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

4805 

Vol. 71, No. 19 

Monday, January 30, 2006 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 532 

RIN 3206–AK96 

Prevailing Rate Systems; Change in 

the Survey Cycle for the Harrison, MS, 

Nonappropriated Fund Federal Wage 

System Wage Area 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management is issuing a final rule to 

change the timing of local wage surveys 

in the Harrison, Mississippi, 

nonappropriated fund Federal Wage 

System wage area. The purpose of this 

change is to avoid conducting future 

surveys in this area during the hurricane 

season. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 1, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606–2838; email pay-performance-policy@opm.gov; 

or FAX: (202) 606–4264. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 31, 2005, the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) issued an 

interim rule (70 FR 62229) to change the 

full-scale survey cycle for the Harrison, 

Mississippi, nonappropriated fund 

(NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) 

wage area from October of each evennumbered fiscal year to March of each 

even-numbered fiscal year. The interim 

rule had a 30-day public comment 

period, during which OPM received no 

comments. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because they will affect only Federal 

agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Freedom of information, 

Government employees, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wages. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule published 

on October 31, 2005, amending 5 CFR 

part 532 (70 FR 62229) is adopted as 

final with no changes. 

[FR Doc. 06–828 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Docket No. FV05–989–610 REVIEW] 

California Raisin Marketing Order; 

Section 610 Review 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. 

SUMMARY: This action summarizes the 

results under the criteria contained in 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), of an Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) review of Marketing 

Order No. 989, regulating the handling 

of raisins produced from grapes grown 

in California. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

obtain a copy of the review. Requests for 

copies should be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt 

Kimmel or Maureen Pello, California 

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 

Fresno, California; Telephone: (559) 

487–5901; Fax: (559) 487–5906; E-mail: 

Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov or 

Maureen.Pello@usda.gov; or George 

Kelhart, Technical Advisor, 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; E-mail: 

George.Kelhart@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marketing 

Order No. 989, as amended (7 CFR part 

989), regulates the handling of raisins 

produced from grapes grown in 

California (order). The marketing order 

is effective under the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), 

as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674). 

AMS published in the Federal 

Register (64 FR 8014; February 18, 

1999), its plan to review certain 

regulations, including Marketing Order 

No. 989, under criteria contained in 

section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612). An updated plan was published in 

the Federal Register on January 4, 2002 

(67 FR 525) and on August 14, 2003 (68 

FR 48574). Accordingly, AMS published 

a notice of review and request for 

written comments on the California 

raisin marketing order in the May 25, 

2004, issue of the Federal Register (69 

FR 29672). The deadline for comments 

ended July 23, 2004. 

The review was undertaken to 

determine whether the California raisin 

marketing order should be continued 

without change, amended, or rescinded 

to minimize the impacts on small 

entities. In conducting this review, AMS 

considered the following factors: (1) The 

continued need for the marketing order; 

(2) the nature of complaints or 

comments received from the public 

concerning the marketing order; (3) the 

complexity of the marketing order; (4) 

the extent to which the marketing order 

overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with 

other Federal rules, and, to the extent 

feasible, with State and local 

governmental rules; and (5) the length of 

time since the marketing order has been 

evaluated or the degree to which 

technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the marketing order. 

The order was initially promulgated 

in 1949. It has been amended twelve 

times to meet the changing needs of the 

industry. The most recent amendments 

occurred in 1989. 

The order establishes the Raisin 

Administrative Committee (Committee 

or RAC) as the administrative body 

charged with overseeing program 

operations. Staff is hired to conduct the 

daily administration of the program. 

The Committee consists of 47 members 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
4806 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

and 47 alternate members. Thirty-five 

members represent producers, ten 

represent handlers, one represents the 

cooperative bargaining association, and 

one represents the public. Membership 

is further allocated among producers 

representing the cooperative marketing 

association, the cooperative bargaining 

association, and those not affiliated with 

either cooperative (independents). The 

cooperative marketing association and 

the cooperative bargaining association 

nominate their representatives, while 

independent member representatives 

are nominated at meetings and elected 

through a mail balloting process. 

The Committee recommends the 

implementation of regulatory actions 

and activities under the marketing order 

and changes to the marketing order 

when needed to further marketing order 

and industry objectives. AMS approves 

these recommendations undertaken by 

the Committee before they can be 

implemented. 

These activities include volume 

control to help stabilize raisin supplies 

and prices, and strengthen market 

conditions; various export programs to 

help packers remain price competitive 

with foreign producers and to maintain 

and expand these markets; quality 

control with mandatory incoming and 

outgoing inspection to assure the 

condition and quality of raisins 

delivered by producers to packers and 

sold by packers into commercial 

channels; imported raisin quality also is 

assured under a section 8e of the Act 

import regulation; research and 

promotion activities to maintain and 

expand exports financed with reserve 

pool proceeds; and reporting 

requirements used by the RAC to obtain 

production, shipment, and other 

marketing information used by the 

industry in making sound marketing 

decisions and in furthering marketing 

order goals. Funds to administer the 

marketing order are obtained from 

handler assessments and proceeds 

obtained from the sale of reserve pool 

raisins. 

Currently, there are approximately 

4,500 producers and 20 handlers of 

California raisins. The majority of these 

producers and seven handlers may be 

classified as small entities. The 

regulations implemented under the 

order are applied uniformly to small 

and large entities, and are designed to 

benefit all industry entities regardless of 

size. 

Notice of 610 Review for California 

Raisins 

A notice of review and request for 

comments regarding the California 

raisin marketing order was published in 

the Federal Register on May 25, 2004. 

During the comment period that ended 

on July 23, 2004, five written comments 

were received. One comment was 

submitted by the then Committee 

President, and four were submitted by 

raisin growers and handlers. Two 

comments address the five factors under 

consideration by AMS. No comments 

from non-industry representatives were 

received. All comments were evaluated 

during the conduct of this review and 

are discussed, where appropriate, later 

in this document. 

The Continued Need for the Marketing 

Order 

The marketing order has been used 

over the years in the areas of volume 

control, quality control, research and 

promotion activities, and the collection 

and dissemination of statistical 

information. 

Volume control has helped stabilize 

supplies and prices, and strengthen 

marketing conditions. Under the 

marketing order’s volume control 

provisions, packer raisin acquisitions 

are segregated into free tonnage and 

reserve tonnage. Free tonnage raisins 

may be shipped to any market. Reserve 

raisins are production in excess of free 

tonnage needs (domestic markets) and 

must be pooled by handlers in a pool for 

later sale by the Committee to 

authorized outlets. The RAC generally 

needs several years to dispose of reserve 

pool raisins. Currently, the 2002–03 and 

2003–04 reserve pools are still open. 

The entire crop in 2004–05 was free 

tonnage so a reserve pool was not 

established for that crop year. 

Basically, there are two markets for 

California raisins, domestic and export. 

The marketing order has helped the 

industry expand domestic markets over 

the years. Moreover, it has promoted a 

dramatic expansion of raisin exports. 

When the marketing order was 

implemented in 1949, export markets 

were not viable outlets. Under the 

marketing order, the industry has been 

able to develop and maintain export 

markets, in spite of foreign competition. 

Export shipments have been an 

important source of growth for the 

industry and the marketing order has 

provided a foundation for this 

expansion. The Committee believes that 

it needs to maintain export shipments to 

foster stable marketing conditions and 

reasonable producer prices. The 

Committee further believes that the 

marketing order will continue to be an 

important tool in achieving these goals. 

In the mid-1990s, domestic and 

export shipments began to drop. Total 

shipments have increased in the past 

two years and currently are in excess of 

300,000 tons. The increase in shipments 

is mainly due to an increase in domestic 

shipments. In 2004–05, domestic 

shipments were in excess of 205,000 

tons. This is the highest level of 

domestic shipments since 1993. These 

shipment levels are reminiscent of 

levels achieved during the early- and 

mid-1990’s. Maintaining and continuing 

this level of domestic shipments 

together with exports near the 100,000 

tons per crop year level will be 

important to the future welfare of the 

industry. The Committee believes that 

the marketing order can continue to be 

used to maintain and increase these 

shipment levels. 

Since 1949, total grower returns per 

ton have increased five-fold, from less 

than $200 per ton to well over $1,000 

per ton. Grower returns have fluctuated 

in response to supply and demand 

conditions, but in most seasons grower 

returns have been reasonable. 

The field price for free tonnage 

reached a high of $1,425 per ton for the 

1999–2000 crop year. Average producer 

raisin prices as reported by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service during 

the 2000–01 through 2003–04 crop years 

were below cost of production levels 

due to record high production. A 1998 

cost of production study by the 

University of California Cooperative 

Extension for a 120 acre raisin vineyard 

using traditional growing and harvesting 

systems shows total costs per ton with 

a yield of 2.3 tons at about $872 per ton. 

Lower bearing acres and yields have 

resulted in a lower production of raisin 

variety grapes and raisins, and producer 

prices began to improve in 2004–05. 

In 2004–05, the free tonnage field 

price was set at $1,210 per ton. This was 

the first time since 1999–2000, that the 

field price has been above $1,000 per 

ton. For the 2005–06 crop year, a sliding 

scale for the field price has been set at 

a minimum price of $1,210 per ton that 

can rise as the quantity of raisins 

produced drops by 20,000 ton 

increments below 400,000 tons. In 

addition, a similar sliding price for the 

2006–07 and 2007–08 crop years 

recently has been announced where 

prices will range from $960 to $1,560 

per ton. This future price commitment 

is expected to help the financial 

position of producers, help packers 

make marketing decisions and help the 

industry continue the positive shipment 

results experienced in 2004–05 under 

the marketing order. 

With the marketing order as a support 

mechanism for the industry, the 

situation in the raisin industry has 

improved since 2002. Producer prices 

and revenues have increased, 

production and inventories have 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4807 

decreased, and shipments have 

increased. Moreover, world production 

and inventories have moderated. Even 

so, the industry has numerous 

challenges. The most important of 

which may be developing demand for 

younger consumers. Although domestic 

shipments have increased over the last 

five crop years, this increase has not 

been sufficient to offset the increase in 

population. The Committee believes 

that the marketing order could be a 

significant tool in facilitating consumer 

interest and expanding shipments in 

both domestic and export markets. 

Quality control is as important today 

as it was when these standards were 

initially established in 1955. The 

establishment of minimum incoming 

and outgoing quality standards over the 

years has helped improve the quality of 

product moving from the vineyard to 

commercial market channels. Quality 

control has helped ensure that only 

satisfactory product reaches the 

marketplace and has helped foster 

customer satisfaction. This has helped 

the industry increase and maintain 

demand for California raisins over the 

years in domestic and export markets. 

Quality control also has helped the 

industry remain competitive with 

foreign production in Turkey, Greece, 

The Republic of South Africa, Australia, 

Chile, Argentina, and Mexico. 

Research and promotion export 

activities also have helped the industry 

remain competitive with foreign 

production in export markets and have 

helped foster market stability in 

commercial marketing channels. 

In addition to the above, the 

Committee collects statistical 

information from handlers on a routine 

basis. This information is compiled by 

the Committee staff to produce 

statistical reports that are used by the 

industry to make planting, harvesting, 

and sales decisions. It is also used in 

short- and long-term planning by the 

Committee. 

Based on the foregoing, AMS has 

determined that the order should be 

continued, without change, at this time. 

While the industry has considered 

changes to the order to improve volume 

control implementation and overall 

marketing order operations to lessen the 

chances of below cost of production 

producer returns, it has had difficulty 

reaching a consensus on the issues. As 

part of AMS’s administrative 

responsibilities, AMS will continue its 

dialogue with the industry on these 

matters in an effort to improve the 

marketing order. 

As mentioned earlier, AMS reviews 

industry recommendations and 

programs for consistency with the 

regulatory authorities provided in the 

order, the prevailing and prospective 

market situation, and the impact upon 

small businesses. An assessment is also 

made as to whether regulatory 

recommendations or programs are 

practical for those who would be 

regulated, and whether the 

recommendations are consistent with 

USDA policy. 

AMS also routinely monitors the 

operations of this order, as does the 

industry and Committee, to ensure that 

the regulations issued address market 

and industry conditions, and that the 

regulations and administrative 

procedures are appropriate for practices 

within the industry. As noted earlier, a 

dialogue with the Committee on 

program matters is continuing to help 

improve marketing order operations. 

The Nature of Complaints or Comments 

From the Public Concerning the 

Marketing Order 

In its written comment, the then 

President of the Committee provided 

background information about the 

industry and the marketing order, as 

well as rationale for continuing the 

marketing order. The comment 

addresses the AMS 610 review criteria, 

the various activities and programs 

administered under the order, describes 

the benefits of these activities, and 

expresses the belief that there is sound 

support within the industry for 

continuation of the marketing order. 

This comment also mentions that some 

factors in the industry believe that the 

marketing order could be improved to 

better serve producers and packers. The 

Committee has not yet finalized possible 

program improvements. The comment 

also summarizes the evolution of the 

order from its inception in 1949 to the 

present day. Some of the marketing 

order’s successes have been mentioned 

earlier. 

One producer comment expressed 

support for the marketing order, noting 

that the same fluctuations in supply 

exist today as when the order was 

promulgated in 1949. This commenter 

stated that the use of the order’s volume 

control mechanism helps the industry 

maintain orderly marketing conditions. 

However, the comment also refers to 

compliance problems that the 

commenter believes have not been 

adequately addressed by the Committee 

and USDA under the marketing order. 

Another commenter also stated that 

volume control regulations were being 

circumvented by handlers. With regard 

to compliance problems, the Committee 

investigates and refers such matters to 

AMS. AMS then reviews and evaluates 

such matters and recommends 

appropriate enforcement action as soon 

as possible. USDA has and will 

continue to take appropriate action on 

such compliance matters. 

Another comment from a producer, a 

third-generation grower, felt that the 

high production costs in recent years 

and low producer prices in the early 

2000’s were attributable to the 

marketing order and raisin handlers in 

the industry. Another producer, who is 

also a handler, felt that the volume 

control provisions were inadequate to 

prevent the recent (early 2000’s), 

unprecedented low grower prices. As 

stated earlier, the prices to growers over 

the next several years are expected to be 

above estimated production costs. Much 

of the improvement in industry 

conditions and producer prices is due to 

the reduced crops and reductions in 

bearing raisin grape acreage. However, 

although difficult to quantify, some of 

this improvement is due to the 

marketing order and the activities 

authorized. 

A producer of organic raisins 

commented that the marketing order has 

not kept pace with the technological 

improvements in industry practices, 

especially with regard to organic raisins. 

The commenter also maintained that 

U.S markets are flooded with imported 

raisins, and that the importers are not 

subject to as many marketing order 

obligations as the domestic handlers. 

Further, the comment asserted that RAC 

is controlled by packers (handlers) and 

that the marketing order does not 

benefit producers. 

The RAC has considered the views of 

the organic sector of the industry, and 

has implemented reporting 

requirements with USDA approval for 

the purpose of obtaining statistical 

information on the organic segment of 

the industry. In addition, organic 

handlers also have the opportunity to 

utilize an exemption from promotion 

assessments under marketing orders 

pursuant to 7 CFR 900.700. While the 

organic sector wants to be removed from 

the marketing order regulation, the 

traditional raisin sector believes that 

both organic and traditionally produced 

raisins compete with each other in 

marketing channels, and both types of 

raisins should be subject to marketing 

order requirements. This matter 

continues to be under discussion with 

the industry. 

Regarding the comment concerning 

the flood of imports on the U.S. market, 

statistics from the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection indicate that imports 

make up a relatively small portion of the 

U.S. raisin market. During the period 

1999/2000 through 2003/2004 (August 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
4808 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1–July 31), U.S. imports averaged about 

4 percent of U.S. production. 

Finally, in response to the comments 

regarding the marketing order benefiting 

handlers rather than producers, the goal 

of the program is to improve the 

marketing conditions for both producers 

and handlers. The marketing order is 

intended to allow the industry to solve 

marketing and other problems that 

producers and handlers could not 

handle individually. It helps the 

industry as a whole. The marketing 

order is not geared toward meeting the 

needs of individual producers and 

handlers. 

The Complexity of the Marketing Order 

The raisin marketing order is 

somewhat complex, reflecting the 

complexity of the industry itself. AMS 

has attempted to ensure that the 

regulations are no more complex than 

necessary to achieve desired objectives 

consistent with industry operations. 

Implementing rules and regulations 

under the order also reflect the 

marketing order provisions. The 

Committee and its various 

subcommittees review the regulations 

periodically and make 

recommendations for change. The 

recommendations reflect and address 

the concerns of the raisin industry and 

its complex nature. AMS has a 

continuing dialogue with the industry 

and reviews Committee 

recommendations taking into account 

marketing order complexity. Finally, 

Committee staff provides materials to 

handlers explaining the programs and 

regulations, and makes every effort to 

assist handlers when necessary. 

The Extent to Which the Marketing 

Order Overlaps, Duplicates, or 

Conflicts With Other Federal Rules, and 

to the Extent Feasible, With State and 

Local Regulations 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules, or State and local 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this order’s requirements. 

There is a companion State program that 

regulates the raisin industry, but it does 

not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

the Federal program. The State program, 

the California Raisin Marketing Board, 

engages in marketing and promotion 

activities not undertaken under the 

Federal order. Both programs work in 

concert to assist the California raisin 

industry. 

The Length of Time Since the 

Marketing Order Has Been Evaluated 

or the Degree to Which Technology, 

Economic Conditions, or Other Factors 

Have Changed in the Area Affected By 

the Marketing Order 

AMS and the California raisin 

industry monitor the production and 

marketing of raisins on a continuing 

basis. Changes in regulations are 

implemented to reflect industry 

operating practices, and to solve 

marketing problems. The goal of these 

evaluations is to ensure that the order 

and the regulations issued under it fit 

the needs of the industry, while 

remaining consistent with the Act and 

USDA policies. 

Since its inception in 1949, the order 

has gone through numerous changes. 

These changes were made, in part, 

because of changing economic 

conditions affecting the production and 

handling of raisins. As noted in the 

Committee’s comment, it meets often 

each year and discussions about the 

order and the various activities and 

regulations issued thereunder are 

frequent and sometimes extensive. The 

Committee or its subcommittees 

deliberate whether changes would 

improve the activities, order, and 

regulations to reflect current industry 

operating practices, and resolve current 

industry problems to the extent 

possible. In addition to reviewing its 

regulations, the Committee reviews and 

evaluates its programs on a continuing 

basis. 

The numerous formal order 

amendments, the many changes to the 

rules and regulations over the years, and 

the Committee’s and AMS’s continuing 

review and adjustments to its programs, 

show that the order is a dynamic, not 

static, program. 

AMS will continue to work with and 

maintain a dialogue with the California 

raisin industry in improving the 

program and in addressing the concerns 

expressed by the industry. 

Dated: January 23, 2006. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–821 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 77 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0004] 

Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State 

and Zone Designations; Minnesota 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Interim rule and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the bovine 

tuberculosis regulations regarding State 

and zone classifications by removing 

Minnesota from the list of accreditedfree States and adding it to the list of 

modified accredited advanced States. 

This action is necessary to help prevent 

the spread of tuberculosis because 

Minnesota no longer meets the 

requirements for accredited-free State 

status. 

DATES: This interim rule was effective 

January 24, 2006. We will consider all 

comments that we receive on or before 

March 31, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and, in the 

‘‘Search for Open Regulations’’ box, 

select ‘‘Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service’’ from the agency 

drop-down menu, then click on 

‘‘Submit.’’ In the Docket ID column, 

select APHIS–2006–0004 to submit or 

view public comments and to view 

supporting and related materials 

available electronically. After the close 

of the comment period, the docket can 

be viewed using the ‘‘Advanced Search’’

function in Regulations.gov. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0004, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–

2006–0004. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES