Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67605 

§ 330.708 ICTAP eligibility period. 

(a) ICTAP eligibility begins on the 

date the employee or former employee 

meets the definition of displaced in 

§ 330.702. 

(b) ICTAP eligibility ends 1 year from 

the date of: 

(1) Separation by RIF under part 351 

of this chapter; 

(2) Removal by the agency under part 

752 of this chapter for declining a 

directed geographic relocation outside 

the local commuting area (e.g., a 

directed reassignment or a change in 

duty station); 

(3) Agency certification that it cannot 

place the employee under part 353 of 

this chapter; or 

(4) OPM notification that an 

employee’s disability annuity has been, 

or will be, terminated. 

(c) ICTAP eligibility ends 2 years after 

RIF separation if eligible under subpart 

D of this part. 

(d) ICTAP eligibility also ends on the 

date the eligible: 

(1) Receives a notice rescinding, 

canceling, or modifying the notice 

which established ICTAP eligibility so 

that the employee no longer meets the 

definition of displaced in § 330.702; 

(2) Separates from the agency for any 

reason before the RIF or removal 

effective date; or 

(3) Is appointed to a career, careerconditional, or excepted appointment 

without time limit in any agency at any 

grade or pay level. 

(e) OPM may extend the eligibility 

period when an ICTAP eligible does not 

receive a full 1 year (or 2 years under 

subpart D of this part) of eligibility, for 

example, because of administrative or 

procedural error. 

(f) ICTAP eligibility for a former 

Military Reserve Technician or National 

Guard Technician described in 

§ 330.702 ends when the Technician no 

longer receives the special disability 

retirement annuity under 5 U.S.C. 

8337(h) or 8456. 

§ 330.709 Establishing ICTAP selection 

priority. 

ICTAP selection priority for a specific 

vacancy begins when: 

(a) The ICTAP eligible submits all 

required application materials, 

including proof of eligibility, within 

agency-established timeframes; and 

(b) The agency determines the eligible 

is well-qualified for the vacancy. 

§ 330.710 Proof of eligibility. 

(a) The ICTAP eligible must submit a 

copy of one of the documents listed 

under paragraphs (1) or (3) through (6) 

of the definition of displaced in 

§ 330.702, as applicable, to establish 

selection priority under § 330.709. To 

establish selection priority under the 

paragraph (2) of the definition of 

displaced in § 330.702, the ICTAP 

eligible must submit documentation of 

the separation or removal, as applicable, 

for example, the Notification of 

Personnel Action, SF 50. 

(b) The ICTAP eligible may also 

submit a copy of the RIF notice with an 

offer of another position accompanied 

by the signed declination of that offer. 

The RIF notice must state that 

declination of the offer will result in 

separation under RIF procedures. 

§ 330.711 OPM’s role in ICTAP. 

OPM has oversight of ICTAP and may 

conduct reviews of agency compliance 

and require corrective action at any 

time. 

Subpart H—[Reserved] 

Subpart I—[Reserved] 

Subpart J—Prohibited Practices 

§ 330.1001 Withdrawal from competition. 

An applicant for competitive 

examination, an eligible on a register, 

and an officer or employee in the 

executive branch of the Government 

may not persuade, induce, or coerce, or 

attempt to persuade, induce, or coerce, 

directly or indirectly, a prospective 

applicant to withhold filing application, 

or an applicant or eligible to withdraw 

from competition or eligibility, for a 

position in the competitive service, for 

the purpose of improving or injuring the 

prospects of an applicant or eligible for 

appointment. OPM will cancel the 

application or eligibility of an applicant 

or eligible who violates this section, and 

will impose such other penalty as it 

considers appropriate. 

Subpart K—[Reserved] 

Subpart L—[Reserved] 

PART 335—PROMOTION AND 

INTERNAL PLACEMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 335 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, 3330; E.O. 

10577, 3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218; 

5 U.S.C. 3304(f), and Pub. L. 106–117. 

■ 5. In § 335.105, remove ‘‘§ 330.707 of 

subpart G’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘part 

330, subpart A’’. 

PART 337—EXAMINING SYSTEM 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 337 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1104(a), 1302, 2302, 

3301, 3302, 3304, 3319, 5364; E.O. 10577, 

3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218; 33 FR 

12423, Sept. 4, 1968; and 45 FR 18365, Mar. 

21, 1980; 116 Stat. 2135, 2290; and 117 Stat. 

1392, 1665. 

§ 337.203 [Amended] 

■ 7. In § 337.203, remove ‘‘subpart G’’ 

and add, in its place, ‘‘subpart A’’. 

PART 410—TRAINING 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 410 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4101, et seq.; E.O. 

11348, 3 CFR, 1967 Comp., p. 275. 

§ 410.307 [Amended] 

■ 9. In § 410.307: 

■ a. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the 

phrase ‘‘5 CFR 330.604(b) and (f)’’ and 

add in its place the phrase, ‘‘5 CFR 

330.602’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(4), remove the 

phrase ‘‘5 CFR 330.602’’ and add in its 

place the phrase, ‘‘5 CFR part 330, 

subpart F’’. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27638 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 920 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–08–0085; FV08–920–3 

FIR] 

Kiwifruit Grown in California; Changes 

to District Boundaries 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

rule that removed the grower district 

boundaries contained in the 

administrative rules and regulations of 

the kiwifruit marketing order (order). 

The interim rule removed regulatory 

language referring to eight grower 

districts from the order’s administrative 

rules and regulations to make them 

consistent with the recently amended 

order provisions, which now provide for 

three grower districts. 

DATES: Effective Date: Effective 

November 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel May or Kathleen M. Finn, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (202) 720– 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
67606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov or 

Kathy.Finn@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may obtain 

information on complying with this and 

other marketing order regulations by 

viewing a guide at the following Web 

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

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; 

or by contacting Antoinette Carter, 

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: 

Antoinette.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), 

regulating the handling of kiwifruit 

grown in California, 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 order was recently amended by 

redefining the grower districts into 

which the California kiwifruit 

production area is divided. Previously, 

there were eight grower districts defined 

in the order. Due to shifts in acreage and 

the consolidation of grower entities 

within the production area, the 

production area is now divided into 

three grower districts. Language in 

§ 920.131 of the order’s administrative 

rules and regulations provided the 

specific boundaries for eight grower 

districts, but that language is not 

consistent with the amended order. 

In an interim rule published in the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2010, and 

effective on August 1, 2010, § 920.131 

specifying the boundaries for eight 

grower districts was removed. The 

boundaries for the three grower districts 

under the amended order are provided 

in § 920.12. 

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 so 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. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include handlers regulated under 

the order, have been defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts of less than $7,000,000. Small 

agricultural growers have been defined 

as those with annual receipts of less 

than $750,000. 

There are approximately 30 handlers 

of kiwifruit subject to regulation under 

the order and approximately 220 

growers of kiwifruit in the regulated 

area. Information provided by the 

committee indicates that the majority of 

California kiwifruit handlers and 

growers would be considered small 

entities according to the SBA’s 

definition. 

The order regulates the handling of 

kiwifruit grown in the State of 

California. At the time the order was 

promulgated, kiwifruit acreage was 

more widespread throughout California 

and there were many more growers 

involved in kiwifruit production. The 

order originally provided for eight 

grower districts within the production 

area, with one membership seat 

apportioned to each district, and an 

additional seat reallocated annually to 

each of the three districts with the 

highest production in the preceding 

year. The structure was designed to 

afford equitable representation for all 

districts on the committee. 

Planted acreage has been gradually 

concentrated into two main regions in 

recent years. That, and the decline in 

the number of growers over time, 

prompted consolidation of the districts 

and reallocation of grower member seats 

through the formal rulemaking process. 

Under the amended order, the 

production area is divided into three 

grower districts, and committee 

membership is allocated proportionately 

among the districts based upon the 

previous five years’ average production 

for each district. These changes are 

expected to better reflect the current 

composition of the industry. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that removed § 920.131 from the 

order’s administrative rules and 

regulations, effective August 1, 2010. 

The section specified the boundaries for 

eight grower districts. As such, it would 

be inconsistent with the amended 

§ 920.12, which provides the boundaries 

for three grower districts. 

The changes in the interim rule were 

necessary to conform with amendments 

to the order, which became effective on 

August 1, 2010. No alternatives to this 

action were deemed appropriate. 

Regarding the impact of this action on 

the affected entities, both large and 

small entities are expected to benefit 

from the change. The revision in the 

interim rule provides consistency 

between the amended marketing order 

and its administrative rules and 

regulations. The order amendment is 

expected to ensure that the interests of 

all large and small entities are 

represented appropriately during 

committee deliberations. 

Committee meetings in which 

regulatory recommendations and other 

decisions are made are open to the 

public. All members are able to 

participate in committee deliberations, 

and each committee member has an 

equal vote. Others in attendance at 

meetings are also allowed to express 

their views. 

At committee meetings held on 

January 30, 2008, April 22, 2008, and 

July 9, 2008, the committee voted 

unanimously to recommend amending 

the order by revising the grower districts 

into which the production area is 

divided. The committee’s 

recommendations were submitted to 

AMS on August 15, 2008. Growers 

approved the amendment to redefine 

district boundaries in a referendum held 

in March 2010. The amendment became 

effective August 1, 2010. 

This rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on large or small kiwifruit 

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. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

September 21, 2010. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for the reasons 

given in the interim rule, we are 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule, 

without change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

www.regulations.gov and type the 

following docket number into the 

keyword search section: FV08–920–3 IR. 

Follow the link provided in the 

‘‘Results’’ section of the page. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), and the E–Gov Act (44 

U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67607 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 43038; July 23, 2010), 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920 

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule that 

amended 7 CFR part 920 and that was 

published at 75 FR 43038 on July 23, 

2010, is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Robert C. Keeney, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27788 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 993 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0057; FV10–993–1 

FR] 

Dried Prunes Produced in California; 

Increased Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

Prune Marketing Committee 

(Committee) for the 2010–11 and 

subsequent crop years from $0.16 to 

$0.27 per ton of salable dried prunes 

handled. The Committee locally 

administers the marketing order that 

regulates the handling of dried prunes 

grown in California. Assessments upon 

dried prune handlers are used by the 

Committee to fund reasonable and 

necessary expenses of the program. The 

crop year begins August 1 and ends July 

31. The assessment rate will remain in 

effect indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 4, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Ricci, Marketing Specialist, or 

Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, Fruit 

and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 

487–5906, or E-mail: 

Andrea.Ricci@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, 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: 

Antoinete.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 110 and Order No. 993, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 993), regulating 

the handling of dried prunes grown in 

California, 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. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California dried prune 

handlers are subject to assessments. 

Funds to administer the order are 

derived from such assessments. It is 

intended that the assessment rate as 

issued herein will be applicable to all 

assessable dried prunes beginning on 

August 1, 2010, and continue until 

amended, suspended, or terminated. 

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. Such 

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 increases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee for 

the 2010–11 and subsequent crop years 

from $0.16 to $0.27 per ton of salable 

dried prunes handled. 

The California dried prune marketing 

order provides authority for the 

Committee, with the approval of USDA, 

to formulate an annual budget of 

expenses and collect assessments from 

handlers to administer the program. The 

members of the Committee are 

producers and handlers of California 

dried prunes. They are familiar with the 

Committee’s needs and with the costs 

for goods and services in their local area 

and are thus in a position to formulate 

an appropriate budget and assessment 

rate. The assessment rate is formulated 

and discussed in a public meeting. 

Thus, all directly affected persons have 

an opportunity to participate and 

provide input. 

For the 2009–10 and subsequent crop 

years, the Committee recommended, 

and USDA approved, an assessment rate 

that would continue in effect from crop 

year to crop year unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Committee met on June 24, 2010, 

and unanimously recommended 2010– 

11 expenditures of $58,353 and an 

assessment rate of $0.27 per ton of 

salable dried prunes. In comparison, last 

year’s budgeted expenditures, as 

amended in March of 2010, were 

$57,756. The assessment rate of $0.27 is 

$0.11 higher than the rate currently in 

effect. 

The Committee recommended the 

higher assessment rate based on a 

production estimate of 150,000 tons of 

salable dried prunes for this year, which 

is substantially less than the 165,488 

tons produced last year. At this 

assessment rate, the expected 

assessment income for the 2010–11 crop 

year is $40,500. The Committee believes 

2010–11 assessment income, plus extra 

assessment income carried in from the 

2009 crop year and interest income, will 

be adequate to cover its estimated 

expenses of $58,353. 

The Committee’s budget of expenses 

of $58,353 includes a twenty percent 

increase in personnel expenses, and a 

nine percent decrease in operating 

expenses. Combined personnel and 

operational expenses are about eleven 

percent higher than last year, or about 

$42,511. The Committee also included 

$15,842 for contingencies, which is 

substantially less than the $19,526 

included for last year’s budget. Most of 

the Committee’s expenses reflect its 

portion of the joint administration costs 

of the Committee and the California 

Dried Plum Board (CDPB). Based on the 

Committee’s reduced activities in recent 

years, it is funding only five percent of 

the shared expenses of the two 

programs. This funding level is similar 

to that of last year. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2010–11 year include $31,781 for 

salaries and benefits, $10,730 for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES