Olives Grown in California; Redistricting and Reapportionment of Producer Membership on the California Olive Committee, 6323-6326 [05-2216]

Agencies

• Agricultural Marketing Service
• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6323-6326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 932

[Docket No. FV04-932-2 FR]


Olives Grown in California; Redistricting and Reapportionment of 
Producer Membership on the California Olive Committee

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule redefines the producer districts and reapportions 
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 reduces the number of 
producer districts in the production area from four to two and 
reapportions the committee representation from each district to

[[Page 6324]]

reflect the consolidation. These changes reflect recent shifts in olive 
acreage and producer numbers within the production area and should 
provide equitable committee representation from each district.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2005.

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 final 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 final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive 
effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, 
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable 
conflict with this rule.
    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted 
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 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 final rule consolidates the four existing producer districts 
into two larger districts. Producer representation on the committee is 
reapportioned accordingly. These changes reflect recent shifts in olive 
acreage and producer numbers within the production area and should 
assure equitable committee 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 
should 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

[[Page 6325]]

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 should be easier for each district 
to provide equitable representation on the committee if the districts 
with declining acreages and producer numbers are combined with 
districts having higher acreages and producer numbers. The pool of 
available producers from which to select committee members should 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 will then include the counties of 
Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and all other 
counties north thereof. Districts 2 and 4 will be combined to form a 
new District 2, which will include the counties of Mono, Mariposa, 
Merced, San Benito, Monterey and all other counties south thereof. 
Producer representation on the committee will then be reapportioned to 
provide three members (and alternates) from District 1 and five members 
(and alternates) from District 2.
    These changes should benefit producers by maintaining an equitable 
representation on the committee as to production acreage and number of 
producers in each district. Under this final rule, District 1, with 36 
percent of the total production acreage and 47 percent of the total 
number of producers will 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 will 
be represented by 62 percent of the committee's producer members and 
alternates.

Final 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 final 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.
    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 revises 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 
decrease the number of producer districts from four to two and 
reapportion producer membership on the committee to reflect the 
consolidation. District 1, comprising the northern part of the 
production area, is apportioned three producer members (and alternates) 
on the committee. District 2, comprising the southern part of the 
production area, is apportioned five producer members (and alternates) 
on the committee. These changes reflect recent shifts in olive acreage 
and producer numbers within the production area and should provide 
equitable committee representation from each district. The committee 
unanimously recommended these changes.
    This rule consolidates producer districts and reallocates producer 
membership on the committee; thus, there should 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 final rule imposes 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.
    As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 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.
    A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal 
Register on October 28, 2004 (69 FR 62829). Copies of the rule were 
mailed or sent via facsimile to all committee members and olive 
handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the Internet by 
USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period 
ending December 27, 2004, was provided to allow interested persons to 
respond to the proposal.
    Two comments were received during the comment period in response to 
the proposal. One comment generally opposed the program while the 
second indicated that the olive committee should be disbanded. However, 
neither comment added anything specific to the proposed rule. 
Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on 
the comments received.
    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.
    After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the 
information submitted by the committee and other available information, 
the comments received, it is hereby found that this rule, as 
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of 
the Act.
    It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the 
effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register because nominations for committee positions are 
scheduled to take place in February 2005. The committee needs as much 
time as possible to make adequate preparations for the nomination 
meetings. Further, producers and handlers are aware of this rule, which 
was recommended at a public meeting.

[[Page 6326]]

Also, a 60-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule, 
and no comments were received from the California olive industry.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

    Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as 
follows:

PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
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.

0
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: February 1, 2005.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-2216 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P