Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1685 

(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; and (9) any estimated release 

of primary or secondary inventory 

reserve cherries during the crop year. 

The Board’s review of the factors 

resulted in the computation and 

announcement in September 2006 of the 

free and restricted percentages proposed 

to be established by this rule (55 percent 

free and 45 percent restricted). 

One alternative to this action would 

be not to have volume regulation this 

season. Board members stated that no 

volume regulation would be detrimental 

to the tart cherry industry due to the 

size of the 2006–2007 crop. Returns to 

growers would not cover their costs of 

production for this season which might 

cause some to go out of business. 

As mentioned earlier, USDA’s 

‘‘Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and 

Specialty Crop Marketing Orders’’

specify that 110 percent of recent years’

sales should be made available to 

primary markets each season before 

recommendations for volume regulation 

are approved. The quantity available 

under this rule is 110 percent of the 

quantity shipped in the prior three 

years. 

The free and restricted percentages 

established by this rule release the 

optimum supply and apply uniformly to 

all regulated handlers in the industry, 

regardless of size. There are no known 

additional costs incurred by small 

handlers that are not incurred by large 

handlers. The stabilizing effects of the 

percentages impact all handlers 

positively by helping them maintain 

and expand markets, despite seasonal 

supply fluctuations. Likewise, price 

stability positively impacts all 

producers by allowing them to better 

anticipate the revenues their tart 

cherries will generate. 

While the benefits resulting from this 

rulemaking are difficult to quantify, the 

stabilizing effects of the volume 

regulations impact both small and large 

handlers positively by helping them 

maintain markets even though tart 

cherry supplies fluctuate widely from 

season to season. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this regulation. 

In addition, the Board’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the tart 

cherry industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Board 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Board meetings, the September 9, 2006, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

In compliance with Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which 

implement the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements under the 

tart cherry marketing order have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB Number 0581–0177. 

Reporting and recordkeeping burdens 

are necessary for compliance purposes 

and for developing statistical data for 

maintenance of the program. The forms 

require information which is readily 

available from handler records and 

which can be provided without data 

processing equipment or trained 

statistical staff. As with other, similar 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically studied to reduce 

or eliminate duplicate information 

collection burdens by industry and 

public sector agencies. This rule does 

not change those requirements. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

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. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

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. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate because this rule would 

need to be in place as soon as possible 

since handlers are already shipping tart 

cherries from the 2006–2007 crop. All 

written comments timely received will 

be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to 

be amended 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. Section 930.255 is added to read as 

follows: 

Note: This section will not appear in the 

annual Code of Federal Regulations. 

§ 930.255 Final free and restricted 

percentages for the 2006–2007 crop year. 

The final percentages for tart cherries 

handled by handlers during the crop 

year beginning on July 1, 2006, which 

shall be free and restricted, respectively, 

are designated as follows: Free 

percentage, 55 percent and restricted 

percentage, 45 percent. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–423 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 946 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0177; FV06–946–

1 PR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; 

Modification of Administrative Rules 

Governing Committee Representation 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on modifications to the administrative 

rules governing committee 

representation under the Washington 

potato marketing order. The marketing 

order regulates the handling of Irish 

potatoes grown in Washington, and is 

administered locally by the State of 

Washington Potato Committee 

(Committee). This rule would 

reestablish districts within the 

production area, reestablish the 

Committee with fewer members, and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
1686 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

reapportion members among districts. 

These changes would result in more 

efficient administration of the program 

while providing for more effective 

representation of the Washington fresh 

potato industry on the Committee. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 19, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must 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; Email: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register and 

will be made available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, or 

can be viewed at: http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or E-Mail: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

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: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 

946), regulating the handling of Irish 

potatoes grown in Washington, 

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 proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

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 USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This rule invites comments on 

proposed modifications to the 

administrative rules governing 

committee representation under the 

Washington potato marketing order. 

This rule would reestablish districts 

within the production area, reestablish 

the Committee with fewer members, and 

reapportion members among the new 

districts. Specifically, this rule would 

reestablish the order’s five districts as 

three districts; decrease Committee 

membership from fifteen members and 

fifteen alternate members to nine 

members and nine alternate members; 

and reapportion the members such that 

one handler member and alternate 

member, and two producer members 

and their respective alternate members 

would be elected from each of the three 

reestablished districts. These changes 

would result in more efficient 

administration of the program while 

providing for more effective 

representation of the fresh potato 

industry on the Committee. The 

Committee unanimously recommended 

these changes at a meeting held on June 

6, 2006, with a request that they be 

made effective on July 1, 2007. 

The order provides in § 946.22 that 

USDA, upon recommendation of the 

Committee, may reestablish districts, 

may reapportion members among 

districts, may change the number of 

members and alternate members, and 

may change the composition by 

changing the ratio of members, 

including their alternates. In 

recommending any such changes, the 

order requires that the Committee 

consider the following: (1) Shifts in 

acreage within districts and within the 

production area during recent years; (2) 

the importance of new production in its 

relation to existing districts; (3) the 

equitable relationship between 

Committee apportionment and districts; 

and (4) other relevant factors. 

As previously noted, the Committee 

currently has fifteen members, with 

membership apportioned among five 

districts. Sections 946.31 and 946.103 

currently define the districts as follows: 

District No. 1—The counties of Ferry, 

Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, 

Whitman, and Lincoln, plus the East 

Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin 

Project, plus the area of Grant County 

not included in either the Quincy or 

South Irrigation Districts which lies east 

of township vertical line R27E, plus the 

area of Adams County not included in 

either of the South or Quincy Irrigation 

Districts. 

District No. 2—The counties of 

Kittitas, Douglas, Chelan, and 

Okanogan, plus the Quincy Irrigation 

District of the Columbia Basin Project, 

plus the area of Grant County not 

included in the East or South Irrigation 

Districts which lies west of township 

line R28E. 

District No. 3—The counties of 

Benton, Klickitat, and Yakima. 

District No. 4—The counties of Walla 

Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, 

plus the South Irrigation District of the 

Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of 

Franklin County not included in the 

South District. 

District No. 5—All of the remaining 

counties in the State of Washington not 

included in Districts No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 

of this section. 

Further, §§ 946.25 and 946.104 

currently provide in part that each of 

the five districts are represented as 

follows: District No. 1: Three producer 

members and one handler member; 

District No. 2: Two producer members 

and one handler member; District No. 3: 

Two producer members and one 

handler member; District No. 4: Two 

producer members and one handler 

member; District No. 5: One producer 

member and one handler member. 

The Committee’s districts were last 

reestablished on July 1, 1975, largely 

due to changes in the production area 

brought about by the Columbia Basin 

Project (CBP). The CBP is a large scale 

irrigation project administered by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department 

of Interior. The CBP is comprised of 

three irrigation districts centered in 

Grant County, Washington. 

The Committee’s districts were 

originally established using county 

boundaries, whereas the 1975 

redistricting process reestablished the 

districts by utilizing existing county and 

township lines, as well as the three 

irrigation districts formed under the 

CBP. As a consequence, the Committee 

utilized the CBP irrigation district 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 1687 

boundaries in redistricting. At the time, 

the boundaries of the three irrigation 

districts were well known to producers 

in the area. However, as more producers 

installed wells to irrigate their potatoes, 

the CBP irrigation district boundaries 

became less relevant. 

Also, the Committee reports that it is 

having difficulty recruiting members. 

This recruitment issue is largely due to 

a decreasing number of qualified 

individuals willing to take the time 

away from their families and farms to 

serve on the Committee. 

Finally, the Washington State Potato 

Commission (Commission), an agency of 

the State of Washington, has recently 

reestablished its production area into 

three districts. The Committee 

recommended reestablishing the order’s 

districts to align with the Commission’s 

new districts. 

After comparing current acreage and 

production statistics, as well as the 

current number of fresh potato 

producers in each of the order’s five 

districts to statistics for the 

Commission’s three new districts, the 

Committee found that reestablishment 

of its districts from five to three would 

not only be feasible, but could enhance 

the Committee’s administration of the 

order. In considering the trend towards 

less industry participation on the 

Committee, as well as the decreasing 

relative size of the fresh potato producer 

population (the 5 year average fresh 

production is 13% of the total 

Washington potato production), the 

Committee also determined that it could 

more effectively serve the industry if it 

were to reestablish with as few as nine 

members. 

The Committee currently is 

comprised of ten producer members and 

five handler members and their 

respective alternates. The Committee 

felt that this ratio—two producer 

members to each handler member—

should also be used in reestablishing 

and reapportioning the Committee. 

Based on statistical information 

available from USDA, the Committee 

therefore determined that the 

reestablished Committee should be 

comprised of nine members—six 

producer members and three handler 

members—with two producer members 

and respective alternates, and one 

handler member and respective 

alternate representing each of the three 

new districts. 

In determining how to appropriately 

divide the production area into three 

districts, as well as the correct 

apportionment of nine members in three 

new districts, the Committee reviewed 

the relative differences in fresh 

production and acreage estimates in 

Washington’s various potato producing 

counties. Using data from the USDA’s 

National Agriculture Statistics Service 

(NASS), the Committee’s research 

indicated that proposed District No. 1 

would have 41 percent of the fresh 

potato producers, 36 percent of the fresh 

potato production, and 32 percent of the 

fresh potato acreage in the order’s 

production area. Proposed District No. 2 

would have 31 percent of the producers, 

43 percent of the production, and 36 

percent of the acreage. Finally, proposed 

District No. 3 would have 28 percent of 

the producers, 21 percent of the 

production, and 32 percent of the 

acreage. 

Although these statistics show that 

the number of fresh potato farms and 

the related production figures are not 

evenly divided among the proposed 

districts, acreage figures are nearly 

equal. Additionally, the Committee 

reports that there are widely variable 

yields among the various table-stock 

potato varieties produced in 

Washington’s diverse production areas. 

In equitably apportioning the proposed 

nine members among the three districts, 

the Committee chose not to provide 

districts that predominately produce a 

lower yielding variety of potato with 

less representation on the Committee. 

As previously noted, the Committee’s 

recommendation therefore includes 

provision that two producer members 

and one handler member, as well as 

their respective alternates, would 

represent each district. 

The proposed districts would provide 

consistency in the Washington potato 

industry. All of Grant County would be 

located in the reestablished District No. 

1 instead of being divided between 

Districts No. 1, 2 and 4, as is currently 

the case. As proposed in this rule, 

District No. 1 would consist of the 

counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, 

Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend 

Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and 

Lincoln. District No. 2 would consist of 

the counties of Kittitas, Yakima, 

Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla 

Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin. 

Finally, District No. 3 would consist of 

all the remaining counties in the State 

of Washington not included in Districts 

No. 1 and 2 (essentially all of the 

counties west of the Cascade 

Mountains). 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 45 handlers 

of Washington potatoes subject to 

regulation under the order and 

approximately 267 potato producers in 

the regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $6,500,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. 

During the 2005–2006 marketing year, 

10,516,095 hundredweight of 

Washington potatoes were inspected 

under the order and sold into the fresh 

market. Based on an estimated average 

f.o.b. price of $7.80 per hundredweight, 

the Committee estimates that 43 

handlers, or about 96 percent, had 

annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. 

In addition, based on information 

provided by NASS, the average 

producer price for Washington potatoes 

for the 2005 marketing year (the most 

recent period that final statistics are 

available) was $5.60 per hundredweight. 

The average annual producer revenue 

for each of the 267 Washington potato 

producers is therefore calculated to be 

approximately $220,562. In view of the 

foregoing, the majority of the handlers 

and producers of Washington potatoes 

may be classified as small entities. 

This rule would modify §§ 946.103 

and 946.104 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations by 

reestablishing the order’s districts from 

the current five districts to three 

districts, reestablishing the Committee 

with nine members rather than fifteen 

members, and reapportioning the 

membership such that each district is 

represented by two producers and one 

handler and their respective alternates. 

This rule would be effective July 1, 

2007. Authority for reestablishing the 

districts, as well as reestablishing and 

reapportioning the Committee is 

provided in § 946.22 of the order. 

The Committee believes that these 

proposed changes would not negatively 

impact handlers and producers in terms 

of cost. Costs for Committee meetings 

should actually decrease because of the 

reduction in the number of members 

and their respective alternates traveling 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
1688 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

to meetings. Such savings could 

ultimately be passed on to handlers and 

producers in the form of reduced 

assessments. The benefits for this rule 

are not expected to be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small handlers or producers than for 

larger entities. 

The Committee discussed various 

alternative reductions in Committee size 

and how to reapportion fewer members 

among the districts. Ultimately, the 

Committee determined that reducing its 

size to nine members would best 

mitigate the problems associated with 

recruitment of qualified members. 

Since this rule would modify the 

administrative rules governing 

committee representation by 

reestablishing districts, reestablishing 

the Committee, and reapportioning 

members among districts, additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

would not be imposed on either small 

or large potato handlers. The 

information collection requirements 

contained in this rule have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget under No. 

0581–0178, Vegetable and Specialty 

Crops. 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. Furthermore, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this proposed rule. 

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. 

The Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the Washington 

potato industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, the February 9, 2006, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

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. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 946 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 946.103 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.103 Reestablishment of districts. 

Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after July 

1, 2007, the following districts are 

reestablished: 

(a) District No. 1—the counties of 

Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, Grant, 

Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, 

Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln. 

(b) District No. 2—the counties of 

Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, 

Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, 

Garfield, and Asotin. 

(c) District No. 3—all of the remaining 

counties in the State of Washington, not 

included in Districts No. 1 and No. 2 of 

this paragraph. 

3. Section 946.104 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.104 Reestablishment and 

Reapportionment of committee. 

(a) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after 

July 1, 2007, the State of Washington 

Potato Committee consisting of nine 

members, of whom six shall be 

producers and three shall be handlers, 

is hereby reestablished. For each 

member of the committee there shall be 

an alternate who shall have the same 

qualifications as the member. 

(b) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after 

July 1, 2007, membership representation 

of the State of Washington Potato 

Committee shall be reapportioned 

among the districts of the production 

area so as to provide that each of the 

three districts as defined in § 946.103 

are represented by two producer 

members and one handler member and 

their respective alternates. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–425 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1207 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0219; FV–05–711] 

Potato Research and Promotion Plan; 

Section 610 Review 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document summarizes 

the results of an Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) review of the Potato 

Research and Promotion Program, under 

the criteria contained in Section 610 of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Based 

upon its review, AMS has determined 

that the Potato Research and Promotion 

Plan should be continued without 

change. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

obtain a copy of the review. Requests for 

copies should be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Research and Promotion Branch, 

Fruit and Vegetable Programs (FV), 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), 

USDA, Stop 0244, Room 0634–S, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone 

(202) 720–9915; Fax (202) 205–2800; or 

e-mail: Daniel.Manzoni@usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sonia N. Jimenez, Research and 

Promotion Branch, FV, AMS, USDA, 

Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Room 0634–S, Washington, DC 

20250–0244; telephone: (888) 720–9917; 

fax: (202) 205–2800; or e-mail: 

Sonia.Jimenez@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Potato 

Research and Promotion Act of 1971, as 

amended, (7 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.) 

authorized the Potato Research and 

Promotion Program which is industry 

operated and funded, with oversight by 

USDA. The Program’s objective is to 

carry out an effective and continuous 

coordinated program of research, 

development, advertising, and 

promotion designed to strengthen 

potatoes’ competitive position, and to 

maintain and expand domestic and 

foreign markets for potatoes and potato 

products. 

The Program became effective on 

March 9, 1972, and was implemented 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS