Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6323

category. Subsequently, FNS will divide 

the remaining money among the States 

in each category (see paragraph (b) of 

this section) in proportion to the size of 

their caseloads (the average number of 

households per month for the fiscal year 

for which performance is measured). 

(6) A State cannot be awarded two 

bonuses in the same category; the 

relevant categories are payment 

accuracy (which is outlined in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section), 

negative error rate (which is outlined in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section), or 

program access index (which is outlined 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section). If a 

State is determined to be among the best 

and the most improved in a category, it 

will be awarded a bonus only for being 

the best. The next State in the best 

category will be awarded a bonus as 

being among the best States. 

(7) Where there is a tie to the fourth 

decimal point for the categories outlined 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of 

this section, FNS will add the additional 

State(s) into the category and the money 

will be divided among all the States in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(b) Performance measures. FNS will 

measure performance by and base 

awards on the following categories of 

performance measures: 

(1) Payment accuracy. FNS will 

divide $24 million among the 10 States 

with the lowest and the most improved 

combined payment error rates as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(i) Excellence in payment accuracy.

FNS will provide bonuses to the 7 States 

with the lowest combined payment 

error rates based on the validated 

quality control payment error rates for 

the performance measurement year as 

determined in accordance with this 

part. 

(ii) Most improved in payment 

accuracy. FNS will provide bonuses to 

the 3 States with the largest percentage 

point decrease in their combined 

payment error rates based on the 

comparison of the validated quality 

control payment error rates for the 

performance measurement year and the 

previous fiscal year, as determined in 

accordance with this part.

(2) Negative error rate. FNS will 

divide $6 million among the 6 States 

with the lowest and the most improved 

negative error rates as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Lowest negative error rate. FNS 

will provide bonuses to the 4 States 

with the lowest negative error rates 

based on the validated quality control 

negative error rates for the performance 

year as determined in accordance with 

this part. 

(ii) Most improved negative error rate.

FNS will provide bonuses to the 2 States 

with the largest percentage point 

decrease in their negative error rates, 

based on the comparison of the 

performance measurement year’s 

validated quality control negative error 

rates with those of the previous fiscal 

year, as determined in accordance with 

this part. A State agency is not eligible 

for a bonus under this criterion if the 

State’s negative error rate for the fiscal 

year is more than 50 percent above the 

national average. 

(3) Program access index (PAI). FNS 

will divide $12 million among the 8 

States with the highest and the most 

improved level of participation as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 

(b)(3)(iii) of this section. The PAI is the 

ratio of participants to persons with 

incomes below 125 percent of poverty, 

as calculated in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section (the 

PAI was formerly known as the 

participant access rate (PAR)). 

(i) High program access index. FNS 

will provide bonuses to the 4 States 

with the highest PAI as determined in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of 

this section. 

(ii) Most improved program access 

index. FNS will provide bonuses to the 

4 States with the most improved PAI as 

determined in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

(iii) Data. For the number of 

participants (numerator), FNS will use 

the administrative annual counts of 

participants minus new participants 

certified under special disaster program 

rules by State averaged over the 

calendar year. For the number of people 

below 125 percent of poverty 

(denominator), FNS will use the Census 

Bureau’s March Supplement to the 

Current Population Survey’s (CPS) 

count of people below 125 percent of 

poverty for the same calendar year. FNS 

will reduce the count in each State 

where a Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations (FDPIR) program is 

operated by the administrative counts of 

the number of individuals who 

participate in this program averaged 

over the calendar year. FNS will reduce 

the count in California by the Census 

Bureau’s percentage of people below 

125% of poverty in California who 

received Supplemental Security Income 

in the previous year. FNS reserves the 

right to use data from the American 

Community Survey (ACS) in lieu of the 

CPS, and to use the count of people 

below 130 percent of poverty, should 

these data become available in a timely 

fashion and prove more accurate. Such 

a substitution would apply to all States. 

(4) Application processing timeliness.

FNS will divide $6 million among the 

6 States with the highest percentage of 

timely processed applications. 

(i) Data. FNS will use quality control 

data to determine each State’s rate of 

application processing timeliness. 

(ii) Timely processed applications. A 

timely processed application is one that 

provides an eligible applicant the 

‘‘opportunity to participate’’ as defined 

in § 274.2 of this chapter, within thirty 

days for normal processing or 7 days for 

expedited processing. New applications 

that are processed outside of this 

standard are untimely for this measure, 

except for applications that are properly 

pended in accordance with § 273.2(h)(2) 

of this chapter because verification is 

incomplete and the State agency has 

taken all the actions described in 

§ 273.2(h)(1)(i)(C) of this chapter. Such 

applications will not be included in this 

measure. Applications that are denied 

will not be included in this measure. 

(iii) Evaluation of applications. Only 

applications that were filed on or after 

the beginning of the performance 

measurement (fiscal) year will be 

evaluated under this measure.

Dated: January 31, 2005. 

Eric M. Bost, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 05–2260 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932 

[Docket No. FV04–932–2 FR] 

Olives Grown in California; 

Redistricting and Reapportionment of 

Producer Membership on the 

California Olive Committee

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule redefines the 

producer districts and reapportions each 

district’s membership on the California 

Olive Committee (committee). The 

Federal marketing order for California 

olives (order) regulates the handling of 

canned ripe olives grown in California 

and is administered locally by the 

committee. This rule reduces the 

number of producer districts in the 

production area from four to two and 

reapportions the committee 

representation from each district to 

6324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

reflect the consolidation. These changes 

reflect recent shifts in olive acreage and 

producer numbers within the 

production area and should provide 

equitable committee representation from 

each district.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel L. May, Marketing Specialist, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5901; Fax: (559) 

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical 

Advisor, 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. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

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: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, 

both as amended (7 CFR part 932), 

regulating the handling of olives 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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 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 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. Such 

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 final rule consolidates the four 

existing producer districts into two 

larger districts. Producer representation 

on the committee is reapportioned 

accordingly. These changes reflect 

recent shifts in olive acreage and 

producer numbers within the 

production area and should assure 

equitable committee representation from 

each district. This action was 

unanimously recommended by the 

committee at a meeting on July 8, 2004. 

Section 932.21 of the order defines 

the producer districts as geographical 

areas of the State of California. Section 

932.25 establishes an administrative 

committee of olive handlers and 

producers and provides for the 

allocation of committee membership to 

assure equitable producer 

representation from the districts. 

Section 932.35(k) authorizes the 

redefinition of the producer districts 

and the reapportionment of committee 

membership as needed to reflect shifts 

in olive acreage within the districts and 

area, numbers of growers in the 

districts, and the tonnage produced to 

assure equitable producer 

representation on the committee. 

Currently, § 932.121 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations 

lists and defines four producer districts 

within the production area. District 1 

includes Glenn, Tehama and Shasta 

Counties. District 2 includes the 

counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, 

San Benito, Monterey, and all counties 

south thereof excluding Tulare County. 

District 3 includes the counties of 

Alpine, Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa 

Clara, Santa Cruz, and all counties north 

thereof except those in District 1. 

District 4 includes Tulare County.

Section 932.125 specifies the 

producer representation on the 

committee. Currently, District 1 is 

represented by two producer members 

on the committee. District 2 is 

represented by one producer member. 

District 3 is represented by one 

producer member. District 4 is 

represented by four producer members. 

At its meeting on July 8, 2004, the 

committee recommended redefining the 

producer districts to consolidate the 

four existing districts into two. The 

committee also recommended 

reapportionment of the producer 

membership on the committee to reflect 

the consolidation of the districts. The 

committee believes that redistricting 

and reapportioning the eight producer 

member positions and alternates should 

provide equitable representation 

throughout the production area. The 

committee based this recommendation 

on the current olive acreage and number 

of producers as required under the 

marketing order. 

Total canned ripe olive acreage in the 

production area has declined by 

approximately four percent since 1994. 

Although production acreage in District 

1 has increased by approximately 21 

percent, shifts in varietal preference and 

challenging production conditions have 

led to declining acreages in the other 

districts. Production acreages in 

Districts 2, 3, and 4 have declined by 

approximately 34 percent, 99 percent, 

and 1 percent, respectively. 

The number of producers in the entire 

production area has declined by 

approximately 23 percent since 1994. 

Some of the decline has been caused by 

changes in ownership of productive 

acreage, and some producers have 

stopped growing olives for cannery use. 

While District 1 has lost only two 

percent of its producers since 1994, 

Districts 2, 3, and 4 have lost 49 percent, 

89 percent, and 29 percent, respectively. 

Some districts no longer have enough 

available or eligible producers to fill all 

the member seats currently allocated 

them on the committee. 

Revisions to both the district 

definitions and committee membership 

apportionment were last made in 1987. 

At that time District 4 was created 

because Tulare County represented 

more than 45 percent of the average 

production, number of producers, and 

acreage of the entire production area. 

District 4 now represents approximately 

56 percent of the canned ripe olive 

acreage as well as approximately 51 

percent of the producers in the 

production area. District 4 is 

represented by 50 percent of the 

producer members and alternates on the 

committee. 

Other districts are less equitably 

represented. District 1 currently has 36 

percent of the total acreage in the 

production area and 46 percent of the 

producers, but is represented by only 25 

percent of the committee’s producer 

members and alternates. District 2, with 

nine percent of the acreage and two 

percent of the producers is represented 

by 12.5 percent of the committee 

members. District 3, with less than 1 

percent of both the total acreage and 

number of producers is likewise 

represented by 12.5 percent of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6325

committee’s producer members and 

alternates. 

Recent shifts in production acreage as 

well as the decline in producer numbers 

in the districts prompted the committee 

to recommend the consolidation of the 

two northern districts into one producer 

district, and the two southern districts 

into one producer district. The shifts in 

production acreage and the declines in 

producer numbers reflect similar 

changes in the tonnage produced. 

The committee believes that it should 

be easier for each district to provide 

equitable representation on the 

committee if the districts with declining 

acreages and producer numbers are 

combined with districts having higher 

acreages and producer numbers. The 

pool of available producers from which 

to select committee members should 

then be increased for each producer 

district.

Accordingly, it was proposed that 

Districts 1 and 3 be combined to form 

a new District 1. District 1 will then 

include the counties of Alpine, 

Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Santa Clara, 

Santa Cruz and all other counties north 

thereof. Districts 2 and 4 will be 

combined to form a new District 2, 

which will include the counties of 

Mono, Mariposa, Merced, San Benito, 

Monterey and all other counties south 

thereof. Producer representation on the 

committee will then be reapportioned to 

provide three members (and alternates) 

from District 1 and five members (and 

alternates) from District 2. 

These changes should benefit 

producers by maintaining an equitable 

representation on the committee as to 

production acreage and number of 

producers in each district. Under this 

final rule, District 1, with 36 percent of 

the total production acreage and 47 

percent of the total number of producers 

will be represented by 38 percent of the 

producer members and alternates on the 

committee. District 2, with 64 percent of 

the total acreage and 53 percent of the 

total number of producers will be 

represented by 62 percent of the 

committee’s producer members and 

alternates. 

Final 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 rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions to 

ensure 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 850 

producers of olives in the production 

area and 3 handlers subject to regulation 

under the marketing order. The Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.601) defines small agricultural 

producers as those with annual receipts 

less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms as those with 

annual receipts less than $5,000,000. 

Based upon information from the 

committee, the majority of olive 

producers may be classified as small 

entities, but only one of the three 

handlers may be classified as a small 

entity. 

This rule revises § 932.121 of the 

order’s administrative rules and 

regulations pertaining to producer 

districts, and § 932.125 pertaining to 

producer representation on the 

committee. The changes decrease the 

number of producer districts from four 

to two and reapportion producer 

membership on the committee to reflect 

the consolidation. District 1, comprising 

the northern part of the production area, 

is apportioned three producer members 

(and alternates) on the committee. 

District 2, comprising the southern part 

of the production area, is apportioned 

five producer members (and alternates) 

on the committee. These changes reflect 

recent shifts in olive acreage and 

producer numbers within the 

production area and should provide 

equitable committee representation from 

each district. The committee 

unanimously recommended these 

changes. 

This rule consolidates producer 

districts and reallocates producer 

membership on the committee; thus, 

there should be no additional 

anticipated costs to handlers or 

producers. 

The only alternative to these changes 

discussed by the committee was to leave 

the districts and producer membership 

allocation as they currently exist. 

However, the committee believes that 

the recent shifts in acreage and producer 

numbers within the districts and 

production area have made these 

changes necessary to assure equitable 

producer representation from the 

districts.

This final rule imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on California olive 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. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

In addition, the committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

California olive industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all committee meetings, the July 8, 

2004, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on October 28, 2004 (69 FR 

62829). Copies of the rule were mailed 

or sent via facsimile to all committee 

members and olive handlers. Finally, 

the rule was made available through the 

Internet by USDA and the Office of the 

Federal Register. A 60-day comment 

period ending December 27, 2004, was 

provided to allow interested persons to 

respond to the proposal. 

Two comments were received during 

the comment period in response to the 

proposal. One comment generally 

opposed the program while the second 

indicated that the olive committee 

should be disbanded. However, neither 

comment added anything specific to the 

proposed rule. Accordingly, no changes 

will be made to the rule as proposed, 

based on the comments received. 

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/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information submitted by the committee 

and other available information, the 

comments received, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register

because nominations for committee 

positions are scheduled to take place in 

February 2005. The committee needs as 

much time as possible to make adequate 

preparations for the nomination 

meetings. Further, producers and 

handlers are aware of this rule, which 

was recommended at a public meeting. 

6326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Also, a 60-day comment period was 

provided for in the proposed rule, and 

no comments were received from the 

California olive industry.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Marketing agreements, Olives, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as 

follows:

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 

932 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. Section 932.121 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 932.121 Producer districts. 

Pursuant to the authority in 

§ 932.35(k), commencing with the term 

of office beginning June 1, 2005, district 

means any of the following geographical 

areas of the State of California: 

(a) District 1 shall include the 

counties of Alpine, Tuolumne, 

Stanislaus, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and 

all counties north thereof. 

(b) District 2 shall include the 

counties of Mono, Mariposa, Merced, 

San Benito, Monterey and all counties 

south thereof.

■ 3. Section 932.125 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 932.125 Producer representation on the 

committee. 

Pursuant to the authority in §§ 932.25 

and 932.35(k), commencing with the 

term of office beginning June 1, 2005, 

representation shall be apportioned as 

follows: 

(a) District 1 shall be represented by 

three producer members and alternates. 

(b) District 2 shall be represented by 

five producer members and alternates.

Dated: February 1, 2005. 

Kenneth C. Clayton, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 05–2216 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Docket No. FV05–989–1 FR] 

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown 

in California; Increased Assessment 

Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

Raisin Administrative Committee 

(Committee) for the 2004–05 and 

subsequent crop years from $8.00 to 

$11.00 per ton of free tonnage raisins 

acquired by handlers, and reserve 

tonnage raisins released or sold to 

handlers for use in free tonnage outlets. 

The Committee locally administers the 

Federal marketing order which regulates 

the handling of raisins produced from 

grapes grown in California (order). 

Authorization to assess raisin handlers 

enables the Committee to incur 

expenses that are reasonable and 

necessary to administer the program. 

The crop year runs from August 1 

through July 31. The 2004–05 crop is 

smaller than normal, and no volume 

regulation will be implemented this 

year. As a result, some expenses funded 

by handler assessments will increase. 

The $8.00 per ton assessment rate will 

not generate enough revenue to cover 

expenses. The $11.00 per ton 

assessment will remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Engeler, Assistant Regional 

Manager, California Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5901; Fax: (559) 

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical 

Advisor, 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. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

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: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement and Order No. 989 (7 CFR 

part 989), both as amended, 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 rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California raisin handlers are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate increased herein will be 

applicable to all assessable raisins 

beginning on August 1, 2004, 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 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. Such 

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 final rule increases the 

assessment rate established under the 

order for the 2004–05 and subsequent 

crop years from $8.00 to $11.00 per ton 

of free tonnage raisins acquired by 

handlers, and reserve tonnage raisins 

released or sold to handlers for use in 

free tonnage outlets. Authorization to 

assess raisin handlers enables the 

Committee to incur expenses that are 

reasonable and necessary to administer 

the program. The 2004–05 crop is