Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39757

A review of historical information and

preliminary information pertaining to

the upcoming crop year indicates that

the grower price for the 1998–99 season

could range between $1.50 and $2.00

per pound of almonds. Therefore, the

estimated assessment revenue for the

1998–99 crop year as a percentage of

total grower revenue could range

between .97 and 1.3 percent.

This action would increase the

assessment obligation imposed on

handlers. While assessments impose

some additional costs on handlers, the

costs are minimal and uniform on all

handlers. Some of the additional costs

may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs would be offset by

the benefits derived by the operation of

the marketing order. In addition, the

Board’s meeting was widely publicized

throughout the California almond

industry, and all interested persons

were invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Board deliberations on all

issues. Like all Board meetings, the June

4, 1998, 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.

This proposed rule would impose no

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

California almond 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

A 30-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is

deemed appropriate because: (1) The

Board needs to have sufficient funds to

pay its expenses which are incurred on

a continuous basis; (2) the 1998–99 crop

year begins on August 1, 1998, and the

marketing order requires that the rate of

assessment for each crop year apply to

all assessable almonds handled in such

crop year; and (3) handlers are aware of

this action which was unanimously

recommended by the Board at a public

meeting.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981

Almonds, Marketing agreements,

Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 981 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 981.343 is proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 981.343 Assessment rate.

On and after June 4, 1998, an

assessment rate of $0.025 per pound is

established for California almonds. Of

the $0.025 assessment rate, $0.0125 per

assessable pound is available for

handler credit-back.

Dated: July 21, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–19888 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 987

[Docket No. FV98–987–1 PR]

Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in

Riverside County, CA; Increased

Assessment Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule would increase the

assessment rate from $0.0556 to $0.10

per hundredweight established for the

California Date Administrative

Committee (Committee) under

Marketing Order No. 987 for the 1998–

99 and subsequent crop years. The

Committee is responsible for local

administration of the marketing order

which regulates the handling of dates

produced or packed in Riverside

County, California. Authorization to

assess date handlers enables the

Committee to incur expenses that are

reasonable and necessary to administer

the program. The fiscal period begins

October 1 and ends September 30. The

assessment rate would remain in effect

indefinitely unless modified,

suspended, or terminated.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this rule. Comments must be

sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202) 205–6632.

Comments should reference the docket

number and the date and page number

of this issue of the Federal Register and

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of the Docket Clerk during

regular business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane Purvis, Marketing Assistant, or

Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing

Specialist, California Marketing Field

Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey St., suite

102B, Fresno, CA 93721; telephone:

(209) 487–5901; Fax: (209) 487–5906; or

George Kelhart, Technical Advisor,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

205–6632. Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

205–6632.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 987, both as amended (7

CFR part 987), regulating the handling

of domestic dates produced or packed in

Riverside County, California, hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The

marketing agreement and order are

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

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. Under the marketing order now

in effect, California date handlers are

subject to assessments. Funds to

administer the order are derived from

such assessments. It is intended that the

assessment rate as issued herein will be

applicable to all assessable dates

beginning on October 1, 1998, and

continue until amended, suspended, or

terminated. This rule will not preempt

any State or local laws, regulations, or

policies, unless they present an

irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

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 the Secretary a petition stating that

the order, any provision of the order, or

any obligation imposed in connection
39758 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules

with the order is not in accordance with

law and request a modification of the

order or to be exempted therefrom. Such

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After the

hearing the Secretary 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 the Secretary’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 rule would increase the

assessment rate established for the

Committee for the 1998–99 and

subsequent crop years from $0.0556 per

hundredweight to $0.10 per

hundredweight of assessable dates

handled.

The California date marketing order

provides authority for the Committee,

with the approval of the Department, to

formulate an annual budget of expenses

and collect assessments from handlers

to administer the program. The

members of the Committee are

producers and producer-handlers of

California dates. They are familiar with

the Committee’s needs and with the

costs for goods and services in their

local area and are thus in a position to

formulate an appropriate budget and

assessment rate. The assessment rate is

formulated and discussed in a public

meeting. Thus, all directly affected

persons have an opportunity to

participate and provide input.

For the 1996–97 and subsequent crop

years, the Committee recommended,

and the Department approved, an

assessment rate that would continue in

effect from crop year to crop year unless

modified, suspended, or terminated by

the Secretary upon recommendation

and information submitted by the

Committee or other information

available to the Secretary.

The Committee met on June 4, 1998,

and unanimously recommended 1998–

99 expenditures of $80,000 and an

assessment rate of $0.10 per

hundredweight of dates handled. In

comparison, last year’s budgeted

expenditures were $60,000. The

assessment rate of $0.10 is $0.0444

higher than the rate currently in effect.

The higher assessment rate is needed to

offset an expected reduction in funds

available to the Committee from the sale

of cull dates. Proceeds from such sales

are deposited into the surplus account

for subsequent use by the Committee in

covering the surplus pool share of the

Committee’s expenses. Handlers may

also dispose of cull dates of their own

production within their own livestockfeeding operation; otherwise, such cull

dates must be shipped or delivered to

the Committee for sale to non-human

food product outlets.

The Committee expects to apply

$40,000 of surplus account monies to

cover surplus pool expenses during

1997–98. Based on a recent trend of

declining sales of cull dates over the

past few years, the Committee expects

the surplus pool share of expenses

during 1998–99 to be $30,000, or

$10,000 less than expected during

1997–98. Hence, the revenue available

from the surplus pool to cover

Committee expenses during 1998–99 is

expected to be 25 percent less than last

year. To offset this reduction in income,

the Committee recommended increasing

the assessment rate and using $20,000

from its administrative reserves to fund

the 1998–99 budget.

The major expenditures

recommended by the Committee for the

1998–99 year include $32,100 in

salaries and benefits, $20,000 in office

administration, and $23,990 in office

expenses. Office administration

includes $16,000 towards the salary for

a new compliance officer position.

Budgeted expenses for these items in

1997–98 were $37,627 in salaries and

benefits and $18,507 in office expenses.

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived from

applying the following formula where:

A = 1998–99 surplus account ($30,000);

B = amount taken from administrative

reserves ($20,000);

C = 1998–99 expenses ($80,000);

D = 1998–99 expected shipments

(300,000 hundredweight);

(C ¥(A + B)) ÷ D = $0.10 per

hundredweight.

Estimated shipments should provide

$30,000 in assessment income. Income

derived from handler assessments, the

surplus account (which contains money

from cull date sales), and the

administrative reserves would be

adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

Funds in the reserve are expected to

total about $20,000 by September 30,

1998, and therefore would be less than

the maximum permitted by the order

(not to exceed 50% of the average of

expenses incurred during the most

recent five preceding crop years;

§ 987.72(c)).

The proposed assessment rate would

continue in effect indefinitely unless

modified, suspended, or terminated by

the Secretary upon recommendation

and information submitted by the

Committee or other available

information.

Although this assessment rate would

be in effect for an indefinite period, the

Committee would continue to meet

prior to or during each crop year to

recommend a budget of expenses and

consider recommendations for

modification of the assessment rate. The

dates and times of Committee meetings

are available from the Committee or the

Department. Committee meetings are

open to the public and interested

persons may express their views at these

meetings. The Department would

evaluate Committee recommendations

and other available information to

determine whether modification of the

assessment rate is needed. Further

rulemaking would be undertaken as

necessary. The Committee’s 1998–99

budget and those for subsequent crop

years would be reviewed and, as

appropriate, approved by the

Department.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule 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 the 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 135

producers of dates in the production

area and approximately 20 handlers

subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000, and small

agricultural service firms are defined as

those having annual receipts of less than

$5,000,000. The majority of California

date producers and handlers may be

classified as small entities.

This rule would increase the

assessment rate established for the

Committee and collected from handlers

for the 1998–99 and subsequent crop

years from $0.0556 per hundredweight

to $0.10 per hundredweight of

assessable dates handled. The

Committee unanimously recommended

1998–99 expenditures of $80,000 and an

assessment rate of $0.10 per

hundredweight. The proposed

assessment rate of $0.10 is $0.0444

higher than the 1997–98 rate. The

quantity of assessable dates for the

1998–99 crop year is estimated at

300,000 hundredweight. Thus, the $0.10
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39759

rate should provide $30,000 in

assessment income and, in conjunction

with other funds available to the

Committee, be adequate to meet this

year’s expenses. Funds available to the

Committee include income derived from

assessments, the surplus account (which

contains money from cull date sales),

and the administrative reserves.

The higher assessment rate is needed

to offset an expected reduction in funds

available to the Committee from the sale

of cull dates to non-human food product

outlets. Proceeds from such sales are

deposited into the surplus account for

subsequent use by the Committee. Last

year, the Committee applied $40,000 to

the budget from the sale of cull dates as

the surplus account’s share of

Committee expenses. Based on a trend

of declining sales of cull dates over the

past few years, this year the Committee

expects to only be able to apply $30,000

(25 percent less) to the budget from the

sale of cull dates.

The Committee reviewed and

unanimously recommended 1998–99

expenditures of $80,000 which included

increases in salaries and benefits and

administrative expenses. Prior to

arriving at this budget, the Committee

considered alternative expenditure

levels, including a proposal to not fund

a compliance officer position, but

determined that expenditures for the

position were necessary to promote

compliance with program requirements.

The assessment rate of $0.10 per

hundredweight of assessable dates was

then determined by applying the

following formula where:

A = 1998–99 surplus account ($30,000);

B = amount taken from administrative

reserves ($20,000);

C = 1998–99 expenses ($80,000);

D = 1998–99 expected shipments

(300,000 hundredweight);

(C ¥ (A + B)) ÷ D = $0.10 per

hundredweight.

A review of historical information and

preliminary information pertaining to

the upcoming crop year indicates that

the grower price for the 1998–99 season

could range between $30 and $75 per

hundredweight of dates. Therefore, the

estimated assessment revenue for the

1998–99 crop year as a percentage of

total grower revenue would be less than

one percent.

This action would increase the

assessment obligation imposed on

handlers. While assessments impose

some additional costs on handlers, the

costs are minimal and uniform on all

handlers. Some of the additional costs

may be passed on to producers.

However, these costs would be offset by

the benefits derived by the operation of

the marketing order. In addition, the

Committee’s meeting was widely

publicized throughout the California

date industry, and all interested persons

were invited to attend the meeting and

participate in Committee deliberations

on all issues. Like all Committee

meetings, the June 4, 1998, 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.

This proposed rule would impose no

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

California date 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.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

A 60-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987

Dates, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 987—DOMESTIC DATES

PRODUCED OR PACKED IN

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 987 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Section 987.339 is proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

§ 987.339 Assessment rate.

On and after October 1, 1998, an

assessment rate of $0.10 per

hundredweight is established for

California dates.

Dated: July 21, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–19887 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 236

[INS No. 1906–98]

RIN 1115–AFO5

Processing, Detention, and Release of

Juveniles

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend

the Immigration and Naturalization

(Service) regulations by establishing the

procedures for processing juveniles in

Service custody. The new rule sets

guidelines for the release of juveniles

from custody and the detention of

unreleased juveniles in state-licensed

programs and detention facilities. The

rule also governs the transportation and

transfer of juveniles in Service custody.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before September 22,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written

comments, in triplicate, to the Director,

Policy Directives and Instructions

Branch, Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 5307,

Washington, DC 20536. To ensure

proper handling, please reference INS

No. 1906–98 on your correspondence.

Comments are available for public

inspection at the above address by

calling (202) 514–3048 to arrange for an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John J. Pogash, Headquarters Juvenile

Coordinator, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW.

Room 3008, Washington, DC 20536,

telephone (202) 514–1970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

What is the basis for the proposed rule?

The Service has settled Flores v. Reno,

the class-action lawsuit filed as a

challenge to the Service’s policies on

the detention, processing, and release of

juveniles. Although certain aspects of

the lawsuit were won previously by

either the plaintiffs or the Service, the

parties resolved the remaining aspects

in a comprehensive settlement that

addressed juvenile processing,

transport, release, and detention. The

substantive terms of the settlement form

the basis for the proposed rule.