60764 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

This final rule also affirms the

information contained in the interim

rule concerning Executive Order 12866

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and

Executive Orders 12372 and 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements included in this final rule

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). The

assigned OMB control number is 0579–

0122.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 7 CFR part 301 that was

published at 62 FR 10412–10419 on

March 7, 1997, is adopted as a final rule

with the following changes:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd,

150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 301.51–2, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 301.51–2 Regulated articles.

* * * * *

(a) Firewood (all hardwood species),

and green lumber and other material

living, dead, cut, or fallen, inclusive of

nursery stock, logs, stumps, roots,

branches, and debris of half an inch or

more in diameter of the following

genera: Acer (maple), Aesculus (horse

chestnut), Betula (birch), Hibiscus

syriacus L. (Rose of Sharon), Malus

(apple), Melia (chinaberry), Morus

(mulberry), Populus (poplar), Prunus

(cherry), Pyrus (pear), Robinia (locust),

Salix (willow), Ulmus (elm), and Citrus.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of

November 1997.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–29869 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 989

[Docket No. FV97–989–3 IFR]

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown

In California; Modifications to the

Raisin Diversion Program

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request

for comments.

SUMMARY: This rule modifies the raisin

diversion program (RDP) currently

authorized under the Federal marketing

order for California raisins. The

marketing order regulates the handling

of raisins produced from grapes grown

in California and is administered locally

by the Raisin Administrative Committee

(Committee). Under the raisin diversion

program, producers are issued

certificates representing reserve raisins

for voluntarily reducing their raisin

production in order to bring raisin

supplies more closely in line with

market needs. Producers may then sell

these certificates to handlers, who, in

turn, can redeem the certificates for

reserve raisins. This rule makes various

modifications to the diversion program

to improve compliance and bring the

program in line with current industry

practices. Improving compliance with

the RDP will help ensure equity among

all producers who participate in the

program, and help maintain the

integrity of the RDP.

DATES: Effective November 14, 1997;

comments received by January 12, 1998

will be considered prior to issuance of

a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this rule. Comments must be

sent in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS,

USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202)

205–6632. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen T. Pello, Marketing Specialist,

California Marketing Field Office,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, 2202

Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,

California 93721; telephone: (209) 487–

5901, Fax: (209) 487–5906; or George

Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 205–6632. Small

businesses may request information on

compliance with this regulation by

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 205–6632.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 989, both as amended (7

CFR part 989), regulating the handling

of raisins produced from grapes grown

in California, hereinafter referred to as

the ‘‘order.’’ The marketing agreement

and order are 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

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided an action is filed not

later than 20 days after date of the entry

of the ruling.

This rule modifies the raisin diversion

program currently authorized under the

Federal marketing order for California

raisins. Under the RDP, producers are

issued certificates representing reserve

raisins for voluntarily reducing their

raisin production in order to bring raisin

supplies more closely in line with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60765

market needs. Producers may then sell

these certificates to handlers, who, in

turn, can redeem the certificates for

reserve raisins. This rule makes various

modifications to the RDP to improve

compliance and bring the RDP in line

with current industry practices.

Improving compliance with the RDP

will help ensure equity among all

producers who participate in the

program, and help maintain the

integrity of the RDP.

The Federal marketing order for

California raisins provides authority for

volume regulation designed to promote

orderly marketing conditions, stabilize

prices and supplies, and improve

producer returns. When volume

regulation is in effect, a certain

percentage of the raisin crop may be

sold by handlers to any market (free

tonnage) while the remaining

percentage of the crop must be held by

handlers in a reserve pool (or reserve)

for the account of the Committee.

Reserve pool raisins are disposed

through certain programs authorized

under the order. For example, reserve

raisins may be sold by the Committee to

handlers for sale to any market;

exported to authorized countries;

carried over as a hedge against a short

crop the following year; or may be

disposed of in other outlets not

competitive with those for free tonnage

raisins, such as government purchase,

distilleries, or animal feed. The RDP is

another program concerning reserve

pool raisins authorized under the order,

and may be used as a means for

controlling overproduction. The RDP is

described in the following paragraphs.

Pursuant to § 989.56 of the order, the

Committee meets by November 30 of

each crop year to review raisin data,

including information on production,

supplies, market demand, and

inventories. If the Committee

determines that the available supply of

raisins, including those in the reserve

pool, exceeds projected market needs, it

can decide to implement a diversion

program, and announce the amount of

tonnage eligible for diversion during the

subsequent crop year. Producers who

wish to participate in the RDP must

submit an application to the Committee.

Such producers then curtail their

production by vine removal or some

other means established by the

Committee and receive a certificate from

the Committee which represents the

quantity of raisins diverted. Producers

sell these certificates to handlers who

pay producers for the free tonnage

applicable to the diversion certificate

minus the established harvest cost for

the diverted tonnage. Handlers redeem

the certificates by presenting them to

the Committee and paying an amount

equal to the established harvest cost

plus payment for receiving, storing,

fumigating, handling, and inspecting the

tonnage represented on the certificate.

The Committee then gives the handler

raisins from the reserve pool in an

amount equal to the tonnage

represented by the diversion certificate.

Section 989.156 of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations

prescribes additional procedures for the

RDP. At a meeting on August 14, 1997,

the Committee unanimously

recommended that various changes be

made to these additional RDP

procedures to improve compliance and

bring the RDP in line with current

industry practices.

The first change to the RDP

recommended by the Committee

concerns references throughout

§ 989.156 to partial production units.

Such references are contained in

paragraphs (d), (h)(2), (h)(3), (i), (s)(1),

and (s)(3) of § 989.156. As defined in

§ 989.156(o), a production unit is a

clearly defined geographic area with

permanent boundaries (either natural or

man-made). For example, a production

unit could be 30 acres of raisins

surrounded by a permanent road on two

sides and permanent fencing on the

other two sides.

Partial production units have been

allowed under the RDP in past years.

For instance, in the 30-acre production

unit example, three rows of vines from

that unit could qualify as a partial

production unit under the RDP. Under

§ 989.156(s)(3) of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations, the

determination of the tonnage allowed

for acreage removed for such a partial

unit would be computed by multiplying

the previous year’s tonnage produced

and verified on the entire unit by the

ratio of the acreage removed divided by

the acreage contained in the total

production unit. However, the

Committee is concerned that some

producers may be removing weak vines

in a production unit and getting credit

under the RDP for an inflated amount of

tonnage. In the 30-acre example, a

producer could have an average past

production of 2.2 tons of raisins on the

entire unit, remove three rows of lowproducing vines that averaged only 1.5

tons of raisins per acre, and get credit

in the RDP for 2.2 tons of raisins per

acre. Although § 989.56(a) of the order

specifies a cap of 2.75 tons of raisins per

acre for an approved production unit

(which can be changed through informal

rulemaking), the Committee is still

concerned that actual production on a

partial unit could be inflated.

Thus, the Committee recommended

that partial production units no longer

be accepted as part of the RDP. This

change will help ensure that producers

who participate in an RDP do not

receive credit for an inflated amount of

tonnage and gain a financial advantage

over other producers. This change will

help ensure equity among all producers

who participate in the program, and

help maintain the integrity of the RDP.

In addition, the Committee believes

that this change will improve the

accuracy of the amount of tonnage

accepted into the RDP. When an RDP is

established, a quantity of raisins

equivalent to the amount diverted

would be made available in the

subsequent crop year from the prior

year’s reserve. This RDP diverted

tonnage from the reserve is included in

the Committee’s marketing policy

computations for that year and subject

to free and reserve percentages. Thus, it

is important for the Committee to have

as accurate a figure as possible for RDP

tonnage. The Committee believes that

not allowing partial production units

into the RDP will improve the accuracy

of this figure. Appropriate changes have

been made to the applicable paragraphs

to implement this recommended

change.

According to Committee staff, most of

the RDP applications over the years

have been for full production units. The

partial unit authority has typically been

used by a producer desiring to receive

credit under the RDP for a few weak

rows of vines, which usually amounts to

less than an acre. Thus, this change is

not expected to adversely impact RDP

participants.

The second change recommended by

the Committee concerns paragraph (g) of

§ 989.156 regarding procedures to verify

whether producers under the RDP are

curtailing their production. This section

currently specifies that committees of

industry persons may be established to

serve as agents of the Committee in

assuring producer compliance with the

RDP. These groups of industry persons

may be furnished approved RDP

applications and are to advise the

Committee on the progress of the

diversion within a particular district.

Such industry committees have been

utilized during only one season since

the inception of the RDP in 1985.

Committee staff has assumed the

functions of monitoring producer

diversion and assuring program

compliance. Thus, the Committee

recommended that reference to these

RDP industry committees be removed

from § 989.156(g) of the order’s

administrative rules and regulations.
60766 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

This change will bring RDP procedures

in line with current industry practices.

A third change to the RDP

recommended by the Committee

concerns paragraph (h) of § 989.156

regarding compliance. Paragraph (h)(1)

of § 989.156 currently specifies that an

approved applicant must remove or

spur-prune vines to preclude grapes

from being produced and harvested on

the production unit involved in the

program: Provided, That vine removal

may be the only acceptable means of

diversion in some seasons as

determined by the Committee. If the

Committee representatives or agents

determine that there is an average of

more than four bunches per vine

remaining on a properly spur-pruned

production unit, the producer must be

notified in writing and given 2 weeks to

remove such bunches.

The Committee recommended that

this section be modified to remove the

impression that spur-pruning is the only

acceptable method of diverting the crop,

other than removing the vines

altogether. Other methods such as

spraying with certain substances should

also be allowed. Producers should be

allowed to remove and destroy the

bunches of grapes by whatever method

they choose in order to receive a

diversion certificate. The Committee

also recommended that the word

‘‘acceptable’’ in the first sentence in

§ 989.156(h)(1) be removed because it is

not necessary. In addition, the

Committee recommended that the

section be modified to strengthen the

requirement regarding producer

notification of noncompliance with the

RDP. Specifically, Committee staff must

notify producers ‘‘immediately by

certified mail,’’ in writing, and give

producers 2 weeks to remove extra

bunches. The Committee believes that

this added language will strengthen

producer compliance with the RDP.

The Committee also recommended

that paragraph (h)(3) of § 989.156

concerning failure to divert be revised to

specify that any producer who has more

than one production unit and fails to

divert on an approved production unit

may be denied the opportunity to

participate in the next RDP on all of that

producer’s production units. The

current provisions specify that the

producer should be denied

participation, and not the specific

production unit. However, the

provisions have been interpreted so that

producers only have been denied the

opportunity to participate in the next

RDP on the unit that was not properly

diverted, not all of that producer’s units.

The clarification will eliminate the

confusion and is expected to provide

producers more incentive to remain in

compliance with the RDP because the

clarified provisions specify that the

failure to comply could mean denial to

participate on any of that producer’s

production units in the next RDP. Thus,

this provision is expected to strengthen

producer compliance with the RDP

which will help ensure that the integrity

of the program is maintained.

The fourth change to the RDP

recommended by the Committee

concerns paragraph (o) of § 989.156.

This section defines a production unit.

As previously mentioned, a production

unit is a clearly defined geographic area

with permanent boundaries (either

natural or man-made). Under the RDP,

producers must be able to document to

the Committee the previous year’s

production data for that specific area by

means of sales receipts or other delivery

or transfer documents which indicate

the creditable fruit weight delivered to

handlers from that specific area.

Additional criteria are specified for new

production units and existing units that

may have been transferred to another

producer.

The Committee believes that

additional information may be

necessary in some cases to verify the

appropriate production figure to apply

to a production unit. There have been

concerns that some producers have

inflated their production units under

past RDP’s by reporting statistics

showing higher than actual raisin

production. For example, since

diversion certificate tonnage is based on

the tons of raisins delivered per acre

during the prior year, producers could

inflate their tonnage by acquiring raisins

from another source and adding them to

deliveries from their production units,

thereby receiving credit for a greater

amount of raisins than actually

produced on the acreage. By inflating

yield figures, producers could receive

diversion certificates equal to more

raisins from the reserve pool than they

actually would have produced from

those production units.

Thus, the Committee recommended

that authority be added to paragraph (o)

of § 989.156 authorizing Committee staff

to request additional documentation to

substantiate the tonnage of raisins

produced on any known production

unit. This documentation may include

information such as tray count,

employee payroll records, prior years’

production for all production units, and

insurance records. This information is

maintained by producers in the normal

course of business. Such information for

approved production units, in addition

to producers’ other known production

units, will give Committee staff another

tool to ensure producer compliance

with the RDP so that the integrity of the

program is maintained.

This rule also makes minor changes to

remove obsolete language in paragraph

(s)(1) in § 989.156. That paragraph

makes two references to provisions

particular to the 1985 calendar year

which marked the inception of the RDP.

Certain parameters regarding dates

particular to 1985 were incorporated

into the order’s administrative rules and

regulations that are no longer necessary.

Thus, this rule removes those two

references.

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 20 handlers

of California raisins who are subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 4,500 raisin producers in

the regulated area. Small agricultural

service firms have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

of less than $5,000,000, and small

agricultural producers are defined as

those having annual receipts of less than

$500,000. No more than 8 handlers, and

a majority of producers, of California

raisins may be classified as small

entities. Twelve of the 20 handlers

subject to regulation have annual sales

estimated to be at least $5,000,000, and

the remaining 8 handlers have sales less

than $5,000,000, excluding receipts

from any other sources.

This rule modifies the RDP currently

authorized under § 989.56 of the Federal

marketing order for California raisins.

Under the RDP, the Committee issues

diversion certificates to producers who

have removed grapes in accordance

with § 989.156 to reduce raisin

production and bring raisin supplies

more closely in line with market needs.

Such certificates represent an amount of

reserve tonnage raisins equal to the

amount of raisins diverted. Diversion

certificates may be submitted by

producers only to handlers. Any

handler holding diversion certificates
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60767

may redeem such certificates for reserve

pool raisins from the Committee. This

rule makes various modifications to

§ 989.156 of the order’s administrative

rules and regulations concerning the

RDP. The changes include: Removing

authority for the diversion of partial

production units in an RDP; removing

authority for committees of industry

persons to assist the Committee in

compliance efforts; clarifying that spurpruning is not the only acceptable

method of aborting a crop; and making

other changes to strengthen compliance

with the RDP. These changes will help

improve compliance with the RDP and

bring the program in line with current

industry practices.

Regarding the impact of this rule on

affected entities, the changes are

designed to either improve compliance

with the RDP, or are administrative in

nature to bring the RDP in line with

current industry practices. None of the

changes concerning compliance are

expected to increase the cost of

administering the RDP. Also, because

most of the producer applications over

the years have been for full production

units, rather than for partial production

units, discontinuance of partial

production units as part of the RDP is

not expected to increase appreciably

costs to producers. Moreover, the

addition of other methods of diversion,

like chemical application, should have

a positive affect. The changes are

intended to ensure equity among all

those participating in the RDP and to

maintain the integrity of the program.

Thus, the changes are expected to be

equally beneficial to all affected entities

who are adhering to the requirements of

the program, regardless of size.

Other alternatives to the RDP

procedures were considered by the

raisin industry prior to the Committee’s

recommendation. The Committee has an

appointed Amendment Subcommittee

and Working Group which have held

several public meetings throughout the

year to consider changes to the RDP and

other order provisions. One alternative

considered was to leave the RDP

procedures unchanged. However, the

Committee concluded that the changes

established by this rule were necessary

to improve the RDP and better

accomplish program objectives. The

Working Group also considered adding

to the rules and regulations a scale that

would correlate production ranges with

an appropriate production cap for each

range, to help ensure that participating

producers did not receive credit for an

inflated amount of tonnage and gain a

financial advantage over other

participants. Another related option

concerned modifying the rules and

regulations to specify that the

production cap should be based on a 5-

year rolling average of production per

acre with a maximum of 2.75 tons per

acre. However, Committee staff

indicated that data concerning total

industry production on a per acre basis

was not available, and the Working

Group decided not to recommend these

changes.

The Working Group also considered

adding guidelines to the RDP

procedures for hardship cases where

producers have been denied

participation in an RDP. For example,

there have been cases in past seasons

where producers have submitted an

application to participate in an RDP,

curtailed production, and then been

denied a certificate from Committee

staff because such producers did not

satisfy the terms of the RDP (i.e., could

not document their previous year’s

production). Under the current rules

and regulations, such producers have

the option of appealing such a decision

to the Committee and ultimately the

Department. After some deliberation,

the Working Group decided not to

change this appeal process by trying to

specify various ‘‘what if’’ scenarios in

the rules and regulations. The group

believed it was best to address each

such situation on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, the full Committee

concluded that the changes to the RDP

previously discussed were appropriate

at this time.

Regarding any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements, this rule

allows Committee staff to request

additional information from producers

participating in an RDP to verify

production. However, such information

will only be requested on a case-by-case

basis for use as a compliance tool when

the information submitted on a

producer’s application concerning a

unit’s production is significantly greater

than past production on the unit,

production on neighboring units, or the

industry norm, or when Committee staff

is unable to verify production based on

submitted documentation. For instance,

if a producer had multiple production

units of similar size, and the production

on the unit to be diverted was

significantly different than the others,

the Committee wants its staff to be

authorized to request additional

information such as that mentioned to

verify the accuracy of the producer

application. Additional information

may be needed in cases where the

production on a unit to be diverted is

significantly different from that of

neighboring production units. As a third

example, if information obtained from

weigh tags and other delivery

documents provided to the Committee

did not correspond to the production

figure indicated on the producer’s

application, Committee staff may

request additional information.

This rule will not require new forms

and the number of producers for which

additional information may be

requested is expected to be small.

According to the Committee staff, only

about 5–10 percent of producer

applications raise questions for which

additional information may be needed.

During the industry’s last diversion

program in 1996 which provided for

only vine removal (as opposed to

allowing spur pruning), 66 producers

participated. In 1995’s program, which

provided for spur pruning and vine

removal, 778 producers participated.

The Department plans to monitor

producer reporting under this rule

during the first season an RDP is

implemented.

Using the 778 participation figure and

the 10 percent figure for questionable

applications, a total of 78 producer

applicants might need to provide

additional information. The Committee

staff estimated that it will take each of

these participants about 10 minutes to

compile, package, and submit this

information. Thus, the time taken by the

78 participants as a group will total

about 13 hours, and this time is

currently approved under OMB No.

0581–0178 by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) in accordance with

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

This rule does not impose a reporting

burden above that currently approved

for small and large raisin producers. As

with all Federal marketing order

programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sectors. In addition, the Department has

not identified any relevant Federal rules

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

this rule.

Further, the Committee’s meeting was

widely publicized throughout the raisin

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Committee deliberations.

Like all Committee meetings, the August

14, 1997, meeting was a public meeting

and all entities, both large and small,

were able to express their views on this

issue.

Also, the Committee has a number of

appointed subcommittees to review

certain issues and make

recommendations to the Committee. As

previously mentioned, the Committee’s

Amendment Working Group met

throughout the year at public meetings
60768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

to discuss various changes to the raisin

order, including the recommended

changes to the RDP. The Working Group

made its recommendations concerning

revisions to the RDP to the Amendment

Subcommittee on August 7, 1997. The

Amendment Subcommittee in turn

made its recommendations to the full

Committee on August 14, 1997. All of

these meetings were public meetings

and both large and small entities were

able to participate and express their

views. Interested persons are invited to

submit information on the regulatory

and informational impacts of this action

on small businesses.

As stated earlier and in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

information collection requirements that

are contained in this rule have been

previously approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

have been assigned OMB No. 0581–

0178.

After consideration of all relevant

material presented, including the

Committee’s recommendation, and

other information, it is found that this

interim final rule, as hereinafter set

forth, will tend to effectuate the

declared policy of the Act.

This rule also invites comments on

modifications to the diversion program

authorized under the California raisin

order. Any comments received will be

considered prior to finalization of this

rule.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also

found and determined upon good cause

that it is impracticable, unnecessary,

and contrary to the public interest to

give preliminary notice prior to putting

this rule into effect and that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register

because: (1) The Committee

unanimously recommended these

changes at a public meeting and

interested parties had an opportunity to

provide input; (2) the order specifies

that the Committee must meet by

November 30 of each crop year to

review pertinent data and decide

whether a diversion program should be

implemented; the Committee plans to

meet on November 13 to review this

issue and this rule should be in place

prior to implementation of any

diversion program; and (3) this rule

provides a 60-day comment period and

any comments received will be

considered prior to finalization of this

rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989

Grapes, Marketing agreements,

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as

follows:

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 989 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 989.156, paragraph (s)(3) is

removed, and the first sentence of

paragraph (d), and paragraphs (g),(h), (i),

(o), and (s)(1) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 989.156 Raisin diversion program.

* * * * *

(d) Priority of applications and

allocations of tonnage. Those producer

applications indicating that the vines of

the producing units will be removed

shall receive first priority over other

applicants when reserve tonnage under

the program is to be allocated. * * *

* * * * *

(g) Verification. Any applicant whose

application has been approved,

authorizes Committee representatives

and agents to have access to the

production unit in the diversion

program during reasonable business

hours during the crop year to confirm

compliance with the program. Notice

will be provided to the applicant of

such visits.

(h) Compliance. (1) Methods of

diversion. An approved applicant shall

be required to remove the vines, spurprune the vines, remove the bunches or

take other means to preclude grapes

from being produced and harvested on

the production unit: Provided, That vine

removal may be the only means of

diversion in some seasons as

determined and announced by the

Committee. Bunches which occur on

vines in an approved production unit

shall be removed and destroyed by the

applicant before maturity. If the

Committee representatives or agents

determine that there is an average of

more than four bunches per vine

remaining on an approved production

unit, the producer shall be notified

immediately by certified mail, in

writing, and given 2 weeks to remove

such bunches. Grafting vines of one

varietal type to another varietal type

does not constitute removal of vines

under the program.

(2) Period of diversion. An approved

applicant must remove the grapes, or

vines, indicated on the application

within the production unit designated

in the application not later than June 1

of the crop year in which a raisin

diversion program is implemented.

Producers who remove the vines on a

production unit after August 15 may

qualify for a diversion program for that

crop year if a diversion program is

announced and if diversion on that unit

and vine removal after August 15 can be

documented and verified.

(3) Failure to divert. Any raisin

producer who does not take the

necessary measures to remove the

grapes on an approved production unit

by June 1, or any raisin producer who

has indicated the removal of vines or

the intent to remove the vines and who

does not remove such vines on an

approved production unit by June 1,

shall not be issued a diversion

certificate, may be subject to liquidated

damages and interest charges as

provided in paragraph (q) of this

section, may be subject to an injunctive

action under the Act, and may be

denied the opportunity to participate in

the next diversion program, when

implemented: Provided, That any

producer who has more than one

production unit and fails to divert on an

approved production unit may be

denied the opportunity to participate on

all of that producer’s production units,

in the next diversion program. For spurpruned vines, this date may be extended

2 weeks from the date of the inspection

of a producer’s vineyard if more than

four bunches on spur-pruned vines are

present at the time of inspection.

(i) Issuance of certificates. When

preliminary percentages are announced,

the Committee shall issue diversion

certificates to those approved applicants

who have removed grapes in accordance

with this section. Such certificates shall

represent an amount of reserve tonnage

raisins equal to the amount of raisins

diverted from the production unit(s)

specified in the producer application, or

additional quantity granted by the

Committee when vines are diverted

through vine removal or any other

means established by the Committee, as

the case may be. If, prior to issuance of

a certificate, the Committee is notified

by an approved applicant that such

applicant’s interest in the production

unit(s) involved in the program has been

transferred to another person, the

Committee may substitute the transferee

for the applicant provided the transferee

agrees to comply with the provisions of

this section.

* * * * *

(o) Production unit. For the purposes

of the raisin diversion program, a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60769

production unit is a clearly defined

geographic area with permanent

boundaries (either natural or manmade). A producer must be able to

document to the Committee the

previous year’s production data for that

specific area by means of sales receipts

or other delivery or transfer documents

which indicate the creditable fruit

weight delivered to handlers from that

specific area. If the information

submitted by producers on the

application concerning a unit’s

production is significantly greater than

past production on the unit, production

on neighboring units, or the industry

norm, or the production is unable to be

verified based on submitted

documentation, the Committee may

request additional documentation such

as tray count, payroll records, prior

years’ production, and insurance

records to substantiate the tonnage of

raisins produced on all production units

that such applicant controls or owns.

Producers’ would not be precluded from

submitting other information

substantiating production if those

producers’ desired. A new production

unit will not be eligible for the raisin

diversion program until at least 1 year’s

production has been grown and is

documented. An existing production

unit, transferred to a new or expanding

producer, is eligible for the raisin

diversion program as soon as the

previous year’s production can be

properly documented.

* * * * *

(s) Additional opportunity for vine

removal. (1) The Committee may

announce a date later than that provided

in § 989.156(b), by which producers,

who agree to remove the vines on a

production unit may file an application

to participate in a raisin diversion

program. The announced date shall be

not later than May 1. The diversion

certificates will be issued only for the

production units from which vines are

removed. The total tonnage available to

such applicants shall not exceed the

tonnage determined by deducting the

tonnage approved for applications

received on or before December 20 from

the total tonnage announced as eligible

by the Committee for diversion.

Applications shall be considered and

approved on a first-come, first-served,

basis and shall not be given preference

over the tonnage approved for

applications received on or before

December 20. The vines shall be

removed from the production units for

which such applications are approved

not later than June 1.

* * * * *

Dated: November 7, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–29971 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 204

[INS No. 1845–97]

RIN 1115–AE77

Prima Facie Review of Form I–360

When Filed by Self-Petitioning

Battered Spouse/Child

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Interm rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This interim rule amends the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(Service) regulations to enable the

Service to review Form I–360, Petition

for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special

Immigrant, filed by a battered spouse or

child, to determine whether a prima

facie case has been established. Recent

legislation broadened the definition of

aliens who qualify for public assistance

to include battered aliens, and

specifically those aliens whose selfpetitions have been approved and those

who file a self-petition which

establishes a prima facie case for

immigrant classification under the

Violence Against Women Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This interim rule

is effective November 13, 1997.

Comment Date: Written comments must

be submitted on or before January 12,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments, in triplicate, to the Director,

Policy Directives and Instructions

Branch, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 425 I Street NW., Room 5307,

Washington, DC 20536, Attn: Public

Comment Clerk. To ensure proper

handling, please reference the INS

number 1845–97 on your

correspondence. Comments are

available for public inspection at this

location by calling (202) 514–3291 to

arrange an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen FitzGerald, Staff Officer,

Residence and Status Branch,

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

425 I Street, Room 3214, Washington,

DC 20536, telephone (202) 514–5014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Immigration and Nationality Act

(the Act) allows a citizen or lawful

permanent resident (LPR) of the United

States to seek immigrant status for

certain alien relatives from the Service.

In order to receive this benefit, a visa

petition must be filed on behalf of the

alien relative and approved by the

Service. The alien must then qualify for

immigrant visa issuance abroad or

adjustment of status in the United

States.

Historically, the initiation of the visa

petition process was solely at the

discretion of the U.S. citizen or LPR

relative. For that reason, the citizen or

LPR effectively controlled the ability of

an alien spouse or child to regularize his

or her immigration status. Congress, in

the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Crime

Bill), Public Law 103–322, dated

September 13, 1994, recognized the

potential for misuse of this discretion

within households where domestic

violence occurs. Title IV of the Crime

Bill, the Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA), contains provisions which

enable these battered spouses and

children to self-petition for immigrant

classification, thus limiting the ability of

an abusive citizen or LPR to use the

immigration laws to perpetuate further

violence against a spouse or child

residing in the United States.

Interim Rule

On March 26, 1996, the Service

published an interim rule at 61 FR

13061, establishing the eligibility

requirements for battered spouses and

children using the self-petitioning

process. The Service received numerous

comments which are under

consideration as the final rule is

prepared for publication. This rule does

not in any way alter the eligibility or

evidentiary requirements set forth in

that interim rule.

Impact of New Legislation

Since the Service published its

interim rule, Congress has enacted new

legislation that affects the ability of most

aliens to receive public assistance. In

the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

(PRWORA), Congress mandated that

only ‘‘qualified aliens,’’ as defined by

statute, were eligible for public

assistance. Section 501 of the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA),

amended the definition of ‘‘qualified

alien’’ to include battered aliens,

including certain aliens who file or have