Walnuts Grown in California; Order Amending Marketing Order and Agreement No. 984, 11328-11340 [E8-4016]

Agencies

• Agricultural Marketing Service
• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 42 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11328-11340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 984

[Docket No. AO-192-A7; AMS-FV-07-0004; FV06-984-1]


Walnuts Grown in California; Order Amending Marketing Order and 
Agreement No. 984

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the marketing order for walnuts grown in 
California. The amendments were proposed by the Walnut Marketing Board 
(Board), which is responsible for local administration of the order. 
The amendments will: Change the marketing year; include ``pack'' as a 
handler function; restructure the Board and revise nomination 
procedures; rename the Board and add authority to change Board 
composition; modify Board meeting and voting procedures; add authority 
for marketing promotion and paid advertising; add authority to accept 
voluntary financial contributions and to carry over excess assessment 
funds; broaden the scope of the quality control provisions and add the 
authority to recommend different regulations for different market 
destinations; add authority for the Board to appoint more than one 
inspection service; replace outdated order language with current 
industry terminology; and other related amendments.
    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed three additional 
amendments: To establish tenure limitations for Board members, to 
require that continuance referenda be conducted on a periodic basis to 
ascertain producer support for the order, and to make any necessary 
conforming changes.
    With the exception of the amendment to establish tenure 
limitations, all of the amendments were favored by walnut growers in a 
mail referendum, held August 1 through 17, 2007. The proposed 
amendments are intended to improve the operation and functioning of the 
marketing order program.

DATES: This rule is effective April 2, 2008, except for amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  984.7, 984.13, 984.14, 984.15, 984.21, 984.22, 984.42, 
984.46, 984.48, 984.50, 984.51, 984.52, 984.59, 984.67, 984.69, 984.70, 
984.71, 984.73 and 984.89, which are effective September 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order 
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, USDA, Northwest Marketing Field Office, 1220 S.W. 
Third Avenue, Room 385, Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326-
2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or e-mail: Melissa.Schmaedick@usda.gov.
    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 April 18, 2006, and published in the April 24, 
2006, issue of the Federal Register (71 FR 20902); a Recommended 
Decision issued on March 19, 2007, and published in the March 27, 2007, 
issue of the Federal Register (72 FR 14368); and Secretary's Decision 
and Referendum Order issued on July 9, 2007, and published in the July 
13, 2007 issue of the Federal Register (72 FR 38498).
    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

    This final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing 
held on May 17 and 18, 2006, in Modesto, California. Notice of this 
hearing was issued April 18, 2006 and published in the Federal Register 
on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 420902). The hearing was held to consider the 
proposed amendment of Marketing Order 984, hereinafter referred to as 
the ``order.''
    The hearing was held 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 marketing orders (7 CFR part 900).
    The notice of hearing contained order changes proposed by the 
Walnut Marketing Board (Board), which is responsible for local 
administration of the order, and by the Agricultural Marketing Service 
(AMS).
    Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record

[[Page 11329]]

thereof, the Administrator of AMS on March 19, 2007, filed with the 
Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Recommended Decision 
and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto by April 16, 2007. 
Fifteen exceptions were filed during the exception period.
    A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order was issued on July 9, 
2007, directing that a referendum be conducted during the period August 
1 through 17, 2007, among walnut growers to determine whether they 
favored the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the 
amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of those producers 
voting or by voters representing at least two-thirds of the volume of 
walnuts represented by voters voting in the referendum. Voters voting 
in the referendum favored all but one of the proposed amendments.
    The amendments favored by voters and included in this order will:
    1. Change the marketing year from August 1 through July 31 to 
September 1 through August 31. This will amend Sec.  984.7, Marketing 
year, and will result in conforming changes being made to Sec.  984.36, 
Term of office, and Sec.  984.48, Marketing estimates and 
recommendations.
    2. Specify that the act of packing walnuts is considered a handling 
function. This will amend Sec.  984.13, To handle, as well as clarify 
the definition of ``pack'' in Sec.  984.15 by including the term 
``shell'' as a function of ``pack.''
    3. (a) Amend all parts of the order that refer to cooperative seats 
on the Board, redistribute member seats among districts, and provide 
designated seats for a handler handling 35 percent or more of 
production, if such handler exists. This will amend Sec.  984.35, 
Walnut Marketing Board, and Sec.  984.14, Handler.
    3. (b) Amend the Board member nomination process to reflect 
proposed changes in the Board structure, as outlined in 3(a). This will 
amend Sec.  984.37, Nominations, and Sec.  984.40, Alternate.
    4. Require Board nominees to submit a written qualification and 
acceptance statement prior to selection by USDA. This will amend Sec.  
984.39, Qualify by acceptance.
    5. Change the name of the Walnut Marketing Board to the California 
Walnut Board. This will amend Sec.  984.6, Board, and Sec.  984.35, 
Walnut Marketing Board.
    6. Add authority to reestablish districts, reapportion members 
among districts, and revise groups eligible for representation on the 
Board. This will add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  984.35, Walnut 
Marketing Board.
    7. Add percentage requirements to Board quorum and voting 
requirements, add authority for the Board to vote by ``any other means 
of communication'' (including facsimile) and add authority for Board 
meetings to be held by telephone or by ``any other means of 
communication'', providing that all votes cast at such meetings shall 
be confirmed in writing. This will amend Sec.  984.45, Procedure, and 
will result in a conforming change in Sec.  984.48 (a), Marketing 
estimates and recommendations.
    8. Add authority to carry over excess assessment funds. This will 
amend Sec.  984.69, Assessments.
    9. Add authority to accept voluntary financial contributions. This 
will add a new Sec.  984.70, Contributions.
    10. Clarify that members and alternate members may be reimbursed 
for expenses incurred while performing their duties and that 
reimbursement includes per diem. This will amend Sec.  984.42, 
Expenses.
    11. Add authority for the Board to appoint more than one inspection 
service as long as the functions performed by each service are separate 
and do not duplicate each other. This will amend Sec.  984.51, 
Inspection and certification of inshell and shelled walnuts.
    12. (a) Broaden the scope of the quality control provisions and by 
adding authority to recommend different regulations for different 
market destinations. This will amend Sec.  984.50, Grade and size 
regulations.
    12. (b) Add authority that would allow for shelled walnuts to be 
inspected after having been sliced, chopped, ground, or in any other 
manner changed from shelled walnuts, if regulations for such walnuts 
are in effect. This will amend Sec.  984.52, Processing of shelled 
walnuts.
    13. Add authority for marketing promotion and paid advertising. 
This will amend Sec.  984.46, Research and development.
    14. Replace the terms ``carryover'' with ``inventory,'' and 
``mammoth'' with ``jumbo,'' to reflect current day industry practices. 
This will amend Sec.  984.21, Handler inventory, and Sec.  984.67, 
Exemption, and will also result in conforming changes being made to 
Sec.  984.48, Marketing estimates and recommendations, and Sec.  
984.71, Reports of handler carryover.
    15. (a) Clarify and simplify the interhandler transfer provision, 
and add authority for the Board to recommend to USDA regulations, 
including necessary reports, for administrative oversight of such 
transfers. This will amend Sec.  984.59, Interhandler transfers.
    15. (b) Clarify that the Board may require reports from handlers or 
packers that place California walnuts into the stream of commerce. This 
will amend Sec.  984.73, Reports of walnut receipts.
    16. Update and simplify the language in Sec.  984.22, Trade demand, 
to state ``United States and its territories,'' rather than name 
``Puerto Rico'' and ``The Canal Zone''.
    17. Add language to the order that would acknowledge that the Board 
may deliberate, consult, cooperate, and exchange information with the 
California Walnut Commission. Any information sharing would be kept 
confidential. This will add a new Sec.  984.91, Relationship with the 
California Walnut Commission.
    18. Require that continuance referenda be conducted on a periodic 
basis to ascertain industry support for the order and add more 
flexibility in the termination provisions. This will amend Sec.  
984.89, Effective time and termination.
    The USDA proposal to authorize limitations on tenure failed to 
obtain the requisite number of votes needed, in number or in volume, to 
pass.
    Conforming changes were made to the extent necessary. The amended 
marketing agreement was subsequently mailed to all walnut handlers in 
the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was not 
approved by handlers representing at least 50 percent of the volume of 
walnuts handled by all handlers during the representative period of 
August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007.

Small Business Consideration

     Pursuant to the 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 final regulatory flexibility 
analysis.
    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of 
business subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be 
unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and amendments 
thereto are unique in that they are normally brought about through 
group action of essentially small entities for their own benefit.
    Small agricultural growers are defined by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of 
less than $750,000. Small agricultural service firms, which include 
handlers regulated under the order, were defined at the time of the 
hearing as those with annual receipts of

[[Page 11330]]

less than $5,000,000. The definition of small agricultural service firm 
has subsequently changed to one with annual receipts of $6,500,000.
    Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing 
on the probable regulatory and informational impact on growers and 
handlers of the proposed amendments, and in particular the impact on 
small businesses. The record evidence shows that the proposed 
amendments are designed to enhance industry efficiencies and streamline 
administrative operations of the marketing order. The record evidence 
is that while some minimal costs may occur, those costs will be 
outweighed by the benefits expected to accrue to the California walnut 
industry.

Walnut Industry Background and Overview

     According to the record, the California walnut industry currently 
has 44 handlers and approximately 5,000 producers. The crop is produced 
in a region that spans approximately 400 miles in California's Central 
Valley.
    Fifteen grower witnesses and 7 handler witnesses testified at the 
hearing. Using the SBA definition ($750,000 in gross annual walnut 
sales), 7 of the grower witnesses identified themselves as large 
business entities and 6 as small business entities. All 7 handler 
witnesses identified themselves as being large business entities 
according to the SBA definition. Some of the handler witnesses were 
also growers. According to witnesses, 37 out of an industry total of 44 
handlers would qualify as small business entities under the SBA 
definition. Also, under the order amendments contained herein, it is 
estimated that five packers would be considered handlers, the majority 
of whom would be considered small entities.
    Based on information presented at the hearing, calculations 
describing an average California walnut producer provide the following: 
Dividing 219,000 bearing acres in 2005 by 5,000 producers indicates an 
average of 44 bearing acres per producer. Dividing the two-year average 
crop value for 2003 and 2004 ($414,950,000) by 5,000 producers yields 
an average walnut revenue per producer estimate of about $83,000. 
According to the hearing record, more than 70 percent of California 
walnut producers would be classified as small producers according to 
the SBA definition.
    According to a study presented at the hearing, entitled ``Cost to 
Produce Walnuts in California'' (prepared by Dr. Karen Klonsky, 
Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, University of 
California Davis, 2006), typical average costs for a walnut orchard in 
the Sacramento Valley are $2,460 per acre in full production. The costs 
are broken down as follows: (a) Land and trees, $678 (28 percent), (b) 
cultural costs, $667 (27 percent), (c) harvest, $538 (22 percent), (d) 
equipment and buildings, $302 (12%), and (e) cash overhead, $275 (11 
percent).
    At an average grower price in recent years of $0.62 per pound, a 
grower would need a yield of 2 tons per acre to break even, according 
to the study. The breakeven price at the State average yield of 1.5 
tons per acre is about $0.70 per pound, which is above the actual price 
received in most recent years, but equal to the 2004 average price 
received by growers.
    Individual grower costs can vary considerably due to such variables 
as horticultural practices and varieties grown, and also due to orchard 
location and year of acquisition, and water availability and cost.
    Although a majority of producers are considered small business 
entities, record evidence also indicates that producer revenue has 
increased over time. The National Agricultural Statistical Service 
(NASS) crop value estimate for 2004, $451.75 million, was 38 percent 
higher than in 1995, and was the sixth successive yearly increase. 
Average revenue per acre in 2004 reached a record $2,082.
    Record evidence also indicates that acreage and production are 
trending upward. Production did not exceed 300,000 tons until 2001, but 
has exceeded that level for 4 out of the last 5 years. Witnesses stated 
that the five-year average production for 1996-2000 was 244,000 tons, 
compared to the five-year average production (2001-2005), which was 
318,600 inshell tons.
    According to the hearing record, a number of factors have 
contributed to increased production in recent years. New acres have 
been planted at a rate of three to five thousand acres per year, some 
of which are new varieties with higher yields. Witnesses explained that 
older varieties may yield 1,500 to 3,000 pounds per acre, due to both 
planting patterns and the typical yield of the variety. New varieties, 
such as the Chandler, will yield up to 6,000 pounds per acre. Newer 
plantings have led to a reduction in the cyclical peaks and valleys 
associated with the alternate-bearing characteristic of tree nuts. 
This, in turn, has facilitated better inventory management and has made 
the walnut industry a more reliable ingredient supplier to the food-
processing industry.
    According to the hearing record, the growing season commences in 
March of each year with harvest occurring between September and 
November, depending upon the variety. Inshell California walnuts are a 
seasonal item with 95 percent of the volume shipped between the months 
of September and December. This represents roughly 25 percent of the 
industry's production. Inshell walnuts are marketed primarily as a 
winter holiday food. According to the hearing record, the purchase of 
significant quantities of inshell walnuts occurs due to the tradition 
in many markets of displaying them with other inshell nuts as part of 
winter holiday decor.
    Shelled walnuts are marketed on a year-round basis, and represent 
about 75 percent of utilization. Large handler infrastructure 
investments have contributed substantially to the growth of the year-
round shelled business, as well as the inshell business.
    Over the past ten years sophisticated laser-sorting equipment and 
new varieties such as the Chandler have contributed to improved 
quality. Higher customer expectations have accompanied the improvements 
in technology and quality, with more demand for high-quality, high-
specification California walnuts. Marketing success in Japan is cited 
as a prime example of this trend.
    According to the hearing record, shelled walnuts are utilized in a 
variety of ways, with commercial baking believed to be the single 
largest utilization category. Retail consumption of walnuts packaged 
for use in the home has increased dramatically over the past several 
years. Shelled walnuts may be sold in packages ranging from 2.75 ounce 
retail packages to large bulk containers of 25 pounds or more for 
industrial users, wholesalers, and distributors. The last 12 years have 
seen substantial increases in snack food uses of walnuts, in addition 
to expansion of ingredient use beyond baking and confectionery items to 
include usage with salads, rice, and pasta.
    A high degree of mechanization in the harvest has reduced the 
deleterious impact on nut quality from rain and other weather 
conditions. Once harvested, walnuts are taken to holding stations where 
a fibrous husk is removed, and the walnuts are then dried to 
approximately eight percent moisture. They are delivered to handlers 
for further processing, which includes cleaning, sorting, and shelling.
    According to the hearing record, California walnuts rank eighth in

[[Page 11331]]

exports over all the commodities grown in the state. The top three 
inshell export markets are Spain, Italy, and Germany. Five-year average 
export value (2000/01-2004/05) is approximately $52 million, 
representing 63 percent of total export value for that five-year 
period. The key export markets for shelled-walnut utilization are: 
Japan, Germany, Spain, Israel, Korea, and Canada. Five-year average 
export value for those six countries is $91.8 million, which is about 
76 percent of the total value of shelled walnut exports.
    California walnuts compete with walnuts grown in China, Turkey, 
France, Italy, Chile, North Korea, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, 
and many areas within the former Soviet Union including Kazakhstan, 
Ukraine, Hungary, and Moldova. Within the European Union the major 
competition comes from France and Eastern Europe. In the Pacific Rim, 
major competitors include China and India.

Material Issues

     The amendments included in this final rule will: Change the 
marketing year; include ``pack'' as a handler function; restructure the 
Board and revise nomination procedures; rename the Board and add 
authority to change Board composition; modify Board meeting and voting 
procedures; add authority for marketing promotion and paid advertising; 
add authority to accept contributions, and to carry over excess 
assessment funds; broaden the scope of the quality control provisions 
and add the authority to recommend different regulations for different 
market destinations; add authority for the Board to designate more than 
one inspection service; replace outdated order language with current 
industry terminology; and other related amendments.
    In addition, the order will be amended to require that continuance 
referenda be conducted on a periodic basis to ascertain industry 
support for the order and add more flexibility in the termination 
provisions.
    All of the amendments are intended to streamline and improve the 
administration, operation, and functioning of the program. Many of the 
amendments will up-date the language of the order, thus better 
representing and conforming to current practices in the industry. The 
amendments are not expected to result in any significant cost increases 
for growers or handlers. More efficient administration of program 
activities may result in cost savings for the Board. A description of 
the amendments and their anticipated economic impact on large and small 
entities is outlined below.

Designation of More Than One Inspection Service

    This amendment adds authority to the order for the Board to 
designate more than one inspection service, as long as the functions 
performed by each service are separate and do not conflict with each 
other.
    To ensure that walnuts are properly graded and meet marketing order 
minimum standards, the Board currently arranges for inspection of 
walnuts prior to shipping for all walnut handlers. The marketing order 
currently authorizes contracting with one agency, the California based 
Dried Fruit and Nut Association (DFA).
    DFA inspects all walnuts that leave California to certify that they 
meet marketing order minimum standards. Operating as an out-going 
inspection service, samples of packed walnuts are examined and 
certified by licensed DFA inspectors at the end of the handling and 
packing process.
    The following data representing current inspection costs, 
summarizing actual inspection cost data for 2004-05 for the entire 
industry (44 handlers), was presented at the hearing by Board 
representatives. According to the record, the 2004-05 cost to serve the 
44 handlers was $1.857 million, which is an average cost of just over 
$42,000 per handler.
    Since inspection costs depend largely on volume handled, the four 
largest handlers account for $1.282 million, or 69% of total inspection 
expenditure in the 2004-05 crop year. The 37 smaller handlers account 
for $412,172 in expenditure, about 22 percent of the total, averaging 
about $11,000 per handler.

                           Annual Walnut Inspection Costs Using DFA, 2004-05 Crop Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Number of      Average per
                                                                      DFA cost       handlers         handler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest Handlers................................................      $1,282,362               4        $320,591
Additional Large Handlers.......................................         162,487               3          54,162
Other Handlers..................................................         412,172              37          11,140
All Handlers....................................................       1,857,021              44          42,205
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Walnut Marketing Board.

    The Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS) has developed 
effective, less costly alternative inspection programs.
    The Partners in Quality Program, or PIQ, is a documented quality 
assurance system. Under this program, individual handlers must 
demonstrate and document their ability to handle and pack product that 
meets all relevant quality requirements. Effectiveness of the program 
is verified through periodic, unannounced audits of each handler's 
system by USDA approved auditors.
    Under the Customer Assisted Inspection Program, or CAIP, USDA 
inspectors oversee the in-line sampling and inspection process 
performed by trained company staff. USDA oversight ranges from periodic 
visits throughout the day to a continuous on-site presence.
    DFA does not offer inspection services that operate similarly to 
the PIQ and CAIP programs.
    Cost savings will occur by reducing the prevalence of double 
inspections under the current system. Currently, one inspection is 
undertaken to meet minimum USDA quality requirements specified in the 
marketing order. A second inspection is often necessary to meet the 
considerably higher standards of specific customers. Moving to a PIQ or 
CAIP program would greatly reduce inspection costs, because meeting 
higher standards under PIQ or CAIP would also ensure that an inspected 
lot met minimum marketing order standards.
    Witnesses at the hearing testified that the California walnut 
industry should allow handlers to take advantage of USDA's alternative 
inspection programs such as the CAIP and the PIQ. Handlers who do not 
wish to use the alternative inspection services offered by USDA would 
continue to use the services of the DFA for traditional inspection 
services, such as end-line and lot inspections.
    The amendment also specifies that ``each service shall be separate 
so as to not conflict with each other'', meaning

[[Page 11332]]

that each inspection service will offer distinct and different services 
(i.e. PIQ vs. lot inspections) so that the integrity of both programs 
will be maintained.
    Witnesses speaking in favor of this amendment explained the 
importance of a handler's ability to take advantage of inspection 
services that would most economically fit the size and functions of his 
or her operation. Currently, all walnut product is inspected by DFA. 
While this inspection service has worked well for the industry for many 
years, the DFA inspection service does not accommodate inspection 
procedures that support larger handler economies of scale. Witnesses 
stated that USDA programs, such as PIQ and CAIP, are designed to fit 
larger scale handling operations, and therefore offer cost saving 
advantages that the DFA service does not. This amendment, when 
implemented, will allow handlers to use the alternative inspection 
programs offered by USDA.
    Several witnesses indicated that lowering costs to handlers will 
benefit growers because they expect that the cost reduction will be 
reflected in increased payments to growers.
    Financial impact calculations provided by the Board (shown in the 
table below) indicate that introducing the option of using PIQ or CAIP 
programs could result in savings of $1.09 million, an average per 
handler savings of $156,067 for the industry's seven largest handlers. 
Due to the high volumes handled, most of the savings accrue to the four 
largest handlers, estimated at $1.05 million, or an average per handler 
of $263,169.

                       Walnut Inspection Cost Comparison: DFA vs. USDA for Top 7 Handlers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Cost savings
                                                        DFA        USDA PIQ/CAIP -------------------------------
                                                                                       Total        Per handler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest 4 Handlers..............................      $1,282,362        $229,688      $1,052,674        $263,169
Additional 3 large handlers.....................         162,487         122,692          39,795          13,265
Largest 7 Handlers..............................       1,444,849         352,380       1,092,469         156,067
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Walnut Marketing Board.

    Data from NASS indicate that the two-year average value of the 2003 
and 2004 crops was about $415 million. The current DFA inspection cost 
($1.857 million) represents a very small proportion of crop value, 
about 0.4 percent. If the largest 7 handlers used USDA for inspection 
at a cost of $352,380 and the remaining 37 handlers continue to work 
with DFA at an estimated cost of $412,172, then the combined cost of 
$764,552 would represent 0.2 percent of the recent-year crop value.
    Witnesses emphasized the cost effectiveness of having an additional 
inspection agency. When implemented, this amendment will facilitate the 
streamlining of handler operations to utilize the inspection service 
best suited to their operations.
    Since potential savings are correlated with economies of scale, 
record evidence indicates that PIQ and CAIP programs would be most 
beneficial for large handlers. It is unlikely that the smaller handlers 
would initially opt for these programs. Smaller handlers that expand 
their operations in the future may realize benefits from switching to 
PIQ or CAIP. Witnesses stated that no change in inspection costs is 
expected for handlers remaining with traditional DFA inspection 
services. Therefore, no financial disadvantages are expected to result 
from this proposed amendment. When implemented, this amendment will 
likely result in an overall decrease in costs of inspection to the 
industry.

Inspection of Sliced, Chopped or Ground Shelled Walnuts

    This amendment adds authority for shelled walnuts to be inspected 
after having been sliced, chopped, or ground or in any manner changed 
from being shelled walnuts, if regulations for such walnuts are in 
effect.
    New walnut products are regularly requested by both domestic and 
foreign customers. In the last 20 years, the industry has become much 
more capable of producing at a considerably higher level quality and of 
developing more specific types of products that meet the differing 
needs of individual customers. To capitalize on this growing 
capability, a number of witnesses expressed the view that an important 
tool for increasing sales is the ability to establish standards for 
these walnut products.
    The order currently requires shelled product to be certified as 
merchantable, that is, meeting the minimum USDA requirements prior to 
further processing. When handlers are processing for end users that 
require further processing, this certification represents a costly 
extra step. After the initial shelled walnut certification, the 
handlers employ their own quality control procedures to meet the higher 
customer specifications. This amendment will allow a single inspection 
at the end of the process to serve both purposes. When implemented, 
this amendment will allow the Board to recommend modifications to allow 
certification of product after it has been modified or chopped, leading 
to cost savings in the handling process.
    Witnesses contended that current standards focus on visually 
observed characteristics that are significant for consumer acceptance, 
but often do not adequately address specific quality concerns important 
to various export markets, including Europe. Such concerns include, for 
example, moisture content or aflatoxin tolerances. When implemented, 
this amendment will allow the Board to review scientific data and 
develop inspection procedures for recommendation and approval by USDA 
to assure customers that walnuts meet their specified criteria.
    Any new quality standards recommended by the Board will be subject 
to thorough review prior to seeking approval from USDA. Witnesses 
supported this amendment as it will give the Board authority to pursue 
quality regulations in addition to existing grade standards, both of 
which are important to industry customers.
    Witnesses emphasized that this amendment will grant authority to 
the Board to recommend quality standards that could exceed current 
standards or to develop new standards for product characteristics not 
currently covered. Witnesses also stated that no specific modifications 
are currently requested, just flexibility to create them in the future.
    While this amendment may result in some cost increases associated 
with administration and oversight of new quality regulations, it is 
also expected that some handlers may benefit from lower inspection 
costs if the inspection requirements for specific markets were 
modified. Any costs associated with the

[[Page 11333]]

implementation of this amendment are expected to be outweighed by the 
overall benefits accrued to the industry.

Marketing Promotion and Paid Advertising

    This amendment adds authority for marketing promotion and paid 
advertising to the order.
    Current promotional activities for California walnuts are 
undertaken by the California Walnut Commission (CWC). Witnesses stated 
that the CWC's activities have led to considerable success in 
increasing demand for the industry's product.
    Witnesses explained that with price inelastic demand for walnuts, 
recent increases in production could have driven down prices and total 
grower revenue. The CWC's successful promotional activities have helped 
mitigate that potential impact, keeping average grower prices and 
grower revenue steady or increasing for several years.
    According to the hearing record, adding authority for paid 
advertising and promotion under the order will benefit the industry by 
allowing the Board to engage in activities that are currently supported 
by the Commission. Small businesses will be the greatest beneficiaries 
of an expanded generic advertising program, because they have the least 
financial resources to devote to selling their products, according to a 
witness.
    While an increase in advertising and promotional activities may 
result in increased Board expenditures, witnesses were confident that 
the positive results of the Board's promotional activities on consumer 
demand for California walnuts will more than outweigh any increases in 
costs to the industry.

Impact of Remaining Amendments

    Remaining amendments are largely administrative in nature and will 
impose no new significant regulatory burdens on California walnut 
growers or handlers. They will benefit the industry by improving the 
operation of the program and making it more responsive to industry 
needs.

Marketing Year

    This amendment changes the marketing year of the order from August 
1 through July 31 to September 1 through August 31. Under the current 
definition of the order, the California walnut marketing year begins 
August 1 and continues through July 31. Witnesses explained that, over 
time, new varieties of walnuts have been introduced, and the areas in 
which walnuts are cultivated have shifted. The newer varieties mature 
later than the varieties grown at the time of the program's inception. 
At the same time, cultivation has slowly moved into areas that 
previously were not suited for walnut production. With differences in 
climate, soil, and water, witnesses explained that these new production 
areas have slightly later growing cycles. The proposed change in the 
marketing year will better reflect current crop cycles.
    Conforming changes were made to Sec.  984.36, Term of office and 
Sec.  984.48, Marketing estimates and recommendations, so that Board 
member terms of office and marketing estimates are calculated according 
to the modified marketing year. This amendment is not expected to 
result in any increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Definition of Pack

    This amendment specifies that the act of packing walnuts is 
considered a handling function under the order. In addition, the term 
``pack'' is amended to include shelling, and is modified so that 
packing is applicable to both inshell and shelled walnuts.
    According to the hearing record, the order currently defines ``to 
handle'' as to ``sell, consign, transport, or ship, or in any other 
way, to put walnuts into the current of commerce''. The definition does 
not include the specific act of packing. ``To pack'', as currently 
defined in the order means, ``to bleach, clean, grade or otherwise 
prepare inshell walnuts for market''. Pack is not currently applicable 
to shelled walnuts. Witnesses stated that the amended definitions of 
``handle'' and ``pack'' will more accurately reflect current industry 
operations.
    This amendment is not expected to result in any increases in costs 
to growers. When implemented, this amendment may result in some packing 
entities previously not considered to be handlers under the order to be 
redefined as handlers. According to witnesses, there are roughly five 
packer entities that will qualify as handlers under the new definition. 
While some increases in administration costs on the part of handlers 
could arise as a result of reporting requirements, record evidence 
indicates that the benefit of more accurate industry information will 
merit that expense.

Restructuring of the Board

    This amendment modifies all parts of the order that refer to 
cooperative seats on the Board, redistributes member seats among 
districts, and provides designated seats for a major handler, if such 
handler exists. A major handler will have to handle 35 percent or more 
of the crop.
    According to the hearing record, the recent transition of the 
industry's largest cooperative from a cooperative entity to a publicly 
held company was the impetus for this amendment. Witnesses expressed 
the need to modify the Board structure to provide for representation 
that accurately reflects the current industry. Witnesses advocated that 
the Board structure should maintain the current number of Board members 
and alternates, and that the allocation of member seats between grower 
and handler positions should remain the same (meaning 4 handler member 
seats, five grower member seats and one public member).
    Witnesses also recommended modifying the allocation of Board 
representation according to two possible scenarios. The two scenarios 
include: (1) Membership allocation that acknowledges the existence of a 
handler handling 35 percent or more of production and, (2) membership 
allocation in the absence of such handler. According to record 
evidence, these amendments will not result in any increases in costs.

Nominations

    This amendment modifies the Board member nomination process to 
reflect changes in the Board structure. Current nomination procedures 
allow for all cooperative seat nominees to be selected by the 
cooperative and forwarded to the Secretary for approval and 
appointment. The cooperative nominee selection process is independent 
of the Board. All non-cooperative seat nominees are selected through a 
ballot nomination process overseen by the Board staff, and forwarded to 
the Secretary for approval and appointment.
    According to the hearing record, the revised nomination procedures 
will allow a handler who handles 35 percent or more of the crop to 
nominate persons to fill its designated seats and to forward them to 
the Secretary for approval and appointment. Nomination of persons to 
fill all other seats would be conducted by the Board staff.
    In the event a handler handling 35 percent or more of the crop does 
not exist, all Board nominees will be selected through a ballot 
nomination process conducted by the Board staff.
    While some increases in administration costs could arise as a 
result of an increased number of ballots to be mailed by the Board if a 
major handler does not exist, record evidence indicates that the 
expense would be

[[Page 11334]]

minor and would not directly burden growers or handlers.

Qualify by Acceptance

    This amendment requires Board nominees to submit a written 
qualification and acceptance statement prior to selection by USDA. 
Currently, the acceptance procedure for persons nominated and selected 
to serve on the Board involves a two-step process. When implemented, 
the two steps will be combined into one, thus resulting in less 
paperwork, a shorter acceptance procedure and improved efficiency in 
the acceptance process. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
increases in costs to growers or handlers.

California Walnut Board

    This amendment changes the name of the Walnut Marketing Board to 
the California Walnut Board. Witnesses stated that the name 
``California Walnut Board'' will more accurately represent the Board's 
responsibilities. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
significant increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Authority To Reestablish Districts and Board Structure

    This amendment adds authority to reestablish districts, to 
reapportion members among districts, and to revise groups eligible for 
representation on the Board. The intent of this amendment is to provide 
the Board with a tool to more efficiently respond to the changing 
character of the California walnut industry. In recommending any such 
changes, the following will 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) 
the equitable relationship between Board apportionment and districts; 
(4) changes in industry structure and/or the percentage of crop 
represented by various industry entities resulting in the existence of 
two or more handlers handling 35 percent or more of the crop; and (5) 
other relevant factors. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Voting Procedures

    This amendment modifies Board quorum and voting requirements to add 
percentage requirements, adds authority for the Board to vote by ``any 
other means of communication'' (including facsimile) and adds authority 
for Board meetings to be held by telephone or by ``any other means of 
communication''.
    Witnesses stated that references to the meeting quorum requirements 
should be amended to include a percentage equivalent of the current 
six-out-of-10-member minimum, or sixty percent. In addition, witnesses 
supported modifying the order language regarding voting requirements to 
state that a sixty-percent super-majority vote of the members present 
at a meeting should be required of all Board decisions, except where 
otherwise specifically provided. The order currently states that a 
majority vote is needed, with no percentage equivalent specified.
    According to the record, the order currently requires that all 
Board meetings be held at a physical location. Witnesses stated that 
the order should be amended to allow for some meetings to be held using 
``other means of communication'', such as telephone or 
videoconferencing. Witnesses stated that use of new communication 
technology would result in time-savings while still allowing the Board 
to conduct its business. Witnesses stated that it is the intent of the 
Board that voting procedures for all types of non-traditional meetings 
can be recommended and adopted as appropriate for each type of 
technology used.
    The above amendments are not expected to result in any significant 
changes in costs to growers or handlers.

Carryover of Excess Assessment Funds

    This amendment adds authority to the order to carry over excess 
assessment funds from one marketing year to the next. According to the 
hearing record, the order currently states that any assessment funds 
held in excess of the marketing year's expenses must be refunded to 
handlers. Refunds are returned to handlers in accordance with the 
amount of that handler's pro rata share of the actual expenses of the 
Board.
    This amendment will allow the Board, with the approval of the 
Secretary, to establish an operating monetary reserve. This will allow 
the Board to carry over to subsequent production years any excess funds 
in a reserve, provided that funds already in the reserve do not exceed 
approximately two years' expenses. If reserve funds do exceed that 
amount, the assessment rate could be reduced so as to cause reserves to 
diminish to a level below the two-year threshold.
    According to the record, reserve funds could be used to defray 
expenses during any production year before assessment income is 
sufficient to cover such expenses, or to cover deficits incurred during 
any fiscal period when assessment income is less than expenses. 
Additionally, reserve funds could be used to defray expenses incurred 
during any period when any or all of the provisions of the order are 
suspended, or to meet any other such costs recommended by the Board and 
approved by the Secretary. This amendment is not expected to result in 
any significant increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Contributions

    This amendment adds authority to order for the Board to accept 
voluntary contributions. Contributions can only be used to pay for 
research and development activities, and will be free from any 
encumbrances by the donor. According to the hearing record, the Board 
will retain oversight of the application of such contributions.
    Witnesses supported this amendment by stating that it would provide 
the Board and the industry with valuable resources to enhance research 
and development activities. It is not expected that this amendment will 
result in any additional costs to growers or handlers.

Reimbursement of Expenses

    This amendment clarifies that members and alternate members may be 
reimbursed for expenses incurred while performing their duties and that 
reimbursement includes per diem. According to the hearing record, this 
amendment will not have any impact on the current expense reimbursement 
activities of the Board. Rather, it will clarify and update order 
language to more clearly state that while Board members and alternates 
serve without compensation, expenses incurred while performing the 
duties of a Board member that have been authorized by the Board will be 
reimbursed. It is not expected that this amendment will result in any 
additional costs to growers or handlers.

Quality Regulations

    This amendment broadens the scope of the quality control provisions 
of the order by adding authority to recommend different regulations for 
different market destinations. Witnesses emphasized the usefulness in 
terms of market development of being able to establish different 
regulations for individual markets and/or regions. Witnesses stated 
that allowing the Board to make such recommendations will help the 
walnut industry adapt to changing international market conditions.

[[Page 11335]]

Updating Order Terminology

    This amendment replaces the terms ``carryover'' with ``inventory,'' 
and ``mammoth'' with ``jumbo,'' to reflect current day industry 
procedures. Conforming changes were made to the Sec.  984.48, Marketing 
estimates and recommendations, and Sec.  984.71, Reports of handler 
carryover, sections of the order so that order terminology is 
consistent throughout.
    Handler carryover defines the amount of California walnuts (both 
merchantable as well as the estimated quantity of merchantable walnuts 
to be produced from shelling stock and unsorted material), wherever 
located, held by California walnut handlers at any given time.
    Witnesses explained that the current term ``carryover'' is 
misleading in that the term implies the amount of inventory held by 
handlers from one marketing year to the next. Witnesses stated that the 
term ``inventory'' will more accurately convey the intent of this 
definition, and will also reflect current day calculations of walnut 
availability.
    Section 984.67, Exemptions, of the order provides for situations 
under which California walnuts may be exempted from complying with 
order regulations. One exemption is applicable to lots of merchantable 
inshell walnuts that are mammoth size or larger, as defined by the 
United States Standards for Walnuts in the Shell.
    Witnesses stated that given the new varieties currently being 
produced in the industry, the term ``mammoth'' no longer applies. 
According to record evidence, the current production's equivalent to 
``mammoth'' size is ``jumbo'' size, as defined by the United States 
Standards for Walnuts in the Shell. Thus, witnesses stated that the 
order language should be updated to reflect the industry's current 
terminology and size of walnuts being produced. This amendment is not 
expected to result in any increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Interhandler Transfers

    This amendment clarifies the term ``transfer'' as used in the order 
and adds authority for the Board to recommend methods and procedures, 
including necessary reports, for administrative oversight of such 
transfers.
    Witnesses stated that it would be beneficial to simplify current 
order language so that all interhandler transfers are considered a 
``sale of inshell and shelled walnuts within the area of production by 
one handler to another.'' Witnesses explained that the new language 
restated the current application of this provision in walnut 
transactions in simpler terms. This amendment is not expected to result 
in any increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Reporting Requirements

    This amendment clarifies that the Board may require reports from 
handlers and packers to include interhandler transfers or any other 
activity that involves placing California walnuts into the stream of 
commerce.
    According to the hearing record, current authority provided in this 
section only applies to the reporting of handler walnut receipts from 
growers. Witnesses stated that this authority should be broadened to 
include interhandler transfers, or receipts from any other entity as 
recommended by the Board and approved by the Secretary. This amendment 
is not expected to result in any increases in costs to growers or 
handlers.

Trade Demand

    This amendment updates and simplifies the language in Sec.  984.22, 
Trade demand, to state ``United States and its territories,'' rather 
than name ``Puerto Rico'' and ``The Canal Zone''. Witnesses explained 
that the reference to ``Puerto Rico'' and ``The Canal Zone'' in the 
order is outdated and should be updated to reference ``United States 
and its territories''.
    According to record evidence, this amendment will not impact trade 
demand calculations under the order since the purpose of the reference 
is to accurately identify the amount of shelled or inshell walnuts 
demanded by the United States, including its territories. Thus, while 
the terminology identifying the geographic regions included in the 
calculation will change, the intent of the original language will 
remain unchanged. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Relationship With California Walnut Commission

    This amendment adds language to the order stating that the Board 
may deliberate, consult, cooperate and exchange information with the 
California Walnut Commission (CWC). Any information sharing will be 
kept confidential.
    Record evidence indicates the CWC and the Federal marketing order 
program are currently administered out of the same office location and 
employ the same staff. Thus, this amendment will formalize the 
relationship that currently exists between the two entities. Witnesses 
stated that collaboration between the two programs leads to reduced 
administrative costs, as much of the information collected by each 
entity can be shared. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
increases in costs to growers or handlers.

Continuance Referenda

    In addition, the order is amended to require that continuance 
referenda be conducted on a periodic basis to ascertain industry 
support for the order and add more flexibility in the termination 
provisions.
    Currently, there is no requirement in the order that continuance 
referenda be conducted on a periodic basis. The USDA believes that 
growers should have an opportunity to periodically vote on whether a 
marketing order should continue. Continuance referenda provide an 
industry with a means to measure grower support for the program. 
Experience has shown that programs need significant industry support to 
operate effectively. This amendment is not expected to result in any 
increases in costs to growers or handlers.
    In discussing the impacts of the proposed amendments on growers and 
handlers, record evidence indicates that the changes are expected to be 
positive because the administration of the program will be more 
efficient. There will be no significant cost impact on either small or 
large growers or handlers.
    Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing 
on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed 
amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence is that 
the amendments are designed to increase efficiency in the functioning 
of the order.
    USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, 
overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. These amendments are 
designed to enhance the administration and functioning of marketing 
order 984 to benefit the California walnut industry.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Current information collection requirements for Part 984 are 
approved by OMB under OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. 
Any changes in those requirements as a result of this proceeding would 
be submitted to OMB for approval. Witnesses stated that existing forms 
could be adequately modified to serve the needs of the Board. While 
conforming changes to the forms would need to be made (such as changing 
the

[[Page 11336]]

name of the Board), the functionality of the forms would remain the 
same.
    As with other similar marketing order programs, reports and forms 
are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and 
duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
    AMS is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general 
to provide the public the option of submitting information or 
transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
    The 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.

Civil Justice Reform

    The amendments to Marketing Order 984 stated herein have been 
reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are 
not intended to have retroactive effect. The amendments will not 
preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they 
present an irreconcilable conflict with an amendment.
    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.

Order Amending the Order Regulating Walnuts Grown in California

Findings and Determinations

    The findings and determinations set forth hereinafter are 
supplementary and in addition to the findings and determination 
previously made in connection with the issuance of the order; and all 
of said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and 
affirmed, except as such findings and determinations may be in conflict 
with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
    (a) Findings and Determinations Upon the Basis of the Hearing 
Record.
    Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 
Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the applicable rules 
of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a 
public hearing was held upon the proposed amendments to Marketing Order 
No. 984 (7 CFR part 984), regulating the handling of walnuts grown in 
California.
    Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the 
record thereof, it is found that:
    (1) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, 
and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate 
the declared policy of the Act;
    (2) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, 
regulates the handling of walnuts grown in the production area in the 
same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the respective 
classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the 
marketing order upon which hearings have been held;
    (3) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, 
is limited in application to the smallest regional production area 
which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy 
of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to 
subdivision of the production area would not effectively carry out the 
declared policy of the Act;
    (4) The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby further amended, 
prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to 
different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due 
recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of 
walnuts grown in the production area; and
    (5) All handling of walnuts grown in the production area is in the 
current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, 
obstructs, or affects such commerce.
    (b) Additional findings. The effective date for the amendments 
shall be 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for 
Sec. Sec.  984.7, 984.13, 984.14, 984.15, 984.21, 984.22, 984.42, 
984.46, 984.48, 984.50, 984.51, 984.52, 984.59, 984.67, 984.69, 984.70, 
984.71, 984.73 and 984.89, which are effective September 1, 2008.
    The amendments to these sections should be implemented to coincide 
with the beginning of a new crop year.
    (b) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:
    (1) Handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who 
are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping walnuts 
covered by the order as hereby amended) who, during the period August 
1, 2006, through July 31, 2007, handled 50 percent or more of the 
volume of such walnuts covered by said order, as hereby amended, have 
not signed an amended marketing agreement; and, (2) The issuance of 
this amendatory order, further amending the aforesaid order, is favored 
or approved by at least two-thirds of the producers who participated in 
a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of 
August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007 (which has been deemed to be a 
representative period), have been engaged within the production area in 
the production of such walnuts, such producers having also produced for 
market at least two-thirds of the volume of such commodity represented 
in the referendum.
    (3) In the absence of a signed marketing agreement, the issuance of 
this amendatory order is the only practical means pursuant to the 
declared policy of the Act of advancing the interests of producers of 
walnuts in the production area.

Order Relative to Handling of Walnuts Grown in California

    It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective dates 
hereof, all handling of walnuts grown in California shall be in 
conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the 
said order as hereby amended as follows:
    The provisions of the proposed order amending the order contained 
in the Recommended Decision issued by the Administrator on March 19, 
2007, and published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2007, (72 FR 
14368), shall be and are the terms and provisions of this order 
amending the order and set forth in full herein.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984

    Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and Walnuts.

PART 984--WALNUTS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 7 of chapter XI of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 984 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
2. Revise Sec.  984.6 to read as follows:

[[Page 11337]]

Sec.  984.6  Board.

    Board means the California Walnut Board established pursuant to 
Sec.  934.35.

0
3. Revise Sec.  984.7 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.7  Marketing year.

    Marketing year means the twelve months from September 1 to the 
following August 31, both inclusive, or any other such period deemed 
appropriate and recommended by the Board for approval by the Secretary.

0
4. Revise Sec.  984.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.13  To handle.

    To handle means to pack, sell, consign, transport, or ship (except 
as a common or contract carrier of walnuts owned by another person), or 
in any other way to put walnuts, inshell or shelled, into the current 
of commerce either within the area of production or from such area to 
any point outside thereof, or for a manufacturer or retailer within the 
area of production to purchase directly from a grower: The term ``to 
handle'' shall not include sales and deliveries within the area of 
production by growers to handlers, or between handlers.

0
5. Revise Sec.  984.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.14  Handler.

    Handler means any person who handles inshell or shelled walnuts.

0
6. Revise Sec.  984.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.15  Pack.

    Pack means to bleach, clean, grade, shell or otherwise prepare 
walnuts for market as inshell or shelled walnuts.

0
7. Revise Sec.  984.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.21  Handler inventory.

    Handler inventory as of any date means all walnuts, inshell or 
shelled (except those held in satisfaction of a reserve obligation), 
wherever located, then held by a handler or for his or her account.

0
8. Revise Sec.  984.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.22  Trade demand.

    (a) Inshell. The quantity of merchantable inshell walnuts that the 
trade will acquire from all handlers during a marketing year for 
distribution in the United States and its territories.
    (b) Shelled. The quantity of merchantable shelled walnuts that the 
trade will acquire from all handlers during a marketing year for 
distribution in the United States and its territories.

0
9. Revise Sec.  984.35 to read as follows:


Sec.  984.35  California Walnut Board.

    (a) A California Walnut Board is hereby established consisting of 
10 members selected by the Secretary, each of whom shall have an 
alternate nominated and selected in the same way and with the same 
qualifications as the member. The members and their alternates shall be 
selected by the Secretary from nominees submitted by each of the 
following groups or from other eligible persons belonging to such 
groups:
    (1) Two handler members from District 1;
    (2) Two handler members from District 2;
    (3) Two grower members from District 1;
    (4) Two grower membe