear 
industry. The proposed fresh district structure also borrows from the 
Northwest Fresh Bartlett Marketing Committee in that it divides the 
State of Washington along a more logical division of County lines.
    The proposed districts for the Fresh Pear Committee are as follows: 
The Medford District would include all of the Counties in the State of 
Oregon except for Hood River and Wasco Counties; the Mid-Columbia 
District would include Hood River and Wasco Counties in the State of 
Oregon and the Counties of Skamania and Klickitat in the State of 
Washington; the Wenatchee District would include the Counties of King, 
Chelan, Okanogan, Douglas, Grant, Lincoln, and Spokane in the State of 
Washington, and all other Counties in Washington lying north thereof; 
and, the Yakima District would include all of the State of Washington 
not included in the Wenatchee District or in the Mid-Columbia District.
    Record evidence indicates that the most significant change in the 
proposed fresh pear district structure occurs in Oregon, with fresh 
pear representation being shifted from the Mid-Columbia District to the 
Medford District. Witnesses explained that growers from this area 
specifically asked to be included in Medford instead of Mid-Columbia to 
better reflect the distribution of fresh production in Oregon. The 
shift in district boundaries would also result in more opportunities 
for industry members from this region to participate as members of the 
committee.
    According to the record, there are roughly 350 fresh pear producers 
in Hood River County, Oregon, and less than 40 fresh pear producers in 
Medford County, Oregon. The area subject to the proposed shift in 
district boundaries is

[[Page 2526]]

known as the Willamette Valley region and has less than 40 fresh pear 
producers. Given the distribution of fresh pear producers in Oregon, 
the proposal to merge Willamette Valley producers into the Medford 
District would improve representation of that area on the committee. 
The Medford Districts average annual production of winter pears has 
decreased over the past five years by approximately 10.8 percent, or 
from 1.127 million boxes (10 year average) to 1 million boxes (five 
year average). Average annual production of summer/fall pear varieties 
over the same time period has fallen 13 percent, from 269 thousand 
boxes (10 year average) to 234 thousand boxes (five year average). At 
the time, average annual production of summer/fall varieties in the 
Mid-Columbia District have increased by nearly 10 percent, growing from 
868 thousand boxes (10 year average) to 951 thousand boxes (5 year 
average). Mid-Columbia average annual production of winter pears has 
remained fairly stable over this period, decreasing by only one half of 
a percent. Thus, expanding the Medford District would allocate a 
portion of the current Mid-Columbia District production to that 
district, and would expand the pool of Medford District industry 
representatives eligible to serve on the committee.
    The proposal to redefine Wenatchee District to include King, Grant 
and Lincoln Counties, and all other Counties in Washington lying north 
thereof, is also the result of a shift in boundary lines. The total 
amount of commercial fresh production represented in this district 
would not significantly change. However, the re-designation would allow 
for a better division of production between districts in Washington if 
production in the northern part of the State were to grow in the 
future. Witnesses stated that under the proposed district boundaries 
the State of Washington would be divided geographically into two 
districts.
    The proposed fresh pear district boundaries and corresponding 
allocation of committee member representation, discussed in Material 
Issue 5, are also validated by seasonal production summaries. A review 
of production statistics by district covering 10 years presented at the 
hearing indicate that the Wenatchee and Mid-Columbia Districts are the 
largest producers of both fresh winter and summer/fall varieties, and 
therefore merit a larger committee representation than the Medford and 
Yakima Districts. The proposed district boundaries offer a more 
accurate geographical representation of fresh pear production in the 
States of Oregon and Washington and more fairly gauge regional 
production differences.
    According to the record, processed pear production has historically 
been identified by Oregon and Washington State boundaries. 
Representation of processed pear industry interests and collection of 
mandatory State assessments have been conducted by respective State 
commissions: the Oregon Bartlett Pear Commission in Oregon and the 
Washington Stone Fruit Commission in Washington.
    The proposed Processed Pear Committee, further discussed under 
Material Issue 5, would initially be made up of 10 members allocated 
between 2 districts. One district would encompass the entire State of 
Washington. Because processed pear production in this district would 
represent 75 percent of total processed pear production in the 
production area, committee member representation would include two 
grower members, two handler members and two processor members.
    The other district would encompass the State of Oregon and would be 
allocated committee representation of one grower member, one handler 
member, and one processor member. (The public member would represent 
the production area at-large.) This proposed structure meets the 
existing language in the Act, which requires representation of 
processors and producers to be equal.
    Growers and processors testifying at the hearing stated their 
support for the proposed processed pear districts and indicated that 
representation by State offered an equitable division of production 
interests on the proposed administrative committee. While Oregon only 
represents 25 percent of total production area production, witnesses 
agreed that the entire State should be included in the same district to 
provide the Oregon processed pear industry a separate district.
    Given the record evidence and the reasons outlined above, USDA 
recommends that Sec.  927.11, Districts, be amended as proposed. This 
amendment would create two sets of representative districts under the 
order: one for fresh pears and one for processed pears. The proposed 
amendment reflects current industry operations and ensures equitable 
representation of producers, handlers and processors of pears in the 
States of Oregon and Washington. No opposition to this proposal was 
given at the hearing.

Material Issue Number 5--Termination of the Winter Pear Control 
Committee and Establishment of the Fresh Pear Committee and the 
Processed Pear Committee

    The marketing order should be amended to create two administrative 
committees: the Fresh Pear Committee and the Processed Pear Committee. 
Conforming changes should be made for all sections related to committee 
establishment, nomination, selection, voting, eligibility and tenure. 
These changes should all reflect a two-committee structure, where each 
committee has authority to act independently.
    The order is currently structured around the Oregon and Washington 
fresh winter pear industry, with the Winter Pear Control Committee 
responsible for local administration of the program. The proposal to 
expand order coverage to all pear varieties produced within the 
production area, and to both the fresh and processed product 
industries, necessitates modification of this structure.
    All witnesses at the hearing supported including both winter and 
summer/fall pears, in addition to all pear varieties not classified as 
either, under marketing order 927. Witnesses explained that 
consolidation would eliminate a confusing and inefficient system 
currently comprised of two Federal marketing orders and two State 
commissions. These four programs would be replaced with an updated 
single marketing program, which would benefit producers, handlers, and 
processors.
    Witnesses also advocated the establishment of two administrative 
bodies: One for the fresh industry and one for the processed industry. 
Witnesses explained that while the two industries were both dependent 
on the same production of pears, the administrative needs of the two 
industries were different. Managing the two sides of the pear industry, 
fresh and processed, would require two differing approaches. From 
promotional activities to customers, trade factors to shelf life, and 
consumer trends to cultural practices in the orchards, pears for the 
fresh market differ from pears for processing.
    According to the record, the ability for the fresh and processed 
industries to recommend assessment levels, maintain separate financial 
records, and establish reserves independently based on specific 
promotional objectives, is very important. However, the two committees 
would have the ability to work together in many areas, such as

[[Page 2527]]

funding of research that benefits all pears, and compiling statistical 
reports. Witnesses stated that the proposed amendments to the marketing 
order would provide a unified program for all pears under one marketing 
order, yet recognizes the differences in the objectives of the two 
industries. For these reasons, Sec.  927.20, Establishment and 
membership, should be amended to create a Fresh Pear Committee and a 
Processed Pear Committee.
    The proposed Fresh Pear Committee should consist of 13 members of 
whom 6 should be growers, 6 should be handlers and 1 should be a public 
member. For each member there should be two alternates, designated as 
the ``first alternate'' and the ``second alternate,'' respectively. 
Each fresh pear district, described in Material Issue 4, should be 
represented by one grower member and one handler member, except that 
the Mid-Columbia District and the Wenatchee District, which should be 
represented by two grower members and two handler members. The 
committee should recommend a public member to the Department once the 
industry representatives are nominated and appointed by the Department.
    The proposed Processed Pear Committee should consist of 10 members 
of whom 3 should be growers, 3 should be handlers, 3 members shall be 
processors, and 1 should be a public member. For each member there 
should be two alternates, designated as the ``first alternate'' and the 
``second alternate,'' respectively. District 1, the State of 
Washington, should be represented by two grower members, two handler 
members and two processor members. District 2, the State of Oregon, 
should be represented by one grower member, one handler member and one 
processor member. The committee should recommend a public member to the 
Department once the industry representatives are nominated and 
appointed by the Department.
    The proposal to add a voting public member to each administrative 
committee is new to the order. Prior to the proposed amendments, the 
Winter Pear Control Committee did have the authority to appoint a 
public advisor. However, the public advisor did not have voting rights. 
Witnesses supported the addition of a voting public member as they 
anticipated that a non-industry perspective would contribute the 
committee discussions and decision-making. Under the proposed 
amendments, the public member would not be allowed to have financial 
interests in the pear industry. Thus, the public member would be better 
able to represent consumer interests.
    Sections 927.21 and 927.22, which outline provisions for the 
nomination and selection of committee members, should be amended to 
include language specific to the two proposed administrative 
committees. Nomination and selection of Fresh and Processed Pear 
Committee members and their respective alternates would operate 
similarly to the current nomination and selection system for the Winter 
Pear Control Committee. Committee members would be elected for 
nomination at a meeting of their peers. This means that growers would 
be elected at growers' meetings, handlers would be elected at meetings 
of handlers, and processors would be elected at meetings attended by 
processors.
    Advance notices of these meetings would be placed in the local 
media, and all eligible members of that peer group could be nominated 
for selection to the committees. After an individual is nominated, and 
accepts that nomination, a statement containing background information 
and acknowledgement of their willingness to serve would be submitted to 
the USDA. Ultimately, committee member nominees would be selected and 
appointed as committee members by USDA.
    Sections 927.23 and 927.24 govern voting and eligibility 
requirements for committee members. Again, these sections are based on 
the language currently in place for the Winter Pear Control Committee. 
These sections should be revised to reflect the proposed dual committee 
structure. Voting guidelines stipulate that only growers, handlers or 
processors, respectively, should vote for their peers.
    Moreover, an individual should participate only in the election 
held in the district in which he or she produces, handles or processes 
pears. Individuals would be entitled to cast only one vote on behalf of 
his or her self, his or her agents, partners, affiliates, subsidiaries, 
and representatives. While each person may vote as a grower, handler or 
processor, they would not be able to vote as a combination thereof. 
Thus, if a person were a pear producer, handler and processor, he or 
she would have to choose whether to participate in the producer, 
handler or processor member nominations. Likewise, a producer who grows 
pears in more than one district would have to choose the district in 
which he or she wishes to participate.
    In order to be eligible to serve as a committee member, a grower, 
handler or processor must conduct their respective business in the 
district that they represent. Officers or employees of a corporate or 
limited liability corporation should be eligible to serve as 
representatives of their employer.
    Section 927.27, Term of office, should be amended to replace all 
references to the Winter Pear Control Committee with the Fresh Pear and 
Processed Pear Committee. The terms of office of members and alternates 
should be for 2 years beginning on July 1. About one-half of committee 
membership of each committee ends each June 30. This provision would 
allow for staggered terms of office and would ensure that only one-half 
of each committee rotates tenure each year, thus providing for a 
continuation of experience among committee members.
    Tenure limitations should be the same under the revised order as 
they currently are for the winter pear committee members. This section 
states that no member should serve more than three consecutive 2-year 
terms unless specifically exempted by the Department. Members and 
alternate members should continue to serve until their respective 
successors are qualified to serve on the committee and are selected.
    Section 927.33, Procedure, describes quorum and voting requirements 
for committee action at meetings. The language in this section should 
be revised to reflect the proposed Fresh and Processed Pear Committees 
and should provide for a 75-percent attendance rate for a quorum for 
each committee. All decision-making at committee meetings should 
require the concurring vote of at least 75 percent of those members 
present, including alternates serving in the place of any members.
    When asked how procedural aspects of the order would be impacted 
given a change in a committee size, witnesses stated that 
administration of the order should continue to be conducted as 
currently outlined. If a committee size were to change in terms of 
total number of members, witnesses felt that the 75 percent requirement 
for both quorum and committee action should be maintained.
    According to the hearing record, witnesses supported the use of 
current marketing order 927 language as a model for the administrative 
functioning of the proposed Fresh and Processed Pear Committees. 
Witnesses noted that marketing order 927 has a long history of 
effectively meeting the needs of the Oregon and Washington fresh winter 
pear industry. Therefore, few changes to the provisions of the

[[Page 2528]]

above-described sections were proposed.
    Record evidence supports the proposed changes in Sec. Sec.  927.20 
to 927.24, 927.27, and 927.33 described above. No opposition to these 
amendments was offered at the hearing.
    Numerous conforming changes are needed to reflect the proposed dual 
committee structure. These proposed revisions would, for the most part, 
replace all references to the ``Winter Pear Control Committee'' or 
``Control Committee'' with references to the ``Fresh Pear Committee,'' 
the ``Processed Pear Committee,'' or both. Another change needed in 
several sections is adding reference to processor committee members in 
addition to producer and handler members. Such conforming changes are 
needed in Sec. Sec.  927.9 Fiscal period; 927.26 Qualifications; 927.28 
Alternates for members; 927.29 Vacancies; 927.30 Compensation and 
expenses; 927.31 Powers; 927.32 Duties; 927.34 Right of the Secretary; 
927.35 Funds and other property; 927.40 Expenses; 927.43 Use of funds; 
927.45 Contributions; 927.50 Marketing policy; 927.52 Prerequisites to 
recommendations; 927.53 Notification; 927.75 Liability; 927.79 
Proceedings after termination; and 927.80 Amendments. Additionally one 
heading should be changed from ``Control Committee'' to 
``Administrative Bodies.''

Material Issue Number 6--Adding Authority for Changes in Committee Size 
and Membership Allocation

    Section 927.20 of the order should be revised to add authority for 
the committees, each individually, to recommend changes in committee 
size and structure. The intent of this proposal is to provide the 
committees with a tool to more efficiently respond to the changing 
character of the Oregon and Washington State pear industry. In 
recommending any such changes, the following would be considered: (1) 
Shifts in acreage within districts and within the production area 
during recent years; (2) the importance of new production in its 
relation to existing districts; (3) equitable relationship between 
Committee membership and the various districts; (4) economies to result 
from more efficient administration due to redistricting or 
reapportionment of members within districts; and (5) other relevant 
factors.
    Testimony indicates that significant changes have occurred in both 
the production base and industry demographics of the pear industry 
since the order was implemented. These changes suggest that flexibility 
in adapting to the changing character of the Oregon and Washington pear 
industry is important to the administration of the order. Witnesses 
stated that, ultimately, the order's ability to remain effective over 
time would be reliant on its ability to change with the needs of the 
industry. In this regard, witnesses proposed adding authority to the 
order that would allow for committee size and structure to be 
considered, and recommendations for change to be made.
    Witnesses testified that careful industry analysis would lead to 
sound recommendations to USDA regarding any change in committee size or 
structure. If the authority to change the size of the committees were 
added to the order, the committees could, at regular meetings, review 
the current structure of the committees using the points of 
consideration mentioned above. Upon completing this analysis, the 
committees could make a recommendation to USDA for a change in the size 
of the committee. Recommendations would be made by each committee 
individually for the segment of the industry that they represent. 
Implementation of this authority would allow such changes to be pursued 
through the informal rulemaking process.
    Given the changes that the Oregon and Washington pear industry has 
seen over time, flexibility to change the size of the committees in 
step with the evolving needs of the industry would be an important 
tool. It would allow the committees to focus on the increasing 
competitiveness in the market while minimizing costs and maximizing 
efficiency.
    Record evidence supports amending the order to add authority to 
change committee size and structure. This amendment would allow each 
committee, given due analysis and consideration of key factors and USDA 
approval, to more quickly adapt to changes within the industry. There 
was no opposition to the above proposal. Accordingly, USDA is proposing 
that Sec.  927.20 be amended.

Material Issue Number 7--Assessment and Supplemental Assessment Rates

    Section 927.41, Assessments, should be amended to allow the Fresh 
Pear and Processed Pear Committees to recommend rates of assessment for 
each category of pears, including summer/fall pears, winter pears, and 
all other pears. In addition, rates of assessment could be different 
for fresh pears and pears for processing in each category, and could 
include supplemental rates on individual varieties.
    Currently, the order provides for an assessment rate for w