Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Administrative Rules Governing Committee Representation, 1685-1688 [E7-425]
Download as PDF
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) the expected general quality of such
cherry production; (4) the expected
carryover as of July 1 of canned and
frozen cherries and other cherry
products; (5) the expected demand
conditions for cherries in different
market segments; (6) supplies of
competing commodities; (7) an analysis
of economic factors having a bearing on
the marketing of cherries; (8) the
estimated tonnage held by handlers in
primary or secondary inventory
reserves; and (9) any estimated release
of primary or secondary inventory
reserve cherries during the crop year.
The Board’s review of the factors
resulted in the computation and
announcement in September 2006 of the
free and restricted percentages proposed
to be established by this rule (55 percent
free and 45 percent restricted).
One alternative to this action would
be not to have volume regulation this
season. Board members stated that no
volume regulation would be detrimental
to the tart cherry industry due to the
size of the 2006–2007 crop. Returns to
growers would not cover their costs of
production for this season which might
cause some to go out of business.
As mentioned earlier, USDA’s
‘‘Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and
Specialty Crop Marketing Orders’’
specify that 110 percent of recent years’
sales should be made available to
primary markets each season before
recommendations for volume regulation
are approved. The quantity available
under this rule is 110 percent of the
quantity shipped in the prior three
years.
The free and restricted percentages
established by this rule release the
optimum supply and apply uniformly to
all regulated handlers in the industry,
regardless of size. There are no known
additional costs incurred by small
handlers that are not incurred by large
handlers. The stabilizing effects of the
percentages impact all handlers
positively by helping them maintain
and expand markets, despite seasonal
supply fluctuations. Likewise, price
stability positively impacts all
producers by allowing them to better
anticipate the revenues their tart
cherries will generate.
While the benefits resulting from this
rulemaking are difficult to quantify, the
stabilizing effects of the volume
regulations impact both small and large
handlers positively by helping them
maintain markets even though tart
cherry supplies fluctuate widely from
season to season.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this regulation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
In addition, the Board’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the tart
cherry industry and all interested
persons were invited to attend the
meeting and participate in Board
deliberations on all issues. Like all
Board meetings, the September 9, 2006,
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.
In compliance with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which
implement the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), the
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements under the
tart cherry marketing order have been
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB Number 0581–0177.
Reporting and recordkeeping burdens
are necessary for compliance purposes
and for developing statistical data for
maintenance of the program. The forms
require information which is readily
available from handler records and
which can be provided without data
processing equipment or trained
statistical staff. As with other, similar
marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically studied to reduce
or eliminate duplicate information
collection burdens by industry and
public sector agencies. This rule does
not change those requirements.
AMS is committed to complying with
E-Government Act, to promote the use
of the Internet and other information
technologies to provide increased
opportunities for citizen access to
Government information and services
and for other purposes.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://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 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate because this rule would
need to be in place as soon as possible
since handlers are already shipping tart
cherries from the 2006–2007 crop. All
written comments timely received will
be considered before a final
determination is made on this matter.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1685
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930
Marketing agreements, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tart
cherries
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN
IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON,
UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND
WISCONSIN
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 930 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 930.255 is added to read as
follows:
Note: This section will not appear in the
annual Code of Federal Regulations.
§ 930.255 Final free and restricted
percentages for the 2006–2007 crop year.
The final percentages for tart cherries
handled by handlers during the crop
year beginning on July 1, 2006, which
shall be free and restricted, respectively,
are designated as follows: Free
percentage, 55 percent and restricted
percentage, 45 percent.
Dated: January 9, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–423 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 946
[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0177; FV06–946–
1 PR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington;
Modification of Administrative Rules
Governing Committee Representation
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments
on modifications to the administrative
rules governing committee
representation under the Washington
potato marketing order. The marketing
order regulates the handling of Irish
potatoes grown in Washington, and is
administered locally by the State of
Washington Potato Committee
(Committee). This rule would
reestablish districts within the
production area, reestablish the
Committee with fewer members, and
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
1686
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
reapportion members among districts.
These changes would result in more
efficient administration of the program
while providing for more effective
representation of the Washington fresh
potato industry on the Committee.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 19, 2007.
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; Email: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or
Internet: https://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: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson,
Northwest Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–
2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or E-Mail:
Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or
GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.
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
proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part
946), regulating the handling of Irish
potatoes grown in Washington,
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’
The order is effective under the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order
12866.
This proposal has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect. This proposal
will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any
handler subject to an order may file
with USDA a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with law
and request a modification of the order
or to be exempted therefrom. A handler
is afforded the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. After the hearing USDA
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his
or her principal place of business, has
jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on
the petition, provided an action is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This rule invites comments on
proposed modifications to the
administrative rules governing
committee representation under the
Washington potato marketing order.
This rule would reestablish districts
within the production area, reestablish
the Committee with fewer members, and
reapportion members among the new
districts. Specifically, this rule would
reestablish the order’s five districts as
three districts; decrease Committee
membership from fifteen members and
fifteen alternate members to nine
members and nine alternate members;
and reapportion the members such that
one handler member and alternate
member, and two producer members
and their respective alternate members
would be elected from each of the three
reestablished districts. These changes
would result in more efficient
administration of the program while
providing for more effective
representation of the fresh potato
industry on the Committee. The
Committee unanimously recommended
these changes at a meeting held on June
6, 2006, with a request that they be
made effective on July 1, 2007.
The order provides in § 946.22 that
USDA, upon recommendation of the
Committee, may reestablish districts,
may reapportion members among
districts, may change the number of
members and alternate members, and
may change the composition by
changing the ratio of members,
including their alternates. In
recommending any such changes, the
order requires that the Committee
consider the following: (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) the
equitable relationship between
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Committee apportionment and districts;
and (4) other relevant factors.
As previously noted, the Committee
currently has fifteen members, with
membership apportioned among five
districts. Sections 946.31 and 946.103
currently define the districts as follows:
District No. 1—The counties of Ferry,
Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane,
Whitman, and Lincoln, plus the East
Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin
Project, plus the area of Grant County
not included in either the Quincy or
South Irrigation Districts which lies east
of township vertical line R27E, plus the
area of Adams County not included in
either of the South or Quincy Irrigation
Districts.
District No. 2—The counties of
Kittitas, Douglas, Chelan, and
Okanogan, plus the Quincy Irrigation
District of the Columbia Basin Project,
plus the area of Grant County not
included in the East or South Irrigation
Districts which lies west of township
line R28E.
District No. 3—The counties of
Benton, Klickitat, and Yakima.
District No. 4—The counties of Walla
Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin,
plus the South Irrigation District of the
Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of
Franklin County not included in the
South District.
District No. 5—All of the remaining
counties in the State of Washington not
included in Districts No. 1, 2, 3, and 4
of this section.
Further, §§ 946.25 and 946.104
currently provide in part that each of
the five districts are represented as
follows: District No. 1: Three producer
members and one handler member;
District No. 2: Two producer members
and one handler member; District No. 3:
Two producer members and one
handler member; District No. 4: Two
producer members and one handler
member; District No. 5: One producer
member and one handler member.
The Committee’s districts were last
reestablished on July 1, 1975, largely
due to changes in the production area
brought about by the Columbia Basin
Project (CBP). The CBP is a large scale
irrigation project administered by the
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department
of Interior. The CBP is comprised of
three irrigation districts centered in
Grant County, Washington.
The Committee’s districts were
originally established using county
boundaries, whereas the 1975
redistricting process reestablished the
districts by utilizing existing county and
township lines, as well as the three
irrigation districts formed under the
CBP. As a consequence, the Committee
utilized the CBP irrigation district
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
boundaries in redistricting. At the time,
the boundaries of the three irrigation
districts were well known to producers
in the area. However, as more producers
installed wells to irrigate their potatoes,
the CBP irrigation district boundaries
became less relevant.
Also, the Committee reports that it is
having difficulty recruiting members.
This recruitment issue is largely due to
a decreasing number of qualified
individuals willing to take the time
away from their families and farms to
serve on the Committee.
Finally, the Washington State Potato
Commission (Commission), an agency of
the State of Washington, has recently
reestablished its production area into
three districts. The Committee
recommended reestablishing the order’s
districts to align with the Commission’s
new districts.
After comparing current acreage and
production statistics, as well as the
current number of fresh potato
producers in each of the order’s five
districts to statistics for the
Commission’s three new districts, the
Committee found that reestablishment
of its districts from five to three would
not only be feasible, but could enhance
the Committee’s administration of the
order. In considering the trend towards
less industry participation on the
Committee, as well as the decreasing
relative size of the fresh potato producer
population (the 5 year average fresh
production is 13% of the total
Washington potato production), the
Committee also determined that it could
more effectively serve the industry if it
were to reestablish with as few as nine
members.
The Committee currently is
comprised of ten producer members and
five handler members and their
respective alternates. The Committee
felt that this ratio—two producer
members to each handler member—
should also be used in reestablishing
and reapportioning the Committee.
Based on statistical information
available from USDA, the Committee
therefore determined that the
reestablished Committee should be
comprised of nine members—six
producer members and three handler
members—with two producer members
and respective alternates, and one
handler member and respective
alternate representing each of the three
new districts.
In determining how to appropriately
divide the production area into three
districts, as well as the correct
apportionment of nine members in three
new districts, the Committee reviewed
the relative differences in fresh
production and acreage estimates in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
Washington’s various potato producing
counties. Using data from the USDA’s
National Agriculture Statistics Service
(NASS), the Committee’s research
indicated that proposed District No. 1
would have 41 percent of the fresh
potato producers, 36 percent of the fresh
potato production, and 32 percent of the
fresh potato acreage in the order’s
production area. Proposed District No. 2
would have 31 percent of the producers,
43 percent of the production, and 36
percent of the acreage. Finally, proposed
District No. 3 would have 28 percent of
the producers, 21 percent of the
production, and 32 percent of the
acreage.
Although these statistics show that
the number of fresh potato farms and
the related production figures are not
evenly divided among the proposed
districts, acreage figures are nearly
equal. Additionally, the Committee
reports that there are widely variable
yields among the various table-stock
potato varieties produced in
Washington’s diverse production areas.
In equitably apportioning the proposed
nine members among the three districts,
the Committee chose not to provide
districts that predominately produce a
lower yielding variety of potato with
less representation on the Committee.
As previously noted, the Committee’s
recommendation therefore includes
provision that two producer members
and one handler member, as well as
their respective alternates, would
represent each district.
The proposed districts would provide
consistency in the Washington potato
industry. All of Grant County would be
located in the reestablished District No.
1 instead of being divided between
Districts No. 1, 2 and 4, as is currently
the case. As proposed in this rule,
District No. 1 would consist of the
counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan,
Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend
Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and
Lincoln. District No. 2 would consist of
the counties of Kittitas, Yakima,
Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla
Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin.
Finally, District No. 3 would consist of
all the remaining counties in the State
of Washington not included in Districts
No. 1 and 2 (essentially all of the
counties west of the Cascade
Mountains).
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 action on small entities.
Accordingly, AMS has prepared this
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1687
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order
that small businesses will not be unduly
or disproportionately burdened.
Marketing orders issued pursuant to the
Act, and rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
small entities acting on their own
behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 45 handlers
of Washington potatoes subject to
regulation under the order and
approximately 267 potato producers in
the regulated area. Small agricultural
service firms are defined by the Small
Business Administration (13 CFR
121.201) as those having annual receipts
of less than $6,500,000, and small
agricultural producers are defined as
those having annual receipts of less than
$750,000.
During the 2005–2006 marketing year,
10,516,095 hundredweight of
Washington potatoes were inspected
under the order and sold into the fresh
market. Based on an estimated average
f.o.b. price of $7.80 per hundredweight,
the Committee estimates that 43
handlers, or about 96 percent, had
annual receipts of less than $6,500,000.
In addition, based on information
provided by NASS, the average
producer price for Washington potatoes
for the 2005 marketing year (the most
recent period that final statistics are
available) was $5.60 per hundredweight.
The average annual producer revenue
for each of the 267 Washington potato
producers is therefore calculated to be
approximately $220,562. In view of the
foregoing, the majority of the handlers
and producers of Washington potatoes
may be classified as small entities.
This rule would modify §§ 946.103
and 946.104 of the order’s
administrative rules and regulations by
reestablishing the order’s districts from
the current five districts to three
districts, reestablishing the Committee
with nine members rather than fifteen
members, and reapportioning the
membership such that each district is
represented by two producers and one
handler and their respective alternates.
This rule would be effective July 1,
2007. Authority for reestablishing the
districts, as well as reestablishing and
reapportioning the Committee is
provided in § 946.22 of the order.
The Committee believes that these
proposed changes would not negatively
impact handlers and producers in terms
of cost. Costs for Committee meetings
should actually decrease because of the
reduction in the number of members
and their respective alternates traveling
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
1688
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules
to meetings. Such savings could
ultimately be passed on to handlers and
producers in the form of reduced
assessments. The benefits for this rule
are not expected to be
disproportionately greater or less for
small handlers or producers than for
larger entities.
The Committee discussed various
alternative reductions in Committee size
and how to reapportion fewer members
among the districts. Ultimately, the
Committee determined that reducing its
size to nine members would best
mitigate the problems associated with
recruitment of qualified members.
Since this rule would modify the
administrative rules governing
committee representation by
reestablishing districts, reestablishing
the Committee, and reapportioning
members among districts, additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
would not be imposed on either small
or large potato handlers. The
information collection requirements
contained in this rule have been
previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under No.
0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty
Crops. 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. Furthermore, USDA has
not identified any relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap or conflict with
this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
The Committee’s meeting was widely
publicized throughout the Washington
potato industry and all interested
persons were invited to attend and
participate in Committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all Committee
meetings, the February 9, 2006, 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: https://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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Jan 12, 2007
Jkt 211001
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
timely received will be considered
before a final determination is made on
this matter.
Dated: January 9, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–425 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946
Marketing agreements, Potatoes,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
7 CFR Part 1207
PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN
IN WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 946 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 946.103 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 946.103
Reestablishment of districts.
Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after July
1, 2007, the following districts are
reestablished:
(a) District No. 1—the counties of
Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, Grant,
Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille,
Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln.
(b) District No. 2—the counties of
Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton,
Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia,
Garfield, and Asotin.
(c) District No. 3—all of the remaining
counties in the State of Washington, not
included in Districts No. 1 and No. 2 of
this paragraph.
3. Section 946.104 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 946.104 Reestablishment and
Reapportionment of committee.
(a) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after
July 1, 2007, the State of Washington
Potato Committee consisting of nine
members, of whom six shall be
producers and three shall be handlers,
is hereby reestablished. For each
member of the committee there shall be
an alternate who shall have the same
qualifications as the member.
(b) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after
July 1, 2007, membership representation
of the State of Washington Potato
Committee shall be reapportioned
among the districts of the production
area so as to provide that each of the
three districts as defined in § 946.103
are represented by two producer
members and one handler member and
their respective alternates.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Agricultural Marketing Service
[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0219; FV–05–711]
Potato Research and Promotion Plan;
Section 610 Review
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document summarizes
the results of an Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) review of the Potato
Research and Promotion Program, under
the criteria contained in Section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based
upon its review, AMS has determined
that the Potato Research and Promotion
Plan should be continued without
change.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
obtain a copy of the review. Requests for
copies should be sent to the Docket
Clerk, Research and Promotion Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Programs (FV),
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
USDA, Stop 0244, Room 0634–S, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone
(202) 720–9915; Fax (202) 205–2800; or
e-mail: Daniel.Manzoni@usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sonia N. Jimenez, Research and
Promotion Branch, FV, AMS, USDA,
Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Room 0634–S, Washington, DC
20250–0244; telephone: (888) 720–9917;
fax: (202) 205–2800; or e-mail:
Sonia.Jimenez@usda.gov.
The Potato
Research and Promotion Act of 1971, as
amended, (7 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.)
authorized the Potato Research and
Promotion Program which is industry
operated and funded, with oversight by
USDA. The Program’s objective is to
carry out an effective and continuous
coordinated program of research,
development, advertising, and
promotion designed to strengthen
potatoes’ competitive position, and to
maintain and expand domestic and
foreign markets for potatoes and potato
products.
The Program became effective on
March 9, 1972, and was implemented
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1685-1688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-425]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 946
[Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0177; FV06-946-1 PR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of
Administrative Rules Governing Committee Representation
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on modifications to the
administrative rules governing committee representation under the
Washington potato marketing order. The marketing order regulates the
handling of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, and is administered
locally by the State of Washington Potato Committee (Committee). This
rule would reestablish districts within the production area,
reestablish the Committee with fewer members, and
[[Page 1686]]
reapportion members among districts. These changes would result in more
efficient administration of the program while providing for more
effective representation of the Washington fresh potato industry on the
Committee.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 19, 2007.
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; E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or
Internet: https://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:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson,
Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-
2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or E-Mail: Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or
GaryD.Olson@usda.gov.
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 proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of
Irish potatoes grown in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the
``order.'' The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
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. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition.
After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides
that the district court of the United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This rule invites comments on proposed modifications to the
administrative rules governing committee representation under the
Washington potato marketing order. This rule would reestablish
districts within the production area, reestablish the Committee with
fewer members, and reapportion members among the new districts.
Specifically, this rule would reestablish the order's five districts as
three districts; decrease Committee membership from fifteen members and
fifteen alternate members to nine members and nine alternate members;
and reapportion the members such that one handler member and alternate
member, and two producer members and their respective alternate members
would be elected from each of the three reestablished districts. These
changes would result in more efficient administration of the program
while providing for more effective representation of the fresh potato
industry on the Committee. The Committee unanimously recommended these
changes at a meeting held on June 6, 2006, with a request that they be
made effective on July 1, 2007.
The order provides in Sec. 946.22 that USDA, upon recommendation
of the Committee, may reestablish districts, may reapportion members
among districts, may change the number of members and alternate
members, and may change the composition by changing the ratio of
members, including their alternates. In recommending any such changes,
the order requires that the Committee consider the following: (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) the equitable relationship between
Committee apportionment and districts; and (4) other relevant factors.
As previously noted, the Committee currently has fifteen members,
with membership apportioned among five districts. Sections 946.31 and
946.103 currently define the districts as follows:
District No. 1--The counties of Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille,
Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln, plus the East Irrigation District of the
Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of Grant County not included in
either the Quincy or South Irrigation Districts which lies east of
township vertical line R27E, plus the area of Adams County not included
in either of the South or Quincy Irrigation Districts.
District No. 2--The counties of Kittitas, Douglas, Chelan, and
Okanogan, plus the Quincy Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin
Project, plus the area of Grant County not included in the East or
South Irrigation Districts which lies west of township line R28E.
District No. 3--The counties of Benton, Klickitat, and Yakima.
District No. 4--The counties of Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield,
and Asotin, plus the South Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin
Project, plus the area of Franklin County not included in the South
District.
District No. 5--All of the remaining counties in the State of
Washington not included in Districts No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this
section.
Further, Sec. Sec. 946.25 and 946.104 currently provide in part
that each of the five districts are represented as follows: District
No. 1: Three producer members and one handler member; District No. 2:
Two producer members and one handler member; District No. 3: Two
producer members and one handler member; District No. 4: Two producer
members and one handler member; District No. 5: One producer member and
one handler member.
The Committee's districts were last reestablished on July 1, 1975,
largely due to changes in the production area brought about by the
Columbia Basin Project (CBP). The CBP is a large scale irrigation
project administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of
Interior. The CBP is comprised of three irrigation districts centered
in Grant County, Washington.
The Committee's districts were originally established using county
boundaries, whereas the 1975 redistricting process reestablished the
districts by utilizing existing county and township lines, as well as
the three irrigation districts formed under the CBP. As a consequence,
the Committee utilized the CBP irrigation district
[[Page 1687]]
boundaries in redistricting. At the time, the boundaries of the three
irrigation districts were well known to producers in the area. However,
as more producers installed wells to irrigate their potatoes, the CBP
irrigation district boundaries became less relevant.
Also, the Committee reports that it is having difficulty recruiting
members. This recruitment issue is largely due to a decreasing number
of qualified individuals willing to take the time away from their
families and farms to serve on the Committee.
Finally, the Washington State Potato Commission (Commission), an
agency of the State of Washington, has recently reestablished its
production area into three districts. The Committee recommended
reestablishing the order's districts to align with the Commission's new
districts.
After comparing current acreage and production statistics, as well
as the current number of fresh potato producers in each of the order's
five districts to statistics for the Commission's three new districts,
the Committee found that reestablishment of its districts from five to
three would not only be feasible, but could enhance the Committee's
administration of the order. In considering the trend towards less
industry participation on the Committee, as well as the decreasing
relative size of the fresh potato producer population (the 5 year
average fresh production is 13% of the total Washington potato
production), the Committee also determined that it could more
effectively serve the industry if it were to reestablish with as few as
nine members.
The Committee currently is comprised of ten producer members and
five handler members and their respective alternates. The Committee
felt that this ratio--two producer members to each handler member--
should also be used in reestablishing and reapportioning the Committee.
Based on statistical information available from USDA, the Committee
therefore determined that the reestablished Committee should be
comprised of nine members--six producer members and three handler
members--with two producer members and respective alternates, and one
handler member and respective alternate representing each of the three
new districts.
In determining how to appropriately divide the production area into
three districts, as well as the correct apportionment of nine members
in three new districts, the Committee reviewed the relative differences
in fresh production and acreage estimates in Washington's various
potato producing counties. Using data from the USDA's National
Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), the Committee's research
indicated that proposed District No. 1 would have 41 percent of the
fresh potato producers, 36 percent of the fresh potato production, and
32 percent of the fresh potato acreage in the order's production area.
Proposed District No. 2 would have 31 percent of the producers, 43
percent of the production, and 36 percent of the acreage. Finally,
proposed District No. 3 would have 28 percent of the producers, 21
percent of the production, and 32 percent of the acreage.
Although these statistics show that the number of fresh potato
farms and the related production figures are not evenly divided among
the proposed districts, acreage figures are nearly equal. Additionally,
the Committee reports that there are widely variable yields among the
various table-stock potato varieties produced in Washington's diverse
production areas. In equitably apportioning the proposed nine members
among the three districts, the Committee chose not to provide districts
that predominately produce a lower yielding variety of potato with less
representation on the Committee. As previously noted, the Committee's
recommendation therefore includes provision that two producer members
and one handler member, as well as their respective alternates, would
represent each district.
The proposed districts would provide consistency in the Washington
potato industry. All of Grant County would be located in the
reestablished District No. 1 instead of being divided between Districts
No. 1, 2 and 4, as is currently the case. As proposed in this rule,
District No. 1 would consist of the counties of Douglas, Chelan,
Okanogan, Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman,
and Lincoln. District No. 2 would consist of the counties of Kittitas,
Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield,
and Asotin. Finally, District No. 3 would consist of all the remaining
counties in the State of Washington not included in Districts No. 1 and
2 (essentially all of the counties west of the Cascade Mountains).
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 action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has
prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 45 handlers of Washington potatoes subject
to regulation under the order and approximately 267 potato producers in
the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the
Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual
receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are
defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
During the 2005-2006 marketing year, 10,516,095 hundredweight of
Washington potatoes were inspected under the order and sold into the
fresh market. Based on an estimated average f.o.b. price of $7.80 per
hundredweight, the Committee estimates that 43 handlers, or about 96
percent, had annual receipts of less than $6,500,000.
In addition, based on information provided by NASS, the average
producer price for Washington potatoes for the 2005 marketing year (the
most recent period that final statistics are available) was $5.60 per
hundredweight. The average annual producer revenue for each of the 267
Washington potato producers is therefore calculated to be approximately
$220,562. In view of the foregoing, the majority of the handlers and
producers of Washington potatoes may be classified as small entities.
This rule would modify Sec. Sec. 946.103 and 946.104 of the
order's administrative rules and regulations by reestablishing the
order's districts from the current five districts to three districts,
reestablishing the Committee with nine members rather than fifteen
members, and reapportioning the membership such that each district is
represented by two producers and one handler and their respective
alternates. This rule would be effective July 1, 2007. Authority for
reestablishing the districts, as well as reestablishing and
reapportioning the Committee is provided in Sec. 946.22 of the order.
The Committee believes that these proposed changes would not
negatively impact handlers and producers in terms of cost. Costs for
Committee meetings should actually decrease because of the reduction in
the number of members and their respective alternates traveling
[[Page 1688]]
to meetings. Such savings could ultimately be passed on to handlers and
producers in the form of reduced assessments. The benefits for this
rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for
small handlers or producers than for larger entities.
The Committee discussed various alternative reductions in Committee
size and how to reapportion fewer members among the districts.
Ultimately, the Committee determined that reducing its size to nine
members would best mitigate the problems associated with recruitment of
qualified members.
Since this rule would modify the administrative rules governing
committee representation by reestablishing districts, reestablishing
the Committee, and reapportioning members among districts, additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements would not be imposed on either
small or large potato handlers. The information collection requirements
contained in this rule have been previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty
Crops. 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. Furthermore, USDA
has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap
or conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the
Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited to
attend and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like
all Committee meetings, the February 9, 2006, 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 proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 946--IRISH POTATOES GROWN IN WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 946.103 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.103 Reestablishment of districts.
Pursuant to Sec. 946.22, on and after July 1, 2007, the following
districts are reestablished:
(a) District No. 1--the counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan,
Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and
Lincoln.
(b) District No. 2--the counties of Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat,
Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin.
(c) District No. 3--all of the remaining counties in the State of
Washington, not included in Districts No. 1 and No. 2 of this
paragraph.
3. Section 946.104 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.104 Reestablishment and Reapportionment of committee.
(a) Pursuant to Sec. 946.22, on and after July 1, 2007, the State
of Washington Potato Committee consisting of nine members, of whom six
shall be producers and three shall be handlers, is hereby
reestablished. For each member of the committee there shall be an
alternate who shall have the same qualifications as the member.
(b) Pursuant to Sec. 946.22, on and after July 1, 2007, membership
representation of the State of Washington Potato Committee shall be
reapportioned among the districts of the production area so as to
provide that each of the three districts as defined in Sec. 946.103
are represented by two producer members and one handler member and
their respective alternates.
Dated: January 9, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E7-425 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P