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

47490 

Vol. 75, No. 151 

Friday, August 6, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0044; FV10–989–2 

PR] 

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown 

In California; Use of Estimated Trade 

Demand to Compute Volume 

Regulation Percentages 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites 

comments on using an estimated trade 

demand figure to compute volume 

regulation percentages for 2010–11 crop 

Natural (sun-dried) Seedless (NS) 

raisins covered under the Federal 

marketing order for California raisins 

(order). The order regulates the handling 

of raisins produced from grapes grown 

in California and is administered locally 

by the Raisin Administrative Committee 

(committee). This proposed rule would 

provide parameters for implementing 

volume regulation, if necessary, for 

2010–11 crop NS raisins for the 

purposes of maintaining a portion of the 

industry’s export markets and 

stabilizing the domestic market. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 23, 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 docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register and 

will be made available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, 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: 

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing 

Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional 

Manager, California Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or E-mail: 

Terry.Vawter@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

proposed 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. 989, both as 

amended, (7 CFR part 989), regulating 

the handling of raisins produced from 

grapes grown in California, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The 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 

using an estimated trade demand figure, 

rather than a computed trade demand 

figure, to calculate volume regulation 

percentages, if necessary, for 2010–11 

crop NS raisins covered under the order. 

This proposed rule would provide 

parameters for implementing volume 

regulation, if necessary, for 2010–11 

crop NS raisins for the purposes of 

maintaining a portion of the industry’s 

export markets and stabilizing the 

domestic market. This action was 

unanimously recommended by the 

committee at a meeting on May 13, 

2010. 

Volume Regulation Authority 

The order provides authority for 

volume regulation, which is designed to 

promote orderly marketing conditions, 

stabilize prices and supplies, and 

improve producer returns. When 

volume regulation is in effect, a 

percentage of the California raisin crop 

may be sold by handlers to any market 

(free tonnage), while the remaining 

percentage must be held by handlers in 

a reserve pool (reserve) for the account 

of the committee. 

Reserve raisins are disposed of 

through various programs authorized 

under the order, consistent with 

§ 989.67(b), which specifies that reserve 

raisins shall be disposed of by the 

committee: (1) By sale to handlers for 

sale in specified outlets or for resale to 

exporters for sale in export outlets; (2) 

By direct sale to any agency of the U.S. 

government for noncompetitive use; (3) 

By direct sale to foreign government 

agencies or foreign importers in 

approved countries; (4) by gift; and (5) 

By any other means consistent with the 

provisions of this section, and in outlets 

noncompetitive with those for free 

tonnage raisins. The reserve pool’s 

equity holders (primarily producers) are 

the beneficiaries of reserve raisin sales. 

Section 989.54 of the order prescribes 

procedures and time frames to be 

followed in establishing volume 

regulation for each crop year, which 

runs from August 1 through July 31. The 

committee must meet on or before 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 47491 

August 15 to review data regarding 

raisin supplies. At that time, the 

committee computes a trade demand for 

each varietal type of raisins for which a 

free tonnage percentage might be 

recommended. This is referred to as the 

‘‘computed trade demand,’’ and is 

defined in the order as 90 percent of the 

prior year’s domestic and export 

shipments, minus the carry-in inventory 

from the prior year, plus the desirable 

carry-out inventory for the end of the 

current year. 

Paragraph (e) of § 989.54 contains a 

list of factors that the committee must 

consider when computing volume 

regulation percentages. Subparagraph 4 

of § 989.54(e) specifies that the 

committee shall consider the estimated 

trade demand for raisins in free tonnage 

outlets, if the estimated trade demand is 

different than the computed trade 

demand. Further, section 989.154(b) of 

the order’s rules and regulations 

currently provides parameters for use of 

an estimated trade demand for the 

2007–08 crop year. 

Establishing Volume Regulation 

On or before October 5, the committee 

must announce preliminary crop 

estimates and determine whether 

volume regulation is warranted for the 

various varietal types for which it 

computed trade demand. Preliminary 

volume regulation percentages are then 

computed to release 85 percent of the 

computed trade demand, if a field price 

for raisins has been established; or 65 

percent of the trade demand, if no field 

price for raisins has been established. 

The field price, also known as the ‘‘free 

tonnage price’’ for raisins is the price 

that handlers pay producers for the free 

tonnage portion of their crop. 

On or before February 15 of the 

following year, the committee must 

recommend final free and reserve 

percentages that will tend to release the 

full trade demand. 

10 Plus 10 Offers 

When volume regulation is in effect, 

the order also requires that two offers of 

reserve raisins be made to handlers for 

free use. These offers are known as the 

‘‘10 plus 10’’ offers. Each offer consists 

of a quantity of reserve raisins equal to 

10 percent of the prior year’s shipments. 

The order also specifies that 10 plus 10 

raisins must be sold to handlers at the 

current field price plus a 3 percent 

surcharge and committee costs, which 

has historically added $100 to the field 

price cost of reserve raisins on a 10 plus 

10 sale. 

Development of Export Markets 

Volume regulation has been utilized 

for NS raisins in all but 11 crop years 

since the order’s inception in 1949. The 

procedures for determining volume 

regulation percentages have been 

modified over the years to address the 

changing needs of the industry. Volume 

regulation has historically been an 

effective tool for managing an 

oversupply of raisins. Further, the use of 

reserve pool raisins and their related 

industry promotional activities has 

assisted the industry in the 

development of the demand for 

California raisins in export markets. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL SEEDLESS DELIVERIES, FIELD PRICES, AND DOMESTIC AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS IN NATURAL

CONDITION TONS

Crop year Deliveries Field prices Domestic 

shipments Export shipments Percent export 

2009–10* .......................................................... 297,467 $1,323 157,278 127,793 45 

2008–09 ........................................................... 364,268 1,310 200,775 131,587 40 

2007–08 ........................................................... 329,288 1,210 201,355 148,243 42 

2006–07 ........................................................... 282,999 1,210 203,889 109,727 35 

2005–06 ........................................................... 319,126 1,210 195,822 102,632 34 

2004–05 ........................................................... 265,262 1,210 205,002 112,996 36 

2003–04 ........................................................... 296,864 810 191,376 112,860 37 

2002–03 ........................................................... 388,010 745 189,160 108,480 36 

2001–02 ........................................................... 377,328 880 186,361 112,272 38 

2000–01 ........................................................... 432,616 877 185,429 109,598 37 

1999–00 ........................................................... 299,910 1,425 166,127 97,342 37 

1998–99 ........................................................... 240,469 1,290 181,666 115,234 39 

1997–98 ........................................................... 382,448 1,250 185,745 124,349 40 

1996–97 ........................................................... 272,063 1,220 198,167 117,719 37 

1995–96 ........................................................... 325,911 1,160 198,517 116,653 37 

1994–95 ........................................................... 378,427 1,160 199,760 119,968 38 

1993–94 ........................................................... 387,007 1,155 214,852 122,085 36 

* 2009–10 data is for a partial crop year, from August 1, 2009, through May 2010. 

The raisin industry uses various terms 

to describe the weight of raisins in a 

container. The term, ‘‘natural condition 

tons,’’ as used in Table 1, is synonymous 

with ‘‘sweatbox tons,’’ while ‘‘packed 

tons’’ consists of natural condition tons 

converted to a packed weight. ‘‘Packed 

tons’’ can be 5 to 10 percent lighter 

(5.188 percent has been established by 

the committee as appropriate for the 

2009–10 crop year), due to the inherent 

loss of moisture, the removal of stems, 

branches, etc., as raisins move from the 

field to the packed box. This reduction 

in weight is referred to as ‘‘shrink.’’ For 

convenience and consistency, tonnage is 

provided as ‘‘natural condition tons,’’ 

unless specified as ‘‘packed tons.’’ 

In addition, data from the 1985–86 

crop year through the 1992–93 crop year 

indicates that exports of California NS 

raisins averaged about 34 percent of the 

industry’s total NS raisin shipments per 

year, excluding government purchases. 

Thus, according to the historical data 

and information from the sixteen years 

in the above table, the percentage of 

export shipments compared to total 

shipments has continued to increase 

overall, demonstrating the importance 

of the export market to the California 

raisin industry. 

Export Replacement Offer 

One market development program 

operated through reserve pools, the 

Export Replacement Offer (ERO), helps 

U.S. raisins to be price competitive in 

export markets. Prices in export markets 

are generally lower than in the domestic 

market. The ERO began in the early 

1980’s as a ‘‘raisin-back’’ program 

whereby handlers who exported 

California raisins could purchase, at a 

reduced price, reserve raisins for free 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

47492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

use. This effectively blended down the 

cost of the raisins that were exported, 

seeking to equate the cost of acquired 

free tonnage raisins with the reduced 

value of raisins in the export market. 

During the 1994–95 crop year, the NS 

raisin ERO was half raisin-back and half 

cash-back and changed in 1996 to a 

‘‘cash-back’’ program, whereby exporting 

handlers could qualify for cash 

reimbursements from the reserve pool 

for their export shipments. 

The ERO has been a cash-back 

program in all years since then, except 

for 2000, 2001, and a portion of 2002, 

2008, and 2009. During 2000 and 2001 

a raisin-back program was used and 

during 2002, 2008, and 2009 both ‘‘cashback’’ and ‘‘raisin-back’’ programs were 

implemented. Assets for financing the 

cash-back program largely accrue from 

the 10 plus 10 sales of reserve raisins. 

Since 2005, an average of $60.6 million 

of reserve pool assets (cash and raisins) 

have been used to support exports of 

about 115,000 packed tons of NS raisins 

annually in both cash-back and raisinback programs. 

Current Industry Situation 

Export shipments of California raisins 

have been extraordinarily high during 

the 2009–10 crop year due to light 

worldwide production of raisins, a weak 

U.S. dollar, and successful industry 

marketing efforts. These significantlyhigher shipments will result in an 

unusually high computed trade demand 

for the 2010–11 crop year. 

The committee is also concerned that 

the 2010–11 crop may be reduced 

because of a continuing trend of 

grapevine removals since 2004, at a rate 

of approximately 7,000 acres per year; 

unseasonable rain and cool 

temperatures this spring; and the 

potential for higher prices in the wine 

and juice markets, which compete for 

grapes with the raisin industry. In 

addition, the European Grape Vine 

Moth has recently been found in the 

Central Valley of California, a major and 

highly-concentrated growing area. This 

pest has the potential for significant 

grape losses, should it become 

established. Even without significant 

damage in the short-run, a 96-squaremile quarantine area has already been 

established, which currently restricts 

the movement of the grape crop out of 

those areas. The industry does not yet 

know the effects this or subsequent 

quarantines may have on raisins. 

Thus, with the potential for a higher 

computed trade demand and a smaller 

crop, volume regulation may not be 

warranted for 2010–11 NS raisins, based 

on the order’s computed trade demand 

formula, mandated in § 989.54(a). 

The effective marketing of California 

raisins requires strategies and 

approaches which address both the 

domestic and the export markets. If a 

2010–11 reserve pool is not established, 

the industry would not be able to 

continue the ERO program and support 

its export sales. The committee is 

concerned that the industry could lose 

one-third or more of its export market 

without an ERO program. Further, 

handlers who could not sell their raisins 

into the export market would likely sell 

their raisins into the domestic market. 

Annual domestic shipments of NS 

raisins for the past sixteen years have 

averaged about 194,000 tons. The 

committee is concerned that raisins 

necessarily diverted from the export 

market into the domestic market could 

create instability in the short term. 

Implementing Volume Regulation To 

Maintain the ERO Under Adverse 

Trade Demand or Supply Situations 

Based on the above-described 

considerations, the committee 

unanimously recommended using an 

estimated trade demand for the 2010–11 

crop NS raisins to compute volume 

regulation percentages, creating a 

reserve if the crop estimate is equal to, 

less than, or no more than 10 percent 

greater than the computed trade 

demand; provided that the final reserve 

percentage computed using such 

estimated trade demand shall be no 

more than 10 percent, and no reserve 

shall be established if the final 2010–11 

NS raisin crop estimate is less than 110 

percent of the previous crop year’s 

domestic shipments. At that level, the 

needs of the domestic market would be 

met, as would a portion of the export 

market, when combined with the 

available carry-in of raisins from the 

2009–10 crop. 

To illustrate how this would work, 

the committee would compute a trade 

demand for NS raisins on or before 

August 15. At that time, the committee 

would also announce its intention to 

use an estimated trade demand to 

compute volume regulation percentages, 

if the 2010–11 NS raisin crop estimate 

is at least 110 percent of the previous 

year’s domestic shipments, but no more 

than 10 percent greater than the 

computed trade demand. An estimated 

trade demand would allow for the 

establishment of no more than a 10 

percent reserve which would be used to 

fund the Export Replacement Offer 

(ERO) program. 

Crop Estimate Is Less Than 110 Percent 

of the Previous Year’s Domestic 

Shipments—No Regulation 

Under the committee’s proposal, if the 

2010–11 crop estimate is less than 110 

percent of the previous year’s domestic 

shipments, no volume regulation would 

be recommended. With a crop estimate 

of 215,000 tons, for example, and an 

average of about 80,000 tons of NS 

raisins estimated to be carried forward 

from the 2009–10 crop year, a supply of 

approximately 295,000 tons of raisins 

could be available for the 2010–11 crop 

year. This is lower than the average 

annual NS raisin shipments from Table 

1 of approximately 310,000 tons, 

excluding government purchases. With 

such an available supply, the committee 

believes that the industry’s first priority 

would be to satisfy the needs of the 

domestic market, which absorbs an 

annual average of about 195,000 tons. 

Assuming that 195,000 tons were 

shipped domestically, there would be 

100,000 tons available to ship into the 

export market. 

Crop Estimate Equal to 110 Percent of 

the Previous Year’s Domestic 

Shipments and No More Than 10 

Percent Above the Computed Trade 

Demand—Volume Regulation 

If the October 2010–11 crop estimate 

for NS raisins is 110 percent or more of 

the previous year’s domestic shipments 

and no more than 10 percent above the 

computed trade demand, the committee 

would use an estimated trade demand 

figure to compute preliminary free and 

reserve percentages for the 2010–11 

crop. 

The committee would compute final 

free and reserve percentages no later 

than February 15. Under this proposal, 

if an estimated trade demand figure is 

used to compute those percentages, the 

final reserve percentage would not 

exceed 10 percent of the estimated crop. 

Producers would ultimately be paid the 

prevailing free-tonnage price for raisins 

on 90 percent of their crop—the free 

tonnage portion. 

The reserve would be offered for sale 

to handlers in the 10 plus 10 offers. 

However, since the order specifies that 

each offer consists of a quantity of 

reserve raisins equal to 10 percent of the 

prior year’s shipments, under this 

situation, the available limited volume 

would not meet this requirement. In that 

instance, all of the raisins held in 

reserve would be made available to 

handlers for free use through the 10 plus 

10 offers, nonetheless. 

Under any other situations than those 

described herein, the committee would 

rely on the computed trade demand to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 47493 

calculate volume regulation 

percentages. 

Summary of the Proposed Regulation 

It is anticipated that allowing the 

committee to use an estimated trade 

demand to compute volume regulation 

percentages for 2010–11 crop year NS 

raisins under adverse trade demand or 

supply situations would enable the 

industry to supply the domestic market 

and maintain a limited export program. 

The committee proposed the following 

criteria for establishing volume 

regulation for the 2010–11 crop year: 

(1) If the crop estimate is below 110 

percent of the previous year’s domestic 

shipments, no volume regulation would 

be implemented. If this occurs, it is 

probable that the needs of the domestic 

market would be met first, but demand 

in the export markets would likely not 

be satisfied; 

(2) If the crop is equal to 110 percent 

of the previous year’s domestic 

shipments and no more than 10 percent 

above the computed trade demand, a 

small reserve pool could be established 

to allow the industry to not only satisfy 

the needs of the domestic market, but 

also maintain a portion of its export 

sales. By maintaining an ERO program, 

even at a reduced level, exporting raisin 

handlers could continue to be price 

competitive, sell their raisins abroad, 

and endeavor to maintain the export 

market on a long-term basis. The 

domestic marketing would remain 

stable because raisin supplies would be 

consistent, but not flooded with raisins 

that would normally be exported; and 

(3) Under any other circumstances, 

the committee would utilize the 

computed trade demand. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, order, 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 26 handlers 

of California raisins who are subject to 

regulation under the order and 

approximately 3,000 raisin producers in 

the regulated area. The Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) 

defines small agricultural service firms 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $7,000,000, and small agricultural 

producers as those having annual 

receipts of less than $750,000. Based 

upon shipment data and a recent survey 

conducted by the committee, 

approximately 18 handlers and a 

majority of producers of California 

raisins may be classified as small 

entities. 

This rule would revise § 989.154(b) of 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations by establishing the 

parameters for using an estimated trade 

demand figure specified in 

§ 989.54(e)(4) of the order to compute 

volume regulation percentages for the 

2010–11 crop NS raisins. Section 

989.154(b) would provide guidelines for 

the use of estimated trade demand in 

lieu of computed trade demand in 

certain situations for the purposes of 

maintaining a portion of the industry’s 

export markets and stabilizing the 

domestic market. 

Regarding the impact of the action on 

producers and handlers, under the 

committee’s proposal, if an estimated 

trade demand figure were used to 

compute volume regulation percentages, 

the final reserve percentage would 

compute to no more than 10 percent. 

Producers would thus be paid the free 

tonnage price for raisins for at least 90 

percent of their crop. No more than 10 

percent of their crop would go into a 

reserve pool. The free tonnage price for 

NS raisins for the past 17 years depicted 

on Table 1 has averaged $1,144 per ton. 

Handlers, in turn, would purchase 90 

percent of their raisins directly from 

producers at the free tonnage price for 

raisins, but would have to buy 

remaining raisins out of the committee’s 

reserve pool at a higher price (field price 

plus 3 percent and committee costs). 

The 10 plus 10 price of NS reserve 

raisins has averaged about $100 higher 

than the free tonnage price for raisins 

for the past 5 years, or $1,353 per ton. 

Proceeds from the 10 plus 10 sales are 

used to support export sales. 

While there may be some initial costs 

for both producers and handlers under 

the above scenario, the long-term 

benefits of this action are expected to 

outweigh the costs. The committee 

believes that with no reserve pool, and 

hence, no ERO program, export sales 

would decline. With no export program, 

handlers would necessarily divert 

raisins normally destined for export 

markets into the domestic market, 

which typically absorbs about 194,000 

tons annually. Additional NS raisins 

sold into the domestic market could 

destabilize the industry’s primary 

market in the short run. 

Committee members have commented 

that once the industry’s export markets 

are lost, it is difficult and costly to 

recover those sales in the short run. As 

noted previously, export shipments 

have increased over the past sixteen 

years to over 45 percent of all 

shipments. 

Raisins are generally used as an 

ingredient in baked goods, cereals, and 

snacks. Typically, buyers prefer reliable 

and consistent supplies from year to 

year and from product to product. Once 

buyers lose their regular supplies and 

switch to different ingredients and/or 

sources, they may not switch back 

readily. Thus, the loss of a portion of the 

export markets could compound into 

greater losses long term. 

Export markets for raisins are highly 

competitive. The U.S. and Turkey are 

the world’s leading producers of raisins. 

Turkey exports approximately 76 

percent of its total production, and 

represents an alternative source for 

raisin buyers. During the 2009–10 crop 

year, Turkish raisin production was 

280,000 tons, down from 310,000 for the 

2008–09 crop year. Exports of California 

NS raisins during the 2009–10 crop year 

were extraordinarily high due to 

marketing efforts by the handlers and 

the RAC, low worldwide production in 

other dried grape growing regions, the 

value of the dollar, and the high quality 

of California raisins. 

Maintaining the industry’s export 

markets would help the industry 

maximize its 2010–11 total shipments of 

NS raisins, and reduce the possibility of 

carrying forward large quantities of 

inventory into the 2011–12 crop year. If 

the industry is unable to maximize its 

2010–11 shipments of NS raisins, carryin inventory could be high. Reduced 

shipments and high carry-in would 

result in a lower computed trade 

demand figure for the 2011–12 crop 

year; and, ultimately, a lower free 

tonnage percentage. Since NS raisin 

producers benefit more from those 

raisins which are free tonnage, a lower 

free tonnage percentage would result in 

reduced returns to producers. If 2010– 

11 returns to producers are reduced, 

this, coupled with the risks of rain, 

labor shortages during harvest, and the 

unknown effects of the European Grape 

Vine Moth, may influence producers to 

sell their raisin-variety fresh grapes to 

alternate market outlets: fresh, wine, or 

juice concentrate markets. Additional 

supplies to those alternate market 

outlets have the potential to reduce 

returns, as well. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

47494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 151 / Friday, August 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Alternatives to This Proposed Rule 

The committee discussed alternatives 

to this change. One option considered 

was using one of the three prior year’s 

domestic shipments to compute trade 

demand, pursuant to § 989.54(a) of the 

order. However, the order permits this 

only if the prior year’s domestic 

shipments were limited due to crop 

conditions. Since 2009–10 shipments 

have increased, the committee 

concluded this option was not viable. 

Another alternative considered was 

utilizing the computed trade demand 

formula in the order and using all 

available funds to support the ERO. 

However, the committee estimates that 

the funds remaining from the 2009–10 

reserve pool would only support the 

ERO through August 2010, which would 

leave the industry without assets to 

support an ERO for eleven months of 

the season. 

A third alternative considered was to 

maintain the existing language from 

§ 989.154(b) and making it applicable to 

the 2010–11 crop year. (Section 

989.154(b) currently authorizes the 

committee to use an estimated trade 

demand for the 2008–09 season only.) 

However, merely making a 

recommendation to change the 

applicable crop year did not address the 

potential needs of the industry. The 

existing language limited the committee 

by mandating that no reserve would be 

established if the 2010–11 crop estimate 

were less than 215,000 natural 

condition tons. After a series of 

discussions from two subcommittees, 

the committee determined that a more 

appropriate lower threshold for utilizing 

estimated trade demand would be 110 

percent of the prior year’s domestic 

shipments rather than a fixed quantity 

of 215,000 tons. 

This proposed rule provides 

parameters for implementing volume 

regulation, if necessary, for 2010–11 

crop NS raisins for the purposes of 

stabilizing the domestic market and 

maintaining a portion of the industry’s 

export markets. 

Accordingly, this action would not 

impose any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large raisin 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 

Rulemaking Work Group and the 

Administrative Issues Subcommittee 

each deliberated this issue at their 

meetings on May 11 and May 13, 2010, 

respectively, prior to the committee’s 

meeting on May 13, 2010. All three 

meetings were widely publicized 

throughout the raisin industry, and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and encouraged to 

participate in subcommittee and 

committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all subcommittee and committee 

meetings, the May 11 and 13, 2010, 

meetings were public meetings; and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express their 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/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBuinessGuide. 

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 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed 

appropriate because this action, if 

adopted, should be in place by the 

beginning of the 2010–11 crop year, 

August 1. All written comments timely 

received will be considered before a 

final determination is made on this 

matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED 

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 989 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. In § 989.154, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 989.154 Marketing policy computations. 

* * * * * 

(b) Estimated trade demand. Pursuant 

to § 989.54(e)(4), estimated trade 

demand is a figure different than the 

trade demand computed according to 

the formula in § 989.54(a). The 

Committee shall use an estimated trade 

demand to compute preliminary and 

interim free and reserve percentages, or 

determine such final percentages for 

recommendation to the Secretary for the 

2010–11 crop year of Natural (sundried) Seedless (NS) raisins if the crop 

estimate is equal to, less than, or no 

more than 10 percent greater than the 

computed trade demand: Provided, That 

the final reserve percentage computed 

using such estimated trade demand 

shall be no more than 10 percent, and 

no reserve shall be established if the 

final 2010–11 NS raisin crop estimate is 

less than 110 percent of the previous 

crop year’s domestic shipments. 

Dated: August 2, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–19369 Filed 8–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 37 

[NRC–2010–0194] 

RIN 3150–AI12 

Implementation Guidance for Physical 

Protection of Byproduct Material; 

Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities 

of Radioactive Material; Meeting 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its regulations to establish 

security requirements for the use and 

transport of category 1 and category 2 

quantities of radioactive material. The 

NRC has prepared draft guidance to 

address implementation of the proposed 

regulations. The notice of availability 

for the guidance was published July 14, 

2010. The public comment period on 

the guidance ends November 12, 2010. 

As part of the public comment process 

on the guidance, the NRC plans to hold 

two transcribed public meetings to 

solicit comments on the draft 

implementation guidance. The meetings 

are open to the public and all interested 

parties may attend. The first meeting 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS