Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 33303 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 930 

[Doc. No. AO–370–A9; 11–0093; AMS–FV– 

10–0087; FV10–930–5] 

Tart Cherries Grown in the States of 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin; Order Amending Marketing 

Order No. 930 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

Marketing Order No. 930 (order), which 

regulates the handling of tart cherries 

grown in Michigan, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wisconsin. These 

amendments were proposed by the 

Cherry Industry Administrative Board 

(CIAB), which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. These 

amendments revise: the definition of 

‘‘Handle’’; and regulations concerning 

‘‘Marketing Policy’’ and ‘‘Grower 

Diversion Privilege.’’ The amendments 

are intended to improve the operation 

and administration of the order. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Parisa Salehi, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 270–9918, Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or Email: 

Parisa.Salehi@ams.usda.gov; or Martin 

Engeler, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 2202 

Monterey Street, Fresno, California, 

93721; Telephone: (559) 487–5110, Fax: 

(559) 487–5110, or Email: 

Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding by 

contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order 

and Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or Email: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior 

documents in this proceeding: Notice of 

Hearing issued on March 4, 2011, and 

published in the March 14, 2011, issue 

of the Federal Register (76 FR 13528). 

The Recommended Decision was issued 

on November 3, 2011, and published in 

the November 9, 2011, issue of the 

Federal Register (76 FR 69673), and a 

Secretary’s Decision and Referendum 

Order issued on February 28, 2012, and 

published in the March 5, 2012 issue of 

the Federal Register (77 FR 13015). 

This action is governed by the 

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of 

title 5 of the United States Code and is 

therefore excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Preliminary Statement 

This final rule was formulated on the 

record of a public hearing held April 20 

and 21, 2011, in Grand Rapids, 

Michigan, and a second public hearing 

held April 26, 2011, in Provo, Utah. The 

hearing was held pursuant to the 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act’’, and the applicable rules of 

practice and procedure governing the 

formulation of marketing agreements 

and orders (7 CFR Part 900). Notice of 

this hearing was published in the 

Federal Register on March 14, 2011 (76 

FR 13528). The notice of hearing 

contained the proposal submitted by 

CIAB and one proposal by the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). 

Upon the basis of evidence 

introduced at the hearings and the 

record thereof, the Administrator of 

AMS issued a Recommended Decision 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69673). An 

opportunity to file written exceptions 

was provided through November 25, 

2011. Two comments were received 

during that period in support of these 

amendments. 

A Secretary’s Decision and 

Referendum Order was issued on 

February 28, 2012, and published in the 

March 5, 2012, issue of the Federal 

Register (77 FR 13015). This document 

directed that a referendum among tart 

cherry growers and processors be 

conducted during the period March 19, 

2012, through March 30, 2012, to 

determine whether they favor the 

proposed amendments to the order. To 

become effective, the amendments had 

to be approved by at least two-thirds of 

the growers voting in the referendum or 

two thirds of the production represented 

by such growers. In addition, processors 

who had frozen or canned at least fifty 

percent of the volume of tart cherries 

had to vote in favor of the amendments 

for them to become effective. All of the 

proposed amendments were approved 

by growers and processors. The 

amendments included in this final order 

will: 

1. Amendment 1 revises the term 

‘‘handle’’ within the order. This 

amendment revises existing section 

930.10, Handle, to exclude handler 

acquisition of grower diversion 

certificates from the definition of 

handle. 

2. Amendment 2 revises the 

‘‘marketing policy’’ provisions in 

section 930.50 of the order so that 

grower-diverted cherries are not 

counted as production in the volume 

control formula. 

3. Amendment 3 revises the existing 

section 930.58, so grower-diverted 

cherries are not treated as actual 

harvested cherries. 

In addition to the proposed 

amendments to the order, AMS 

proposed to make any additional 

changes to the order as may be 

necessary to conform to any amendment 

that may result from the hearings. 

A marketing agreement was 

subsequently mailed to all tart cherry 

handlers in the production area for their 

approval. The marketing agreement was 

approved by handlers representing more 

than 50 percent of the volume of tart 

cherries handled by all handlers during 

the representative period of July 1, 2010, 

to June 30, 2011. 

Small Business Considerations 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

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 and amendments thereto are 

unique in that they are normally 

brought about through group action of 

essentially small entities for their own 

benefit. 

There are approximately 40 handlers 

of tart cherries subject to regulation 

under the order and approximately 600 

producers of tart cherries in the 

regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms, which include handlers, 

have been defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 

121.201) 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. A majority of the tart cherry 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

producers and handlers are considered 

small entities under the SBA standards. 

The geographic region regulated by 

the order includes the states of 

Michigan, New York, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. Acreage devoted to tart 

cherry production in the regulated area 

has declined in recent years. According 

to data presented at the hearings, 

bearing acreage in 1987–88 totaled 

50,050 acres; by 2010–11 it had 

declined to 35,650 acres. Michigan 

accounts for 73 percent of total U.S. 

bearing acreage with 26,200 bearing 

acres. Utah is second, with a reported 

3,300 acres, or approximately nine 

percent of the total. The remaining 

states’ acreage ranges from 600 to 1,800 

acres. The order includes authority for 

(1) volume regulation, (2) promotion 

and research, and (3) grade and quality 

standards. Volume regulation is used 

under the order to augment supplies 

during low supply years, with product 

placed in reserves during large supply 

years. 

Production of tart cherries can 

fluctuate widely from year to year. The 

magnitude of these fluctuations is one of 

the most pronounced for any 

agricultural commodity in the United 

States, and is due in large part to 

weather related conditions during the 

bloom and growing seasons. This 

fluctuation in supply presents a 

marketing challenge for the tart cherry 

industry because demand for the 

product is relatively inelastic, meaning 

a change in supply has a 

proportionately larger change in price. 

According to data presented at the 

hearing, production has ranged from a 

low of 62.5 million pounds in 2002–03 

to a high of 395.6 million pounds in 

1995–96. For 2010–11, Michigan 

accounted for 71 percent of total U.S. 

production with 135 million pounds. 

Utah is second, with a reported 23 

million pounds, or approximately 

twelve percent of the total. The 

remaining states produce between 15.4 

and 1.2 million pounds. 

During the hearings, multiple 

witnesses testified that they did not 

believe that these amendments will 

have any adverse impacts on small 

agricultural service firms or small 

agricultural producers as defined by the 

SBA. According to the record, these 

amendments will help agricultural 

businesses and growers by encouraging 

growers to divert some of their tart 

cherries in the orchard during years of 

extremely large supply and result in 

higher grower returns during years of 

extremely large supply. Furthermore, 

the growers who divert their crop do not 

incur harvest and transportation costs. 

These amendments will result in a 

lower possibility of market saturation. 

Overall the supply of tart cherries in 

extremely large supply years results in 

higher returns for growers. 

These amendments provide 

additional flexibility in administering 

the volume control provisions of the 

order, and improve its operation and 

administration. Record evidence 

indicates that these amendments benefit 

all producers and handlers under the 

order, regardless of size. 

The amendments in this final order 

are: Amendment 1 revises Section 

930.10 of the order to change the 

definition of ‘‘handle,’’ so that handler 

acquisition of grower diversion 

certificates is not considered handling. 

Amendment 2 revises the ‘‘marketing 

policy’’ provisions in Section 930.50 of 

the order so that grower-diverted 

cherries are not counted as production 

in the OSF. Amendment 3 revises 

section 930.58 of the order so that 

grower-diverted cherries are not treated 

as actual harvested cherries. These 

amendments modify how grower 

diversions are accounted for under the 

order. 

Evidence presented when the order 

was promulgated indicated that a 

grower diversion program benefits the 

industry by managing fluctuating 

supply. Witnesses indicated that the 

order has been successful in this regard. 

However, the record indicated that the 

order should be more flexible in 

addressing how grower diversions are 

utilized under the order. 

The most efficient method to deal 

with a surplus is at the lowest level of 

the production and processing chain. 

The industry wastes the least amount of 

resources if it diverts cherries in the 

orchard. Once they are harvested, 

chilled, washed, de-stemmed, sorted, 

pitted, and packed, significantly higher 

costs are incurred and there is a greater 

risk of waste. Diverting surplus cherries 

in the orchard is the most cost effective 

method of dealing with a surplus 

situation and provides the largest 

benefit to growers through lower costs. 

The order establishes an opportunity 

for growers to undertake in-orchard 

diversions of cherries (section 930.58). 

These diversions are done during 

harvest in accordance with procedures 

defined under the order and are 

overseen by the CIAB. The CIAB issues 

grower diversion certificates to the 

growers that represent the pounds of 

cherries that were left in the orchard. 

Growers redeem the diversion 

certificates with handlers, who use them 

as one of their compliance alternatives 

to meet their reserve or restricted 

obligation. However, under the previous 

order definition of ‘‘handle,’’ handlers 

must include the pounds of cherries 

represented by the certificates as part of 

the total cherries that have been 

delivered and processed. 

Consequently, grower in-orchard 

diversions effectively increased the 

supply of restricted cherries even 

though none of those cherries were 

delivered for processing. Grower 

diversion certificates are considered to 

be part of the total quantity of cherries 

that a handler receives and processes, 

and contribute to the total supply of 

restricted cherries in the OSF. This 

creates confusion in accounting for the 

cherries in years when cherries are 

restricted for both the growers and 

processors. 

The OSF is the mechanism specified 

in the order and used by CIAB to 

determine the relationship between the 

demand and supply of tart cherries in a 

given year. When the supply of tart 

cherries exceeds the average demand, 

volume regulation is implemented. 

In an effort to stabilize supply and 

prices, the tart cherry industry uses 

volume regulation, which allows the 

industry to set free and restricted 

percentages. Free percentage cherries 

can be marketed by handlers to any 

outlet, while restricted percentage 

cherries are placed in a reserve 

inventory. The primary purpose of 

setting restricted percentages and 

placing cherries in a reserve inventory 

is to attempt to balance supply with 

demand. 

A related component of the OSF 

under the order involves growers 

diverting cherries by leaving them unharvested in the orchard. Handlers can 

coordinate with their growers in large 

crop years by encouraging them to 

divert cherries from production. 

Handlers can then acquire the diversion 

certificates issued to growers and use 

them as credit toward their restriction or 

reserve obligations. 

Prior to implementation of these 

amendments, the interaction of sections 

930.10 and 930.50 of the order 

established that grower in-orchard 

diversion is subject to the restriction 

percentage calculated for the year. 

Because of this, grower diversion 

certificates had less value when growers 

redeemed them with handlers. 

Therefore, when a handler utilized the 

grower diversion certificates received 

from growers, the certificates had a 

reduced value as a compliance tool in 

meeting the restricted obligation. 

Because the certificates have a reduced 

value, growers delivered most of their 

crop to handlers instead of diverting 

cherries in the orchard in large crop 

years. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 33305 

The implementation of these 

amendments will remove the grower 

disincentive for in-orchard diversion. 

Because the way grower diversions are 

accounted for will change, the grower 

diversion program helps mitigate the 

negative effects of oversupply by 

increasing the amount of cherries 

diverted from production. 

This action will have a positive 

impact on growers. The value of the 

grower diversion certificates will 

increase. As the value of the certificates 

increases, grower diversion of cherries 

in large crop years will increase. 

Increased grower diversion activity will 

help reduce excess supplies, which in 

turn will have a positive impact on 

grower returns. In addition, grower costs 

associated with harvesting and 

transporting cherries to handlers will be 

reduced as more cherries are diverted. 

This action will also have a positive 

impact on handlers. As more fruit is 

diverted in the orchard, handlers will 

avoid the processing and storage costs 

that they would otherwise incur if 

growers harvested and delivered the 

fruit. Reducing the available supply of 

cherries will mitigate the price 

depressing effects that oversupply 

typically has on the market, resulting in 

a positive effect for both growers and 

handlers. 

Testimony at the hearing suggested 

that the amendments, which encourage 

grower diversions, will not have a 

negative impact on small growers or 

handlers. The hearing record suggests 

that these amendments will benefit 

small growers by providing better 

opportunities to divert cherries in the 

orchard in large crop years. Small 

handlers are not always able to ship to 

export markets or have as much new 

product activity as larger handlers. 

Small handlers will benefit from these 

amendments by providing diversion 

credits as a way to meet their 

restrictions. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

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 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington and 

Wisconsin). No changes in those 

requirements is necessary a result of this 

action. Should any change become 

necessary, it would be submitted to 

OMB for approval. 

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. USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this rule. All of these amendments are 

designed to enhance the administration 

and functioning of the marketing order 

to the benefit of the industry. 

The implementation of these 

requirements will not impose any 

additional costs on handlers. In fact, 

these amendments will reduce costs for 

both growers and handlers. 

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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The amendments to Marketing Order 

930 stated herein have been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. They are 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 the 

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 Sates 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 no later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

Order Amending the Order Regulating 

the Handling of Tart Cherries Grown in 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth are supplementary 

to the findings and determinations that 

were previously made in connection 

with the issuance of the marketing 

agreement and order; and all said 

previous findings and determinations 

are hereby ratified and affirmed, except 

insofar as such findings and 

determinations may be in conflict with 

the findings and determinations set 

forth herein. 

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon 

the Basis of the Hearing Record. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601– 

612), and the applicable rules of 

practice and procedure effective 

thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public 

hearing was held upon proposed further 

amendment of Marketing Agreement 

and Order No. 930, regulating the 

handling of tart cherries grown in 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. Upon the basis of the 

evidence introduced at such hearing 

and the record thereof, it is found that: 

1. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

further amended, and all of the terms 

and conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

2. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

further amended, regulate the handling 

of tart cherries grown in the production 

area in the same manner as, and are 

applicable only to, persons in the 

respective classes of commercial and 

industrial activity specified in the 

marketing agreement and order upon 

which a hearing has been held; 

3. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

further amended, are limited in their 

application to the smallest regional 

production area which is practicable, 

consistent with carrying out the 

declared policy of the Act, and the 

issuance of several orders applicable to 

subdivisions of the production area 

would not effectively carry out the 

declared policy of the Act; 

4. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

further amended, prescribe, insofar as 

practicable, such different terms 

applicable to different parts of the 

production area as are necessary to give 

due recognition to the differences in the 

production and marketing of tart 

cherries grown in the production area; 

and 

5. All handling of tart cherries grown 

in the production area as defined in the 

marketing agreement and order, is in the 

current of interstate or foreign 

commerce or directly burdens, 

obstructs, or affects such commerce. 

(b) Additional Findings. 

It is necessary and in the public 

interest to make these amendments 

effective not later than one day after 

publication in the Federal Register. A 

later effective date would unnecessarily 

delay implementation of the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
33306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

amendments. These amendments 

should be in place as soon as possible, 

as the new production year begins on 

July 1. 

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby 

found and determined that good cause 

exists for making these amendments 

effective one day after publication in the 

Federal Register, and that it would be 

contrary to the public interest to delay 

the effective date for 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (Sec. 

553(d), Administrative Procedure Act; 5 

U.S.C. 551–559). 

(c) Determinations. It is hereby 

determined that: 

1. Handlers (excluding cooperative 

associations of producers who are not 

engaged in processing, distributing, or 

shipping tart cherries covered by the 

order as hereby amended) who, during 

the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 

2011, handled 50 percent or more of the 

volume of such cherries covered by said 

order, as hereby amended, have signed 

a marketing agreement, and 

2. The issuance of this amendatory 

order, further amending the aforesaid 

order, is favored or approved by at least 

two-thirds of the producers who 

participated in a referendum on the 

question of approval and who, during 

the period of July 1, 2010, through June 

30, 2011 (which has been determined to 

be a representative period), have been 

engaged within the production area in 

the production of such cherries, such 

producers having also produced for 

market at least two-thirds of the volume 

of such commodity represented in the 

referendum. 

3. The issuance of this amendatory 

order is favored or approved by 

processors who, during the period of 

July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011 

(which has been determined to be a 

representative period), have engaged in 

canning or freezing cherries for market 

and have frozen or canned more than 50 

percent of the total volume of cherries 

regulated which were canned or frozen 

within the production area. 

Order Relative to Handling of Tart 

Cherries Grown in Michigan, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wisconsin 

It is therefore ordered, That on and 

after the effective date hereof, all 

handling of tart cherries grown in 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin shall be in conformity to, and 

in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the said order as hereby 

amended as follows: 

The provisions of the proposed 

marketing order amending the order 

contained in the Secretary’s Decision 

issued on February 28, 2012 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13015) shall be 

and are the terms and provisions of this 

order amending the order and are set 

forth in full below. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service amends 7 CFR part 930 as 

follows: 

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW 

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND 

WISCONSIN 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 930 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise the introductory text in 

§ 930.10 to read as follows: 

§ 930.10 Handle. 

Handle means the process to brine, 

can, concentrate, freeze, dehydrate, pit, 

press or puree cherries, or in any other 

way convert cherries commercially into 

a processed product, or divert cherries 

pursuant to § 930.59, or to otherwise 

place cherries into the current of 

commerce within the production area or 

from the area to points outside thereof: 

Provided, That the term handle shall not 

include: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e) of 

§ 930.50 to read as follows: 

§ 930.50 Marketing policy. 

* * * * * 

(d) Final percentages. No later than 

September 15 of each crop year, the 

Board shall review the most current 

information available including, but not 

limited to, processed production and 

grower diversions of cherries during the 

current crop year. The Board shall make 

such adjustments as are necessary 

between free and restricted tonnage to 

achieve the optimum supply and 

recommend such final free market 

tonnage and restricted percentages to 

the Secretary and announce them in 

accordance with paragraph (h) of this 

section. The difference between any 

final free market tonnage percentage 

designated by the Secretary and 100 

percent shall be the final restricted 

percentage. With its recommendation, 

the Board shall report on its 

consideration of the factors in paragraph 

(e) of this section. 

(e) Factors. When computing 

preliminary and interim percentages, or 

determining final percentages for 

recommendation to the Secretary, the 

Board shall give consideration to the 

following factors: 

(1) The estimated total production of 

cherries; 

(2) The estimated size of the crop to 

be handled; 

(3) The expected general quality of 

such cherry production; 

(4) The expected carryover as of July 

1 of canned and frozen cherries and 

other cherry products; 

(5) The expected demand conditions 

for cherries in different market 

segments; 

(6) Supplies of competing 

commodities; 

(7) An analysis of economic factors 

having a bearing on the marketing of 

cherries; 

(8) The estimated tonnage held by 

handlers in primary or secondary 

inventory reserves; 

(9) Any estimated release of primary 

or secondary inventory reserve cherries 

during the crop year; and 

(10) The quantity of grower-diverted 

cherries during the crop year. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise paragraph (a) of § 930.58 to 

read as follows: 

§ 930.58 Grower diversion privilege. 

(a) In general. Any grower may 

voluntarily elect to divert, in accordance 

with the provisions of this section, all 

or a portion of the cherries which 

otherwise, upon delivery to a handler, 

would become restricted percentage 

cherries. Upon such diversion and 

compliance with the provisions of this 

section, the Board shall issue to the 

diverting grower a grower diversion 

certificate which such grower may 

deliver to a handler. Any grower 

diversions completed in accordance 

with this section, but which are 

undertaken in districts subsequently 

exempted by the Board from volume 

regulation under § 930.52(d), shall 

qualify for diversion credit. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 31, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13645 Filed 6–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES