Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5935

packed in 50-pound mesh sacks, ranged

from early season, high returns of

$14.00 per sack down to a low at the

season’s conclusion of $6.00 per sack.

Handlers have stated that packing costs

average between $4.00 and $5.00 per 50-

pound carton, and around $3.00 per 50-

pound sack. Committee records indicate

that individual farms currently have

acreage dedicated to the production of

Walla Walla Sweet Onions ranging from

1 to 160 acres.

About 25 of the 35 regulated handlers

of Walla Walla Sweet Onions are also

producers and generally pack their own

onions in the field while harvesting

them. These onions are usually

marketed direct to consumers through

road-side stands and farmers’ markets or

through mail order sales. Only about 10

of these handlers own and operate

commercially sized packing facilities

and market the majority of their onions

through large wholesale and retail

outlets. Based on current information

the majority of Walla Walla Sweet

Onion handlers and producers may be

classified as small entities.

The only alternative to this proposal

discussed at the meetings was to not

recommend the additions at all. The

Committee determined that such an

alternative would not be acceptable to

the industry because of the significant

benefits expected as a result of the

proposed regulations. Without container

marking requirements, the Committee

believes the current marketing and

compliance problems, basic reasons

behind the promulgation of the

marketing order, would not be

alleviated. As for the foregoing special

purpose shipment exemptions, the

Committee concluded that the absence

of a list of shipments exempt from

assessments and container marking

requirements would perpetuate

confusion and compliance problems, as

well as increase the economic, reporting

and recordkeeping burden on handlers.

This proposed rule would provide

that containers of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for shipment to fresh markets be

marked with the Committee’s registered

logo, and that specified shipments of

Walla Walla Sweet Onions be exempt

from such container marking

requirements and from assessments.

This action would not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

handlers of Walla Walla Sweet Onions.

Additionally, the benefits of this rule

are not expected to be

disproportionately greater or less for

small handlers or producers than for

larger entities.

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. The Department has not

identified any relevant Federal rules

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

this proposed rule.

The Committee’s meetings were

widely publicized throughout the

production area. All interested persons

were invited to attend the meetings. The

Committee actively seeks participation

in its deliberations at all of its meetings.

Both the October 8 and November 12,

1996, meetings were open to the public

and representatives of both large and

small entities expressed their views on

these and related issues. The majority of

the Committee, composed of six

producers, three handlers, and a public

member, represent small entities.

Additionally, interested persons are

invited to submit information on the

regulatory and informational impacts of

this action on small businesses.

A 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. All written comments

received within the comment period

will be considered before a final

determination is made on this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 956

Marketing agreements, Onions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR Part

956 be amended as follows:

PART 956—SWEET ONIONS GROWN

IN THE WALLA WALLA VALLEY OF

SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON AND

NORTHEAST OREGON

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 956 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In part 956, new §§ 956.162 and

956.163 are added to read as follows:

§ 956.162 Container markings.

Effective (Insert date one date after

day of publication of the final rule in

the Federal Register), no handler shall

ship any container of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions except in accordance with the

following terms and provisions:

(a) Each container of Walla Walla

Sweet Onions shall be conspicuously

marked with the ‘‘Genuine Walla Walla

Sweet Onion’’ logo. The marking may be

in the form of a decal or a stamped

imprint of any color and size: Provided,

That the decal or stamped imprint must

be placed in plain sight and easy to

read.

(b) Walla Walla Sweet Onions may be

handled not subject to the marking

requirements of this section when

handlers ship such onions pursuant to

§ 956.163, or ship such onions in field

packed bulk bins containing more than

500 pounds net weight for sale to

roadside stands and farmers’ market

operators for repacking and direct

consumer sale: Provided, That subject to

Committee verification of handler

container inventories, handlers may use

their existing inventories of unmarked

containers until (Insert date two years

after publication after the effective date

of the final rule).

§ 956.163 Handling for specified purposes.

(a) Assessment and container marking

requirements specified in this part shall

not be applicable to shipments of onions

for any of the following purposes:

(1) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for relief or to charitable

institutions: Provided, That such

shipments must be donated and not sold

in order for this exemption to apply;

(2) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for livestock feed;

(3) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for planting and for plants;

(4) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions as salad onions;

(5) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for all processing uses

including, pickling, peeling,

dehydration, juicing, or other

processing;

(6) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for disposal;

(7) Shipments of Walla Walla Sweet

Onions for seed.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–3137 Filed 2–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

9 CFR Part 201

RIN 0580–AA51

Regulations Issued under the Packers

and Stockyards Act: Poultry Grower

Contracts, Scales, Weighing

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Agency is considering the

need for issuing substantive regulations

to address concerns in the poultry

industry with respect to contract

payment provisions tied to the

performance of other growers, with

respect to feed deliveries to contract
5936 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

growers, and with respect to practices

and procedures related to weighing of

live birds delivered to processors. This

notice requests comments on the need

for regulations and the content of such

regulations.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

May 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Acting Deputy Administrator,

GIPSA, Packers and Stockyards

Programs, Stop 3641, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–3641.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tommy Morris, Director, Packer and

Poultry Division, (202) 720–7363.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Currently,

the predominant method utilized to pay

growers for flocks grown under a

poultry growing arrangement is based

on a system which compares a grower’s

results to that of other growers during a

specified time period. Many poultry

growers have repeatedly expressed

concern to the Agency that comparison

of their production costs against

production costs of other growers in

determining their payment is unfair.

Others in the industry have suggested

that a comparison of the growout results

of a group of growers that have grown

birds during the same time period and

weather conditions is the most equitable

way to determine grower performance

and payment. Some growers are

opposed to a system that bases their

payment on how well or how poorly

their neighbor performs, asserting that a

bias is being created because the initial

quality of production inputs are

exclusively under the control of the live

poultry dealer. Under this system of

determining grower payment,

consecutive flocks grown by the same

grower having similar production costs

could receive substantially different

payment amounts because of the results

of other growers in the settlement group.

Growers have expressed exasperation

over this form of settlement because

they have no way of estimating in

advance how much to expect in

payment.

Concern has also been expressed

about the disproportionate effect a small

flock may have under a flock

comparison payment system. Growers

have suggested, to ensure fairness in

their flock’s compensation, that all

results should be weighted. They feel

that by weighting results in any flock

compensation program, smaller growers,

who might have an advantage in smaller

flock numbers, would not have an

undue influence on results.

The Agency is considering the need

for a regulation that would prohibit

poultry grower settlements that base

payment on a comparison of other

growers’ results and is seeking public

comment on whether such a regulation

is needed and, if so, the content of such

a regulation. Comments are also being

sought addressing the concept of

weighting the results of relatively small

flock settlements. Those opposing such

a regulation are encouraged to provide

information explaining their position. In

particular, the Agency is interested in

comments as to why this settlement

method is, or is not, a fair, equitable

way of determining grower payment.

The weight of feed delivered to a

poultry grower during the course of a

growout cycle is an integral part in

determining ultimate payment to the

grower under most growing contracts.

While many of the scales used to weigh

feed deliveries to contract growers are

regularly tested for accuracy and are

equipped with printing devices, there

are currently no regulations under the

Packers and Stockyards Act requiring

feed scale testing or the mechanical

printing of feed tickets. Likewise, there

are no Packers and Stockyards

regulations related to the information

required to be shown on feed scale

tickets, nor are there requirements

pertaining to other feed delivery or

weighing documentation.

A number of poultry growers have

expressed concern over the lack of

regulatory requirements relative to the

weighing of feed delivered during the

course of a growout cycle. Growers

assert that feed is at times weighed on

scales that are not certified as accurate,

that weighing is seldom performed by

certified weighmasters, and that scale

tickets sometimes contain weights that

are hand printed rather than printed by

a scale integrated printing device.

The Agency is considering the need

for regulations requiring periodic testing

of feed scales, mechanical printing of

feed tickets, and more complete feed

weighing and delivery documentation.

Comments are being sought from the

public regarding the need for feed

weighing regulations and, if needed, the

content of such regulations to help

assure the accuracy of feed weights.

Comments suggesting that feed

weighing regulations are not needed

should include information regarding

safeguards currently in place that help

assure the accuracy of feed deliveries

and feed returns at the end of the

growout cycle.

Essentially all poultry growing

arrangements include live poultry

weight as a key element in determining

grower payment. Live poultry weight is

determined by weighing the birds while

loaded in coops on flat bed trailers

(gross weight) and subtracting the

weight of the trailer and empty coops

(tare weight) to determine the net or

grower pay weight. In order to

determine an accurate weight of poultry

for grower payment, both the gross

weight and tare weight must be

accurate. The weight of the trailer,

coops, and often the tractor is included

in the process of determining both the

gross and tare weights that result in the

live poultry weight. It is critical in

ascertaining an accurate live weight that

the weight of the vehicle remain

unchanged between the gross and tare

weighings.

The weight of live poultry begins to

decrease when feed is removed from

birds at the grower’s farm and continues

to decline during loading, transporting,

and while being held at the plant prior

to processing. Loads of poultry are held

for various lengths of time prior to

processing and at times are not

processed in the order in which they

arrived at the plant. Because of these

variables, the Agency believes that

prompt transporting of birds after

loading and immediate weighing of the

loads on arrival at the processing plant

or holding area provides the most

accurate weight for grower payment.

The Agency is considering the need

for promulgating regulations relative to

the weighing of live poultry for grower

payment. Comments are being sought

concerning the need for such

regulations and, if needed, the content

of such regulations. In particular, the

Agency is interested in knowing how

such regulations could help assure the

accuracy of the live poultry weighing

process.

Many poultry growers are concerned

that they are in an unequal bargaining

position vis-a-vis integrated poultry

companies and believe rulemaking is

necessary to provide growers with a

level of assurance that their settlements

will be equitable. Regulations involving

live poultry weighing and feed weighing

and delivery documentation may

provide poultry growers with increased

assurance that deliveries are weighed

accurately. The Agency believes that

such rules would place little increased

burden on live poultry dealers. The

Agency also believes that there would

be little increased burden on live

poultry dealers resulting from new

regulations prohibiting grower flock

comparison for settlement purposes.

However, the Agency is seeking

comments from all segments of the

industry regarding anticipated benefits

and/or burdens, and the cost, especially

to smaller operations involving less than

$500,000 in poultry annually, that may
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5937

result from the rulemaking under

consideration.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

James R. Baker,

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3217 Filed 2–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AGL–38]

Modification of Class E Airspace;

Mineral Point, WI, Iowa County Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify Class E airspace at Mineral

Point, WI. A Global Positioning System

(GPS) standard instrument approach

procedure (SIAP) to Runway 04 has

been developed for Iowa County

Airport. Controlled airspace extending

upward from 700 to 1200 feet above

ground level (AGL) is needed to contain

aircraft executing the approach. The

intended effect of this proposal is to

provide segregation of aircraft using

instrument approach procedures in

instrument conditions from other

aircraft operating in visual weather

conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL–7, Rules

Docket No. 96–AGL–38, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Federal Aviation

Administration, 2300 East Devon

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An

informal docket may also be examined

during normal business hours at the Air

Traffic Division, Operations Branch,

Federal Aviation Administration, 2300

East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,

Illinois.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic Division,

Operations Branch, AGL–530, Federal

Aviation Administration, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (847) 294–7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96–

AGL–38.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket, FAA,

Great Lakes Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois,

both before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of

Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry

Center, APA–230, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or

by calling (202) 267–3484.

Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future NPRM’s should also

request a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, which describes the application

procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

modify Class E airspace at Mineral

Point, WI; this proposal would provide

adequate Class E airspace for operators

executing the GPS Runway 04 SIAP at

Iowa County Airport. Controlled

airspace extending upward from 700 to

1200 feet AGL is needed to contain

aircraft executing the approach. The

intended effect of this action is to

provide segregation of aircraft using

instrument approach procedures in

instrument conditions from other

aircraft operating in visual weather

conditions. The area would be depicted

on appropriate aeronautical charts

thereby enabling pilots to

circumnavigate the area or otherwise

comply with IFR procedures. Class E

airspace designations for airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth are

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9D dated September 4, 1996,

and effective September 16, 1996, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the Federal

Aviation Administration proposes to

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g) 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.