Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9331 

published spot quotes to consider spot 

prices of cotton marketed in the 

aforementioned states, § 27.93 would be 

amended to add all the counties of 

Virginia to the Southeastern spot 

market, and Kansas to the East Texas 

and Oklahoma spot market. 

On September 14, 2006, New York 

Board of Trade—the parent company of 

the New York Cotton Exchange—agreed 

to become a unit of Intercontinental 

Exchange. This transaction was 

completed on January 12, 2007. To 

reflect this organizational change in the 

regulations, § 27.94 would amend 

references to the ‘‘New York Cotton 

Exchange’’ to read as the 

‘‘Intercontinental Exchange.’’ 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 27 

Commodity futures, Cotton. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 27 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 27—[Amended] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 27 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 15b, 7 U.S.C. 473b, 7 

U.S.C. 1622(g). 

■ 2. In § 27.93, definitions of the 

Southeastern market and the East Texas 

and Oklahoma market are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 27.93 Bona fide spot markets. 

* * * * * 

Southeastern 

All counties in the states of Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Virginia and all counties 

in the state of Tennessee east of and 

including Stewart, Houston, 

Humphreys, Perry, Wayne and Hardin 

counties. 

* * * * * 

East Texas and Oklahoma 

All counties in the states of Kansas 

and Oklahoma and the Texas counties 

east of and including Montague, Wise, 

Parker, Erath, Comanche, Mills, San 

Saba, Mason, Sutton, Edwards, Kinney, 

Maverick, Webb, Zapata, Star and 

Hidalgo counties. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 27.94, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 27.94 Spot markets for contract 

settlement purposes. 

* * * * * 

(a) For cotton delivered in settlement 

of any No. 2 contract on the 

Intercontinental Exchange (ICE); 

Southeastern, North and South Delta, 

Eastern Texas and Oklahoma, West 

Texas, and Desert Southwest. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 4, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02811 Filed 2–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 920 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–12–0008; FV12–920–1 

PR] 

Kiwifruit Grown in California; 

Proposed Amendments to Marketing 

Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on five proposed amendments to 

Marketing Order No. 920 (order) which 

regulates the handling of kiwifruit 

grown in California. The amendments 

were proposed by the Kiwifruit 

Administrative Committee (Committee 

or KAC), which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. The five 

proposals would amend the marketing 

order by adding authority to recommend 

and conduct production and postharvest 

research, adding authority to 

recommend and conduct market 

research and development projects, 

adding authority to receive and expend 

voluntary contributions, amending 

procedures to specify that 

recommendations for production 

research and market development be 

approved by eight members of the 

Committee, and updating provisions 

regarding alternate members’ service on 

the Committee. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted 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; 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. All comments submitted in 

response to this proposed rule will be 

included in the record 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. 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. 

To the extent practicable, all 

documents filed with the Docket Clerk 

should also be submitted electronically 

to Kathleen Bright at the email address 

noted for her in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Bright, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 205–2830, Fax: (202) 

720–8938 or Email: 

Kathleen.Bright@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. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 

920), regulating the handling of 

kiwifruit produced in California, 

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.’’ 

Section 608c(17) of the Act and the 

applicable rules of practice and 

procedure governing the formulation of 

marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR 

part 900) authorize amendment of the 

order through this informal rulemaking 

action. AMS will consider comments 

received in response to this rule, and 

based on all the information received, 

will determine if order amendment is 

warranted. If AMS determines 

amendment of the order is warranted, a 

subsequent proposed rule and 

referendum order would be issued and 

producers would be allowed to vote for 

or against the proposed order 

amendments. AMS would then issue a 

final rule effectuating any amendments 

approved by producers in the 

referendum. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This rule shall 

not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or 

supersede any research and market 

development provisions of any State 

program covering California kiwifruit. 

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. 

Section 1504 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110–246) 

amended section 18c(17) of the Act, 

which in turn required the addition of 

supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR 

part 900 (73 FR 49307; August, 21, 

2008). The amendment of section 

18c(17) of the Act and additional 

supplemental rules of practice authorize 

the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 

553) to amend federal fruit, vegetable, 

and nut marketing agreements and 

orders. USDA may use informal 

rulemaking to amend marketing orders 

based on the nature and complexity of 

the proposed amendments, the potential 

regulatory and economic impacts on 

affected entities, and any other relevant 

matters. 

AMS has considered these factors and 

has determined that the amendment 

proposals are not unduly complex and 

the nature of the proposed amendments 

is appropriate for utilizing the informal 

rulemaking process to amend the order. 

A discussion of the potential regulatory 

and economic impacts on affected 

entities is discussed later in the ‘‘Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis’’ section 

of this rule. AMS will analyze any 

comments received on the amendments 

proposed in this rule. If it determines to 

proceed with this amendatory action 

based on an analysis of the comments 

and all other available information, it 

will conduct a producer referendum to 

determine grower support for the 

proposed amendments. Any proposed 

amendments approved by producers in 

referendum would be effectuated 

through issuance of a final rule. 

The proposed amendments were 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee following deliberations at 

public meetings on July 12 and 

December 13, 2011. The Committee’s 

proposed amendments would amend 

the marketing order by: (1) Adding 

authority to recommend and conduct 

production and postharvest research, (2) 

adding authority to recommend and 

conduct market research and 

development projects, (3) adding 

authority to receive and expend 

voluntary contributions, (4) amending 

procedures to specify that 

recommendations for production 

research and market development be 

approved by eight members of the 

Committee, and (5) clarifying provisions 

regarding alternate members’ service on 

the Committee. 

In addition to these proposed 

amendments, AMS proposes to make 

any additional changes to the order as 

may be necessary to conform to any 

amendment that may result from this 

rulemaking action. 

Proposal Number 1—Production and 

Postharvest Research 

This proposal would add section 

920.47 to authorize production and 

postharvest research to assist or improve 

the efficient production and postharvest 

handling of kiwifruit. Adding this 

authority would provide the Committee 

with the ability to conduct production 

research, food quality and handling 

research, and to distribute that 

information. These functions were 

previously conducted by the California 

Kiwifruit Commission (CKC), a State of 

California program which ceased to 

exist on September 30, 2011. 

Kiwifruit is a relatively new crop to 

California with the first commercial 

crop produced in 1971. The CKC was 

established in 1979, five years prior to 

the kiwifruit marketing order. The CKC 

performed marketing research and 

development programs for the industry. 

When the kiwifruit marketing order was 

established in 1984, its main purpose 

was to implement quality and pack and 

container regulations. The two programs 

worked independently, and the industry 

chose not to add authority for 

production and postharvest research to 

the Federal order at inception to avoid 

duplication. According to the 

Committee, industry leaders believed 

that having programs serving separate 

and distinct functions would best serve 

the interests of the kiwifruit industry. 

Over the past two decades, California 

kiwifruit acreage and the number of 

growers have decreased, from a peak in 

1992 of 7,300 producing acres and 690 

producers to 4,200 producing acres and 

175 growers today, according to data 

from the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service and the Committee. As a result, 

the industry has cut back programs 

supported by industry assessments. In 

the early 2000s, industry leaders began 

to evaluate industry programs in an 

effort to determine which ones were the 

most beneficial and actively sought 

ways to make the administration of 

these programs more cost efficient and 

effective. The need for production and 

postharvest research is repeatedly 

identified as one of the most important 

programs to the industry, along with 

market development programs. 

According to the Committee, there is a 

general consensus throughout the 

industry that the future administration 

of these activities should be done 

through one program and because there 

is widespread support to maintain the 

quality and pack and container 

requirements, that program should be 

the Federal marketing order. 

The Committee believes that for the 

California kiwifruit industry to remain 

productive and competitive, 

management practices must continue to 

evolve. It further believes that 

production and postharvest research 

was one of the most beneficial activities 

performed by the CKC. Over the years, 

these activities helped growers become 

knowledgeable on how to establish 

vineyards, prune, thin, irrigate, 

pollinate, fertilize, manage diseases, 

harvest, store and transport kiwifruit. 

According to the Committee, the 

industry wants the KAC to conduct 

these activities since the CKC no longer 

exists. 

The Committee believes production 

and postharvest research would have a 

direct and positive impact on producers, 

handlers, and consumers. Diseases, such 

as the infectious vine-killing bacterial 

disease known as PSA, confirmed in 

New Zealand in 2010, decimated 28% 

of New Zealand orchards. With no 

current organization equipped to 

facilitate research activities, the same 

could happen to California kiwifruit. 

Production research could help develop 

cultural practices to reduce the 

likelihood of a similar incident in the 

United States. In addition, food quality 

and handling practices are important 

issues to producers, handlers, and 

consumers. The industry desires to take 

a proactive stance to be prepared to 

address any challenges in this area. 

Also, with no research organization, 

the Committee is unable to participate 

in the joint global research effort with 

the International Kiwifruit Organization 

(IKO). The IKO jointly funds research 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9333 

activities with other organizations that 

benefit kiwifruit producers and 

consumers on a global basis. Approval 

of this proposal would ensure the 

industry’s continued ability to 

participate in these activities. 

Adding production research to the 

order is expected to improve returns for 

producers because it will enable the 

industry to develop new technologies to 

increase yields, improve fruit quality 

and production, and facilitate 

postharvest research. 

There is a potential cost of increased 

assessments to fund projects. However, 

the KAC would evaluate the costs 

against the potential benefits. The 

USDA would review and approve 

activities prior to their undertaking. In 

addition, the KAC would evaluate 

activities after they are completed to 

ensure that goals and objectives are met. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed that section 920.47 be added 

to authorize production and postharvest 

research to assist or improve the 

efficient production and postharvest 

handling of kiwifruit. 

Proposal Number 2—Market Research 

and Development 

This proposal would add section 

920.48 to authorize marketing research 

and development programs to promote, 

assist, or improve the marketing, 

distribution, and consumption of 

kiwifruit. Adding this authority would 

enable the industry to continue to 

conduct these activities that were 

previously conducted by the CKC. 

The California kiwifruit industry, as a 

whole, has undergone many changes 

since the inception of the marketing 

order in 1984. The industry experienced 

significant growth in the 1980s, but 

acreage and production levels have 

since declined. According to the 

Committee, this has caused industry 

leaders to evaluate which programs are 

most beneficial to the industry and the 

most efficient way to conduct such 

programs. Through an industry vote, the 

CKC was discontinued in 2011, as 

previously discussed. The Committee 

believes that marketing research and 

development activities previously 

conducted by the CKC are beneficial to 

the industry but can be conducted 

under the Federal marketing order. This 

creates efficiencies by using one 

industry organization to carry out the 

functions previously conducted by two 

organizations. Therefore, the Committee 

supports maintaining the Federal 

marketing order and adding marketing 

research and development authority to 

the order. 

Providing authority for the Committee 

to conduct marketing research and 

development programs would assist the 

industry with marketing, distribution, 

and consumption of kiwifruit. The 

Committee could undertake marketing, 

research, and development activities 

such as conducting market and 

consumer surveys, which could identify 

consumer and market preferences. 

Further, adding this authority to the 

marketing order would enable the 

Committee to apply for Market Access 

Program (MAP) funds from the USDA 

and engage in jointly funded export 

marketing research and development 

activities. Participation in jointly 

funded programs and MAP funds was 

identified as a priority by the Committee 

in its strategic planning in the early 

2000s. These types of activities would 

be designed to increase the demand and 

sales of California kiwifruit, with the 

intent of increasing returns to 

producers. 

There is a potential cost of increased 

assessments to fund projects. However, 

the KAC would evaluate the costs 

against the potential benefits. The 

USDA would review and approve 

activities prior to their undertaking. The 

KAC would evaluate activities after they 

are completed to ensure that goals and 

objectives are met. In addition, the 

Federal Agricultural Improvement and 

Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill) 

(Pub. L. 104–127) requires Federal 

marketing order promotion activities to 

be evaluated by an independent party to 

ensure they are effective. Thus, any 

such programs conducted under the 

order would be evaluated to ensure the 

benefits exceed the costs. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed that section 920.48 be added 

to authorize marketing research and 

development programs to promote, 

assist, or improve the marketing, 

distribution and consumption of 

kiwifruit. 

Proposal Number 3—Voluntary 

Contributions 

This proposal would add section 

920.45 to authorize the Committee to 

receive and expend voluntary 

contributions for market development 

projects, market research, and 

production and postharvest research. 

The proposal also contains a provision 

that any voluntary contributions would 

be free from any encumbrances by the 

donor and the Committee would retain 

complete control of their use. Currently, 

the Committee only has authority to 

collect and spend assessment dollars. In 

the event that proposal number one 

and/or proposal number two are 

adopted, for example, the ability to 

accept voluntary contributions would 

provide the Committee with additional 

funding sources for production and 

postharvest research, and marketing 

research and development activities. 

This proposal compliments and 

supports proposal numbers one and 

two. If adopted, this proposal could 

help provide financial support for 

marketing research and development 

activities. Producers and handlers could 

benefit from these activities as 

discussed under proposal numbers one 

and two. Examples of additional 

funding sources include voluntary 

donations and non-industry sources 

such as grants. If the Committee 

received funding from these additional 

sources, it could help to mitigate 

potential assessment rate increases to 

fund research and development 

projects. 

The Committee would clearly 

communicate that voluntary 

contributions accepted would be free 

from any encumbrances by the donor 

and the Committee would retain control 

over the use of the funds. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed that section 920.45 be added 

to authorize the Committee to receive 

and expend voluntary contributions for 

market development projects, market 

research, and production and 

postharvest research. 

Proposal Number 4—Committee 

Quorum 

This proposal would modify section 

920.32 so that approval by eight 

members of the Committee is required 

for market research and development as 

well as production and postharvest 

research activities. The proposed change 

to require an eight vote majority on 

marketing research and development 

issues is consistent with industry 

practices and voting requirements for 

Committee actions on other issues. The 

Committee is comprised of twelve 

members and alternates. This proposal 

will help to ensure industry support 

exists before undertaking these 

activities. 

Section 920.32 of the order provides 

that actions of the Committee require a 

majority vote, except that eight 

concurring votes are required by the 

Committee with respect to actions 

concerning expenses, assessments, or 

recommendations for regulations. The 

addition of approval by eight members 

for marketing research and development 

activities would be consistent with 

current Committee procedures regarding 

issues of major importance to the 

industry. Requiring eight concurring 

votes would ensure that major actions of 

the Committee would have a super 

majority, indicating that a broad level of 

industry support exists prior to 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

undertaking marketing research and 

development activities. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed that section 920.32 be 

modified so that approval by eight 

members of the Committee is required 

for market research and development as 

well as production and postharvest 

research activities. 

Proposal Number 5—Alternate Member 

Procedures 

This proposal would modify section 

920.27 to update and clarify procedures 

for substitute alternates from within the 

same district to represent absent 

members at Committee meetings in 

districts with more than two members. 

Further, this proposal would clarify 

existing language in the order by 

providing the authority for substitute 

alternates within the same district to 

represent absent members. This is a 

necessary change designed to update 

existing language. 

Prior to 2010, the production area 

covered by the order was comprised of 

eight districts, represented by one or 

two members, and an alternate member 

for each district, for a total of twentytwo grower positions. In 2010, the order 

was amended and the number of 

districts decreased to three. Each district 

is now represented on the Committee by 

two, four or five members and alternate 

members, for a total of twenty-two 

grower positions. However, section 

920.27 only addresses alternate 

members’ service on the Committee in 

districts with one and two grower 

positions. This proposal addresses 

alternate members’ service on the 

Committee in districts with more than 

two members, as well as, alternates if 

both a member and his or her respective 

alternate are unable to attend a 

Committee meeting. In such situations, 

the Committee would be authorized to 

designate any other alternate present, in 

the same district, to serve in place of the 

absent member. 

Updating the order to clarify 

procedures for substitute alternates’ 

service on the Committee would help to 

ensure that quorum requirements are 

met. It would also contribute to an 

orderly flow of Committee business 

resulting in a positive impact on 

producers, handlers, and consumers. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed that section 920.27 be 

modified to update and clarify 

procedures for substitute alternates from 

within the same district, to represent 

absent members at Committee meetings 

in districts with more than two 

members. 

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. 

Based on committee data, there are 

approximately 175 producers and 27 

handlers of kiwifruit in the California 

production area. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) defines small 

agricultural producers as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000, 

and small agricultural service firms are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 

121.201). 

The California Agricultural Statistical 

Service (CASS) reported total California 

kiwifruit production for the 2010–11 

season at 32,700 tons, with an average 

price of $768 per ton. Based on the 

average price, shipment, and grower 

information provided by the CASS and 

the Committee, it could be concluded 

that the majority of kiwifruit handlers 

would be considered small businesses 

under the SBA definition. In addition, 

based on kiwifruit production and price 

information, as well as the total number 

of California kiwifruit growers, the 

average annual grower revenue is less 

than $750,000. Thus, the majority of 

California kiwifruit producers may also 

be classified as small entities. 

The amendments proposed by the 

Committee would provide authority to 

recommend and conduct production 

and postharvest research, add authority 

to recommend and conduct marketing 

research and development projects, add 

authority to receive and expend 

voluntary contributions, amend 

procedures to specify that 

recommendations for production 

research and market development be 

approved by eight members of the 

Committee, and update provisions 

regarding alternate members’ service on 

the Committee. 

These proposed amendments were 

unanimously recommended at public 

meetings of the Committee held on July 

12 and December 13, 2011. 

If proposal number one regarding 

adding research authority to the order is 

approved in referendum, there would be 

no immediate costs to growers or 

handlers. This proposal would only 

provide authority to recommend 

production and postharvest research 

activities. In the event, the Committee 

decided to undertake these activities in 

the future, there would be a cost 

associated with funding any projects 

recommended. However, research 

activities were previously funded by the 

industry through the CKC, which no 

longer exists. Therefore, there would be 

no net increase in costs to the industry; 

the costs would merely be shifted from 

one industry organization to another. 

Section 920.41(b) of the order 

establishes a maximum limit on the 

assessment rate that may be 

implemented. The limit was established 

at $.035 per tray equivalent (6.8 pounds) 

when the order was promulgated in 

1984, and may be adjusted for inflation. 

The assessment rate currently in effect 

is $.035 per 19.8-pound (9 kilo) 

container, or approximately $.012 per 

tray equivalent (§ 920.213). The current 

rate is well below the maximum 

authorized under the order and any 

potential increase in the assessment rate 

to cover the costs of research activities 

is anticipated to be well within the 

maximum assessment rate authorized 

under the order. Therefore, the 

Committee did not recommend an 

increase in the assessment rate 

limitation. In addition, if proposal 

number three, regarding authority for 

the Committee to accept voluntary 

contributions is approved, it could 

provide additional sources of revenue 

and reduce the amount of assessment 

monies otherwise needed to fund 

research activities. 

Although there would be a cost 

associated with any research activities 

undertaken by the industry, the benefits 

of such activities would be expected to 

outweigh the costs. Past benefits of 

production research to the California 

kiwifruit industry include improved 

techniques for establishing vineyards, 

improved techniques for pruning, 

thinning, irrigating, pollination, 

fertilizer application, disease and pest 

management, and harvesting. Benefits of 

postharvest research include improved 

methods of fruit storage, packaging, and 

transportation. These research results 

have been disseminated to growers and 

handlers in the past and have been 

instrumental in maintaining a viable 

kiwifruit industry in California. The 

Committee believes a continuation of 

these types of activities is important to 

the long term success of the industry. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 9335 

Prior to undertaking any research 

activities, the Committee would 

evaluate potential projects and their 

costs against the potential benefits to the 

industry. Any projects recommended by 

the Committee would be reviewed and 

approved by USDA before being 

implemented. The Committee and 

USDA would provide oversight to help 

ensure that the goals and objectives 

were being met. The results would be 

disseminated to industry members and 

would also be available to the public. 

If proposal number two regarding 

adding authority to the order for 

marketing research and development 

projects is approved, there would be no 

immediate costs to the industry, as with 

proposal number one. This proposal 

would similarly only provide authority 

to recommend production and 

postharvest research activities. In the 

event, the Committee decided to 

undertake these activities in the future, 

there would be a cost associated with 

funding any marketing research and 

development projects recommended. 

These activities were also previously 

funded by the CKC, so any costs 

associated with undertaking them 

would likewise be shifted from one 

kiwifruit industry organization to 

another, and there may not be an overall 

cost increase to the industry, as a whole. 

Like production and postharvest 

research activities discussed above, 

marketing research and development 

projects could also receive 

supplemental funding through receipt of 

voluntary contributions if proposal 

number three is approved. This could 

help to mitigate any possible assessment 

rate increases to pay for the costs of 

these activities. To the extent that the 

assessment rate may need to be 

increased, any increase would be 

limited so it remains within the 

maximum level authorized under 

section 920.41 of the order. 

Any increased costs associated with 

marketing research and development 

activities are expected to be outweighed 

by the benefits. Marketing research 

could be conducted regarding 

consumers’ tastes and preferences, and 

this type of information is valuable in 

developing marketing strategies. 

Collection of market data can also be 

useful to determine the success of prior 

programs and to develop future 

programs. Market development 

programs could be used to conduct 

programs designed to increase 

awareness and demand for California 

kiwifruit. These demand building 

activities would be expected to increase 

sales with the intent of ultimately 

increasing returns to producers. 

Prior to undertaking any marketing 

research and/or market development 

activities, the Committee would 

evaluate potential projects and their 

costs against the potential benefits to the 

industry. Any projects recommended by 

the Committee would be reviewed and 

approved by USDA before being 

implemented. The Committee would 

provide oversight to ensure the goals 

and objectives were being met. In 

addition, as required by the Federal 

Agricultural Improvement and Reform 

Act of 1996, any marketing research and 

development programs engaged in 

under a Federal marketing order require 

periodic evaluation by an independent 

third party to ensure they are effective. 

Thus, any such programs conducted 

under the kiwifruit order would be 

evaluated to help ensure the benefits 

exceed the costs. 

Proposal number three would provide 

authority for the Committee to receive 

voluntary contributions to help fund 

marketing research and development 

activities. If approved and utilized, this 

could provide an additional source of 

revenue to help supplement the funding 

of research and development programs. 

These types of programs are intended to 

benefit the entire industry. This 

proposal would not increase or decrease 

any reporting, record keeping, or 

compliance costs. Acceptance of 

voluntary financial contributions by the 

Committee would not result in 

increased costs. Rather, it might reduce 

the amount of assessment revenue 

needed to fund a given program or 

programs. 

Proposal numbers four and five relate 

to voting procedures and alternate 

members’ service on the Committee. 

Both are procedural in nature and 

would have no economic impact on 

producers or handlers if they are 

approved because they would not 

establish any regulatory requirements 

on handlers, nor do they contain any 

assessment or funding implications. 

There would be no change in financial 

costs, reporting, or recordkeeping 

requirements if either of these proposals 

is approved. 

Alternatives to these proposals, 

including making no changes at this 

time, were considered. However, the 

Committee believes it would be 

beneficial to have the means necessary 

to conduct production research and 

market development, as well as 

collecting voluntary contributions, and 

clarifying procedural language for 

Committee meetings. 

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 

OMB Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this 

proceeding are anticipated. Should any 

changes become necessary, they would 

be submitted to OMB for approval. 

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. 

In addition, USDA has not identified 

any relevant Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

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. 

The Committee’s meetings, at which 

these proposals were discussed, were 

widely publicized throughout the 

kiwifruit industry. All interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and encouraged to participate 

in Committee deliberations on all 

issues. Like all Committee meetings, the 

meeting was public, and all entities, 

both large and small, were encouraged 

to express their views on these 

proposals. 

Finally, interested persons are invited 

to submit comments on the proposed 

amendments to the order, including 

comments on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. Following analysis of 

any comments received on the 

amendments proposed in this rule, AMS 

will evaluate all available information 

and determine whether to proceed. If so, 

a proposed rule and referendum order 

would be issued and producers would 

be provided the opportunity to vote for 

or against the proposed amendments. 

Information about the referendum, 

including dates and voter eligibility 

requirements, would be published in a 

future issue of the Federal Register. A 

final rule would then be issued to 

effectuate any amendments favored by 

producers participating in the 

referendum. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

General Findings 

The findings hereinafter set forth are 

supplementary to the findings and 

determinations which were previously 

made in connection with the issuance of 

the marketing order; and all said 

previous findings and determinations 

are hereby ratified and affirmed, except 

insofar as such findings and 

determinations may be in conflict with 

the findings and determinations set 

forth herein. 

1. The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, would tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

2. The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, regulates the handling of 

kiwifruit grown in California in the 

same manner as, and is applicable only 

to, persons in the respective classes of 

commercial and industrial activity 

specified in the marketing order; 

3. The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, is limited in application to 

the smallest regional production area 

which is practicable, consistent with 

carrying out the declared policy of the 

Act, and the issuance of several orders 

applicable to subdivisions of the 

production area would not effectively 

carry out the declared policy of the Act; 

4. The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, prescribes, insofar as 

practicable, such different terms 

applicable to different parts of the 

production area as are necessary to give 

due recognition to the differences in the 

production and marketing of kiwifruit 

produced or packed in the production 

area; and 

5. All handling of kiwifruit produced 

or packed in the production area as 

defined in the marketing order is in the 

current of interstate or foreign 

commerce or directly burdens, 

obstructs, or affects such commerce. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to these proposals. Any comments 

received on the amendments proposed 

in this rule will be analyzed, and if 

AMS determines to proceed based on all 

the information presented, a producer 

referendum would be conducted to 

determine grower support for the 

proposed amendments. If appropriate, a 

final rule would then be issued to 

effectuate the amendments favored by 

producers participating in the 

referendum. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920 

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 920 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise § 920.27 to read as follows: 

§ 920.27 Alternate members. 

An alternate member of the 

committee, during the absence of the 

member for whom that individual is an 

alternate, shall act in the place and 

stead of such member and perform such 

other duties as assigned. In the event 

both a member and his or her alternate 

are unable to attend a committee 

meeting, the committee may designate 

any other alternate member from the 

same district to serve in such member’s 

place and stead. In the event of the 

death, removal, resignation, or 

disqualification of a member, the 

alternate of such member shall act for 

him or her until a successor for such 

member is selected and has qualified. 

■ 3. In § 920.32, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 920.32 Procedure. 

(a) Eight members of the committee, 

or alternates acting for members, shall 

constitute a quorum and any action of 

the committee shall require the 

concurring vote of the majority of those 

present: Provided, That actions of the 

committee with respect to expenses and 

assessments, production and 

postharvest research, market research 

and development, or recommendations 

for regulations pursuant to §§ 920.50 

through 920.55, of this part shall require 

at least eight concurring votes. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add § 920.45 to read as follows: 

§ 920.45 Contributions. 

The committee may accept voluntary 

contributions, but these shall only be 

used to pay expenses incurred pursuant 

to §§ 920.47 and 920.48. Furthermore, 

such contributions shall be free from 

any encumbrances by the donor, and the 

committee shall retain complete control 

of their use. 

■ 5. Add § 920.47 to read as follows: 

§ 920.47 Production and postharvest 

research. 

The committee, with the approval of 

the Secretary, may establish or provide 

for the establishment of projects 

involving research designed to assist or 

improve the efficient production and 

postharvest handling of kiwifruit. 

■ 6. Add § 920.48 to read as follows: 

§ 920.48 Market research and 

development. 

The committee, with the approval of 

the Secretary, may establish or provide 

for the establishment of marketing 

research and development projects 

designed to assist, improve, or promote 

the marketing, distribution, and 

consumption of kiwifruit. 

Dated: February 4, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02810 Filed 2–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

12 CFR Part 1215 

RIN 2590–AA51 

Production of FHFA Records, 

Information, and Employee Testimony 

in Legal Proceedings 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

with request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) proposes a regulation 

governing the production of FHFA 

records, information or employee 

testimony in connection with legal 

proceedings in which neither the United 

States, nor FHFA is a party. This 

proposed rule would establish 

requirements and procedures for 

demanding or requesting parties to 

submit demands or requests, and factors 

for FHFA to consider in determining 

whether FHFA employees will provide 

records, information or testimony 

relating to their official duties. FHFA’s 

desirable intent is to standardize 

practices, promote uniformity in 

decisions, preserve the ability of FHFA 

to conduct agency business, protect 

confidential information, provide 

guidance to demanding or requesting 

parties, minimize involvement in 

matters unrelated to the agency 

missions and programs of FHFA, avoid 

wasteful allocation of agency resources, 

and preclude spending public time and 

money for private purposes. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

are due 60 days after publication. For 

additional information, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS