Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29945

2000, is adopted as a final rule without

change.

Dated: May 4, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–11642 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 993

[Docket No. FV00–993–2 FR]

Dried Prunes Produced in California;

Undersized Regulation for the 2000–

2001 Crop Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule changes the

undersized prune regulation for dried

prunes received by handlers from

producers and dehydrators under

Marketing Order No. 993 for the 2000–

2001 crop year. The marketing order

regulates the handling of dried prunes

produced in California and is

administered locally by the Prune

Marketing Committee (Committee). This

rule removes the smallest, least

desirable of the marketable size dried

prunes produced in California from

human consumption outlets, and allows

handlers to dispose of undersized

prunes in such outlets as livestock feed.

The Committee estimated that this rule

will reduce the excess of dried prunes

expected at the end of the 1999–2000

crop year by approximately 5,100 tons,

leaving sufficient prunes to fulfill

foreign and domestic trade demand.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing

Specialist, California Marketing Field

Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,

suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721;

telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559)

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical

Advisor, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720-

2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698.

Small businesses may request

information on complying with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525-S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 993, both as amended (7

CFR part 993), regulating the handling

of dried prunes produced in California,

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’

The marketing agreement and order are

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

(Department) 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. This rule will

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

The Act provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

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

handler subject to an order may file

with the Secretary 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary’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 undersized

regulation in § 993.49(c) of the prune

marketing order for the 2000–2001 crop

year for inventory management

purposes. The regulation removes

prunes passing through specified screen

openings. For French prunes, the screen

opening will be increased from 23⁄32 to 24⁄32 of an inch in diameter; and for nonFrench prunes, the opening will be

increased from 28⁄32 to 30⁄32 of an inch

in diameter. This rule removes the

smallest, least desirable of the

marketable size dried prunes produced

in California from human consumption

outlets. The rule will be in effect from

August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001,

and was unanimously recommended by

the Committee at a November 30, 1999,

meeting.

Section 993.19b of the prune

marketing order defines undersized

prunes as prunes which pass freely

through a round opening of a specified

diameter. Section 993.49(c) of the prune

marketing order establishes an

undersized regulation of 23⁄32 of an inch

for French prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings have been in effect for quality

control purposes. Section 993.49(c) also

provides that the Secretary, upon a

recommendation of the Committee, may

establish larger openings for undersized

dried prunes whenever it is determined

that supply conditions for a crop year

warrant such regulation. Section

993.50(g) states in part: ‘‘No handler

shall ship or otherwise dispose of, for

human consumption, the quantity of

prunes determined by the inspection

service pursuant to § 993.49(c) to be

undersized prunes* * *’’ Pursuant to

§ 993.52, minimum standards, pack

specifications, including the openings

prescribed in § 993.49(c), may be

modified by the Secretary, on the basis

of a recommendation of the Committee

or other information.

Pursuant to the authority in § 993.52

of the order, § 993.400 modifies the

undersized openings prescribed in

§ 993.49(c) to permit undersized

regulations using openings of 23⁄32 or 24⁄32 of an inch for French prunes, and 28⁄32 or 30⁄32 of an inch for non-French

prunes.

During the 1974–75 and 1977–78 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established by the Department at

23⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.401

and 993.404, respectively (39 FR 32733,

September 11, 1974; and 42 FR 49802,

September 28, 1977). In addition, the

Committee recommended and the

Department established volume

regulation percentages during the 1974–

75 crop year with an undersized

regulation at the aforementioned 23⁄32

and 28⁄32 inch diameter screen sizes.

During the 1975–76 and 1976–77 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established at 24⁄32 of an inch for

French prunes, and 30⁄32 of an inch for

non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.402

and 993.403 respectively (40 FR 42530,

September 15, 1975; and 41 FR 37306,

September 3, 1976). The prune industry

had an excess supply of prunes,

particularly small-sized prunes. Rather

than recommending volume regulation

percentages for the 1975–76, 1976–77

and 1977–78 crop years, the Committee

29946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

recommended the establishment of an

undersized prune regulation applicable

to all prunes received by handlers from

producers and dehydrators during each

of those crop years.

The objective of the undersized

regulations during each of those crop

years was to preclude the use of small

prunes in manufactured prune products,

such as juice and concentrate. Handlers

could not market undersized prunes for

human consumption, but could dispose

of them in nonhuman outlets such as

livestock feed.

With these experiences as a basis, the

marketing order was amended on

August 1, 1982, establishing the

continuing quality-related regulation for

undersized French and non-French

prunes under § 993.49(c). That

regulation has removed from the

marketable supply those prunes which

are not desirable for use in prune

products.

As in the 1970’s, the prune industry

is currently experiencing an excess

supply of prunes, particularly in the

smaller sizes. During the 1998–99 crop

year, an undersized prune regulation

was established at 24⁄32 of an inch for

French prunes, and 30⁄32 of an inch for

non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in § 993.405

(63 FR 20058, April 23, 1998). At its

meeting on December 1, 1998, the

Committee recognized that the 1998–99

prune crop was about 50 percent of the

normal size; however, with the large

carryin inventories and anticipated large

1999–2000 prune crop, the Committee

unanimously recommended continuing

an undersized prune regulation at 24⁄32

of an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes. These diameter

openings were established in § 993.406

(63 FR 23759, May 4, 1999) and made

effective from August 1, 1999, through

July 31, 2000.

For the 1998–99 crop year, the carryin

inventory level reached a record high of

126,485 natural condition tons.

Excessive inventories tend to dampen

producer returns, and cause weak

marketing conditions. The carryin for

the 1999–2000 crop year was reduced to

59,944 natural condition tons. This

reduction was due to the low level of

salable production in 1998–99 (about

102,521 natural condition tons and 50

percent of a normal size crop) and the

undersized prune regulation. According

to the Committee, the desired inventory

level to keep trade distribution channels

full while awaiting the new crop has

ranged between 35,353 and 42,071

natural condition tons since the 1996–

97 crop year, while the actual inventory

has ranged between 59,944 and 126,485

natural condition tons since that year.

The desired inventory level for early

season shipments fluctuates from yearto-year depending on market conditions.

At its meeting on November 30, 1999,

the Committee unanimously

recommended continuing an undersized

prune regulation at 24⁄32 of an inch in

diameter for French prunes and 30⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for non-French

prunes during the 2000–2001 crop year

to help manage large prune supplies.

This regulation will be in effect from

August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001.

The Committee estimated that there

will be an excess of about 8,200 natural

condition tons of dried prunes as of July

31, 2000. This rule will continue to

remove primarily small-sized prunes

from human consumption channels,

consistent with the undersized prune

regulation that was implemented for the

1998–99 and 1999–2000 crop years. It is

estimated that approximately 5,100

natural condition tons of small prunes

will be removed from human

consumption channels during the 2000–

2001 crop year. This will leave

sufficient prunes to fill domestic and

foreign trade demand during the 2000–

2001 crop year, and provide an adequate

carryout on July 31, 2001, for early

season shipments until the new crop is

available for shipment. According to the

Committee, the desired inventory level

to keep trade distribution channels full

while awaiting the new crop is about

42,000 natural condition tons.

In its deliberations, the Committee

reviewed statistics reflecting: (1) A

worldwide prune demand which has

been relatively stable at about 260,000

tons; (2) a worldwide oversupply that is

expected to continue growing for several

more years (estimated at 350,845 natural

condition tons by the year 2003); (3) a

continuing oversupply situation in

California caused by increased

production from increased plantings

and higher yields per acre (between the

1990–91 and 1999–2000 crop years, the

yield ranged from 1.2 to 2.6 versus a 10

year average of 2.2 tons per acre); and

(4) California’s continued excess supply

situation. The production of these small

sizes ranged from 1,332 to 8,778 natural

condition tons during the 1990–91

through the 1998-99 crop years. The

Committee concluded that it had to

continue utilizing supply management

techniques to accelerate the return to a

balanced supply/demand situation in

the interest of the California dried prune

industry. The changes to the undersized

regulation for the 2000–2001 crop year

are the result of these deliberations, and

the Committee’s desire to bring supplies

more in line with market needs.

The current oversupply situation

facing the California prune industry has

been caused by four consecutive large

crops (1994–95 through 1997–98) of

over 180,000 natural condition tons.

This oversupply situation is expected to

continue over the next few years due to

new prune plantings in recent years

with higher yields per acre. The recent

prune plantings have a higher tree

density per acre than the older prune

plantings. During the 1990–91 crop

year, the non-bearing acreage totaled

5,900 acres; but by 1998–99, the nonbearing acreage had quadrupled to more

than 26,000 acres. The 1996–97 through

1998–99 yields have ranged from 1.2 to

2.6 tons per acre. Over the last 10 years,

the average was 2.2 tons per acre. The

1998–99 prune crop was exceptionally

light, (about 50 percent of normal size

or 103,000 tons), due to the unusually

cool and wet weather conditions caused

by the weather phenomenon known as

El Nino. Although the small 1998–99

crop helped reduce the existing

oversupply of small dried prunes,

supplies of small dried prunes remain

larger than needed to meet demand.

The 1999–2000 dried prune crop is

expected to be 172,000 natural

condition tons. Another large crop of

about 200,000 natural condition tons is

expected for the 2000–2001 crop year,

partly because of an anticipated increase

in bearing acreage.

Since the 1997–98 crop year,

producer prices for the 24⁄32 of an inch

in diameter French prunes have been

about $40–50 per ton, about $260–270

per ton below the cost of production.

The lower pricing of the smaller prunes

continued in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. It

is expected to continue as an incentive

for production of larger size prunes.

These larger sizes will help the industry

better meet the increasing market

demand for larger size pitted prunes.

The 1998–99 and 1999–2000

undersized prune rules of 24⁄32 of an

inch for French prunes and 30⁄32 of an

inch for non-French prunes have

expedited the reduction of small prune

inventories, but more needs to be done

to bring supplies into balance with

market demand. The excess inventory

on July 31, 1999, was 17,873 natural

condition tons, and only about 5,130

natural condition tons of dried prunes

are expected to be removed from the

1999–2000 marketable supply by the

current undersized regulation. The

Committee believes that the same

undersized regulation also should be

implemented during the 2000–2001

crop year to continue reducing the

inventories of small prunes, to help

reduce the expected large 2000–2001

prune crop supplies, and more quickly

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29947

bring supplies in line with demand.

Attainment of this goal will benefit all

of the producers and handlers of

California prunes.

The recommended decision of June 1,

1981 (46 FR 29271) regarding

undersized prunes states that the

undersized prune regulation at the 23⁄32

and 28⁄32 inch diameter size openings

will be continuous for the purposes of

quality control even in above parity

situations. It further states that any

change (i.e., increase) in the size of

those openings will not be for the

purpose of establishing a new qualityrelated minimum. Larger openings

would only be applicable when supply

conditions warrant the regulation of a

larger quantity of prunes as undersized

prunes. Thus, any regulation prescribing

openings larger than those in § 993.49(c)

should not be implemented when the

grower average price is expected to be

above parity. The season average price

received by prune growers averaged

about 49 percent of parity during the

1994 through 1998 seasons and is in a

downward trend. As discussed later, the

average grower price for prunes during

the 2000–2001 crop year is not expected

to be above parity, and implementation

of this more restrictive undersized

regulation will be appropriate in

reference to parity.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action does not impact

the dried prune import regulation

because the action to be implemented is

for volume control, not quality control.

The smaller diameter openings of 23⁄32

of an inch for French prunes and 28⁄32

of an inch for non-French prunes were

implemented to improve product

quality. The recommended increases to

24⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes are for purposes

of volume control. Therefore, the

increased diameters will not be applied

to imported prunes.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule 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 the rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 1,250

producers of dried prunes in the

production area and approximately 20

handlers subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201) as those having annual receipts

less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000.

An updated industry profile shows

that 7 out of 20 handlers (35 percent)

shipped over $5,000,000 worth of dried

prunes and could be considered large

handlers by the Small Business

Administration. Thirteen of the 20

handlers (65 percent) shipped under

$5,000,000 worth of prunes and could

be considered small handlers. An

estimated 109 producers, or less than 9

percent of the 1,250 total producers,

could be considered large growers with

annual income over $500,000. The

majority of handlers and producers of

California dried prunes may be

classified as small entities.

This final rule will establish an

undersized prune regulation of 24⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes for the 2000–2001 crop

year for inventory management

purposes. This change in regulation will

result in more of the smaller sized

prunes being classified as undersized

prunes, and is expected to benefit

producers, handlers, and consumers.

Since prune handlers already use 24⁄32

and 30⁄32 grader screens, small and large

producers and handlers will not incur

extra costs to purchase new screen sizes.

Moreover, because the quality related

undersized regulation has been in place

continuously since the early 1980’s, the

only additional cost resulting from the

change in regulations to the larger

screen openings will be the disposal of

additional undersized prune tonnage

(about 5,100 natural condition tons) to

nonhuman consumption outlets. The

larger screen openings currently in

place for 1999–2000 are expected to

remove 5,130 tons of dried prunes from

the excess marketable supply. The

Committee estimated that there will be

an excess of about 8,200 natural

condition tons of dried prunes on July

31, 2000. Implementation of the larger

openings in 2000–2001 is expected to

reduce the surplus by about 5,100 tons.

Because the benefits and costs of the

action will be directly proportional to

the quantity of 24⁄32 screen French

prunes and 30⁄32 screen non-French

prunes produced or handled, small

businesses should not be

disproportionately affected by the

action. While variation in sugar content,

prune density, and dry-away ratio vary

from county to county, they also vary

from orchard to orchard and season to

season. In the major producing areas of

the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys

(which account for over 99 percent of

the State’s production), the prunes

produced are homogeneous enough that

this action will not be viewed as

inequitable by large and small

producers in any area of the State.

The quantity of small prunes in a lot

is not dependent on whether a producer

or handler is small or large, but is

primarily dependent on cultural

practices, soil composition, and water

costs. The cost to minimize the quantity

of small prunes is similar for small and

large entities. The anticipated benefits

of this rule are not expected to be

disproportionately greater or lesser for

small handlers or producers than for

larger entities. The only additional costs

on producers and handlers expected

from the increased openings will be the

disposal of additional tonnage (now

estimated to be about 5,100 tons) to

nonhuman consumption outlets. These

costs are expected to be minimal and

will be offset by the benefits derived by

the elimination of some of the excess

supply of small-sized prunes.

At the November 30, 1999, meeting,

the Committee discussed the financial

impact of this change on handlers and

producers. Handlers and producers

receive higher returns for the larger size

prunes. Prunes eliminated through the

implementation of this rule have very

little value. As mentioned earlier, the

current situation for these small sizes is

quite bleak, with producers losing about

$260–270 on every ton they deliver to

handlers. The 1999–2000 grower field

price for 24⁄32 screen French prunes

ranges between $40 and $50 per ton, the

same as the 1998–99 year. The cost of

drying a ton of such prunes is $260 per

ton at a 4 to 1 dry-away ratio,

transportation is at least $20 per ton,

and the producer assessment paid to the

California Prune Board (a body which

administers the State marketing order

for promotion and research) is $50 per

ton. The total cost is about $330 per ton

which equates to a loss of about $280–

290 per ton for every ton of 24⁄32 screen

French prunes produced and delivered

to handlers.

Utilizing data provided by the

Committee, the Department has

29948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

evaluated the impact of the undersized

regulation change upon producers and

handlers in the industry. The analysis

shows that a reduction in the

marketable production and handler

inventories should probably result in

higher season-average prices which will

benefit all producers. The removal of

the smallest, least desirable of the

marketable dried prunes produced in

California from human consumption

outlets will eliminate an estimated

5,100 tons of small-sized dried prunes

during the 2000–2001 crop year from

the marketplace. This will help lessen

the negative marketing and pricing

effects resulting from the excess supply

situation facing the industry. California

prune handlers reported that they held

59,944 tons of natural condition prunes

on July 31, 1999, the end of the 1998–

99 crop year. The 59,944 ton year-end

inventory is larger than what is desired

for the prune industry. The desired

industry inventory level is based on an

average 12-week supply to keep trade

distribution channels full while

awaiting new crop. Currently, it is about

39,000 natural condition tons. This

leaves an inventory surplus of about

18,000 tons. The near normal size 1999–

2000 prune crop (172,000 tons) and

undersized regulation will help reduce

the surplus, but the anticipated large

2000–2001 prune crop is expected to

further worsen the supply imbalance.

As the marketable dried prune

inventories are reduced through this

action, and producers continue to

implement improved cultural and

thinning practices to produce larger

prunes, continued improvement in

producer returns is expected.

For the 1994–95 through the 1998–99

crop years, the season average price

received by the producers ranged from

a high of $1,120 per ton to a low of $784

per ton during the 1998–99 crop year.

The season average price received by

producers during that 5-year period

averaged about 49 percent of parity.

Based on available data and estimates of

prices, production, and other economic

factors, the season average producer

price for the 1999–2000 season is

expected to be about $905 per ton, or

about 43 percent of parity.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including making no

changes to the undersized prune

regulation and allowing market

dynamics to foster prune inventory

adjustments through lower prices on the

smaller prunes. While reduced grower

prices for small prunes are expected to

contribute toward a slow reduction in

dried prune inventories, the Committee

believed that the undersized rule change

is needed to expedite that reduction.

With the excess tonnage of dried

prunes, the Committee also considered

establishing a reserve pool and

diversion program to reduce the

oversupply situation. These initiatives

were not supported because they would

not specifically eliminate the smallest,

least valuable prunes which are in

oversupply. Instead, the reserve pool

and diversion program would eliminate

larger size prunes from human

consumption outlets. Reserve pools for

prunes have historically been

implemented on dried prunes regardless

of the size of the prunes. While the

marketing order also allows handlers to

remove the larger prunes from the pool

by replacing them with small prunes

and the value difference in cash, this

exchange would be cumbersome and

expensive to administer compared to

this rule.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action does not impact

the dried prune import regulation

because the action to be implemented is

for inventory management, not quality

control purposes. The smaller diameter

openings of 23⁄32 of an inch for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch for nonFrench prunes were implemented for

the purpose of improving product

quality. The increases to 24⁄32 of an inch

in diameter for French prunes and 30⁄32

of an inch in diameter for non-French

prunes are for purposes of inventory

management. Therefore, the increased

diameters will not be applied to

imported prunes.

This action will not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

California dried prune 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meeting

was widely publicized throughout the

prune industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the November 30,

1999, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express views on this issue. The

Committee itself is composed of twentytwo members. Seven are handlers,

fourteen are producers, and one is a

public member. Moreover, the

Committee and its Supply Management

Subcommittee have been reviewing this

supply management problem for the

second year, and this rule reflects their

deliberations completely.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on Wednesday, January 19,

2000 (65 FR 2908). Copies of this rule

were mailed or sent via facsimile to all

Committee members, alternates and

dried prune handlers. Finally, the rule

was made available through the Internet

by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

The rule provided a comment period

which ended April 17, 2000. No

comments were received. Accordingly,

no changes will be made to the rule as

proposed.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at the following web site:

http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/

moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

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.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993

Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is amended as

follows:

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 993 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 993.407 is added to read

as follows:

Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 993.407 Undersized prune regulation for

the 2000–2001 crop year.

Pursuant to §§ 993.49 paragraph (c)

and 993.52, an undersized prune

regulation for the 2000–2001 crop year

is hereby established. Undersized

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29949

prunes are prunes which pass through

openings as follows: for French prunes,

24⁄32 of an inch in diameter; for nonFrench prunes, 30⁄32 of an inch in

diameter.

Dated: May 4, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–11640 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 917

[KY–218–FOR]

Kentucky Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; approval of

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with one

exception, a proposed amendment to

the Kentucky regulatory program

(Kentucky program) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA). Kentucky is proposing

revisions to the Kentucky Revised

Statutes (KRS) pertaining to bonding

and permits. The amendment is

intended to revise the Kentucky

program to be consistent with the

corresponding Federal regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Kovacic, Field Office

Director, Lexington Field Office, 2675

Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky

40503. Telephone: (606) 233–2894.

Email: bkovacic@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Kentucky Program

II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment

III. Director’s Findings

IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments

V. Director’s Decision

VI. Procedural Determinations

I. Background on the Kentucky

Program

On May 18, 1982, the Secretary of the

Interior conditionally approved the

Kentucky program. You can find

background information on the

Kentucky program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval in the May 18, 1982 Federal

Register (47 FR 21404). You can find

subsequent actions concerning

conditions of approval and program

amendments at 30 CFR 917.11, 917.13,

917.15, 917.16, and 917.17.

II. Submission of the Proposed

Amendment

By letter dated April 23, 1998

(Administrative Record No. KY–1425),

Kentucky submitted a proposed

amendment to its program. House Bills

(HB) 354, 498, and 593 (effective July

15, 1998) revise KRS sections

350.990(11), 350.131(2), 350.139(1),

350.990(1), and 350.060(16).

We announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the May 20,

1998, Federal Register (63 FR 27698),

invited public comment, and provided

an opportunity for a public hearing on

the adequacy of the proposed

amendment. The public comment

period closed on June 19, 1998.

III. Director’s Findings

Following, according to SMCRA and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15

and 732.17, are our findings concerning

the proposed amendment.

Any revisions that we do not

specifically discuss below concern

nonsubstantive wording changes or

revised cross-references and paragraph

notations to reflect organizational

changes that result from this

amendment.

Reorganization—HB 354 confirms

Executive Order 97–714 (June 11, 1997)

which changed the name of the Division

of Abandoned Lands to the Division of

Abandoned Mine Lands. At KRS

350.990(11), Kentucky proposes to

correct the name in this section. While

there are no corresponding Federal

provisions, we are approving the

revision because it does not alter the

authority or responsibility of the

Division of Abandoned Mine Lands, and

is not, therefore, inconsistent with the

requirements of SMCRA and the Federal

regulations.

Forfeited Bonds—HB 498 completes

the bonding reforms recommended in

the 1993 joint study of the adequacy of

reclamation bonds in Kentucky. At KRS

350.131(2), Kentucky proposes to return

any unused bond funds, less any

accrued interest, to the party from

whom they were collected when the

forfeited amount is more than the

amount needed for reclamation.

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR

800.50(d)(2) provide that, where the

amount of the performance bond

forfeited exceeds the cost of

reclamation, ‘‘the unused funds shall be

returned * * * to the party from whom

they were collected.’’ However, both

SMCRA and the Federal regulations are

silent as to the disposition of any

interest proceeds generated by the bond

while it is in the possession of the

regulatory authority. Therefore, while

Kentucky’s proposed requirement is not

specifically authorized by SMCRA, it is

nonetheless well within the discretion

provided to the states by section 505 of

SMCRA to propose more stringent

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations than do the

provisions of SMCRA and its

implementing regulations. Therefore,

the Director finds the Kentucky

proposal to be not inconsistent with the

requirements of SMCRA or the Federal

rules at 30 CFR part 800.

At KRS 350.139(1), Kentucky

proposes to establish a bond forfeiture

supplemental fund. All funds from the

forfeiture of bonds will be placed in an

interest-bearing account. The interest

will become a supplemental fund and

may be used to supplement forfeited

bonds that are inadequate to complete

the reclamation plan. The interest may

be expended on lands other than those

for which the bond was given. No more

than 25 percent of the supplemental

fund may be expended on any single

site, unless a larger expenditure is

necessary to abate an imminent danger

to public health or safety.

At KRS 350.990(1), Kentucky

proposes to establish a potential second

source of money for the supplemental

fund. The first $800,000 of the civil

penalties Kentucky collects each year

for coal mining violations goes to the

State Treasury’s General Fund. Any

proceeds in excess of the first $800,000,

collected in any fiscal year, go to the

Kentucky Bond Pool Fund. Kentucky

proposes to direct one-half of the excess

that currently goes to the Bond Pool

Fund to the new bond forfeiture

supplemental fund, but only when the

balance in the Bond Pool Fund is above

the maximum of the operating range

necessary to ensure its solvency.

Currently, the maximum amount of

money necessary to ensure the solvency

of the Bond Pool Fund is $16 million.

Accordingly, the amendment proposes

no diversion of excess penalty income

from the Bond Pool Fund to the bond

forfeiture supplemental fund until the

Bond Pool Fund reaches $16 million, or

a larger amount established by the most

recent actuarial study. The excess

money collected will be deposited 50

percent to the Bond Pool Fund and 50

percent to the supplemental fund. If the

Bond Pool Fund falls below $16 million

(or a higher amount established by the

actuarial study), all excess moneys will

be deposited in the Bond Pool Fund

until it reaches $16 million (or a higher

amount).