Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted Percentages for the 2016-17 Crop Year for Tart Cherries, 28749-28755 [2017-13241]
Download as PDF
28749
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 121
Monday, June 26, 2017
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 930
[Doc. No. AMS–SC–16–0105; SC16–930–5
FR]
Tart Cherries Grown in the States of
Michigan, et al.; Free and Restricted
Percentages for the 2016–17 Crop Year
for Tart Cherries
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule implements a
recommendation from the Cherry
Industry Administrative Board (Board)
to establish free and restricted
percentages for the 2016–17 crop year
under the marketing order for tart
cherries grown in the states of Michigan,
New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The
Board locally administers the marketing
order and is comprised of producers and
handlers of tart cherries operating
within the production area, and a public
member. This action establishes the
proportion of tart cherries from the 2016
crop which may be handled in
commercial outlets at 71 percent free
and 29 percent restricted. These
percentages should stabilize marketing
conditions by adjusting supply to meet
market demand and help improve
grower returns.
DATES: Effective June 27, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen,
Regional Director, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order and
Agreement Division, Specialty Crops
Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863)
324–3375, Fax: (863) 291–8614, or
Email: Steven.Kauffman@ams.usda.gov
or Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
Richard.Lower@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 930, both as
amended (7 CFR part 930), regulating
the handling of tart cherries produced in
the States of Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wisconsin, hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is
effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Orders
13563 and 13175.
This action falls within a category of
regulatory actions that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted from Executive Order 12866
review. Additionally, because this rule
does not meet the definition of a
significant regulatory action it does not
trigger the requirements contained in
Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s
Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance
Implementing Section 2 of the Executive
Order of January 30, 2017 titled
‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017).
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the order
provisions now in effect, free and
restricted percentages may be
established for tart cherries handled
during the crop year. This final rule
establishes free and restricted
percentages for tart cherries for the
2016–17 crop year, beginning July 1,
2016, through June 30, 2017.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his
or her principal place of business, has
jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on
the petition, provided an action is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This final rule establishes free and
restricted percentages for the 2016–17
crop year. This rule establishes the
proportion of tart cherries from the 2016
crop which may be handled in
commercial outlets at 71 percent free
and 29 percent restricted. This action
should stabilize marketing conditions
by adjusting supply to meet market
demand and help improve grower
returns. The carry-out and the final
percentages were recommended by the
Cherry Industry Administrative Board
(Board) at a meeting on September 8,
2016.
Section 930.51(a) of the order
provides authority to regulate volume
by designating free and restricted
percentages for any tart cherries
acquired by handlers in a given crop
year. Section 930.50 prescribes
procedures for computing an optimum
supply based on sales history and for
calculating these free and restricted
percentages. Free percentage volume
may be shipped to any market, while
restricted percentage volume must be
held by handlers in a primary or
secondary reserve, or be diverted or
used for exempt purposes as prescribed
in §§ 930.159 and 930.162 of the
regulations. Exempt purposes include,
in part, the development of new
products, sales into new markets, the
development of export markets, and
charitable contributions. Sections
930.55 through 930.57 prescribe
procedures for inventory reserve. For
cherries held in reserve, handlers would
be responsible for storage and would
retain title of the tart cherries.
Under § 930.52, only those districts
with an annual average production over
the prior three years of at least six
million pounds are subject to regulation,
and any district producing a crop which
is less than 50 percent of its annual
average of the previous five years is
exempt. The regulated districts for the
2016–17 crop year are: District 1—
Northern Michigan; District 2—Central
Michigan; District 3—Southern
Michigan; District 4—New York; District
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
28750
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
7—Utah; District 8—Washington; and
District 9—Wisconsin. Districts 5 and 6
(Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively)
are not regulated for the 2016–17
season.
Demand for tart cherries and tart
cherry products tends to be relatively
stable from year to year. Conversely,
annual tart cherry production can vary
greatly. In addition, tart cherries are
processed and can be stored and carried
over from crop year to crop year, further
impacting supply. As a result, supply
and demand for tart cherries are rarely
in balance.
Because demand for tart cherries is
inelastic, total sales volume is not very
responsive to changes in price.
However, prices are very sensitive to
changes in supply. As such, an
oversupply of cherries can have a sharp
negative effect on prices, driving down
grower returns. The Board, aware of this
economic relationship, focuses on using
the volume control provisions in the
order to balance supply and demand to
stabilize industry returns.
Pursuant to § 930.50 of the order, the
Board meets on or about July 1 to review
sales data, inventory data, current crop
forecasts and market conditions for the
upcoming season and, if necessary, to
recommend preliminary free and
restricted percentages if anticipated
supply would exceed demand. After
harvest is complete, but no later than
September 15, the Board meets again to
update its calculations using actual
production data, consider any necessary
adjustments to the preliminary
percentages, and determine if final free
and restricted percentages should be
recommended to the Secretary.
The Board uses sales history,
inventory, and production data to
determine whether there is a surplus,
and if so, how much volume should be
restricted to maintain optimum supply.
The optimum supply represents the
desirable volume of tart cherries that
should be available for sale in the
coming crop year. Optimum supply is
defined as the average free sales of the
prior three years plus desirable carryout inventory. Desirable carry-out is the
amount of fruit needed by the industry
to be carried into the succeeding crop
year to meet market demand until the
new crop is available. Desirable carryout is set by the Board after considering
market circumstances and needs.
Section 930.151(b) specifies that
desirable carry-out can range from zero
to a maximum of 100 million pounds.
In addition, USDA’s ‘‘Guidelines for
Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop
Marketing Orders’’ (https://
www.ams.usda.gov/publications/
content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
marketing-orders) specify that 110
percent of recent years’ sales should be
made available to primary markets each
season before recommendations for
volume regulation are approved. This
requirement is codified in § 930.50(g) of
the order, which specifies that, in years
when restricted percentages are
established, the Board shall make
available tonnage equivalent to an
additional 10 percent of the average
sales of the prior three years for market
expansion (market growth factor).
After the Board determines optimum
supply, desirable carry-out, and market
growth factor, it must examine the
current year’s available volume to
determine whether there is an
oversupply situation. Available volume
includes carry-in inventory (any
inventory available at the beginning of
the season) along with that season’s
production. If production is greater than
the optimum supply minus carry-in, the
difference is considered surplus. This
surplus tonnage is divided by the sum
of production in the regulated districts
to reach a restricted percentage. This
percentage must be held in reserve or
used for approved diversion activities,
such as exports.
The Board met on June 23, 2016, and
computed an optimum supply of 287
million pounds for the 2016–17 crop
year using the average of free sales for
the three previous seasons and a
desirable carry-out of 57 million
pounds. The Board determined three
months of sales would be a good
estimate for what was needed at the end
of the season, as there is a three-month
gap between the calculation of carry-out
at the end of one season and the
availability of fruit in the next season.
The recommended carry-out of 57
million pounds is approximately a
quarter of average annual sales.
The Board then subtracted the
estimated carry-in of 81.3 million
pounds from the optimum supply to
calculate the production needed from
the 2016–17 crop to meet optimum
supply. This number, 205.7 million
pounds, was subtracted from the
Board’s estimated 2016–17 production
of 351.3 million pounds to calculate a
surplus of 145.6 million pounds of tart
cherries. The Board also complied with
the market growth factor requirement by
adding 23 million pounds (average sales
for prior three years of 230 million times
10 percent) to the free supply. The
surplus minus the market growth factor
was then divided by the expected
production in the regulated districts
(348 million pounds) to reach a
preliminary restricted percentage of 35
percent for the 2016–17 crop year.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Board then discussed whether
this calculation would provide
sufficient supply to grow sales while
being able to supply orders that are
already scheduled, including filling
remaining orders from a USDA purchase
made the previous season. The Board,
after considering anticipated supply
needs for the 2016–17 season, decided
to make an economic adjustment of 22
million pounds to increase the available
supply of tart cherries. This economic
adjustment further reduced the
preliminary surplus to 100.6 million
pounds. After these adjustments, the
preliminary restricted percentage was
recalculated as 29 percent (100.6
million pounds divided by 348 million
pounds).
The Board met again on September 8,
2016, to consider final volume
regulation percentages for the 2016–17
season. The final percentages are based
on the Board’s reported production
figures and the supply and demand
information available in September. The
total production for the 2016–17 season
was 341 million pounds, 10 million
pounds below the Board’s June estimate.
In addition, growers diverted 26 million
pounds in the orchard, leaving 315
million pounds available to market, 310
million pounds of which are in the
restricted districts. Using the actual
production numbers, and accounting for
the recommended desirable carry-out
and economic adjustment, as well as the
market growth factor, the restricted
percentage was recalculated.
The Board subtracted the carry-in
figure used in June of 81.3 million
pounds from the optimum supply of 287
million pounds to determine 205.7
million pounds of 2016–17 production
would be necessary to reach optimum
supply. The Board subtracted the 205.7
million pounds from the actual
production of 341.3 million pounds,
resulting in a surplus of 135.6 million
pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was
then reduced by subtracting the
economic adjustment of 22 million
pounds and the market growth factor of
23 million pounds, resulting in an
adjusted surplus of 90.6 million pounds.
The Board then divided this final
surplus by the available production of
310 million pounds in the regulated
districts (336.1 million pounds minus
26.4 million pounds of in-orchard
diversion) to calculate a restricted
percentage of 29 percent with a
corresponding free percentage of 71
percent for the 2016–17 crop year, as
outlined in the following table:
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Millions
of pounds
Final Calculations:
(1) Average sales of the prior three
years ..............................................
(2) Plus desirable carry-out ...............
(3) Optimum supply calculated by the
Board ..............................................
(4) Carry-in as of July 1, 2016 ..........
(5) Adjusted optimum supply (item 3
minus item 4) .................................
(6) Board reported production ...........
(7) Surplus (item 6 minus item 5) ......
(8) Total economic adjustments ........
(9) Market growth factor ....................
(10) Adjusted Surplus (item 7 minus
items 8 and 9) ................................
(11) Supply in regulated districts .......
(12) In-Orchard Diversion ..................
230.0
57.0
287.0
81.3
205.7
341.3
135.6
22.0
23.0
90.6
336.1
26.4
(13) Production minus in orchard diversion ............................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Final Percentages:
Restricted (item 10 divided by item
13 × 100) ........................................
Free (100 minus restricted percentage) ................................................
309.7
Percent
29
71
The primary purpose of setting
restricted percentages is an attempt to
bring supply and demand into balance.
If the primary market is oversupplied
with cherries, grower prices decline
substantially. Restricted percentages
have benefited grower returns and
helped stabilize the market as compared
to those seasons prior to the
implementation of the order. The Board
believes the available information
indicates that a restricted percentage
should be established for the 2016–17
crop year to avoid oversupplying the
market with tart cherries. Consequently,
based on its discussion of this issue and
the result of the above calculations, the
Board recommended final percentages
of 71 percent free and 29 percent
restricted by a vote of 16 in favor, 2
opposed, and 2 abstentions.
Though production came in below the
Board’s June, 2016, estimate, the initial
restriction percentage remained the
same due to the substantial in-orchard
diversion. During the discussion of the
proposed restriction, several members
supported the proposed percentages as
there was no change from the
preliminary 29 percent restriction
recommended in June. They believed
deviating from the percentages
announced in June would be disruptive
to the industry, as processors have
already made agreements with growers.
Another member noted when there
was a crop failure in 2012, there was not
enough reserve to maintain sales and
warned against being unprepared in the
future. The member also noted that in
the last four years, even with volume
regulation and an increase in imported
products, overall domestic sales have
increased since 2013, including modest
growth in both juice and piefill.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
Some members opposed to the
proposed restriction expressed concern
regarding competition from imported
tart cherry juice concentrate. In
particular, they were concerned that the
additional volume from imports is not
accounted for in the Optimum Supply
Formula (OSF), thus not capturing
overall supply and demand.
Others were of the opinion that the
Board’s recent actions to expand the use
of diversion credits in new markets or
through grower diversion were allowing
the industry to remain competitive
without making additional adjustments
to supply. Another member countered
that not all handlers are helped by new
market diversion credits and cannot sell
all of their product under a restriction.
When asked how much of the market
currently being served by imports could
be supplied by the domestic handlers,
some members stated they could utilize
the full adjusted calculated surplus of
90.6 million pounds. Others noted that
trying to compete for those markets by
matching the price of imported
concentrate would drop grower returns
to an unsustainable level.
One member summarized that,
although there is a carrying cost for
storing restricted fruit, and the industry
appears to be at a trade disadvantage,
the Board should account for those
factors all the while focusing on
continuing to grow sales. Though there
was much discussion regarding the
market impact of imports, there was no
motion made by any Board member to
make a further economic adjustment to
the calculation based on imported
product.
After reviewing the available data,
and considering the concerns expressed,
the Board determined that a 29 percent
restriction with a carry-out volume of 57
million pounds meets sales needs and
establishes some reserves without
oversupplying the market. Thus, the
Board recommended establishing final
percentages of 71 percent free and 29
percent restricted. The Board could
meet and recommend the release of
additional volume during the crop year
if conditions so warranted.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to requirements set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601–612), 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
businesses subject to such actions in
order that small businesses will not be
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28751
unduly or disproportionately burdened.
Marketing orders issued pursuant to the
Act, and rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
small entities acting on their own
behalf.
There are approximately 600
producers of tart cherries in the
regulated area and approximately 40
handlers of tart cherries who are subject
to regulation under the order. Small
agricultural producers are defined by
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) as those having annual receipts of
less than $750,000 and small
agricultural service firms have been
defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR
121.201).
According to the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
and Board data, the average annual
grower price for tart cherries during the
2015–16 season was approximately
$0.347 per pound. With total utilization
at 251.1 million pounds, the total 2015–
16 crop value is estimated at $87
million. Dividing the crop value by the
estimated number of producers (600)
yields an estimated average annual
receipt per producer of $145,000. This
is well below the SBA threshold for
small producers. In 2015, The Food
Institute estimated a free on board
(f.o.b.) price of $0.96 per pound for
frozen tart cherries, which make up the
majority of processed tart cherries.
Multiplying the f.o.b price by total
utilization of 251.1 million pounds
results in an estimated handler-level tart
cherry value of $241 million. Dividing
this figure by the number of handlers
(40) yields an estimated average annual
handler receipts of $6 million, which is
below the SBA threshold for small
agricultural service firms. Assuming a
normal bell-curve distribution, the
majority of producers and handlers of
tart cherries may be classified as small
entities.
The tart cherry industry in the United
States is characterized by wide, annual
fluctuations in production. According to
NASS, the pounds of tart cherry
production for the years 2012 through
2015 were 85 million, 291 million, 301
million, and 251 million, respectively.
Because of these fluctuations, supply
and demand for tart cherries are rarely
equal.
Demand for tart cherries is inelastic,
meaning changes in price have a
minimal effect on total sales volume.
However, prices are very sensitive to
changes in supply, and grower prices
vary widely in response to the large
swings in annual supply, with prices
ranging from a low of 7.3 cents per
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
28752
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
pound in 1987 to a high of 59.4 cents
per pound in 2012.
Because of this relationship between
supply and price, oversupplying the
market with tart cherries would have a
sharp negative effect on prices, driving
down grower returns. The Board, aware
of this economic relationship, focuses
on using the volume control authority in
the order to align supply with demand
and stabilize industry returns. This
authority allows the industry to set free
and restricted percentages as a way to
bring supply and demand into balance.
Free percentage cherries can be
marketed by handlers to any outlet,
while restricted percentage volume
must be held by handlers in reserve,
diverted, or used for exempted
purposes.
This rule controls the supply of tart
cherries by establishing percentages of
71 percent free and 29 percent restricted
for the 2016–17 crop year. These
percentages should stabilize marketing
conditions by adjusting supply to meet
market demand and help improve
grower returns. This rule regulates tart
cherries handled in Michigan, New
York, Utah, Washington, and
Wisconsin. The authority for this action
is provided for in §§ 930.50, 930.51(a)
and 930.52 of the order. The Board
recommended this action at a meeting
on September 8, 2016.
This rule will result in some fruit
being diverted from the primary
domestic markets. However, as
mentioned earlier, the USDA’s
‘‘Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and
Specialty Crop Marketing Orders’’
(https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/
content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetablemarketing-orders) specify that 110
percent of recent years’ sales should be
made available to primary markets each
season before recommendations for
volume regulation are approved. The
quantity that is available under this
action is greater than 110 percent of the
average quantity shipped in the prior
three years.
In addition, there are secondary uses
available for restricted fruit, including
the development of new products, sales
into new markets, the development of
export markets, and being placed in
reserve. While these alternatives may
provide different levels of return than
the sales to primary markets, they play
an important role for the industry. The
areas of new products, new markets,
and the development of export markets
utilize restricted fruit to develop and
expand the markets for tart cherries. In
2015–16, these activities accounted for
over 27 million pounds in sales, 12
million of which were exports.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
Placing tart cherries into reserves is
also a key part of balancing supply and
demand. Although handlers bear the
handling and storage costs for fruit in
reserve, reserves stored in large crop
years are used to supplement supplies
in short crop years. The reserves allow
the industry to mitigate the impact of
oversupply in large crop years, while
allowing the industry to maintain
supply to markets in years when
production falls below demand. Further,
storage and handling costs are more
than offset by the increase in price when
moving from a large crop to a short crop
year.
In addition, the Board recommended
an increased carry-out of 57 million
pounds and made a demand adjustment
of 22 million pounds in order to make
the regulation less restrictive. Even with
the restriction, over 300 million pounds
of fruit will be available to the domestic
market. Consequently, it is not
anticipated that this regulation will
unduly burden growers or handlers.
While this action could result in some
additional costs to the industry, these
costs are more than outweighed by the
benefits. The purpose of setting
restricted percentages is to attempt to
bring supply and demand into balance.
If the primary market (domestic) is
oversupplied with cherries, grower
prices decline substantially. Without
volume control, the primary market will
likely be oversupplied, resulting in
lower grower prices.
The three districts in Michigan, along
with the districts in New York, Utah,
Washington, and Wisconsin, are the
restricted areas for this crop year with
a combined total production of 310
million pounds. A 29 percent restriction
means 220 million pounds will be
available to be shipped to primary
markets from these five states. The 220
million pounds from the restricted
districts, 5 million pounds from the
unrestricted districts (Oregon and
Pennsylvania), and the 81 million
pound carry-in inventory would make a
total of 306 million pounds available as
free tonnage for the primary markets.
This is similar to the 305 million
pounds of free tonnage made available
last year. This is enough to cover the
251 million pounds of total utilization
in 2015–16, while providing substantial
carry-out. Further, the Board could meet
and recommend the release of
additional volume during the crop year
if conditions so warranted.
Prior to the implementation of the
order, grower prices often did not cover
the cost of production. The most recent
costs of production determined by
representatives of Michigan State
University are an estimated $0.33 per
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pound. To assess the impact that
volume control has on the prices
growers receive for their product, an
econometric model has been developed.
Based on the model, the use of volume
control would have a positive impact on
grower returns for this crop year. With
volume control, grower prices are
estimated to be approximately $0.06 per
pound higher than without restrictions.
In addition, absent volume control, the
industry could start to build large
amounts of unwanted inventories.
These inventories would have a
depressing effect on grower prices.
Retail demand is assumed to be
highly inelastic, which indicates that
changes in price do not result in
significant changes in the quantity
demanded. Consumer prices largely do
not reflect fluctuations in cherry
supplies. Therefore, this action should
have little or no effect on consumer
prices and should not result in a
reduction in retail sales.
The free and restricted percentages
established by this rule provide the
market with optimum supply and apply
uniformly to all regulated handlers in
the industry, regardless of size. As the
restriction represents a percentage of a
handler’s volume, the costs, when
applicable, are proportionate and
should not place an extra burden on
small entities as compared to large
entities.
The stabilizing effects of this action
benefit all handlers by helping them
maintain and expand markets, despite
seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise,
price stability positively impacts all
growers and handlers by allowing them
to better anticipate the revenues their
tart cherries would generate. Growers
and handlers, regardless of size, benefit
from the stabilizing effects of this
restriction. In addition, the increased
carry-out should provide processors
enough supply to meet market needs
going into the next season.
The Board considered alternatives in
its preliminary restriction discussions
that affected this action. Regarding
demand, the Board began with the
actual sales average of 230 million
pounds. However, the Board noted that
some previously contracted sales would
be due for delivery in the coming
season. In order to avoid
undersupplying the market, the Board
determined that the calculation of the
optimum supply should include an
additional adjustment for that purpose.
After discussion, an adjustment of an
additional 22 million pounds was made
in the 2016–17 available supply of tart
cherries as it was determined that this
amount would best meet the industry’s
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sales needs. Thus, the other alternative
levels were rejected.
Regarding the carry-out value, the
Board considered a range of alternatives.
One member suggested the Board begin
with 57 million pounds, approximately
a quarter of average annual sales. Other
members suggested alternatives as high
as 70 million pounds. However, some
members were concerned about leaving
too much fruit on the market at the end
of the season and depressing prices
going into the next year. The Board
determined three months of sales would
be a good estimate for what is needed
at the end of the season, as there is a
three-month gap between the
calculation of carry-out at the end of one
season and the availability of fruit from
the next season. Thus, the other
alternatives were rejected.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0177, Tart
Cherries Grown in the States of
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wisconsin. No changes in those
requirements as a result of this action
are necessary. Should any changes
become necessary, they would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
This action will not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on either small or large
tart cherry handlers. As with all Federal
marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically reviewed to
reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
As noted in the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, USDA has not
identified any relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this final rule. Further, the public
comments received concerning the
proposal did not address the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
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.
In addition, the Board’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the tart
cherry industry, and all interested
persons were invited to attend the
meeting and participate in Board
deliberations on all issues. Like all
Board meetings, the June 23, 2016, and
September 8, 2016, meetings were
public meetings, and all entities, both
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
large and small, were able to express
views on this issue.
A proposed rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on March 21, 2017 (82 FR
14481). Copies of the rule were sent via
email to all Board members and tart
cherry handlers. Finally, the rule was
made available through the internet by
USDA and the Office of the Federal
Register. A 30-day comment period
ending April 20, 2017, was provided to
allow interested persons to respond to
the proposal.
Eleven comments were received
during the comment period in response
to the proposal. Four comments favored
the proposed regulation and seven
comments opposed the proposed
regulation. One comment received was
signed by 67 industry members. The
commenters included growers,
handlers, Board members, an industry
representative, economic policy and law
students, individuals, and one
anonymous cherry consumer. Most of
the points made by the commenters in
opposition had been discussed prior to
the Board’s vote recommending this
action.
The comment signed by 67 industry
members asserted the United States
government import data indicate that 40
percent of tart cherry consumption in
the 2015 season was from imported
products. AMS’s analysis of the Foreign
Agricultural Service’s Global
Agricultural Trade System (GATS)
indicates an equivalent of more than
230 million pounds of cherries products
were imported into the U.S. in the 2016
season. The imported volume has
remained above 230 million pounds
since the 2014 season. According to the
data, tart cherry juice concentrate
represents by far the largest segment of
imports and has experienced
tremendous growth beginning in 2012.
Five of the comments in opposition,
including the comment signed by 67
industry members, reference the
absence of imported tart cherry products
in the OSF. All of these commenters
implied that not including imported tart
cherry products into the OSF
calculation disregards a large portion of
the demand for tart cherries. As a result,
these commenters since believe the
proposed rule fails to bring supply into
balance with demand in the targeted
market. The comment with 67
signatures states the federal marketing
order does not account for the total
demand of tart cherry products in the
US because imported products are not
included in the formula. Another
commenter suggested not considering
imported products in the OSF indicates
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28753
the Board’s recommended restriction is
arbitrary and capricious.
The OSF presented to the Board
included several adjustments to avoid
the possibility of undersupplying the
market. In determining demand, the
Board takes into account many factors,
including previous sales history and an
analysis of economic factors having a
bearing on the market. The final
percentages recommended by the Board
included several adjustments to supply
additional fruit to the market. In
calculating these adjustments for
determining demand in the OSF, the
Board also considered supplies of
competing commodities and the
additional ten percent added for the
market growth factor. This was noted by
one of the commenters voicing support
for the proposed regulation. The
economic adjustment added 22 million
pounds and the market growth factor
added 23 million pounds for an
additional 55 million pounds beyond
the average sales.
Under the order, when computing and
determining final percentages for
recommendation to the Secretary, the
Board must give consideration to several
factors including supplies of competing
commodities and economic factors
having a bearing on cherry markets. At
the meetings on June 23, 2016, and
September 8, 2016, the Board discussed
its concerns regarding the economic
impact of imports. At the September
meeting, following the motion to adopt
the OSF as presented, several comments
and observations were made regarding
the matter of imports. However, none of
the members suggested an alternative
adjustment for imports. Additionally,
the Board did not propose amending the
order language in section 930.50 to
include imports as a factor in
calculating the OSF. Most of the
comments at the September meeting
supported the motion to adopt the OSF
as presented.
The comment with 67 signatures also
states that the domestic industry has
been unable to supply the significant
growth in consumption of dried and
juiced cherry products. Data concur that
domestic production alone would not
replace the imported volume in recent
years. However, the Board reported
steady or increased overall domestic
sales from 2013–15, even though each of
those seasons were regulated. The use of
diversion credits allowed handlers to
ship an additional 27.5 million pounds
of restricted fruit during the 2015–16
season in addition to free sales. Despite
this growth, the industry reported a
remaining free inventory of over 80
million pounds going into the crop year,
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
28754
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
suggesting availability of domestic fruit
is not a concern.
Also at the September meeting, a
Board member stated an adjustment to
the OSF for imports is one alternative,
but the Board’s preferred alternative was
to use restricted cherries for supplying
new and competing commodity
markets. Therefore, alternatives were
considered consistent with Executive
Order 13563. The member also stated
that restricting cherries under the order
aids in stabilizing grower prices. Placing
excess cherries into the market is
contrary to the purpose of the order. The
Board supports utilizing exempted
markets for restricted cherries as an
alternative to storage. Exporting cherry
products and participating in new
product and new market projects allows
handlers to sell restricted cherries into
these markets.
Should domestic handlers decide to
compete in these new markets, in most
cases, restricted cherries could be used
and the handler could receive diversion
credits under the diversion provisions
of the order. Further, the Board recently
recommended extending the maximum
length of these activities from three
years to five years, creating even more
opportunities to pursue new markets.
Consequently, handlers currently have
ample opportunity to compete for new
markets using restricted cherries while
continuing to service traditional markets
with unrestricted cherries. In addition,
should industry efforts cause demand to
exceed available volume, the Board
could meet and recommend the release
of additional volume.
Another commenter opposed to the 29
percent or approximately 90 million
pound restriction indicated the total
percent restriction, over the past three
years, was 69 percent. However, the
percent restriction for each year cannot
be added together to arrive at the total
restriction over the last three years. The
calculation to derive the percent
restriction over the past three years is
achieved by dividing the total adjusted
surplus by the total production in
regulated districts over the past three
years. The pounds of regulated
production for 2014, 2015, and 2016
seasons were 295 million with 59
million restricted, 240 million with 47
million restricted, and 310 million with
91 million restricted, respectively. The
total 197 million pounds of surplus
divided by the total regulated
production of 845 million equals a 23
percent restriction. The miscalculation
from the commenter in opposition
overstated the total percent restriction
for the past three years by triple.
This commenter also stated that
marketers of cherry products should not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
be forced to hold volume off the market
while imported products enter the
market freely. Contrary to the
commenter’s opinion, a Board member
at the September 8, 2016, meeting stated
that placing excess cherries into the
market as a method of countering
imports would only lower grower prices
significantly and would not be positive
for the grower community. Another
Board member added that imports are
capturing a less profitable market while
the domestic industry is serving more
profitable markets.
One commenter indicated the OSF
was calculated incorrectly by including
the in-orchard diverted fruit as part of
production in the formula. This
individual suggested if the in-orchard
diverted fruit was removed from
production, the percentage would be 21
percent, instead of 29 percent
restriction. However, 26.4 million
pounds of in-orchard diversion were
accounted for when calculating the
volume subject to restriction from the
regulated districts. This is consistent
with the method used to account for
fruit produced in unrestricted districts.
The total production (341.3 million
pounds) minus the in-orchard
diversions (26.4 million pounds) and
production in unrestricted districts (5.2
million pounds) left 309.7 million
pounds subject to restriction. The Board
divided the surplus of 90.6 million
pounds by this volume to arrive at 29
percent restricted and 71 percent free
market cherries.
One comment, submitted twice, from
two students in opposition to this
regulation suggested the government
should not intervene and require cherry
farmers to restrict supply. This
comment assumed the order restricts the
amount of tart cherries that can be
produced. Volume regulation under the
order is a tool for the tart cherry
industry to stabilize market conditions
due to fluctuations in supply and the
inelastic nature of demand for tart
cherries. This action does not regulate
growers’ production of the commodity.
This regulatory action is a restriction on
domestic tart cherry products handled
for the market. This regulation will only
restrict cherries purchased for handling.
Further, this action is a
recommendation from the tart cherry
industry as represented by the Board
made up of growers, handlers, and a
member of the public. The Board
considered not regulating as a possible
alternative, consistent with Executive
Order 13563, but this consideration was
rejected after reviewing production data.
One commenter opposed the
restriction because it would reduce tart
cherry production and not allow the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
producers to benefit from maximizing
the crop. The commenter also
concluded the restriction would make it
difficult for the industry to reach
optimum supply. As previously
mentioned, this action does not restrict
tart cherry production. Production
decisions are made well in advance of
the recommendation for volume
restriction, which is discussed just prior
to harvest and finalized following
harvest. Unlike some other commodities
like row crops, tree crops such as tart
cherries cannot be easily taken out of
production. This action regulates only
the handling of tart cherries.
Regarding the commenter’s second
concern, USDA requires 110 percent of
average sales be made available under
any volume regulation. The Board
recommended an economic adjustment
for the 2016–17 season to make even
more fruit available, going beyond the
initial optimum supply calculation.
While the restriction may not impact
production costs, producers do
experience a drop in price when the
market is oversupplied. When the
market approaches optimum supply,
prices tend to be more stable.
All four of the proponents of this
action suggest the restriction will
stabilize the cherry industry’s economy.
Three of the proponents made reference
to the industry wide support for the
recommended restriction, as
represented by the Board’s vote in
which 16 members, the majority of the
Board, voted in favor, two abstained and
two opposed the recommended
restriction. One of these proponents
indicated this level of support is
significantly greater than the requisite
two-thirds majority required for Board
action. Further, two proponents made
reference that the action is supported by
a large majority of the industry.
Three proponents of this action
recognized the Board’s consideration of
the opponents’ concerns in their
comments on the proposal. All three
noted the matter of imports has been
addressed by the Board at several
meetings. One proponent recognized the
Board established a committee to
suggest alternative ways to increase
domestic juice and juice concentrate
sales. Another commenter suggested if
growers and processors want to account
for imports in a way other than through
adjustments, then the Board should
focus on amending the order language
for determining optimum supply to
account for imports.
All three proponents made reference
to the Board’s efforts in promoting the
exemption process as a method of
competing with imported cherry
products. One commenter noted the
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Board’s recommendation for extending
the time from one year to three years for
new product and new market
exemptions that was implemented in
the previous season. As mentioned
previously, the Board has recommended
a further expansion of the timeframe.
The additional time will allow
opportunity for more cherries to qualify
for exemption in response to the level
of imported cherry products.
One commenter referenced the
opportunities available to use both inorchard and post-harvest diversion to
comply with a restriction. The
commenter stated the Federal marketing
order provides major incentive to
expand sales by using restricted fruit to
serve new markets, new products, and
exports. Additionally, there is incentive
in place for growers to divert excess
fruit where there is no market or where
the cost associated with marketing the
fruit may not increase returns. Growers
who choose to divert in the orchard can
be issued certificates by the Board that
can be sold to handlers to meet their
restriction requirements.
One commenter noted the Board felt
the final calculations were appropriate.
They also stated that the majority of the
industry approved the order in its last
referendum, believing that the order
brings more returns to growers. Another
proponent noted, even with the
restriction, sales are not being lost due
to lack of available unrestricted cherries.
The carry-in from July 2016 (81 million
lbs.) and the projected availability of
free market carry-out (57 million lbs.)
indicate the restriction is not a factor in
limiting sales of tart cherry products.
The Board deliberated thoroughly on
whether or not to make an additional
economic adjustment to account for
imported cherry products. However, no
motion was made for an additional
adjustment to reflect the impact of
imported cherry products. As one
commenter noted, there is a lack of
consensus on how to factor imports into
the final calculation.
Further, according to Foreign
Agricultural Service’s GATS database,
though imported cherry products
remained high (230 million lbs.
equivalent) during the 2016 calendar
year, the volume is down from the 2015
calendar year (267 million lbs.
equivalent) and also below the 2014
calendar year (244 million lbs.
equivalent). The final NASS prices for
the 2016 season are not yet available,
but from 2013–15, grower prices were
stable, ranging from $0.34 to $0.36 per
pound. Thus, when using available
sales, utilization, and price data from
previous years it is difficult to
determine what, if any, specific negative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jun 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
impact imports have had on the market
for domestic tart cherries and then
account for that impact in the OSF.
As previously stated, there are more
than 309 million pounds of tart cherries
available for free sales for 2016–17. This
volume exceeds total sales from 2015–
16 of both free and restricted cherries of
288 million pounds. Further, the order
provides numerous alternatives for the
use of restricted fruit, such as handler
diversion, for complying with the
recommended restriction. Additionally,
the USDA announced the intent to
purchase over 10 million pounds of
cherry products in the 2016–2017
season as surplus purchases. Therefore,
as stated in the RFA, it is not
anticipated that this action will unduly
burden growers or handlers.
Accordingly, no changes will be made
to the rule as proposed, based on the
comments received.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
After consideration of all relevant
matter presented, including the
information and recommendation
submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found
that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act.
It is further found that good cause
exists for not postponing the effective
date of this rule until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register (5
U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already
shipping tart cherries from the 2016–17
crop. Further, handlers are aware of this
rule, which was recommended at a
public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment
period was provided for in the proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930
Marketing agreements, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tart
cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as
follows:
PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN
IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON,
UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND
WISCONSIN
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 930 continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28755
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 930.151 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 930.151
Desirable carry-out inventory.
For the 2016 crop year, the desirable
carry-out inventory, for the purposes of
determining an optimum supply
volume, will be 57 million pounds.
■ 3. Section 930.256 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 930.256 Free and restricted percentages
for the 2016–17 crop year.
The percentages for tart cherries
handled by handlers during the crop
year beginning on July 1, 2016, which
shall be free and restricted, respectively,
are designated as follows: Free
percentage, 71 percent and restricted
percentage, 29 percent.
Dated: June 20, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–13241 Filed 6–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. R–1565; RIN 7100 AE–79]
Regulation A: Extensions of Credit by
Federal Reserve Banks
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) has
adopted final amendments to its
Regulation A to reflect the Board’s
approval of an increase in the rate for
primary credit at each Federal Reserve
Bank. The secondary credit rate at each
Reserve Bank automatically increased
by formula as a result of the Board’s
primary credit rate action.
DATES: This rule is effective June 26,
2017. The rate changes for primary and
secondary credit were applicable
beginning June 15, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clinton Chen, Attorney (202/452–3952),
or Sophia Allison, Special Counsel,
(202/452–3565), Legal Division, or Lyle
Kumasaka, Senior Financial Analyst
(202/452–2382); for users of
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) only, contact 202/263–4869;
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th and C Streets
NW., Washington, DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Reserve Banks make primary
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNR1.SGM
26JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28749-28755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13241]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28749]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 930
[Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0105; SC16-930-5 FR]
Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, et al.; Free and
Restricted Percentages for the 2016-17 Crop Year for Tart Cherries
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule implements a recommendation from the Cherry Industry
Administrative Board (Board) to establish free and restricted
percentages for the 2016-17 crop year under the marketing order for
tart cherries grown in the states of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin (order). The Board locally
administers the marketing order and is comprised of producers and
handlers of tart cherries operating within the production area, and a
public member. This action establishes the proportion of tart cherries
from the 2016 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets at 71
percent free and 29 percent restricted. These percentages should
stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market
demand and help improve grower returns.
DATES: Effective June 27, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast
Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax:
(863) 291-8614, or Email: Steven.Kauffman@ams.usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491,
Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: Richard.Lower@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 930, both as amended (7 CFR part 930),
regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington and
Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is
effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175.
This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the
definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the
requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order
of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. Under the order provisions now in effect, free
and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled
during the crop year. This final rule establishes free and restricted
percentages for tart cherries for the 2016-17 crop year, beginning July
1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition
stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and
request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition.
After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides
that the district court of the United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the
2016-17 crop year. This rule establishes the proportion of tart
cherries from the 2016 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets
at 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted. This action should
stabilize marketing conditions by adjusting supply to meet market
demand and help improve grower returns. The carry-out and the final
percentages were recommended by the Cherry Industry Administrative
Board (Board) at a meeting on September 8, 2016.
Section 930.51(a) of the order provides authority to regulate
volume by designating free and restricted percentages for any tart
cherries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 930.50
prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply based on sales
history and for calculating these free and restricted percentages. Free
percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted
percentage volume must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary
reserve, or be diverted or used for exempt purposes as prescribed in
Sec. Sec. 930.159 and 930.162 of the regulations. Exempt purposes
include, in part, the development of new products, sales into new
markets, the development of export markets, and charitable
contributions. Sections 930.55 through 930.57 prescribe procedures for
inventory reserve. For cherries held in reserve, handlers would be
responsible for storage and would retain title of the tart cherries.
Under Sec. 930.52, only those districts with an annual average
production over the prior three years of at least six million pounds
are subject to regulation, and any district producing a crop which is
less than 50 percent of its annual average of the previous five years
is exempt. The regulated districts for the 2016-17 crop year are:
District 1--Northern Michigan; District 2--Central Michigan; District
3--Southern Michigan; District 4--New York; District
[[Page 28750]]
7--Utah; District 8--Washington; and District 9--Wisconsin. Districts 5
and 6 (Oregon and Pennsylvania, respectively) are not regulated for the
2016-17 season.
Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be
relatively stable from year to year. Conversely, annual tart cherry
production can vary greatly. In addition, tart cherries are processed
and can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year, further
impacting supply. As a result, supply and demand for tart cherries are
rarely in balance.
Because demand for tart cherries is inelastic, total sales volume
is not very responsive to changes in price. However, prices are very
sensitive to changes in supply. As such, an oversupply of cherries can
have a sharp negative effect on prices, driving down grower returns.
The Board, aware of this economic relationship, focuses on using the
volume control provisions in the order to balance supply and demand to
stabilize industry returns.
Pursuant to Sec. 930.50 of the order, the Board meets on or about
July 1 to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts and
market conditions for the upcoming season and, if necessary, to
recommend preliminary free and restricted percentages if anticipated
supply would exceed demand. After harvest is complete, but no later
than September 15, the Board meets again to update its calculations
using actual production data, consider any necessary adjustments to the
preliminary percentages, and determine if final free and restricted
percentages should be recommended to the Secretary.
The Board uses sales history, inventory, and production data to
determine whether there is a surplus, and if so, how much volume should
be restricted to maintain optimum supply. The optimum supply represents
the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale
in the coming crop year. Optimum supply is defined as the average free
sales of the prior three years plus desirable carry-out inventory.
Desirable carry-out is the amount of fruit needed by the industry to be
carried into the succeeding crop year to meet market demand until the
new crop is available. Desirable carry-out is set by the Board after
considering market circumstances and needs. Section 930.151(b)
specifies that desirable carry-out can range from zero to a maximum of
100 million pounds.
In addition, USDA's ``Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and
Specialty Crop Marketing Orders'' (https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders)
specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made
available to primary markets each season before recommendations for
volume regulation are approved. This requirement is codified in Sec.
930.50(g) of the order, which specifies that, in years when restricted
percentages are established, the Board shall make available tonnage
equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the average sales of the
prior three years for market expansion (market growth factor).
After the Board determines optimum supply, desirable carry-out, and
market growth factor, it must examine the current year's available
volume to determine whether there is an oversupply situation. Available
volume includes carry-in inventory (any inventory available at the
beginning of the season) along with that season's production. If
production is greater than the optimum supply minus carry-in, the
difference is considered surplus. This surplus tonnage is divided by
the sum of production in the regulated districts to reach a restricted
percentage. This percentage must be held in reserve or used for
approved diversion activities, such as exports.
The Board met on June 23, 2016, and computed an optimum supply of
287 million pounds for the 2016-17 crop year using the average of free
sales for the three previous seasons and a desirable carry-out of 57
million pounds. The Board determined three months of sales would be a
good estimate for what was needed at the end of the season, as there is
a three-month gap between the calculation of carry-out at the end of
one season and the availability of fruit in the next season. The
recommended carry-out of 57 million pounds is approximately a quarter
of average annual sales.
The Board then subtracted the estimated carry-in of 81.3 million
pounds from the optimum supply to calculate the production needed from
the 2016-17 crop to meet optimum supply. This number, 205.7 million
pounds, was subtracted from the Board's estimated 2016-17 production of
351.3 million pounds to calculate a surplus of 145.6 million pounds of
tart cherries. The Board also complied with the market growth factor
requirement by adding 23 million pounds (average sales for prior three
years of 230 million times 10 percent) to the free supply. The surplus
minus the market growth factor was then divided by the expected
production in the regulated districts (348 million pounds) to reach a
preliminary restricted percentage of 35 percent for the 2016-17 crop
year.
The Board then discussed whether this calculation would provide
sufficient supply to grow sales while being able to supply orders that
are already scheduled, including filling remaining orders from a USDA
purchase made the previous season. The Board, after considering
anticipated supply needs for the 2016-17 season, decided to make an
economic adjustment of 22 million pounds to increase the available
supply of tart cherries. This economic adjustment further reduced the
preliminary surplus to 100.6 million pounds. After these adjustments,
the preliminary restricted percentage was recalculated as 29 percent
(100.6 million pounds divided by 348 million pounds).
The Board met again on September 8, 2016, to consider final volume
regulation percentages for the 2016-17 season. The final percentages
are based on the Board's reported production figures and the supply and
demand information available in September. The total production for the
2016-17 season was 341 million pounds, 10 million pounds below the
Board's June estimate. In addition, growers diverted 26 million pounds
in the orchard, leaving 315 million pounds available to market, 310
million pounds of which are in the restricted districts. Using the
actual production numbers, and accounting for the recommended desirable
carry-out and economic adjustment, as well as the market growth factor,
the restricted percentage was recalculated.
The Board subtracted the carry-in figure used in June of 81.3
million pounds from the optimum supply of 287 million pounds to
determine 205.7 million pounds of 2016-17 production would be necessary
to reach optimum supply. The Board subtracted the 205.7 million pounds
from the actual production of 341.3 million pounds, resulting in a
surplus of 135.6 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was then
reduced by subtracting the economic adjustment of 22 million pounds and
the market growth factor of 23 million pounds, resulting in an adjusted
surplus of 90.6 million pounds. The Board then divided this final
surplus by the available production of 310 million pounds in the
regulated districts (336.1 million pounds minus 26.4 million pounds of
in-orchard diversion) to calculate a restricted percentage of 29
percent with a corresponding free percentage of 71 percent for the
2016-17 crop year, as outlined in the following table:
[[Page 28751]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions
of pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Calculations:
(1) Average sales of the prior three years................ 230.0
(2) Plus desirable carry-out.............................. 57.0
(3) Optimum supply calculated by the Board................ 287.0
(4) Carry-in as of July 1, 2016........................... 81.3
(5) Adjusted optimum supply (item 3 minus item 4)......... 205.7
(6) Board reported production............................. 341.3
(7) Surplus (item 6 minus item 5)......................... 135.6
(8) Total economic adjustments............................ 22.0
(9) Market growth factor.................................. 23.0
(10) Adjusted Surplus (item 7 minus items 8 and 9)........ 90.6
(11) Supply in regulated districts........................ 336.1
(12) In-Orchard Diversion................................. 26.4
-----------
(13) Production minus in orchard diversion................ 309.7
-----------
Final Percentages: Percent
Restricted (item 10 divided by item 13 x 100)............. 29
Free (100 minus restricted percentage).................... 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is an attempt
to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is
oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially.
Restricted percentages have benefited grower returns and helped
stabilize the market as compared to those seasons prior to the
implementation of the order. The Board believes the available
information indicates that a restricted percentage should be
established for the 2016-17 crop year to avoid oversupplying the market
with tart cherries. Consequently, based on its discussion of this issue
and the result of the above calculations, the Board recommended final
percentages of 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted by a vote of
16 in favor, 2 opposed, and 2 abstentions.
Though production came in below the Board's June, 2016, estimate,
the initial restriction percentage remained the same due to the
substantial in-orchard diversion. During the discussion of the proposed
restriction, several members supported the proposed percentages as
there was no change from the preliminary 29 percent restriction
recommended in June. They believed deviating from the percentages
announced in June would be disruptive to the industry, as processors
have already made agreements with growers.
Another member noted when there was a crop failure in 2012, there
was not enough reserve to maintain sales and warned against being
unprepared in the future. The member also noted that in the last four
years, even with volume regulation and an increase in imported
products, overall domestic sales have increased since 2013, including
modest growth in both juice and piefill.
Some members opposed to the proposed restriction expressed concern
regarding competition from imported tart cherry juice concentrate. In
particular, they were concerned that the additional volume from imports
is not accounted for in the Optimum Supply Formula (OSF), thus not
capturing overall supply and demand.
Others were of the opinion that the Board's recent actions to
expand the use of diversion credits in new markets or through grower
diversion were allowing the industry to remain competitive without
making additional adjustments to supply. Another member countered that
not all handlers are helped by new market diversion credits and cannot
sell all of their product under a restriction.
When asked how much of the market currently being served by imports
could be supplied by the domestic handlers, some members stated they
could utilize the full adjusted calculated surplus of 90.6 million
pounds. Others noted that trying to compete for those markets by
matching the price of imported concentrate would drop grower returns to
an unsustainable level.
One member summarized that, although there is a carrying cost for
storing restricted fruit, and the industry appears to be at a trade
disadvantage, the Board should account for those factors all the while
focusing on continuing to grow sales. Though there was much discussion
regarding the market impact of imports, there was no motion made by any
Board member to make a further economic adjustment to the calculation
based on imported product.
After reviewing the available data, and considering the concerns
expressed, the Board determined that a 29 percent restriction with a
carry-out volume of 57 million pounds meets sales needs and establishes
some reserves without oversupplying the market. Thus, the Board
recommended establishing final percentages of 71 percent free and 29
percent restricted. The Board could meet and recommend the release of
additional volume during the crop year if conditions so warranted.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 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
businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 600 producers of tart cherries in the
regulated area and approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are
subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service
firms have been defined as those whose annual receipts are less than
$7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
and Board data, the average annual grower price for tart cherries
during the 2015-16 season was approximately $0.347 per pound. With
total utilization at 251.1 million pounds, the total 2015-16 crop value
is estimated at $87 million. Dividing the crop value by the estimated
number of producers (600) yields an estimated average annual receipt
per producer of $145,000. This is well below the SBA threshold for
small producers. In 2015, The Food Institute estimated a free on board
(f.o.b.) price of $0.96 per pound for frozen tart cherries, which make
up the majority of processed tart cherries. Multiplying the f.o.b price
by total utilization of 251.1 million pounds results in an estimated
handler-level tart cherry value of $241 million. Dividing this figure
by the number of handlers (40) yields an estimated average annual
handler receipts of $6 million, which is below the SBA threshold for
small agricultural service firms. Assuming a normal bell-curve
distribution, the majority of producers and handlers of tart cherries
may be classified as small entities.
The tart cherry industry in the United States is characterized by
wide, annual fluctuations in production. According to NASS, the pounds
of tart cherry production for the years 2012 through 2015 were 85
million, 291 million, 301 million, and 251 million, respectively.
Because of these fluctuations, supply and demand for tart cherries are
rarely equal.
Demand for tart cherries is inelastic, meaning changes in price
have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, prices are very
sensitive to changes in supply, and grower prices vary widely in
response to the large swings in annual supply, with prices ranging from
a low of 7.3 cents per
[[Page 28752]]
pound in 1987 to a high of 59.4 cents per pound in 2012.
Because of this relationship between supply and price,
oversupplying the market with tart cherries would have a sharp negative
effect on prices, driving down grower returns. The Board, aware of this
economic relationship, focuses on using the volume control authority in
the order to align supply with demand and stabilize industry returns.
This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted
percentages as a way to bring supply and demand into balance. Free
percentage cherries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while
restricted percentage volume must be held by handlers in reserve,
diverted, or used for exempted purposes.
This rule controls the supply of tart cherries by establishing
percentages of 71 percent free and 29 percent restricted for the 2016-
17 crop year. These percentages should stabilize marketing conditions
by adjusting supply to meet market demand and help improve grower
returns. This rule regulates tart cherries handled in Michigan, New
York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The authority for this action is
provided for in Sec. Sec. 930.50, 930.51(a) and 930.52 of the order.
The Board recommended this action at a meeting on September 8, 2016.
This rule will result in some fruit being diverted from the primary
domestic markets. However, as mentioned earlier, the USDA's
``Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing
Orders'' (https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/1982-guidelines-fruit-vegetable-marketing-orders) specify that 110 percent of recent
years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season
before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity
that is available under this action is greater than 110 percent of the
average quantity shipped in the prior three years.
In addition, there are secondary uses available for restricted
fruit, including the development of new products, sales into new
markets, the development of export markets, and being placed in
reserve. While these alternatives may provide different levels of
return than the sales to primary markets, they play an important role
for the industry. The areas of new products, new markets, and the
development of export markets utilize restricted fruit to develop and
expand the markets for tart cherries. In 2015-16, these activities
accounted for over 27 million pounds in sales, 12 million of which were
exports.
Placing tart cherries into reserves is also a key part of balancing
supply and demand. Although handlers bear the handling and storage
costs for fruit in reserve, reserves stored in large crop years are
used to supplement supplies in short crop years. The reserves allow the
industry to mitigate the impact of oversupply in large crop years,
while allowing the industry to maintain supply to markets in years when
production falls below demand. Further, storage and handling costs are
more than offset by the increase in price when moving from a large crop
to a short crop year.
In addition, the Board recommended an increased carry-out of 57
million pounds and made a demand adjustment of 22 million pounds in
order to make the regulation less restrictive. Even with the
restriction, over 300 million pounds of fruit will be available to the
domestic market. Consequently, it is not anticipated that this
regulation will unduly burden growers or handlers.
While this action could result in some additional costs to the
industry, these costs are more than outweighed by the benefits. The
purpose of setting restricted percentages is to attempt to bring supply
and demand into balance. If the primary market (domestic) is
oversupplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially.
Without volume control, the primary market will likely be oversupplied,
resulting in lower grower prices.
The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in New
York, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, are the restricted areas for
this crop year with a combined total production of 310 million pounds.
A 29 percent restriction means 220 million pounds will be available to
be shipped to primary markets from these five states. The 220 million
pounds from the restricted districts, 5 million pounds from the
unrestricted districts (Oregon and Pennsylvania), and the 81 million
pound carry-in inventory would make a total of 306 million pounds
available as free tonnage for the primary markets. This is similar to
the 305 million pounds of free tonnage made available last year. This
is enough to cover the 251 million pounds of total utilization in 2015-
16, while providing substantial carry-out. Further, the Board could
meet and recommend the release of additional volume during the crop
year if conditions so warranted.
Prior to the implementation of the order, grower prices often did
not cover the cost of production. The most recent costs of production
determined by representatives of Michigan State University are an
estimated $0.33 per pound. To assess the impact that volume control has
on the prices growers receive for their product, an econometric model
has been developed. Based on the model, the use of volume control would
have a positive impact on grower returns for this crop year. With
volume control, grower prices are estimated to be approximately $0.06
per pound higher than without restrictions. In addition, absent volume
control, the industry could start to build large amounts of unwanted
inventories. These inventories would have a depressing effect on grower
prices.
Retail demand is assumed to be highly inelastic, which indicates
that changes in price do not result in significant changes in the
quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect fluctuations
in cherry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no
effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in
retail sales.
The free and restricted percentages established by this rule
provide the market with optimum supply and apply uniformly to all
regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. As the
restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs,
when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden
on small entities as compared to large entities.
The stabilizing effects of this action benefit all handlers by
helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply
fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all growers
and handlers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their
tart cherries would generate. Growers and handlers, regardless of size,
benefit from the stabilizing effects of this restriction. In addition,
the increased carry-out should provide processors enough supply to meet
market needs going into the next season.
The Board considered alternatives in its preliminary restriction
discussions that affected this action. Regarding demand, the Board
began with the actual sales average of 230 million pounds. However, the
Board noted that some previously contracted sales would be due for
delivery in the coming season. In order to avoid undersupplying the
market, the Board determined that the calculation of the optimum supply
should include an additional adjustment for that purpose. After
discussion, an adjustment of an additional 22 million pounds was made
in the 2016-17 available supply of tart cherries as it was determined
that this amount would best meet the industry's
[[Page 28753]]
sales needs. Thus, the other alternative levels were rejected.
Regarding the carry-out value, the Board considered a range of
alternatives. One member suggested the Board begin with 57 million
pounds, approximately a quarter of average annual sales. Other members
suggested alternatives as high as 70 million pounds. However, some
members were concerned about leaving too much fruit on the market at
the end of the season and depressing prices going into the next year.
The Board determined three months of sales would be a good estimate for
what is needed at the end of the season, as there is a three-month gap
between the calculation of carry-out at the end of one season and the
availability of fruit from the next season. Thus, the other
alternatives were rejected.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0177, Tart
Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. No changes in those
requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any
changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This action will not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tart cherry
handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has
not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this final rule. Further, the public comments received
concerning the proposal did not address the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
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.
In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout
the tart cherry industry, and all interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all
issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 23, 2016, and September 8,
2016, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and
small, were able to express views on this issue.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal
Register on March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14481). Copies of the rule were sent
via email to all Board members and tart cherry handlers. Finally, the
rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of
the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending April 20, 2017,
was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.
Eleven comments were received during the comment period in response
to the proposal. Four comments favored the proposed regulation and
seven comments opposed the proposed regulation. One comment received
was signed by 67 industry members. The commenters included growers,
handlers, Board members, an industry representative, economic policy
and law students, individuals, and one anonymous cherry consumer. Most
of the points made by the commenters in opposition had been discussed
prior to the Board's vote recommending this action.
The comment signed by 67 industry members asserted the United
States government import data indicate that 40 percent of tart cherry
consumption in the 2015 season was from imported products. AMS's
analysis of the Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural
Trade System (GATS) indicates an equivalent of more than 230 million
pounds of cherries products were imported into the U.S. in the 2016
season. The imported volume has remained above 230 million pounds since
the 2014 season. According to the data, tart cherry juice concentrate
represents by far the largest segment of imports and has experienced
tremendous growth beginning in 2012.
Five of the comments in opposition, including the comment signed by
67 industry members, reference the absence of imported tart cherry
products in the OSF. All of these commenters implied that not including
imported tart cherry products into the OSF calculation disregards a
large portion of the demand for tart cherries. As a result, these
commenters since believe the proposed rule fails to bring supply into
balance with demand in the targeted market. The comment with 67
signatures states the federal marketing order does not account for the
total demand of tart cherry products in the US because imported
products are not included in the formula. Another commenter suggested
not considering imported products in the OSF indicates the Board's
recommended restriction is arbitrary and capricious.
The OSF presented to the Board included several adjustments to
avoid the possibility of undersupplying the market. In determining
demand, the Board takes into account many factors, including previous
sales history and an analysis of economic factors having a bearing on
the market. The final percentages recommended by the Board included
several adjustments to supply additional fruit to the market. In
calculating these adjustments for determining demand in the OSF, the
Board also considered supplies of competing commodities and the
additional ten percent added for the market growth factor. This was
noted by one of the commenters voicing support for the proposed
regulation. The economic adjustment added 22 million pounds and the
market growth factor added 23 million pounds for an additional 55
million pounds beyond the average sales.
Under the order, when computing and determining final percentages
for recommendation to the Secretary, the Board must give consideration
to several factors including supplies of competing commodities and
economic factors having a bearing on cherry markets. At the meetings on
June 23, 2016, and September 8, 2016, the Board discussed its concerns
regarding the economic impact of imports. At the September meeting,
following the motion to adopt the OSF as presented, several comments
and observations were made regarding the matter of imports. However,
none of the members suggested an alternative adjustment for imports.
Additionally, the Board did not propose amending the order language in
section 930.50 to include imports as a factor in calculating the OSF.
Most of the comments at the September meeting supported the motion to
adopt the OSF as presented.
The comment with 67 signatures also states that the domestic
industry has been unable to supply the significant growth in
consumption of dried and juiced cherry products. Data concur that
domestic production alone would not replace the imported volume in
recent years. However, the Board reported steady or increased overall
domestic sales from 2013-15, even though each of those seasons were
regulated. The use of diversion credits allowed handlers to ship an
additional 27.5 million pounds of restricted fruit during the 2015-16
season in addition to free sales. Despite this growth, the industry
reported a remaining free inventory of over 80 million pounds going
into the crop year,
[[Page 28754]]
suggesting availability of domestic fruit is not a concern.
Also at the September meeting, a Board member stated an adjustment
to the OSF for imports is one alternative, but the Board's preferred
alternative was to use restricted cherries for supplying new and
competing commodity markets. Therefore, alternatives were considered
consistent with Executive Order 13563. The member also stated that
restricting cherries under the order aids in stabilizing grower prices.
Placing excess cherries into the market is contrary to the purpose of
the order. The Board supports utilizing exempted markets for restricted
cherries as an alternative to storage. Exporting cherry products and
participating in new product and new market projects allows handlers to
sell restricted cherries into these markets.
Should domestic handlers decide to compete in these new markets, in
most cases, restricted cherries could be used and the handler could
receive diversion credits under the diversion provisions of the order.
Further, the Board recently recommended extending the maximum length of
these activities from three years to five years, creating even more
opportunities to pursue new markets. Consequently, handlers currently
have ample opportunity to compete for new markets using restricted
cherries while continuing to service traditional markets with
unrestricted cherries. In addition, should industry efforts cause
demand to exceed available volume, the Board could meet and recommend
the release of additional volume.
Another commenter opposed to the 29 percent or approximately 90
million pound restriction indicated the total percent restriction, over
the past three years, was 69 percent. However, the percent restriction
for each year cannot be added together to arrive at the total
restriction over the last three years. The calculation to derive the
percent restriction over the past three years is achieved by dividing
the total adjusted surplus by the total production in regulated
districts over the past three years. The pounds of regulated production
for 2014, 2015, and 2016 seasons were 295 million with 59 million
restricted, 240 million with 47 million restricted, and 310 million
with 91 million restricted, respectively. The total 197 million pounds
of surplus divided by the total regulated production of 845 million
equals a 23 percent restriction. The miscalculation from the commenter
in opposition overstated the total percent restriction for the past
three years by triple.
This commenter also stated that marketers of cherry products should
not be forced to hold volume off the market while imported products
enter the market freely. Contrary to the commenter's opinion, a Board
member at the September 8, 2016, meeting stated that placing excess
cherries into the market as a method of countering imports would only
lower grower prices significantly and would not be positive for the
grower community. Another Board member added that imports are capturing
a less profitable market while the domestic industry is serving more
profitable markets.
One commenter indicated the OSF was calculated incorrectly by
including the in-orchard diverted fruit as part of production in the
formula. This individual suggested if the in-orchard diverted fruit was
removed from production, the percentage would be 21 percent, instead of
29 percent restriction. However, 26.4 million pounds of in-orchard
diversion were accounted for when calculating the volume subject to
restriction from the regulated districts. This is consistent with the
method used to account for fruit produced in unrestricted districts.
The total production (341.3 million pounds) minus the in-orchard
diversions (26.4 million pounds) and production in unrestricted
districts (5.2 million pounds) left 309.7 million pounds subject to
restriction. The Board divided the surplus of 90.6 million pounds by
this volume to arrive at 29 percent restricted and 71 percent free
market cherries.
One comment, submitted twice, from two students in opposition to
this regulation suggested the government should not intervene and
require cherry farmers to restrict supply. This comment assumed the
order restricts the amount of tart cherries that can be produced.
Volume regulation under the order is a tool for the tart cherry
industry to stabilize market conditions due to fluctuations in supply
and the inelastic nature of demand for tart cherries. This action does
not regulate growers' production of the commodity. This regulatory
action is a restriction on domestic tart cherry products handled for
the market. This regulation will only restrict cherries purchased for
handling. Further, this action is a recommendation from the tart cherry
industry as represented by the Board made up of growers, handlers, and
a member of the public. The Board considered not regulating as a
possible alternative, consistent with Executive Order 13563, but this
consideration was rejected after reviewing production data.
One commenter opposed the restriction because it would reduce tart
cherry production and not allow the producers to benefit from
maximizing the crop. The commenter also concluded the restriction would
make it difficult for the industry to reach optimum supply. As
previously mentioned, this action does not restrict tart cherry
production. Production decisions are made well in advance of the
recommendation for volume restriction, which is discussed just prior to
harvest and finalized following harvest. Unlike some other commodities
like row crops, tree crops such as tart cherries cannot be easily taken
out of production. This action regulates only the handling of tart
cherries.
Regarding the commenter's second concern, USDA requires 110 percent
of average sales be made available under any volume regulation. The
Board recommended an economic adjustment for the 2016-17 season to make
even more fruit available, going beyond the initial optimum supply
calculation. While the restriction may not impact production costs,
producers do experience a drop in price when the market is
oversupplied. When the market approaches optimum supply, prices tend to
be more stable.
All four of the proponents of this action suggest the restriction
will stabilize the cherry industry's economy. Three of the proponents
made reference to the industry wide support for the recommended
restriction, as represented by the Board's vote in which 16 members,
the majority of the Board, voted in favor, two abstained and two
opposed the recommended restriction. One of these proponents indicated
this level of support is significantly greater than the requisite two-
thirds majority required for Board action. Further, two proponents made
reference that the action is supported by a large majority of the
industry.
Three proponents of this action recognized the Board's
consideration of the opponents' concerns in their comments on the
proposal. All three noted the matter of imports has been addressed by
the Board at several meetings. One proponent recognized the Board
established a committee to suggest alternative ways to increase
domestic juice and juice concentrate sales. Another commenter suggested
if growers and processors want to account for imports in a way other
than through adjustments, then the Board should focus on amending the
order language for determining optimum supply to account for imports.
All three proponents made reference to the Board's efforts in
promoting the exemption process as a method of competing with imported
cherry products. One commenter noted the
[[Page 28755]]
Board's recommendation for extending the time from one year to three
years for new product and new market exemptions that was implemented in
the previous season. As mentioned previously, the Board has recommended
a further expansion of the timeframe. The additional time will allow
opportunity for more cherries to qualify for exemption in response to
the level of imported cherry products.
One commenter referenced the opportunities available to use both
in-orchard and post-harvest diversion to comply with a restriction. The
commenter stated the Federal marketing order provides major incentive
to expand sales by using restricted fruit to serve new markets, new
products, and exports. Additionally, there is incentive in place for
growers to divert excess fruit where there is no market or where the
cost associated with marketing the fruit may not increase returns.
Growers who choose to divert in the orchard can be issued certificates
by the Board that can be sold to handlers to meet their restriction
requirements.
One commenter noted the Board felt the final calculations were
appropriate. They also stated that the majority of the industry
approved the order in its last referendum, believing that the order
brings more returns to growers. Another proponent noted, even with the
restriction, sales are not being lost due to lack of available
unrestricted cherries. The carry-in from July 2016 (81 million lbs.)
and the projected availability of free market carry-out (57 million
lbs.) indicate the restriction is not a factor in limiting sales of
tart cherry products. The Board deliberated thoroughly on whether or
not to make an additional economic adjustment to account for imported
cherry products. However, no motion was made for an additional
adjustment to reflect the impact of imported cherry products. As one
commenter noted, there is a lack of consensus on how to factor imports
into the final calculation.
Further, according to Foreign Agricultural Service's GATS database,
though imported cherry products remained high (230 million lbs.
equivalent) during the 2016 calendar year, the volume is down from the
2015 calendar year (267 million lbs. equivalent) and also below the
2014 calendar year (244 million lbs. equivalent). The final NASS prices
for the 2016 season are not yet available, but from 2013-15, grower
prices were stable, ranging from $0.34 to $0.36 per pound. Thus, when
using available sales, utilization, and price data from previous years
it is difficult to determine what, if any, specific negative impact
imports have had on the market for domestic tart cherries and then
account for that impact in the OSF.
As previously stated, there are more than 309 million pounds of
tart cherries available for free sales for 2016-17. This volume exceeds
total sales from 2015-16 of both free and restricted cherries of 288
million pounds. Further, the order provides numerous alternatives for
the use of restricted fruit, such as handler diversion, for complying
with the recommended restriction. Additionally, the USDA announced the
intent to purchase over 10 million pounds of cherry products in the
2016-2017 season as surplus purchases. Therefore, as stated in the RFA,
it is not anticipated that this action will unduly burden growers or
handlers.
Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based
on the comments received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and
specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions
about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the
previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the
information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the
effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already shipping
tart cherries from the 2016-17 crop. Further, handlers are aware of
this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day
comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tart cherries.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is
amended as follows:
PART 930--TART CHERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW YORK,
PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 930 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
0
2. Section 930.151 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 930.151 Desirable carry-out inventory.
For the 2016 crop year, the desirable carry-out inventory, for the
purposes of determining an optimum supply volume, will be 57 million
pounds.
0
3. Section 930.256 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 930.256 Free and restricted percentages for the 2016-17 crop
year.
The percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the
crop year beginning on July 1, 2016, which shall be free and
restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage,
71 percent and restricted percentage, 29 percent.
Dated: June 20, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13241 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P