15056 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large sweet cherry producers, 

handlers, or importers. USDA has not 

identified any Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. However, there is a marketing 

order program (7 CFR part 923) which 

regulates the handling of sweet cherries. 

Sweet cherries under a marketing order 

have to meet certain requirements set 

forth in the U.S. grade standards. 

Alternatives were considered for this 

action. One alternative would be to not 

issue a proposed rule. However, the 

need for this revision has increased as 

a result of changing market 

characteristics. Since the purpose of 

these standards is to facilitate the 

marketing of agricultural commodities, 

not revising the sweet cherries standard 

could result in confusion in terms of 

industry marketing and the use of the 

U.S. standards. AMS is seeking 

comments regarding how, if at all, 

marketing would be improved by 

incorporating standard row sizes into 

the standard. Further, comments 

outlining any additional costs or 

benefits would be helpful in 

determining a final decision after the 

comments are received and reviewed. 

AMS will also review any other 

suggested revisions and would be 

interested in how they would improve 

the marketing of sweet cherries and any 

associated costs and/or benefits to the 

industry. 

Background 

Prior to undertaking detailed work to 

develop a proposed revision to the 

standard, AMS published a notice on 

January 25, 2006, in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 4100) soliciting 

comments on a proposal to incorporate 

row sizes into the standards. 

In response to our request for 

comments, AMS received two 

comments from the industry. These 

comments are available by accessing the 

AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site 

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

fpbdocketlist.htm. 

The first comment was from a grower/ 

shipper which supported incorporating 

a standard row size into the Standards 

for Grades of Sweet Cherries. The 

second comment was from a trade 

association representing wholesale 

receivers. The comment only stated that 

the association saw no reason to 

incorporate the standard row size into 

the U.S. Grade Standards at this time. 

However, AMS believes incorporating 

the size will be beneficial and reflect 

current marketing practices. 

Accordingly, AMS is proposing to 

incorporate standard row sizes into the 

U.S. standards. The row size 

corresponds with current row sizes 

being used in the industry. The section 

51.2660 Metric Conversion Table would 

be designated as section 51.2660 

Standard Row Sizes to show the 

following definition for row size with 

corresponding sizes in inches: 

Row sizes ........................................................................................... 9 91⁄2 10 101⁄2 11 111⁄2 12 121⁄2 13 

Size in inches ..................................................................................... 75/64 71/64 67/64 64/64 61/64 57/64 54/64 51/64 48/64 

Section 51.2661 would be the 

standard and the current § 51.2660 

Metric Conversion Table will be redesignated as § 51.2661. 

The official grade of a lot of sweet 

cherries covered by these standards is 

determined by the procedures set forth 

in the Regulations Governing 

Inspection, Certification, and Standards 

of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other 

Products (§ 51.1 to 51.61). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51 

Agricultural commodities, Food 

grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Trees, Vegetables. 

PART 51—[AMENDED] 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

7 CFR part 51 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

2. Section 51.2660 is revised and 

§ 51.2661 is added to read as follows: 

Subpart—United States Standards for 

Grades of Sweet Cherries 

§ 51.2660 Standard Row Sizes. 

Row sizes ........................................................................................... 9 91⁄2 10 101⁄2 11 111⁄2 12 121⁄2 13 

Size in inches ..................................................................................... 75/64 71/64 67/64 64/64 61/64 57/64 54/64 51/64 48/64 

§ 51.2661 Metric Conversion Table. 

Inches Millimeters 

(mm) 

8⁄64 equals ................................. 3.2 16⁄64 equals ............................... 6.4 24⁄64 equals ............................... 9.5 32⁄64 equals ............................... 12.7 40⁄64 equals ............................... 15.9 48⁄64 equals ............................... 19.1 51⁄64 equals ............................... 20.2 52⁄64 equals ............................... 20.6 54⁄64 equals ............................... 21.4 56⁄64 equals ............................... 22.2 

1 equals .................................... 25.4 

18⁄64 equals ............................... 28.6 

116⁄64 equals ............................. 31.8 

1‘24⁄64 equals ............................ 34.9 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1537 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 915 

[Docket No. AO–254–A10; AMS–FV–06–

0220; FV06–915–2] 

Avocados Grown in South Florida; 

Recommended Decision on Proposed 

Amendments of Marketing Order No. 

915 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS), USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and opportunity 

to file exceptions. 

SUMMARY: This is a recommended 

decision regarding proposed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15057 

amendments to Marketing Order No. 

915 (order), which regulates the 

handling of avocados grown in Florida. 

The amendments were proposed by the 

Florida Avocado Administrative 

Committee (Committee), which is 

responsible for local administration of 

the order. The amendments included in 

this recommended decision would: add 

authority for the Committee to borrow 

funds; revise voting requirements for 

changing the assessment rate; allow for 

District 1 nominations to be conducted 

by mail; and add authority for the 

Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. The proposed 

amendments are intended to improve 

the operation and functioning of the 

marketing order program. This 

recommended decision invites written 

exceptions on the proposed 

amendments. This rule also announces 

AMS’s intention to request approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of a new information collection. 

DATES: Written exceptions must be filed 

by April 30, 2007. Pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection burden must 

be received by May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written exceptions should 

be filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, room 1081–

S, Washington, DC 20250–9200, Fax: 

(202) 720–9776 or via the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register. 

Comments will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Hearing Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc McFetridge or Melissa 

Schmaedick, Marketing Specialists, 

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

Marketing Order Administration Branch 

(MOAB), AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

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

Marc.McFetridge@usda.gov or 

Melissa.Schmaedick@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding 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, e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior 

documents in this proceeding: Notice of 

Hearing issued on July 18, 2006, and 

published in the July 24, 2006 issue of 

the Federal Register (71 FR 41740). 

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 

Notice is hereby given of the filing 

with the Hearing Clerk of this 

recommended decision with respect to 

the proposed amendments to Marketing 

Order 915 regulating the handling of 

avocados grown in Florida, and the 

opportunity to file written exceptions 

thereto. Copies of this decision can be 

obtained from Marc McFetridge whose 

address is listed above. 

This recommended decision is issued 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), 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). 

The proposed amendments are based 

on the record of a public hearing held 

August 16, 2006, in Homestead, Florida. 

Notice of this hearing was published in 

the Federal Register on July 24, 2006 

(71 FR 41740). The notice of hearing 

contained proposals submitted by the 

Committee. 

The proposed amendments are the 

result of the Committee’s review of the 

order. The Committee met several times 

in 2005 and drafted proposed 

amendments to the order and presented 

them at industry meetings. The 

proposed amendments were then 

unanimously approved by the 

Committee. The amendments are 

intended to streamline organization and 

administration of the marketing order 

program. The Committee’s request for a 

public hearing was submitted to the 

USDA on May 1, 2006. 

The Committee’s proposed 

amendments to the order are 

summarized below: 

1. Amend the order to provide the 

Committee authority to borrow funds. 

This proposal would amend § 915.41, 

Assessments. 

2. Amend the order by revising the 

voting requirements for changing the 

assessment rate. This change would 

remove the current voting requirement 

for rate increases above $0.20 per bushel 

that provides for a quorum of eight 

Committee members and eight 

concurring votes for approval. The new 

voting requirement would be applicable 

to all assessment rate increases and 

would provide for a quorum of seven 

Committee members and a two-thirds 

majority vote of those in attendance for 

approval. This proposal would amend 

§ 915.30, Procedure. 

3. Amend the order to allow District 

1 nominations to be conducted by mail. 

District 2 nomination procedures 

already provide that authority. This 

proposal would amend § 915.22, 

Nomination. 

4. Add authority to the order for the 

Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. This proposal would add 

a new § 915.43, Contributions. 

USDA also proposes to make changes 

to the order as may be necessary, if any 

of the proposed changes are adopted, so 

that all of the order’s provisions 

conform to the effectuated amendments. 

Nine industry witnesses testified at 

the hearing. These witnesses 

represented fresh avocado producers 

and handlers in the production area. All 

of the witnesses testified in support of 

the proposed amendments to the order. 

Industry witnesses addressed the 

need for adding authority to borrow 

funds. Witnesses indicated that multiple 

years of weather-related disasters have 

led to economic hardships for the 

Florida avocado industry and, as a 

result, lower assessment collections to 

fund the administrative costs of the 

Committee. The authority to borrow 

funds would enable the Committee 

access to an additional source for cash 

flow in addition to assessments, thereby 

providing the Committee with flexibility 

in covering their operational costs 

during times of economic hardship. 

Industry witnesses stated their 

support for revising the voting 

requirements for changing the 

assessment rate. This amendment would 

remove the current voting requirement 

for rate increases above $0.20 per bushel 

that provides for a quorum of eight 

Committee members and eight 

concurring votes for approval. The new 

voting requirement would be applicable 

to all assessment rate increases and 

would provide for a quorum of seven 

Committee members and a two-thirds 

majority vote of those in attendance for 

approval. Revising these voting 

requirements would allow the 

Committee to become more flexible in 

responding to budgetary emergencies 

due to economic fluctuations in the 

avocado industry. 

Witnesses also supported the proposal 

to allow for District 1 nominations to be 

conducted by mail. While the authority 

already exists to conduct nominations 

in District 2 by mail, voters in District 

1 are required to travel to nomination 

meetings to cast their vote in District 1. 

Many witnesses cited grower reluctance 

to attend these meetings because of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
15058 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

travel related expenses and lost wages 

due to time away from the workplace. 

Thus, voter participation in District 1 

nominations has been consistently 

lower compared to those held in District 

2. Witnesses stated that this proposal 

would broaden grower participation in 

the Committee nominations for District 

1. 

Lastly, industry witnesses testified in 

support of adding authority to accept 

voluntary contributions. According to 

the record, the authority to accept 

voluntary contributions would enable 

the Committee access to an additional 

source of revenue besides assessments. 

Some witnesses stated that voluntary 

contributions could also eliminate the 

need to raise the assessment rate and 

could support Committee research and 

development activities. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the 

Administrative Law Judge stated that 

the final date for interested persons to 

file proposed findings and conclusions 

or written arguments and briefs based 

on the evidence received at the hearing 

would be 30 days after USDA’s posting 

of the hearing record transcript. The 

transcript was posted on September 13, 

2006. Therefore, the briefing period 

ended October 13, 2006. One brief was 

filed. The brief stated a need for a 

technical change to § 915.11. The brief 

noted that the name of Dade County has 

changed to Miami-Dade County. This 

correction has been incorporated as a 

technical change throughout this 

amendatory proceeding. 

Material Issues 

The material issues presented on the 

record of hearing are as follows: 

(1) Whether to add authority to 

borrow funds; 

(2) Whether to revise the voting 

requirements for changing the 

assessment rate; 

(3) Whether to allow for District 1 

nominations to be conducted by mail; 

and 

(4) Whether to add authority to accept 

voluntary contributions. 

Findings and Conclusions 

The following findings and 

conclusions on the material issues are 

based on evidence presented at the 

hearing and the record thereof. 

Material Issue Number 1—Authority to 

Borrow Funds 

Section 915.41, Assessments, should 

be amended to provide the Committee 

with authority to borrow funds. Any 

such funds would be limited for use by 

the Committee to meet its 

administrative responsibilities under 

the order during times of economic 

hardship and would be subject to prior 

approval by USDA. 

Under the current definition of the 

order, the Committee does not have the 

authority to borrow funds. Witnesses 

explained that without the authority to 

borrow funds or access to other nonassessment resources, the Committee is 

reliant on production-related revenue to 

fund its administrative operations. 

According to the record, multiple 

years of weather related-disasters have 

resulted in lower assessment collections 

due to heavy losses of crops and 

production capacity. As a result, the 

Committee has relied on its financial 

reserves to continue its administrative 

operations. After more than five years of 

consecutive weather damage and low 

assessment collections, the Committee 

has depleted its reserves. Witnesses 

stated that the authority to borrow funds 

would be essential to the Committee’s 

ability to continue operations during 

any future times of economic hardship. 

As an example, witnesses cited 

USDA’s grant of special emergency, 

short-term authority to borrow funds 

during fiscal year 2005–2006. It was 

indicated that without those borrowed 

funds, the Committee would not have 

been able to continue to operate. The 

Committee has since repaid its loan, and 

witnesses stated that the borrowed 

funds were critical to the Committee’s 

ability to continue functioning during 

that time. 

If implemented, the authority to 

borrow funds would be limited to use 

by the Committee to meet its 

administrative responsibilities under 

the order only during times of economic 

hardship. According to record evidence, 

the Committee’s ability to borrow funds 

would be based on the financial history 

and assets of the Committee. If a loan, 

or a line of credit, for example, were 

approved, the Committee would be 

required to repay the loan by the end of 

the fiscal year in which the funds were 

borrowed. Loans could be renewed for 

the following fiscal year and would be 

subject to USDA oversight as part of the 

Committee’s annual budgetary process. 

Witnesses explained that any interest 

incurred on the loan would be offset by 

the benefit of allowing the Committee to 

finance its operations. 

Based on record evidence, USDA 

recommends modifying the language for 

this proposed amendment to clarify that 

the authority to borrow funds would 

only be used in emergency situations, 

on a short-term basis and to meet 

financial obligations as those obligations 

occur, or to allow the Committee to 

adjust its reserve funds to meet such 

obligations. In addition, the language 

should be clarified to specify that any 

borrowing activities of the Committee 

would be subject to prior review and 

approval by USDA. These clarifying 

changes have been incorporated in the 

amendatory text section of this 

recommended decision. 

It is recommended that the order be 

amended to provide the Committee with 

authority to borrow funds. Without 

access to additional funds during times 

of economic hardship the Committee 

may not be able to meet their 

administrative responsibilities. The 

amount of the loan would be based on 

the financial history of the assessments 

collected by the Committee and would 

be repaid by the end of the fiscal year 

with the possibility for renewal. Any 

such loan would require prior approval 

by USDA. 

For the reasons outlined above, 

§ 915.41 should be amended to provide 

the Committee the authority to borrow 

funds, subject to USDA approval. USDA 

recommends modifying the amendatory 

text of this proposal so that the 

authority to borrow funds would only 

be used in emergency, short-term 

situations, and that such authority 

would be subject to USDA’s prior 

approval. There was no opposition 

testimony on this issue. 

Material Issue Number 2—Revision of 

the Voting Requirements for Committee 

Recommendations To Increase the 

Assessment Rate 

Section 915.30, Procedures, should be 

amended to revise the voting 

requirements for Committee 

recommendations for assessment rate 

changes above $0.20 per bushel. This 

change would remove the current voting 

requirement for rate increases above 

$0.20 per bushel provides for a quorum 

of eight Committee members and eight 

concurring votes for approval. The new 

voting requirement would be applicable 

to all assessment rate increases and 

would provide for a quorum of seven 

Committee members and a two-thirds 

majority vote of those in attendance for 

approval. 

The avocado marketing order 

provides authority for the Committee, 

with approval of USDA, to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses and collect 

assessments from handlers to administer 

the program. The members of the Board 

are producers and handlers of avocados. 

They are familiar with the Board’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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15059 

input. The assessment rate can be 

revised when it is recommended by the 

Committee and approved the USDA. 

Authority to fix the rate of assessment 

to be paid by each handler and to collect 

such assessment appears in § 915.41 of 

the order. In addition, § 915.45 of the 

order provides that the Committee, with 

the approval of USDA, may establish or 

provide for the establishment of 

production research, marketing 

research, and market development 

projects designed to assist, improve, or 

promote the marketing, distribution, 

consumption, or efficient production of 

avocados. The expense of such projects 

is paid from funds collected pursuant to 

§ 915.41 (Assessments). 

Under the current definition of the 

order, the Committee must have a 

quorum of eight and at least eight 

concurring votes to increase assessment 

rates above $0.20 per bushel. The 

Committee consists of ten members, and 

the quorum requirement for all other 

voting purposes is seven members. 

According to record evidence, the 

Committee has had difficulties meeting 

the eight-member quorum and 

consensus requirement specific to 

assessment rate increases above $0.20 

per bushel. Witnesses explained that 

recommendations to increase the 

assessment rate above this level 

typically arise during periods of 

economic hardship, such as crop loss 

after a hurricane. During the 2004–2005 

season, the last time the assessment rate 

was changed to a level above $0.20 per 

bushel, it took three separate meeting 

attempts to receive the required quorum 

votes of eight. The assessment rate 

change was needed to increase the 

reserve funds for continued operation of 

the committee because crop estimates 

were below expectations and reserve 

funds had become low. As a result, the 

Committee has not been able to be as 

responsive as it wanted to be in 

obtaining adequate funds to operate the 

Committee. 

The Committee’s proposal to relax 

voting requirements for increases in the 

assessment rate would facilitate the 

Committee’s ability to be responsive. 

The amendment would require that for 

any change in the assessment rate a 

quorum of seven Committee members 

would be required and a two-thirds 

consensus vote of attending members 

would be needed to approve the change. 

According to the record, the original 

intent regarding voting requirements for 

assessment rates above $0.20 per bushel 

was to provide growers with a voice in 

significant changes in the assessment 

rate. Historically there has been tension 

between growers and handlers, so the 

order was written to provide balance 

between growers and handlers when 

changes in the assessment rate above the 

specified threshold were proposed. 

According to witnesses there now exists 

general unity between handlers and 

growers, especially with regard to this 

specific proposal. Handlers and growers 

agree that especially during times of 

economic hardships it is beneficial to 

relax the voting requirements to 

facilitate the Committee’s ability to be 

responsive. 

The language for this proposed 

amendment published in the Notice of 

Hearing only states a 2⁄3 majority 

requirement but did not clarify that a 

quorum was necessary. For this reason, 

USDA proposes that proposed 

amendatory language for § 915.30, 

Procedure, be modified to clarify that a 

quorum of seven Committee members is 

required in addition to the two-thirds 

majority vote to recommend an 

assessment rate change. The modified 

language would read as follows: ‘‘For 

any recommendation of the Committee 

for an assessment rate change, a quorum 

of seven Committee members and a twothirds majority vote of approval of those 

in attendance is required.’’ 

It is recommended that the order be 

amended to revise the voting 

requirements to increase the assessment 

rate above $0.20 per bushel. The ability 

to recommend any rate change with a 

two-thirds majority vote, given that the 

quorum requirement is met, would 

allow the Committee more flexibility in 

responding to the needs of the industry. 

Without this authority, the Committee’s 

ability to react and modify the 

assessment rate to cover operational 

costs would be unnecessarily limited. 

For the reasons above, it is 

recommended that § 915.30 be 

amended. This amendment would 

remove the current voting requirement 

for rate increases above $0.20 per bushel 

that stipulates a quorum of eight 

Committee members and eight 

concurring votes for approval. The new 

voting requirement, modified by USDA 

as recommended above, would be 

applicable to all assessment rate 

increases and would provide for a 

quorum of seven Committee members 

and a two-thirds majority vote of those 

in attendance for approval. There was 

no opposition testimony on this issue. 

Material Issue Number 3—Allow for 

District 1 Nominations To Be Conducted 

by Mail 

Section 915.22, Nomination, should 

be amended to provide District 1 with 

the authority to conduct nominations by 

mail. 

Under the current nomination rules of 

the order, growers residing in District 1 

must vote in person at the designated 

polling office, which is located at the 

Miami-Dade County Extension office. 

The proposed amendment would allow 

growers to vote via mail on nominations 

for the Committee. If implemented, this 

amendment would also remove the 

Committee’s financial outlays associated 

with holding a nomination meeting, and 

would reduce the financial and other 

burdens currently required of growers 

commuting to vote. 

Witnesses testified that a considerable 

amount of growers in District 1 do not 

live within an easily commutable radius 

of the nomination meeting location. 

According to the record, some growers 

can spend hours commuting to the 

meeting due to both distance and traffic 

congestion. Witnesses stated that time 

spent commuting often results in lost 

wages because of time spent away from 

the workplace. Along with lost wages, 

growers are also burdened with the 

costs of fuel for their commute. 

According to witnesses, the burdens 

of commuting to a nomination meeting 

have led to poor voter turnout. 

Witnesses stated that during the 

previous District 1 nomination, voter 

turnout equaled less than 30 growers, 

which is fewer than 15% of the total 220 

registered growers in that district. 

According to the record, growers in 

District 1 have stated a reluctance to 

participate because the burdens 

associated with traveling to the meeting 

are too great. 

A witness also testified that the costs 

associated with conducting a 

nomination meeting are not justified 

due to low voter participation. The 

witness stated that both a USDA 

representative and a Committee staff 

member are required to conduct 

nomination meetings. Given that few 

growers in District 1 elect to attend the 

nomination meetings, two employee 

work days are used to accommodate a 

very low level of grower participation. 

Witnesses also stated that growers in 

District 2 have the authority to vote via 

mail. The benefits of voting by mail in 

District 1 could be obtained without 

additional costs incurred by the 

Committee. The cost of mailing the 

ballots within District 1 would be less 

than the costs associated with staffing a 

voting location. 

Also, continuance referenda, 

considered by witnesses to be the most 

important vote that growers participate 

in, are conducted by mail. Thus, 

witnesses stated that the precedence for 

successful voter participation by mail 

exists under the order and should be 

extended to nomination voting for 

District 1. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
15060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Witnesses supported the Committee’s 

recommendation to change the date for 

submitting names of the nominees from 

February 15 to March 1. The extra time 

is needed to accommodate mail 

balloting. 

According to the record, the benefits 

of allowing District 1 vote by mail 

include: increased voter grower 

participation in the District 1 Committee 

nominations, reduced costs on growers’

time and money, and reduced costs 

associated with conducting a 

nomination meeting. Allowing District 1 

to vote by mail would increase grower 

participation in the voting process 

without incurring additional expenses. 

For the reasons above, it is 

recommended that § 915.22 be amended 

to provide the Committee with the 

authority to conduct nominations by 

mail in District 1. There was no 

opposition testimony on this issue. 

Material Issue Number 4—Authority To 

Accept Voluntary Contributions 

A new § 915.43, Contribution, should 

be added to provide the Committee with 

the authority to accept voluntary 

contributions. Such contributions 

should be free from any encumbrances 

by the donor so that the Committee 

would retain complete control of their 

use. 

Under the current order, the 

Committee does not have the authority 

to accept voluntary contributions. All 

marketing order activities are funded 

through handler assessments. Adding 

§ 915.43 to the order would provide the 

Committee with the authority to accept 

voluntary contributions. According to 

the record, voluntary contributions 

could help the Committee meet its 

administrative responsibilities under 

the order during times of economic 

hardships and may also provide 

additional funds for Committee research 

and development activities. 

Witnesses testified that the authority 

to accept voluntary contributions would 

be beneficial, especially during times of 

emergency, and that such monies could 

potentially assist in averting the need to 

increase handler assessments during 

those times. According to witnesses, if 

contributions are available, then the 

Committee should have the authority to 

accept them. 

Voluntary contributions could also 

assist the Committee in addressing 

complex crop growth and development 

issues facing the avocado industry. 

Witnesses stated that voluntary 

contributions could fund research on 

disease and pest issues that threaten the 

industry which, due to a lack of 

adequate funds, the Committee has not 

been able to address. The proposal to 

add authority to the order to use 

voluntary contributions for production 

research, marketing research and 

development activities was discussed 

and supported by witnesses at the 

hearing. For this reason, and based on 

supporting evidence found in the record 

of hearing, USDA recommends a 

conforming change to § 915.45, 

Production research, marketing research 

and development, of the order. This 

section should be modified to allow for 

such activities to be to be paid for by 

either assessment funds (provided for 

under § 915.41, Assessments) or any 

receipts received as contributions 

(proposed under the new § 915.43, 

Contributions). This proposed 

conforming change has been included in 

the regulatory text of this recommended 

decision. 

It is recommended that the order be 

amended to add the authority for the 

Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. Currently the Committee 

does not have the authority under the 

order to accept voluntary contributions 

from any source. Providing the 

Committee with the authority to accept 

voluntary contributions could help the 

Committee meet its administrative 

responsibilities under the order. Also, 

voluntary contributions could be used 

to conduct research. For the reasons 

above, it is recommended that § 915.43 

be added to provide the authority for the 

Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. Based on the record, 

USDA is also recommending a 

conforming change to § 915.45, 

Production research, marketing research 

and development, so that voluntary 

contributions, in addition to 

assessments, may be used for activities 

provided for under this provision. There 

was no opposition testimony on this 

issue. 

Small Business Consideration 

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 

initial 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. 

Small agricultural producers have 

been defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $750,000. Small agricultural 

service firms, which include handlers 

regulated under the order, are defined as 

those with annual receipts of less than 

$6,500,000. 

Interested persons were invited to 

present evidence at the hearing on the 

probable regulatory and informational 

impact of the proposed amendments to 

the order on small business. The record 

evidence is that while minimal costs 

may occur upon implementation of 

some of the proposed amendments, 

those costs would be outweighed by the 

benefits expected to accrue to the 

Florida fresh market avocado industry. 

Avocado Industry Background and 

Overview 

There are approximately 300 

producers of avocados in the production 

area and approximately 35 handlers 

subject to regulation under the order. 

According to the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

and Committee data, the average price 

for Florida avocados during the 2005–06 

season was around $46.75 per 55-pound 

bushel container, and total shipments 

were near 470,000 55-pound bushel 

equivalent. Using the average price and 

shipment information provided by the 

Committee, the majority of avocado 

handlers could be considered small 

businesses under the SBA definition. In 

addition, based on avocado production, 

grower prices, and the total number of 

Florida avocado growers, the average 

annual grower revenue is less than 

$750,000. Thus, the majority of Florida 

avocado producers may also be 

classified as small entities. 

The NASS reported that in 2005, total 

Florida avocado bearing acres were 

5,300 and the average yield per acre was 

2.26 tons. The total Florida production 

reported in 2005 was 12,000 tons, with 

growers receiving an average (farm gate) 

price of $940/ton. The estimated total 

value of 2005 Florida avocado 

production was $11.28 million. 

Over the past 30 years the U.S. 

avocado industry has seen many 

changes. According to NASS, the total 

U.S. production acres for avocados have 

decreased by 13 percent, from 78,000 

acres in 1982 to 67,600 acres in 2005. 

Prices have trended upward from 1959 

to 2005, although there has been 

significant variability in prices from 

year to year. The average grower price 

for the U.S. in 1959 was $109 per ton 

and in 2005 the average grower price 

was $1,280 per ton. The total value of 

U.S. avocado production has increased 

dramatically since 1959, reaching a peak 

of $394 million in 2003. The per capital 

consumption of fresh avocados has risen 

significantly since 1970. Between 1970 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15061 

and 2004, per capital consumption 

increased almost five-fold to 2.9 pounds 

per person in 2004. According to the 

record, the availability of imported 

avocados, in addition to domestically 

produced avocados, resulting in yearround availability could be contributing 

to this increase. 

Comparatively, Florida’s avocado 

industry has seen similar trends. 

According to NASS, the production 

acreage has decreased by 53 percent 

over the last three decades. According to 

record evidence, the rapid decrease in 

Florida production acreage compared to 

that of U.S. acreage can be directly 

associated with crop damage resulting 

from hurricanes. Florida’s production 

trended upward to 34,700 tons in the 

early 1980’s and has shown great 

variability since. Production in 2005 

was at a 10 year low of 12,000 tons. 

After Hurricane Andrew, which affected 

the value of production in 1992 and 

1993, the value of Florida’s production 

has ranged from a high of $17.2 million 

in 2003 to a low of $11.3 million in 

2005. 

Proposal 1, Adding the Authority To 

Borrow Funds 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue No. 1 would amend § 915.41, 

Assessments, to add authority for the 

Committee to borrow funds. If 

implemented, the authority to borrow 

funds would be limited to use by the 

Committee to meet its administrative 

responsibilities under the order during 

times of economic hardship. 

Witnesses supported this proposal by 

stating that the authority to borrow 

funds would provide the Committee 

with an alternative revenue source 

besides assessments. The industry has 

experienced multiple years of economic 

hardship resulting in decreased 

production levels. Lower production 

levels reduce the amount of assessments 

collected from the handlers, which has 

resulted in depleting the Committee’s 

monetary reserve over past years. 

According to the record, any interest 

incurred by the Committee on the 

borrowed funds would be offset by the 

benefit of keeping the Committee 

operating. Thus, no significant impact 

on small business entities is anticipated. 

Proposal 2, Revising the Voting 

Requirements for Committee 

Recommendations To Increase the 

Assessment Rate 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue No. 2 would amend § 915.30, 

Procedure, to revise the current voting 

requirements for Committee 

recommendations to increase the 

assessment rate above $0.20 per bushel 

from eight concurring votes to a twothirds majority vote of those Committee 

members in attendance. If implemented, 

this proposed amendment would allow 

the Committee to be more flexible in 

dealing with inflation and economic 

hardships that impact the Committee’s 

monetary reserves. 

Witnesses supported this proposal by 

stating that the current voting 

requirements have resulted in delaying 

the Committee’s ability to quickly 

respond to needs for an increase in 

assessments. According to the record, 

during the 2004–2005 season, the last 

time the assessment rate was changed, 

it took three separate meeting attempts 

to receive the required quorum votes of 

eight. The assessment rate change was 

needed to increase the reserve funds for 

continued operation of the Committee 

because crop estimates were below 

expectations and reserve funds were 

low. 

Relaxing the voting requirements 

would reduce the probability that 

multiple meetings would need to be 

held before quorum was met, as well as 

increase the Committee’s ability to 

effectively respond to budget needs. 

Therefore the costs of revising the 

voting requirements should be out 

weighed by the benefits. 

Proposal 3, Allowing for District 1 

Nominations To Be Conducted by Mail 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue No. 3 would amend § 915.22, 

Nomination, to provide the Committee 

with the authority to conduct 

nominations for District 1 by mail. 

Under the current nomination rules, 

growers living in District 1 must vote in 

person at the designated polling office, 

which is located at the Miami-Dade 

County Extension office. The proposed 

amendment would allow growers to 

vote via mail on nominations for the 

Committee. If implemented, this 

amendment would reduce financial 

outlays associated with maintaining a 

physical voting location, and would 

reduce the financial and physical 

burdens currently required of growers 

commuting to vote. 

The impact for providing the 

Committee with the authority to 

conduct nominations by mail for 

District 1 would result with increased 

mailing costs. Any increased mailing 

cost would be less than or equal to 

current staffing costs. Witnesses 

testified that the benefits of increased 

grower participation and reduced 

transportation costs for growers would 

offset any possible costs associated with 

this proposal. 

Proposal 4, Adding Authority To 

Accept Voluntary Contributions 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue No. 4 would add a new § 915.43, 

Contributions, and would allow the 

Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. Contributions would be 

free from any encumbrances by the 

donor and, according to the record, the 

contributions could be used to cover 

operational costs during times of 

economic hardships or fund research. 

According to the hearing record, the 

Committee would retain oversight over 

such contributions. 

Witnesses supported this proposal by 

stating that it would provide the 

Committee and the industry with an 

additional source of revenue to cover 

operational costs or to fund research. It 

is not expected that this proposal would 

result in any additional costs to growers 

or handlers. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), this notice announces that 

AMS is seeking approval from OMB for 

a new information collection request for 

Avocados Grown in South Florida, 

Marketing Order No. 915, under OMB 

No. 0581-New. Upon OMB approval, the 

additional burden will be merged into 

the information collection currently 

approved under OMB No. 0581–0189, 

‘‘Generic OMB Fruit Crops.’’

Title: Avocados Grown in South 

Florida, Marketing Order No. 915. 

OMB No.: 0581-NEW. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Three 

years from OMB date of approval. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Abstract: The information collection 

requirement in this request is essential 

to provide growers and handlers with 

ballots so that nominations for the 

Committee can be conducted by mail. 

This information collected is used 

only by authorized representatives of 

USDA, including AMS, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs regional and 

headquarters’ staff, and authorized 

employees and agents of the Committee. 

Authorized Committee employees, 

agents, and the industry are the primary 

users of the information and AMS is the 

secondary user. 

Grower Ballot To Nominate Members 

and Alternate Members for District 1 or 

District 2 

Avocado growers would use this 

ballot to nominate members and 

alternative members, either for District 1 

or District 2 (whichever is applicable), 

to serve on the Committee. The ballot 

would be used when voting by mail. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
15062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.083 hour per 

response. 

Respondents: Avocado growers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

352. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 29 hours. 

Handler Ballot To Nominate Members 

and Alternate Members for District 1 or 

District 2 

Avocado handlers would use this 

ballot to nominate members and 

alternate members for either District 1 or 

District 2 (whichever is applicable), to 

serve on the Committee. This ballot 

would be used when voting by mail. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.083 hour per 

response. 

Respondents: Avocado handlers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

32. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 3 hours. 

The Committee recommended 

amending the nomination process to 

allow for District 1 nominations to be 

conducted by mail. 

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 proposed rule. These 

amendments are designed to enhance 

the administration and functioning of 

the marketing order to the benefit of the 

industry. 

Committee meetings regarding these 

proposals as well as the hearing date 

were widely publicized throughout the 

Florida avocado industry, and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings, the hearing and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. All Committee meetings 

and the hearing were public forums and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on these issues. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit information on the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

The 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 

915 proposed herein have been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. They are not 

intended to have retroactive effect. If 

adopted, the proposed amendments 

would not preempt any State or local 

laws, regulations, or policies, unless 

they present an irreconcilable conflict 

with this proposal. 

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 

no later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

Rulings on Briefs of Interested Persons 

Briefs, proposed findings and 

conclusions, and the evidence in the 

record were considered in making the 

findings and conclusions set forth in 

this recommended decision. To the 

extent that the suggested findings and 

conclusions filed by interested persons 

are inconsistent with the findings and 

conclusions of this recommended 

decision, the requests to make such 

findings or to reach such conclusions 

are denied. 

General Findings 

The findings hereinafter set forth are 

supplementary to the findings and 

determinations which 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: 

(1) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, and all 

of the terms and conditions thereof, 

would tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act; 

(2) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, 

regulate the handling of avocados 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 

proposed to be further amended, are 

limited to 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 

proposed to be 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 avocados grown in the 

production area; and 

(5) All handling of avocados 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. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

amendments may be implemented as 

close to the beginning of the coming 

crop year as possible. The next crop 

year begins April 1. All written 

exceptions timely received will be 

considered and a grower referendum 

will be conducted before these 

proposals are implemented. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915 

Avocados, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble the Agricultural Marketing 

Service proposes to amend title 7 part 

915 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

as follows: 

PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN 

SOUTH FLORIDA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 915 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. In § 915.11, paragraphs (a) and (b) 

are revised to read as follows: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15063 

§ 915.11 District. 

(a) District 1 shall include MiamiDade County. 

(b) District 2 shall include all of the 

production area except Miami-Dade 

County. 

3. In § 915.22, paragraph (b)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 915.22 Nomination. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Successor members. (1) The 

Committee shall hold or cause to be 

held a meeting or meetings of growers 

and handlers in each district to 

designate nominees for successor 

members and alternate members of the 

Committee; or the Committee may 

conduct nominations in Districts 1 and 

2 by mail in a manner recommended by 

the Committee and approved by the 

Secretary. Such nominations shall be 

submitted to the Secretary by the 

Committee not later than March 1 of 

each year. The Committee shall 

prescribe procedural rules, not 

inconsistent with the provisions of this 

section, for the conduct of nomination. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 915.30, paragraph (c) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 915.30 Procedure. 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) For any recommendation of the 

Committee for an assessment rate 

change, a quorum of seven Committee 

members and a two-thirds majority vote 

of approval of those in attendance is 

required. 

5. In § 915.41, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 915.41 Assessments. 

(a) * * * 

(b) The Secretary shall fix the rate of 

assessment per 55-pounds of fruit or 

equivalent in any container or in bulk, 

to be paid by each such handler. At any 

time during or after a fiscal year, the 

Secretary may increase the rate of 

assessment, in order to secure sufficient 

funds to cover any later finding by the 

Secretary relative to the expense which 

may be incurred. Such increase shall be 

applied to all fruit handled during the 

applicable fiscal year. In order to 

provide funds for the administration of 

the provisions of this part, the 

Committee may accept the payment of 

assessments in advance, or borrow 

money on an emergency short-term 

basis. The authority of the Committee to 

borrow money is subject to approval of 

the Secretary and may be used only to 

meet financial obligations as the 

obligations occur or to allow the 

Committee to adjust its reserve funds to 

meet such obligations. 

6. Add a new § 915.43 to read as 

follows: 

§ 915.43 Contributions. 

The Committee may accept voluntary 

contributions. Such contributions shall 

be free from any encumbrances by the 

donor and the Committee shall retain 

complete control of their use. 

7. Revise § 915.45 to read as follows: 

§ 915.45 Production research, marketing 

research and development. 

The committee may, with the 

approval of the Secretary, establish or 

provide for the establishment of 

production research, marketing research 

and development projects designed to 

assist, improve or promote the 

marketing, distribution, and 

consumption or efficient production of 

avocados. Such products may provide 

for any form of marketing promotion, 

including paid advertising. The 

expenses of such projects shall be paid 

from funds collected pursuant to the 

applicable provisions of § 915.41, or 

from such other funds as approved by 

the USDA. 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5792 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket Number FAA–2007–27739; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–250–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330 Airplanes; and Model A340–200 

and –300 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

The aim of * * * [Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) 88] is to require all 

holders of type certificates * * * to carry out 

a definition review against explosion 

hazards. 

The unsafe condition is the potential of 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. The proposed AD would 

require actions that are intended to 

address the unsafe condition described 

in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–

5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined 

process will allow us to adopt MCAI 

safety requirements in a more efficient 

manner and will reduce safety risks to 

the public. This process continues to 

follow all FAA AD issuance processes to 

meet legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS