This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

65357 

Vol. 76, No. 204 

Friday, October 21, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 930 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0047; FV11–930–1 

FR] 

Tart Cherries Grown in Michigan, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wisconsin; 

Suspension of Order Regulations 

Regarding Random Row Diversion 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule changes the grower 

diversion regulations prescribed under 

the marketing order for tart cherries 

(order). The order regulates the handling 

of tart cherries grown in the States of 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin and is administered locally 

by the Cherry Industry Administrative 

Board (Board). This rule suspends 

indefinitely the regulations establishing 

random row as a method of grower 

diversion. With growers consistently 

choosing other diversion methods 

which offer more flexibility and fewer 

potential problems, the Board 

recommended this suspension to bring 

grower diversion requirements in line 

with current industry practices. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, 

or Christian D. Nissen, Regional 

Manager, Southeast Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or E-mail: 

Jennie.Varela@ams.usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Laurel.May@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 grown in 

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 Order 

12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

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 changes the grower 

diversion regulations prescribed under 

the order. This rule suspends 

indefinitely the regulations establishing 

random row as a method of grower 

diversion. With growers consistently 

choosing other diversion methods 

which offer more flexibility and fewer 

potential problems, the Board 

recommended this suspension to bring 

grower diversion requirements in line 

with current industry practices. The 

Board unanimously recommended this 

action at a meeting on March 24, 2011. 

Section 930.58 of the order provides 

authority for voluntary grower 

diversion. Under volume regulation, 

growers can divert all or a portion of 

their cherries which otherwise, upon 

delivery to a handler, would be subject 

to regulation. Section 930.158 prescribes 

the rules and regulations for grower 

diversion, including the procedures and 

deadline dates for applying for 

diversion and the types of diversion 

available to growers. Currently, there are 

four types of grower diversion: Random 

row, whole block, partial block, and inorchard tank. This rule suspends the 

portions of § 930.158 that provide 

random row as an option under grower 

diversion. 

The order contains volume control 

provisions that allow the industry to 

address fluctuations in production from 

season to season, helping to stabilize 

supplies and prices. When volume 

control is in effect, free and restricted 

percentages are established. Handlers 

can meet their restricted percentage 

obligation by placing cherries in 

inventory reserve, diverting cherries 

themselves, or redeeming grower 

diversion certificates. 

Under voluntary grower diversion, 

growers can divert cherries from 

production in exchange for Board issued 

grower diversion certificates stating the 

quantity diverted. Growers can then 

present these certificates to handlers 

who may redeem them as a method of 

complying with their restricted 

percentage obligation under volume 

regulation. By diverting cherries from 

production, growers can avoid the costs 

of harvesting and transporting fruit, 

reduce the supply, and mitigate the 

downward pressure on prices that result 

from oversupply. 

Following the promulgation of the 

order in 1996, the Board recommended 

regulations outlining two grower 

diversion options for the 1997 crop year, 

whole block and random row (63 FR 

20019). Under whole block diversion, 

growers select entire orchard blocks to 

be left unharvested. With random row 

diversion, the Board randomly selects 

rows of trees the grower is to leave 

unharvested, providing growers with a 

way to divert a portion of an orchard 

rather than a whole orchard block. 

For the 1998 crop year and 

subsequent seasons, the grower 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65358 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

diversion program was expanded to 

include two additional options, partial 

block and in-orchard tank diversions (63 

FR 33523). Partial block diversion 

allows the grower to select a contiguous 

portion of an orchard block that will be 

left unharvested. With in-orchard tank 

diversion, cherries are harvested into 

tanks, the volume is calculated, and 

then diverted in the orchard. 

The addition of these options 

provided growers with greater flexibility 

when considering diversion, and 

marked a substantial decline in the use 

of random row. For the last ten years, 

random row has been the least utilized 

grower diversion option, and accounted 

for less than three percent of total 

grower diversion during the last three 

seasons. 

During the discussion of this issue, 

the Board noted several issues that have 

contributed to the nominal use of 

random row as a grower diversion 

option. Random row diversion is the 

least flexible of grower diversion 

options in terms of quality control. 

When a grower selects a whole block or 

partial block to divert, the grower 

controls which fruit will be harvested 

and which trees will be left 

unharvested. Similarly, under inorchard tank diversion, the grower 

determines what fruit is picked and 

stored in the tanks for diversion. 

Consequently, these three methods 

allow the grower to incorporate quality 

into the decision of which cherries to 

divert. Delivering higher quality fruit 

not only brings the grower a greater 

return, but higher quality benefits the 

industry overall. 

Under the random row method of 

diversion, the diverted rows are selected 

randomly by the Board. This could 

result in the best quality fruit being left 

in the orchard, with lower quality fruit 

delivered to handlers, leading to lower 

grower returns. 

In addition to quality concerns, the 

logistics of random row also present 

particular challenges to the grower. 

With the exception of in-orchard tank 

diversion, all grower diversion methods 

require the grower to submit an orchard 

map to the Board. The burden of having 

to keep orchard maps precisely up-todate is borne by growers. The random 

selection of rows by the Board places 

additional importance on the accuracy 

and precision of submitted maps. 

Inaccurate maps can lead to harvesting 

errors, with rows selected for diversion 

being inadvertently harvested. 

Even if maps are kept current, 

diverting random rows during harvest 

can be challenging. While whole and 

partial block diversions allow growers 

to leave contiguous areas unharvested, 

random row diversions require that 

specified rows be left unharvested, 

increasing the likelihood of error. 

Further, given the prevalence of contract 

harvesting, workers are often unfamiliar 

with the orchards they are harvesting, 

and mistakes are made in identifying 

the specific rows to be left unharvested. 

The greater potential for error during 

harvesting is of major concern to 

growers because penalties for errors in 

random row diversion are costly. If a 

grower discovers an error during 

harvest, two trees must be left 

unharvested for every one of the trees 

improperly harvested in order to remain 

in compliance, with the grower only 

receiving the original diversion amount. 

If the grower reports an error at the end 

of harvesting, a reduced diversion 

amount is calculated. If an unreported 

error is discovered by the Board after 

harvesting is complete, no diversion 

certificate would be issued. 

In addition to the issues affecting 

grower interest in this option, the Board 

also has concerns regarding the use of 

random row diversion. Specifically, the 

Board is concerned about the potential 

for miscalculations or misuse that could 

lead to overstated diversion amounts. 

Random row diversion differs from the 

other options in that the diverted 

tonnage receiving certificates is 

calculated based on volume delivered 

from the orchard. In contrast, whole and 

partial block diversions involve 

sampling trees in the selected area to 

determine the volume being diverted 

before harvest takes place, and inorchard tank diversion is determined by 

the actual volume measured in the 

tanks. 

Calculating the diverted volume after 

delivery creates opportunity for error. It 

can be difficult to determine if the 

volume delivered to the handler all 

came from appropriately mapped 

groves, included in the grower’s 

diversion application. With diversion 

calculations based on delivered volume, 

it is important that the volume only 

include cherries from those orchards in 

which random rows were diverted. 

Some growers care for and deliver fruit 

from orchards other than their own. 

There is concern that the handler 

accepting delivery could easily mistake 

how much volume came from the 

grower’s own mapped orchards, 

resulting in the overstatement of the 

amount diverted. 

With the availability of other 

diversion options that offer the grower 

more flexibility and less potential 

problems, random row represents a very 

small percentage of total grower 

diversion. Further, with the higher 

potential for harvesting errors and for 

miscalculations of diversion amounts, 

the Board believes random row is the 

most problematic of the diversion 

options. Consequently, the Board 

unanimously recommended this action 

which suspends the regulations 

providing random row as a grower 

diversion option. The Board voted to 

suspend the regulations rather than 

eliminating them altogether in the event 

the industry would want to reinstate 

random row diversion in the future. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

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 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 40 handlers 

of tart cherries who are subject to 

regulation under the marketing order 

and approximately 600 producers of tart 

cherries in the regulated area. Small 

agricultural service firms have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) as those having 

annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, 

and small agricultural producers are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). 

According to the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, and 

Board data, the average annual grower 

price for tart cherries during the 2009– 

2010 season was $0.197 per pound, and 

total shipments were around 227 

million pounds. Therefore, average 

receipts for tart cherry producers were 

around $75,000, well below the SBA 

threshold for small producers. The Food 

Institute estimates an f.o.b. price of 

$0.84 per pound for frozen tart cherries, 

which make up the majority of 

processed tart cherries. Using this data, 

average annual handler receipts were 

about $4.8 million, also below the SBA 

threshold for small agricultural service 

firms. Assuming a normal distribution, 

the majority of producers and handlers 

of tart cherries may be classified as 

small entities. 

This action changes the grower 

diversion regulations prescribed under 

the order. This rule suspends 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 65359 

indefinitely the regulations in § 930.158 

establishing random row as a method of 

grower diversion. With growers 

consistently choosing other diversion 

methods which offer more flexibility 

and fewer potential problems, the Board 

recommended this suspension to bring 

grower diversion requirements in line 

with current industry practices. The 

authority for this action is provided for 

in § 930.58 of the order. The Board 

unanimously recommended this action 

at a meeting on March 24, 2011. 

This final rule will not impose any 

additional costs on growers. The grower 

diversion program under the order is 

completely voluntary. In an effort to 

stabilize supplies and prices, the tart 

cherry industry uses mechanisms under 

the order to attempt to bring supply and 

demand into balance. Under voluntary 

grower diversion, growers can divert 

cherries from production in exchange 

for Board issued grower diversion 

certificates stating the quantity diverted. 

Growers can then present these 

certificates to handlers who may redeem 

them as a method of complying with 

their restricted percentage obligation 

under volume regulation. By diverting 

cherries from production, growers can 

avoid the costs of harvesting and 

transporting fruit, reduce the supply, 

and mitigate the downward pressure on 

prices that result from oversupply. 

This action suspends only the 

regulations that provide random row as 

a method of grower diversion. The other 

three options, whole block, partial 

block, and in-orchard tank, remain 

unchanged by this action. Random row 

is the least utilized of the grower 

diversion options, with the other three 

options accounting for 97 percent of 

diversion volume. Consequently, this 

change brings the regulations in line 

with current industry preferences and 

practices. Further, the remaining grower 

diversion options offer the grower some 

flexibility to control quality, which in 

turn could increase grower returns. The 

effects of this rule are not expected to 

be disproportionately greater or less for 

small entities than for larger entities. 

One alternative action considered by 

the Board was to remove the regulations 

pertaining to random row diversion. 

However, the Board agreed that 

suspension would be the most 

appropriate action should the industry 

determine it would like to reinstate 

random row as a diversion option in the 

future. Thus, termination was rejected 

as an alternative. 

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 the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0177, Tart 

Cherries Grown in the States of MI, NY, 

PA, OR, UT, WA and WI. 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 rule 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 March 24, 2011, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action as published in the Federal 

Register on Monday, July 18, 2011 (76 

FR 42072). Copies of the rule were 

mailed or sent via facsimile 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 10-day 

comment period ending July 28, 2011, 

was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. 

One comment was received during 

the comment period. The commenter, a 

small grower, opposed the proposed 

change. The commenter claimed that 

random row diversion allows their 

operation to save time and labor. The 

commenter stated that by using random 

row they do not have to wait for weights 

and estimates for each load and it 

speeds up harvesting as the trees that 

are to remain unpicked are marked in 

advance. 

Grower diversion is a voluntary 

program established under the order. 

Growers can choose whether or not they 

want to participate. While this action 

suspends random row as an option 

under grower diversion, three options 

remain: whole block, partial block, and 

in-orchard tank. Of these options, whole 

block and partial block can be used 

similarly to random row by leaving 

segments of the grower’s production 

unharvested. Further, like random row, 

weights and estimates of each load are 

not required and the trees that are to 

remain unharvested are determined in 

advance, so harvest speeds are not 

affected. In addition to having 

characteristics similar to random row, 

whole and partial block diversions also 

provide the grower with control over 

which trees will be left unharvested, 

allowing the grower some flexibility to 

control for quality. 

Accordingly, no changes will be made 

to the rule as proposed, based on the 

comment received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May 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 Board and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that the provision suspended, as 

hereinafter set forth, no longer tends 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 

processing tart cherries from the 2011 

crop and the Board wants to implement 

this change as soon as possible. Further, 

handlers are aware of this rule, which 

was recommended at a public meeting. 

Also, a 10-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 MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, 

PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, UTAH, 

WASHINGTON, AND WISCONSIN 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 930 continues to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

§ 930.158 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 930.158: 

■ A. Suspend paragraph (b)(1) 

indefinitely. 

■ B. In paragraph (c)(3), redesignate the 

first two sentences as paragraph (c)(3)(i) 

and the remaining sentences as 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii). 

■ C. Newly designated paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii) is suspended indefinitely. 

Dated: October 14, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27276 Filed 10–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 953 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0027; FV11–953–1 

FR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Southeastern 

States; Suspension of Marketing Order 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule continues in effect 

the interim rule that suspended the 

marketing order for Irish potatoes grown 

in Southeastern states (order), and the 

rules and regulations implemented 

thereunder, through March 1, 2014. The 

order regulates the handling of Irish 

potatoes grown in Southeastern states 

and is administered locally by the 

Southeastern Potato Committee 

(Committee). The Committee believes 

advances in farming technology and 

production quality have reduced the 

need for the order. When considering 

the costs associated with continuing the 

order, the Committee unanimously 

recommended that the order be 

suspended. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2011 

through March 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dawana J. Clark, Marketing Specialist, 

or Kenneth G. Johnson, Regional 

Manager, DC Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (301) 734– 

5243, Fax: (301) 734–5275, or E-mail: 

Dawana.Clark@ams.usda.gov or 

Kenneth.Johnson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 104 and Marketing Order No. 953, 

both as amended (7 CFR part 953), 

regulating the handling of Irish potatoes 

grown in Southeastern states, 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ 

The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This rule continues in effect the 

interim rule that suspended the order 

and all provisions prescribed 

thereunder through March 1, 2014. The 

suspension includes, but is not limited 

to, grade, size, quality, assessment, 

reporting, and inspection requirements. 

The Committee believes advances in 

farming technology and production 

quality have reduced the need for the 

order. When considering the costs 

associated with continuing the order, 

the Committee agreed that the order 

should be suspended. The Committee 

met on February 17, 2011, and 

unanimously recommended suspending 

the order for three years, through March 

1, 2014. 

The order was promulgated in 1948, 

and regulates the handling of Irish 

potatoes grown in designated counties 

of Virginia and North Carolina. The 

order has been used to provide the 

industry with grade, size, quality, and 

inspection requirements. The order also 

authorizes reporting and recordkeeping 

functions required for the operation of 

the order. The program is funded by 

assessments imposed on handlers. 

Over the past several years, the 

Southeastern potato industry has been 

in decline, with acreage and production 

trending downward. Production has 

fallen from an estimated 1,600,000 

hundredweight for the 1996–97 season, 

to a current estimate of 600,000 

hundredweight for the 2010–11 season. 

In 1996, there were approximately 150 

growers and 60 handlers in the 

production area. Currently, there are 

approximately 20 growers and 10 

handlers covered in the production area. 

The Committee met February 17, 

2011, to discuss the continued need for 

the order. During the discussion, several 

members mentioned that the order was 

promulgated at a time when the 

industry was having an issue with the 

quality of potatoes being produced. The 

purpose of the order was to establish 

standards to improve the quality of 

marketed product. 

Since the implementation of the 

order, the quality of Southeastern 

potatoes has greatly improved. 

Advances in farm machinery and 

improvements in the grading process 

have helped to ensure that only quality 

product is being shipped to buyers. 

Concerns the industry previously had 

prior to implementation of the order are 

no longer an issue, and for the past 

several years, some industry members 

have started questioning the continued 

need for the order and its associated 

costs. 

At the meeting, members were 

informed that to maintain the order, the 

Committee would have to incur some 

additional administrative expenses. To 

cover these costs, the Committee would 

need to increase the assessment rate. 

Committee members agreed that the 

industry would not support an 

assessment increase. 

In addition to the assessment costs, 

comments were also made regarding the 

cost of inspection by the Committee 

required under the order. It was stated 

that some industry members see the cost 

of mandatory inspection as an 

unnecessary burden. Other Committee 

members expressed concern over 

whether inspection would still be 

available if the order was suspended. 

This issue was resolved when members 

were assured that inspection would still 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES