This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

72245 

Vol. 77, No. 234 

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 927 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–12–0032; FV12–927–3 

PR] 

Pears Grown in Oregon and 

Washington; Committee Membership 

Reapportionment for Processed Pears 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on reapportionment of the membership 

of the Processed Pear Committee 

(Committee) established under the 

Oregon-Washington pear marketing 

order. The marketing order regulates the 

handling of processed pears grown in 

Oregon and Washington, and is 

administered locally by the Committee. 

This rule would reapportion the 

processor membership such that the 

three processor members and alternate 

members would be selected from the 

production area-at-large rather than 

from a specific district. In an industry 

with few processors, this change would 

provide the flexibility needed to help 

ensure that all processor member 

positions are filled, resulting in effective 

representation of the processed pear 

industry. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; 

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: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326– 

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or Email: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@ams.usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Order No. 927, as amended (7 CFR part 

927), regulating the handling of pears 

grown in Oregon and Washington, 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ 

The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

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 

reapportionment of the membership of 

the Committee established under the 

Oregon-Washington pear marketing 

order. This rule would reapportion the 

processor membership such that the 

three processor members and alternate 

members would be selected from the 

production area-at-large rather than 

from a specific district. With nine 

members present, the Committee 

unanimously recommended this change 

at a meeting held on May 30, 2012, with 

a request that the change be made 

effective on July 1, 2013. 

Section 927.20(b) establishes the 

Processed Pear Committee consisting of 

ten members. Three members are 

growers, three members are handlers, 

three members are processors, and one 

member represents the public. For each 

member, there are two alternate 

members, designated as the ‘‘first 

alternate’’ and the ‘‘second alternate,’’ 

respectively. Committee membership is 

apportioned among two districts. 

Section 927.11(b) defines the districts as 

follows: District 1—The State of 

Washington and District 2—The State of 

Oregon. District 1 is represented by two 

grower members, two handler members 

and two processor members. District 2 

is represented by one grower member, 

one handler member, and one processor 

member. 

The order provides in § 927.20(c) that 

USDA, upon recommendation of the 

Committee, may reapportion members 

among districts, may change the number 

of members and alternate members, and 

may change the composition by 

changing the ratio of members, 

including their alternate members. 

This rule would add a new § 927.150 

to the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations reapportioning the processor 

membership such that the three 

processor members and alternate 

members would be selected from the 

production area-at-large rather than 

from a specific district. The Committee 

recommended this change because the 

District 2 processor member 

representative on the Committee is no 

longer processing pears. As a result, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

District 2 processor member and 

alternate member positions are currently 

vacant. This change would result in 

more effective representation of the 

processed pear industry by allowing the 

Committee to fill these vacant positions 

with processors from District 1. Since 

2006, pear acreage in Oregon and 

Washington has decreased by 10 

percent. 

Reapportioning the processor 

membership would allow all processor 

member and alternate member positions 

to be filled. The Committee 

recommended maintaining the three 

processor member positions, but 

specifying that such members and 

alternate members may be located in 

either district. The proposed regulatory 

language includes flexibility that would 

provide opportunity for representation 

from District 2 should a processor once 

again process pears in that district. 

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. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 1,500 

producers of processed pears in the 

regulated production area and 

approximately 46 handlers of processed 

pears subject to regulation under the 

order. Small agricultural producers are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $750,000, and small agricultural 

service firms are defined as those whose 

annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. 

According to the Noncitrus Fruits and 

Nuts 2011 Preliminary Summary issued 

in March 2012 by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, the total 

farm-gate value of summer/fall 

processed pears grown in Oregon and 

Washington for 2011 was $35,315,000. 

Based on the number of processed pear 

producers in Oregon and Washington, 

the average gross revenue for each 

producer can be estimated at 

approximately $23,543. Furthermore, 

based on Committee records, the 

Committee has estimated that all of the 

Oregon-Washington pear handlers 

currently ship less than $7,000,000 

worth of processed pears each on an 

annual basis. From this information, it 

is concluded that the majority of 

producers and handlers of Oregon and 

Washington processed pears may be 

classified as small entities. 

There are three pear processing plants 

in the production area, all currently 

located in Washington. All three pear 

processors would be considered large 

entities under the SBA’s definition of 

small businesses. 

This rule would add a new § 927.150 

to the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations reapportioning the processor 

membership such that the three 

processor members would be selected 

from the production area-at-large. This 

rule would be effective July 1, 2013. 

Authority for reapportioning the 

Committee is provided in § 927.20(c) of 

the order. 

The Committee believes that these 

proposed changes would not negatively 

impact producers, handlers, or 

processors in terms of cost. The benefits 

for this rule are not expected to be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small producers, handlers, or processors 

than for larger entities. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this rule, including leaving the 

District 2 processor member and 

alternate member positions vacant. 

However, the Committee believes that 

three members should continue to 

represent processors on the Committee, 

except the representative should be 

chosen from the production area-at-large 

rather than from a specific district. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic 

Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

Additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements would not be imposed on 

either small or large processed pear 

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 

Oregon-Washington pear industry and 

all interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the May 30, 2012, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

MarketingOrderSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927 

Marketing agreements, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 927—PEARS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 927 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. A new undesignated center 

heading, ‘‘Administrative Bodies,’’ is 

added before a new § 927.150 which is 

proposed to read as follows: 

§ 927.150 Reapportionment of the 

Processed Pear Committee. 

Pursuant to § 927.20(c), on and after 

July 1, 2013, the 10-member Processed 

Pear Committee is reapportioned and 

shall consist of three grower members, 

three handler members, three processor 

members, and one member representing 

the public. For each member, there are 

two alternate members, designated as 

the ‘‘first alternate’ and the ‘‘second 

alternate,’’ respectively. District 1, the 

State of Washington, shall be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 72247 

1The Charter Acts require that the Enterprises 

submit information on their housing activities to 

the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 

Affairs of the House of Representatives. The 

Enterprises submit this information to that 

Committee’s successor, the Committee on Financial 

Services of the House of Representatives. 

represented by two grower members and 

two handler members. District 2, the 

State of Oregon, shall be represented by 

one grower member and one handler 

member. Processor members may be 

from District 1, District 2, or from both. 

Dated: November 29, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29425 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

12 CFR Part 1209 

RIN 2590–AA57 

Rules of Practice and Procedure: 

Enterprise and Federal Home Loan 

Bank Housing Goals Related 

Enforcement Amendment 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) is proposing to amend 

its Rules of Practice and Procedure 

(RPP) to specify that the rules of 

practice and procedure for hearings on 

the record in Subpart C therein shall 

apply to any cease and desist or civil 

money penalty proceedings brought 

against the Federal National Mortgage 

Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal 

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

(Freddie Mac), or the Federal Home 

Loan Banks (Banks) for failure to submit 

or follow a housing plan or failure of an 

Enterprise to submit information on its 

housing activities, except where such 

rules are inconsistent with related 

statutory provisions, in which case the 

statutory provisions shall apply. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments, identified by Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) 2590–AA57, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Email: Comments to Alfred M. 

Pollard, General Counsel, may be sent 

by email to RegComments@fhfa.gov. 

Please include ‘‘RIN 2590–AA57’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. If 

you submit your comment to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also 

send it by email to FHFA at 

RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure 

timely receipt by the Agency. Please 

include ‘‘RIN 2590–AA57’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand 

delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, 

General Counsel, Attention: Comments/ 

RIN 2590–AA57, Federal Housing 

Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 

20024. The package should be logged in 

at the Seventh Street entrance Guard 

Desk, First Floor, on business days 

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

• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, 

Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: 

The mailing address for comments is: 

Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, 

Attention: Comments/RIN 2590–AA57, 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, 

Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn 

Abrams, Assistant General Counsel, 

(202) 649–3059; or Sharon Like, 

Managing Associate General Counsel, 

(202) 649–3057, Office of General 

Counsel. These are not toll-free 

numbers. The mailing address for each 

contact is: Office of General Counsel, 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, 

Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. The telephone 

number for the Telecommunications 

Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Comments 

FHFA invites comments on all aspects 

of the proposed rule, and will revise the 

language of the proposed rule as 

appropriate after taking all comments 

into consideration. Copies of all 

comments will be posted without 

change on the FHFA Web site at http:// 

www.fhfa.gov, and will include any 

personal information you provide, such 

as your name, address, email address 

and telephone number. In addition, 

copies of all comments received will be 

available for examination by the public 

on business days between the hours of 

10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. To make an appointment to 

inspect comments, please call the Office 

of General Counsel at (202) 649–3804. 

II. Background 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

1. Enterprise Enforcement for Housing 

Plan and Failure To Submit Housing 

Activities Information 

Prior to the enactment of the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 

(HERA), the Federal Housing 

Enterprises Financial Safety and 

Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and 

Soundness Act) provided the Secretary 

of the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) with specific 

authority to establish, monitor and 

enforce housing goals for mortgages 

purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac (collectively, the Enterprises). In 

addition, section 309(m) and (n) of the 

Federal National Mortgage Association 

Charter Act and section 307(e) and (f) of 

the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation Act (collectively, Charter 

Acts) required that each Enterprise 

submit information on its housing 

activities to the Secretary of HUD, the 

Committee on Financial Services of the 

House of Representatives, and the 

Committee on Banking, Housing and 

Urban Affairs of the Senate.1See 12 

U.S.C. 1723a(m) and (n); 12 U.S.C. 

1456(e) and (f). 

The Safety and Soundness Act, prior 

to the HERA amendments, authorized 

HUD to initiate cease and desist 

proceedings and impose civil money 

penalties against an Enterprise for 

failure to submit or comply with a 

housing plan or failure to submit 

information on its housing activities. 

HUD issued regulations implementing 

its enforcement authority against the 

Enterprises for these violations. See 24 

CFR part 81, Subpart G. 

HERA amended the Safety and 

Soundness Act in 2008 to create FHFA 

as an independent agency of the federal 

government and, among other things, 

transferred the responsibility to 

establish, monitor and enforce the 

housing goals for the Enterprises from 

HUD to FHFA, and required that each 

Enterprise submit information on its 

housing activities to the Director of 

FHFA instead of to the Secretary of 

HUD. See Public Law 110–289, 122 Stat. 

2654 (2008), codified at 12 U.S.C. 4501 

et seq. The Safety and Soundness Act, 

as amended, requires the Director of 

FHFA to establish new annual housing 

goals for mortgages purchased by the 

Enterprises, effective for 2010 and 

beyond. FHFA reviews mortgage 

purchase data provided by each 

Enterprise in its Annual Housing 

Activities Report and other mortgage 

reports, as well as other available data, 

and determines whether the Enterprise 

has met the housing goals. 

Enterprise compliance with the 

housing goals is enforced under section 

1336 of the Safety and Soundness Act, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with