Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Section 610 Review, 61589-61591 [2010-25130]
Download as PDF
61589
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 75, No. 193
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1219
[Document Number AMS–FV–10–0007]
Hass Avocado Promotion, Research,
and Information Order; Section 610
Review
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Confirmation of regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This document summarizes
the results of an Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) review of the Hass
Avocado Promotion, Research, and
Information Order (Order) under criteria
contained in section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
obtain a copy of the review on the
Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov
or request copies from the Docket Clerk,
Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit
and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room
0632–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC
20250–0244; facsimile: (202) 205–2800
or electronic mail:
Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
SUMMARY:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen T. Pello, Marketing Specialist,
Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit
and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA,
P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon
97004; telephone: (503) 632–8848;
facsimile (503) 632–8852; or electronic
mail: Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order
(7 CFR part 1219) is authorized under
the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research
and Information Act of 2000 (Act) (7
U.S.C. 7801–7813).
The Order became effective on
September 9, 2002. The Order is
administered by the Hass Avocado
Board (Board) with oversight by AMS.
The program is funded by assessments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 05, 2010
Jkt 223001
on fresh domestic and imported Hass
avocados. Domestic producers and
importers pay the assessments. The
producer assessment is remitted by first
handlers, and the importer assessment
is remitted by the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. Exports of domestic
Hass avocados are exempt from
assessments. The purpose of the
program is to increase consumption of
Hass avocados in the United States.
Under the Order, a State association
of avocado producers receives 85
percent of the assessments paid by
domestic producers, and certified
importer associations receive 85 percent
of the assessments paid by their
members. The State and importer
associations use these funds to conduct
State-of-origin and country-of-origin
promotions, respectively.
The Board is composed of 12
members, 7 who are producers and 5
who are importers. Each member has an
alternate. The members and alternates
are appointed to the Board by the
Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) and
serve a term of 3 years.
Currently, there are approximately
6,000 producers of Hass avocados in the
United States, approximately 115
importers, and approximately 100 first
handlers subject to the provisions of the
Order. The majority of domestic
producers and importers of Hass
avocados may be classified as small
entities, while most first handlers would
not.
AMS published in the Federal
Register on March 24, 2006 (71 FR
14827), its plan to review certain
regulations, including the Order, under
criteria contained in section 610 of the
RFA (5 U.S.C. 601–612). Because many
AMS regulations impact small entities,
AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to
review certain regulations which,
although they may not meet the
threshold requirement under section
610 of the RFA, warrant review.
AMS published a notice of review and
request for written comments in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2010
(75 FR 7986) on its plan to review
certain regulations, including the Order.
The comment period ended on April 26,
2010. Three comments were received in
response to the notice and are discussed
later in this document.
The purpose of the review was to
determine whether the Order should be
continued without change, amended, or
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
rescinded (consistent with the
objectives of the Act) to minimize the
impact on small entities. AMS
considered the following factors: (1) The
continued need for the Order; (2) the
nature of complaints or comments
received from the public concerning the
Order; (3) the complexity of the Order;
(4) the extent to which the Order
overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other Federal rules, and, to the extent
feasible, with State and local
regulations; and (5) the length of time
since the Order has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology,
economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the
Order.
Based upon its review, USDA has
concluded that there is a continued
need for the Order. The total volume of
Hass avocados produced domestically
and imported into the United States has
grown significantly since the inception
of the Order. From 2003 through 2005,
Hass avocado domestic production and
imports averaged about 712 million
pounds annually. From 2007 through
2009, Hass avocado domestic
production and imports averaged about
1 billion pounds annually. Through the
efforts of the Board and State and
importer associations which receive
assessments funds from the Board, the
industry has worked together to
successfully grow the demand for Hass
avocados. Between 1998 and 2007, the
average annual growth for U.S.
consumption for avocados was 13.2
percent with producer prices remaining
fairly constant.1 The Board and State
and importer association promotion
programs have significantly helped to
increase demand and maintain orderly
marketing since the Order’s inception.
Regarding the nature of complaints or
comments received from the public
concerning the Order, as previously
mentioned, three comments were
received. They are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
One comment supported the
marketing efforts under the program, but
expressed concern with the rising costs
that California growers are experiencing,
especially costs for water. The comment
suggested that the Order be revised to
provide for a sliding scale for
assessments so that avocados up to a
1 Carmen, C., L. Li, R. Sexton, An Economic
Evaluation of the Hass Avocado Promotion Order’s
First Five Years, p. 72.
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
61590
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
certain threshold amount would be
assessed at a lower rate than avocados
over the threshold. However, the Act
authorizes only uniform assessment
rates.
Two comments expressed concern
with the Board’s composition. They
stated that, on the 12 member Board, 7
seats are for domestic producers and a
maximum of 5 seats are for importers,
regardless of shifts in the volume of
Hass avocados produced domestically
or imported into the United States. They
also expressed concern that foreign
producers and packers are not
represented on the Board as in some
other research and promotion programs.
The composition of the Board is set
forth in the provisions of the Act and
Order which provide that the Board
shall consist of seven members who are
domestic producers of Hass avocados
who are subject to assessment under the
Order and two members who represent
importers of Hass avocados who are
subject to assessment under the Order.
The Board shall also consist of three
members who are either domestic
producers or importers to reflect the
proportion of domestic production and
imports supplying the United States
market, depending on the average
volume of domestic production of Hass
avocados proportionate to the average
volume of imports of Hass avocados in
the United States over the previous 3
years. While the initial Board consisted
of eight domestic producer members
and four importer members, the current
Board’s membership consists of seven
members who are domestic producers
and five members who are importers,
the maximum number of seats
authorized for importers.
Two comments expressed concern
that the importer associations under the
Order cannot use assessment funds to
pay administrative expenses incurred by
the associations while the Board can
spend up to 10 percent of the projected
level of assessments and other income
received by the Board for a fiscal period
to pay administrative expenses. The
commenters argue this is unfair and that
other Federal promotion boards can use
assessment funds to pay administrative
expenses. However, the Act and Order
specify that assessment funds shall not
be used by importer associations to pay
administrative expenses for such
associations, which is also consistent
with the provision for the domestic
State association.
Two comments expressed concern
that the existing State association under
the Order receives the full 85 percent of
the assessments paid by domestic
producers while the importer
associations receive 85 percent of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 05, 2010
Jkt 223001
assessments paid by their respective
association members.
The Act and Order specify that a State
organization of avocado producers
established pursuant to State law shall
receive an amount equal to the product
obtained by multiplying the aggregate
amount of assessments attributable to
the pounds of Hass avocados produced
in such State by 85 percent. The State
organization (association) under the
Order is authorized under the California
Food and Agricultural Code.
The Act and Order also specify that
an association of Hass avocado
importers established or certified under
the Order shall receive an amount of
assessment funds equal to 85 percent of
the assessments paid on Hass avocados
imported by its members. However, not
all Hass avocado importers have joined
or are affiliated with an importers
association. Additionally, the Order’s
promulgation rulemaking record
indicated that requiring all importers to
join an association is not authorized
under the Act. USDA believes that
additional dialogue with the industry
may be appropriate to consider possible
solutions that would be consistent with
the Act in order to address this issue.
One comment expressed concern that
the Board is required to enter into a
contract with the State association
under the Order to manage its
promotional program that is funded
primarily by assessments from
importers.
The Act and Order specify that the
Board, with approval of the Secretary,
shall enter into a contract or an
agreement with an avocado organization
established by State statute in a State
with the majority of Hass avocado
production in the United States, for the
implementation of a plan or project for
promotion, industry information,
consumer information, or related
research with respect to Hass avocados,
and/or the payment of the costs of the
contract or agreement with funds
received by the Board under the Order.
One comment expressed concern with
the referendum criteria specified in the
Act and Order. The comment argues
that, although a majority of the
assessments are paid by importers of
Hass avocados, the referendum
procedures were designed to give
domestic producers a permanent
majority in a referendum. Further, the
comment contends that, even if a
referendum were held to address some
of their concerns, no relief would be
provided to importers.
The Act and Order specify that the
Order, or an amendment thereto, must
be approved by a simple majority of all
votes cast in a referendum. Changing the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
referendum criteria is not authorized
under the Act.
One commenter expressed concern
that the Board’s composition violates
the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and that the 85
percent provision violates the NAFTA
and the General Agreement on Tariff
and Trade. USDA continues to view
these provisions as consistent with
applicable trade obligations.
In considering the complexity of the
Order, USDA also continues to believe
the Order is not unduly complex. It
provides authority for the Board to
collect assessments from Hass avocado
domestic producers and importers to
fund programs to help increase the
consumption of Hass avocados in the
United States.
Regarding whether the Order
overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other Federal rules and State and local
regulations, there is a Federal marketing
order for avocados grown in south
Florida (7 CFR part 915). According to
the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, there is little or no production
of Hass avocados in Florida. Since
California is the source for more than 95
percent of avocados produced in the
United States and Florida does not
produce Hass avocados, there is no
duplication between this Order and the
Federal marketing order.
As previously mentioned, there is also
a State avocado program in California,
which is administered by the State
association. The chief objective of the
program is to increase consumer
awareness of and demand for avocados
on behalf of the State’s 6,000 producers.
Under the program, producers pay a
percentage-of-revenue fee to fund a
variety of market development
programs. The State assessment may not
exceed 6.5 percent of the gross dollar
value of the year’s sales of avocados by
all producers to handlers, or which are
sold by handlers on behalf of producers.
The assessments are collected from the
producers by handlers, who remit the
money to the association. Section
1212(c) of the Act states that nothing
may be construed to preempt or
supersede any other program relating to
Hass avocado promotion, research,
industry information, and consumer
information organized and operated
under the laws of the United States or
of a state. The Federal program
compliments the State program but does
not overlap, duplicate or conflict with
it.
Regarding evaluations of the Order or
the degree to which technology,
economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the
Order, section 1205(c)(7) of the Act and
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 1219.38(k) of the Order require the
Board to evaluate on-going and
completed programs, plans, and projects
for Hass avocado promotion, industry
information, consumer information, or
related research and to comply with the
independent evaluation provisions of
the Federal Agricultural Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR). The
Board routinely evaluates its programs
to ensure their effectiveness, and a
formal evaluation was conducted under
the FAIR in 2009.
Accordingly, USDA has determined
that the Hass avocado Order should be
continued. The Order was established to
help increase the consumption of
domestic and imported Hass avocados
in the United States. Concerns raised in
the comments received were to a great
extent changes that would require
congressional action. AMS will
continue to work with the Hass avocado
industry in maintaining an effective
program.
Dated: October 1, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–25130 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
RIN 3245–AF70
Small Business Size Standards; Other
Services.
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The United States Small
Business Administration (SBA) is
increasing the small business size
standards for 18 industries in North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) Sector 81, Other
Services, and retaining the current
standards for the remaining 30
industries in the Sector. As part of its
ongoing initiative to review all size
standards, SBA has evaluated every
industry in NAICS Sector 81 to
determine whether the existing size
standards should be retained or revised.
DATES: This rule is effective November
5, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Jordan, Program Analyst, Office of Size
Standards, (202) 205–6618 or
sizestandards@sba.gov.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Oct 05, 2010
Jkt 223001
Introduction
To determine eligibility for Federal
small business assistance programs,
SBA establishes small business size
definitions (referred to as size
standards) for private sector industries
in the United States. SBA’s existing size
standards use two primary measures of
business size—receipts and number of
employees. Financial assets, electric
output and refining capacity are used as
size measures for a few specialized
industries. In addition, SBA’s Small
Business Investment Company (SBIC)
and the Certified Development
Company (CDC) Programs determine
small business eligibility using either
the industry based size standards or net
worth and net income size standards.
Currently, SBA’s size standards consist
of 45 different size levels, covering
1,141 NAICS industries and 17 subindustry activities. Of these size levels,
32 are based on average annual receipts,
eight are based on number of
employees, and five are based on other
measures. In addition, SBA has
established 11 other size standards for
its financial and procurement programs.
Over the years, SBA has received
comments that its size standards have
not kept up with changes in the
economy and, in particular, that they do
not reflect changes in the Federal
contracting marketplace. The last
overall review of size standards
occurred during the late 1970s and early
1980s. Since then, most reviews of size
standards have been limited to in-depth
analyses of specific industries in
response to requests from the public and
Federal agencies. SBA also makes
periodic inflation adjustments to its
monetary based size standards. The
latest inflation adjustment to size
standards was published in the Federal
Register on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41237).
SBA recognizes that changes in
industry structure and the Federal
marketplace over time have rendered
existing size standards for some
industries no longer supportable by
current data. Accordingly, SBA has
begun a comprehensive review of its
size standards to determine whether
existing size standards have supportable
bases relative to the current data, and,
where necessary, to make revisions to
current size standards. Rather than
review all size standards at one time,
SBA has taken a more manageable
approach to reviewing a group of related
industries within an NAICS Sector in
phases. SBA expects to complete its
review of all NAICS Sectors in two
years.
As part of its ongoing effort to review
all small business size standards, SBA
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61591
evaluated every industry in NAICS
Sector 81, Other Services, to determine
whether the existing size standards
should be retained or revised, and
published a proposed rule for public
comment in the October 21, 2009 issue
of Federal Register (74 FR 53941) to
increase the standards for 18 industries
in that Sector. The proposed rule was
one of a series of proposals that will
examine industries grouped by an
NAICS Sector. SBA also published
concurrently in the same October 21,
2009 issue of the Federal Register
proposed rules to increase 47 small
business size standards in NAICS Sector
44–45, Retail Trade, (74 FR 53924) and
five standards in NAICS Sector 72,
Accommodation and Food Services (74
FR 53913). Similarly, SBA is publishing
final rules on NAICS Sector 44–45 and
NAICS Sector 72 elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register.
In addition, SBA established its ‘‘Size
Standards Methodology’’ for reviewing
small business size standards and
modifying them, where necessary. SBA
published in the October 21, 2009 issue
of the Federal Register (74 FR 53940) a
notice of its availability, for public
comments, on SBA’s Web site at
https://www.sba.gov/
contractingopportunities/officials/size/
index.html. In addition, SBA has placed
a copy of its ‘‘Size Standards
Methodology’’ in the electronic docket
of this rule on
https://www.regulations.gov and is
available there as well.
In evaluating an industry’s size
standard, SBA examines the industry’s
characteristics (such as average firm
size, startup costs, industry competition
and distribution of firms by size),
Federal government contracting trends,
impact on SBA financial assistance
programs, and dominance in field of
operations. SBA analyzed the
characteristics of each industry in
NAICS Sector 81 mostly using a special
tabulation obtained from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census from its 2002
Economic Census (the latest available).
SBA evaluated Federal contracting
trends in that Sector using the data from
the Federal Procurement Data System—
Next Generation (FPDS–NG) for fiscal
years 2006–2008. To evaluate the
impact of changes to size standards on
its loan programs, SBA analyzed
internal data on its guaranteed loan
programs for fiscal years 2006–2008.
SBA’s ‘‘Size Standards Methodology’’
provides a detailed description of
analyses of various industry and
program factors and data sources and
derivation of size standards using the
results. In the proposed rule itself, SBA
detailed how it applied its ‘‘Size
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61589-61591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25130]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 61589]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1219
[Document Number AMS-FV-10-0007]
Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Section
610 Review
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service.
ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document summarizes the results of an Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) review of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research,
and Information Order (Order) under criteria contained in section 610
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review on the
Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov or request copies from the
Docket Clerk, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0632-S, Stop
0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-2800 or
electronic mail: Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen T. Pello, Marketing
Specialist, Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon 97004;
telephone: (503) 632-8848; facsimile (503) 632-8852; or electronic
mail: Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order (7 CFR part 1219) is authorized
under the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of 2000
(Act) (7 U.S.C. 7801-7813).
The Order became effective on September 9, 2002. The Order is
administered by the Hass Avocado Board (Board) with oversight by AMS.
The program is funded by assessments on fresh domestic and imported
Hass avocados. Domestic producers and importers pay the assessments.
The producer assessment is remitted by first handlers, and the importer
assessment is remitted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Exports of domestic Hass avocados are exempt from assessments. The
purpose of the program is to increase consumption of Hass avocados in
the United States.
Under the Order, a State association of avocado producers receives
85 percent of the assessments paid by domestic producers, and certified
importer associations receive 85 percent of the assessments paid by
their members. The State and importer associations use these funds to
conduct State-of-origin and country-of-origin promotions, respectively.
The Board is composed of 12 members, 7 who are producers and 5 who
are importers. Each member has an alternate. The members and alternates
are appointed to the Board by the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary)
and serve a term of 3 years.
Currently, there are approximately 6,000 producers of Hass avocados
in the United States, approximately 115 importers, and approximately
100 first handlers subject to the provisions of the Order. The majority
of domestic producers and importers of Hass avocados may be classified
as small entities, while most first handlers would not.
AMS published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2006 (71 FR
14827), its plan to review certain regulations, including the Order,
under criteria contained in section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612).
Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a
matter of policy, to review certain regulations which, although they
may not meet the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA,
warrant review.
AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments
in the Federal Register on February 23, 2010 (75 FR 7986) on its plan
to review certain regulations, including the Order. The comment period
ended on April 26, 2010. Three comments were received in response to
the notice and are discussed later in this document.
The purpose of the review was to determine whether the Order should
be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the
objectives of the Act) to minimize the impact on small entities. AMS
considered the following factors: (1) The continued need for the Order;
(2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public
concerning the Order; (3) the complexity of the Order; (4) the extent
to which the Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other
Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local
regulations; and (5) the length of time since the Order has been
evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area affected by the Order.
Based upon its review, USDA has concluded that there is a continued
need for the Order. The total volume of Hass avocados produced
domestically and imported into the United States has grown
significantly since the inception of the Order. From 2003 through 2005,
Hass avocado domestic production and imports averaged about 712 million
pounds annually. From 2007 through 2009, Hass avocado domestic
production and imports averaged about 1 billion pounds annually.
Through the efforts of the Board and State and importer associations
which receive assessments funds from the Board, the industry has worked
together to successfully grow the demand for Hass avocados. Between
1998 and 2007, the average annual growth for U.S. consumption for
avocados was 13.2 percent with producer prices remaining fairly
constant.\1\ The Board and State and importer association promotion
programs have significantly helped to increase demand and maintain
orderly marketing since the Order's inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carmen, C., L. Li, R. Sexton, An Economic Evaluation of the
Hass Avocado Promotion Order's First Five Years, p. 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the nature of complaints or comments received from the
public concerning the Order, as previously mentioned, three comments
were received. They are discussed in the following paragraphs.
One comment supported the marketing efforts under the program, but
expressed concern with the rising costs that California growers are
experiencing, especially costs for water. The comment suggested that
the Order be revised to provide for a sliding scale for assessments so
that avocados up to a
[[Page 61590]]
certain threshold amount would be assessed at a lower rate than
avocados over the threshold. However, the Act authorizes only uniform
assessment rates.
Two comments expressed concern with the Board's composition. They
stated that, on the 12 member Board, 7 seats are for domestic producers
and a maximum of 5 seats are for importers, regardless of shifts in the
volume of Hass avocados produced domestically or imported into the
United States. They also expressed concern that foreign producers and
packers are not represented on the Board as in some other research and
promotion programs.
The composition of the Board is set forth in the provisions of the
Act and Order which provide that the Board shall consist of seven
members who are domestic producers of Hass avocados who are subject to
assessment under the Order and two members who represent importers of
Hass avocados who are subject to assessment under the Order. The Board
shall also consist of three members who are either domestic producers
or importers to reflect the proportion of domestic production and
imports supplying the United States market, depending on the average
volume of domestic production of Hass avocados proportionate to the
average volume of imports of Hass avocados in the United States over
the previous 3 years. While the initial Board consisted of eight
domestic producer members and four importer members, the current
Board's membership consists of seven members who are domestic producers
and five members who are importers, the maximum number of seats
authorized for importers.
Two comments expressed concern that the importer associations under
the Order cannot use assessment funds to pay administrative expenses
incurred by the associations while the Board can spend up to 10 percent
of the projected level of assessments and other income received by the
Board for a fiscal period to pay administrative expenses. The
commenters argue this is unfair and that other Federal promotion boards
can use assessment funds to pay administrative expenses. However, the
Act and Order specify that assessment funds shall not be used by
importer associations to pay administrative expenses for such
associations, which is also consistent with the provision for the
domestic State association.
Two comments expressed concern that the existing State association
under the Order receives the full 85 percent of the assessments paid by
domestic producers while the importer associations receive 85 percent
of the assessments paid by their respective association members.
The Act and Order specify that a State organization of avocado
producers established pursuant to State law shall receive an amount
equal to the product obtained by multiplying the aggregate amount of
assessments attributable to the pounds of Hass avocados produced in
such State by 85 percent. The State organization (association) under
the Order is authorized under the California Food and Agricultural
Code.
The Act and Order also specify that an association of Hass avocado
importers established or certified under the Order shall receive an
amount of assessment funds equal to 85 percent of the assessments paid
on Hass avocados imported by its members. However, not all Hass avocado
importers have joined or are affiliated with an importers association.
Additionally, the Order's promulgation rulemaking record indicated that
requiring all importers to join an association is not authorized under
the Act. USDA believes that additional dialogue with the industry may
be appropriate to consider possible solutions that would be consistent
with the Act in order to address this issue.
One comment expressed concern that the Board is required to enter
into a contract with the State association under the Order to manage
its promotional program that is funded primarily by assessments from
importers.
The Act and Order specify that the Board, with approval of the
Secretary, shall enter into a contract or an agreement with an avocado
organization established by State statute in a State with the majority
of Hass avocado production in the United States, for the implementation
of a plan or project for promotion, industry information, consumer
information, or related research with respect to Hass avocados, and/or
the payment of the costs of the contract or agreement with funds
received by the Board under the Order.
One comment expressed concern with the referendum criteria
specified in the Act and Order. The comment argues that, although a
majority of the assessments are paid by importers of Hass avocados, the
referendum procedures were designed to give domestic producers a
permanent majority in a referendum. Further, the comment contends that,
even if a referendum were held to address some of their concerns, no
relief would be provided to importers.
The Act and Order specify that the Order, or an amendment thereto,
must be approved by a simple majority of all votes cast in a
referendum. Changing the referendum criteria is not authorized under
the Act.
One commenter expressed concern that the Board's composition
violates the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and that the
85 percent provision violates the NAFTA and the General Agreement on
Tariff and Trade. USDA continues to view these provisions as consistent
with applicable trade obligations.
In considering the complexity of the Order, USDA also continues to
believe the Order is not unduly complex. It provides authority for the
Board to collect assessments from Hass avocado domestic producers and
importers to fund programs to help increase the consumption of Hass
avocados in the United States.
Regarding whether the Order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other Federal rules and State and local regulations, there is a Federal
marketing order for avocados grown in south Florida (7 CFR part 915).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, there is
little or no production of Hass avocados in Florida. Since California
is the source for more than 95 percent of avocados produced in the
United States and Florida does not produce Hass avocados, there is no
duplication between this Order and the Federal marketing order.
As previously mentioned, there is also a State avocado program in
California, which is administered by the State association. The chief
objective of the program is to increase consumer awareness of and
demand for avocados on behalf of the State's 6,000 producers. Under the
program, producers pay a percentage-of-revenue fee to fund a variety of
market development programs. The State assessment may not exceed 6.5
percent of the gross dollar value of the year's sales of avocados by
all producers to handlers, or which are sold by handlers on behalf of
producers. The assessments are collected from the producers by
handlers, who remit the money to the association. Section 1212(c) of
the Act states that nothing may be construed to preempt or supersede
any other program relating to Hass avocado promotion, research,
industry information, and consumer information organized and operated
under the laws of the United States or of a state. The Federal program
compliments the State program but does not overlap, duplicate or
conflict with it.
Regarding evaluations of the Order or the degree to which
technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the
area affected by the Order, section 1205(c)(7) of the Act and
[[Page 61591]]
Sec. 1219.38(k) of the Order require the Board to evaluate on-going
and completed programs, plans, and projects for Hass avocado promotion,
industry information, consumer information, or related research and to
comply with the independent evaluation provisions of the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR). The Board
routinely evaluates its programs to ensure their effectiveness, and a
formal evaluation was conducted under the FAIR in 2009.
Accordingly, USDA has determined that the Hass avocado Order should
be continued. The Order was established to help increase the
consumption of domestic and imported Hass avocados in the United
States. Concerns raised in the comments received were to a great extent
changes that would require congressional action. AMS will continue to
work with the Hass avocado industry in maintaining an effective
program.
Dated: October 1, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-25130 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P