5900 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 929 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0070; FV09–929–1 

PR] 

Cranberries Grown in the States of 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, 

Washington, and Long Island in the 

State of New York; Revised 

Nomination and Balloting Procedures 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on revisions to the nomination and 

balloting procedures for independent 

growers on the Cranberry Marketing 

Committee (Committee). The order 

regulates the handling of cranberries 

produced in the States of Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York, and is 

administered locally by the Committee. 

This rule would revise the nomination 

and balloting procedures for 

independent growers to allow them to 

participate in the election process for 

either a member or alternate member on 

the Committee. The current procedures 

do not provide for an election process 

for each position separately. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

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

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

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

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this rule will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing Specialist 

or Kenneth G. Johnson, Regional 

Manager, DC Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (301) 734– 

5243, Fax: (301) 734–5275, or E-mail: 

Patricia.Petrella@ams.usda.gov or 

Kenneth.Johnson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

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

Antoinette.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Agreement and Order No. 929, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating 

the handling of cranberries produced in 

the States of Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is 

effective under the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This proposal invites comments on 

revisions to the nomination and 

balloting procedures for independent 

growers on the Committee. This rule 

would revise the procedures for 

independent growers to allow them to 

participate in the election process for 

either a member or alternate member on 

the Committee. The current procedures 

do not provide for an election process 

for each position separately. 

Section 929.22(e) of the order 

specifies the nomination procedures for 

nominees representing entities other 

than the major cooperative marketing 

organization (independent growers). 

That section specifies that the names of 

all eligible nominees from each district 

received by the Committee, by such date 

and in such form as recommended by 

the Committee and approved by the 

Secretary, will appear on the 

nomination ballot for that district. It 

also specifies that the nominee that 

receives the highest number of votes 

cast shall be the member and the 

nominee receiving the second highest 

number votes cast shall be the alternate. 

Section 929.22(i) provides that the 

Committee, with the approval of the 

Secretary, may issue rules and 

regulations to carry out the provisions 

or to change the procedures of this 

section. 

The Committee recommended that 

rules and regulations be established to 

change the procedures for independent 

grower nominations. The Committee 

recommended these changes because 

candidates are less willing to participate 

in the nomination process when they 

are not able to specify whether they are 

seeking a member or alternate member 

position on the Committee. Candidates 

considering to be nominated to the 

Committee have indicated that they 

would be more willing to serve if they 

could initially be nominated as the 

alternate member. Becoming an 

alternate member first allows them to 

gain knowledge of the marketing order 

and Committee operations without 

having the responsibility of casting 

votes. After gaining this knowledge, 

alternate members can then be 

nominated to run as the member on the 

Committee if they so desire. 

This action would require a slight 

change in the nomination and balloting 

process. It would provide candidates the 

opportunity to indicate what position 

(member or alternate) they are seeking. 

Following the deadline for filing 

nomination petitions the names of those 

candidates running for member and the 

names of those candidates running for 

alternate member would be placed on 

the ballot and sent, via U.S. Postal 

Service, to qualified growers in the 

marketing order districts. 

The candidate receiving the highest 

number of votes in the member category 

and the candidate receiving the highest 

number of votes in the alternate member 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 5901 

category in each marketing order district 

would be declared nominees and their 

names forwarded to the Secretary for 

selection. 

This change to the nomination 

procedures would only effect the 

independent grower nominations for the 

Committee. The major cooperative 

marketing organization nominees are 

selected by that organization and 

submitted to the Secretary for 

consideration. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), 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. 

There are approximately 80 handlers 

of cranberries who are subject to 

regulation under the marketing order 

and approximately 1,200 cranberry 

producers in the regulated area. Small 

agricultural service firms are defined by 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having 

annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, 

and small agricultural producers are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000. Based on 

information maintained by the 

Committee, the majority of producers 

and handlers of cranberries under the 

order are considered small entities 

under SBA’s standards. 

This rule would revise the 

nomination procedures for independent 

growers to allow them to participate in 

the election process for either a member 

or alternate member on the Committee. 

The current nomination process does 

not permit an election process for each 

position. Authority for this action is 

provided in § 929.22(i). 

At the meeting where this issue was 

considered, the Committee discussed 

that the nomination procedures needed 

to be changed to encourage more 

participation in the nomination process 

and to encourage more diverse 

candidates on the Committee. The 

independent grower members and 

alternate members on the Committee 

indicated that this change would 

improve the nomination process by 

generating participation and providing 

the opportunity for more diverse 

candidates to run for a position on the 

Committee. 

There are no anticipated economic 

impacts on either small or large 

producers or handlers that would result 

from this rule, as it pertains only to 

Committee nomination and balloting 

procedures. 

The benefits for this rule are not 

expected to be disproportionately 

greater or less for small handlers or 

producers than for larger entities. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this change, including not making the 

change at all. If this change is not made 

the Committee believes that the number 

of new candidates who want to be 

considered for nomination on the 

Committee will continue to decline. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large cranberry handlers. 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. 

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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

cranberry industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the August 21, 

2009, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate because this rule would 

need to be in place prior to the next 

nomination process which begins in 

June 2010. The term of office begins on 

August 1 of each even numbered year. 

All written comments timely received 

will be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Cranberries. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN 

THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW 

JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, OREGON, 

WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 929 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. A new section 929.161 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 929.161 Nomination and balloting 

procedures for candidates other than the 

major cooperative marketing organization. 

(a) During the nomination process, 

each eligible candidate shall indicate if 

he/she is seeking a position on the 

Committee as a member or alternate 

member. 

(b) Ballots provided by the Committee 

shall include the names of those 

candidates seeking member positions on 

the Committee and those seeking 

alternate member positions. 

(c) All ballots shall be received by a 

date designated by the Committee office 

staff. Votes for member positions and 

alternate member positions shall be 

tabulated separately. In districts entitled 

to one member, the successful candidate 

shall be the person receiving the highest 

number of votes as a member or 

alternate member. In districts entitled to 

two members, the successful candidates 

shall be those receiving the highest and 

second highest number of votes as 

members or alternate members. Those 

names shall then be forwarded to the 

Secretary for selection. 

Dated: February 2, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2549 Filed 2–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS