41302 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Old section New section 

983.61 983.83 

983.62 983.84 

983.63 983.85 

983.64 983.86 

983.66 983.88 

983.67 983.89 

983.68 983.90 

983.69 983.91 

Proposal Number 8 

Make such changes as may be 

necessary to the order to conform with 

any amendment that may result from 

the hearing. 

Dated: July 15, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–1445 Filed 7–15–08; 4:25 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0042; FV08–989–

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 rule invites comments 

on using an estimated trade demand 

figure to compute volume regulation 

percentages for 2008–09 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 rule would provide 

parameters for implementing volume 

regulation for 2008–09 crop NS raisins, 

if supplies are short, 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 4, 2008. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

M. Aguayo, 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: 

Rose.Aguayo@usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov. 

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 

proposal 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 proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

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. 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 

to compute volume regulation 

percentages for 2008–09 crop NS raisins 

covered under the order. This rule 

would provide parameters for 

implementing volume regulation for 

2008–09 crop NS raisins, if supplies are 

short, 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 April 3, 2008. 

Volume Regulation Authority 

The order provides authority for 

volume regulation designed to promote 

orderly marketing conditions, stabilize 

prices and supplies, and improve 

producer returns. When volume 

regulation is in effect, a certain 

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 certain programs 

authorized under the order. For 

instance, reserve raisins may be sold by 

the Committee to handlers for free use 

or to replace part of the free tonnage 

raisins they exported; used in diversion 

programs; carried over as a hedge 

against a short crop the following year; 

or disposed of in other outlets not 

competitive with those for free tonnage 

raisins, such as government purchase, 

distilleries, or animal feed. Net proceeds 

from sales of reserve raisins are 

distributed to the reserve pool’s equity 

holders, primarily producers. 

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 by 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. 

Trade demand is equal to 90 percent of 

the prior year’s domestic and export 

shipments, adjusted by subtracting 

carryin inventory from the prior year 

and adding a desirable carryout 

inventory for the end of the current 

year. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 41303 

Paragraph (e) of § 989.54 contains a 

list of factors that the Committee must 

consider when computing volume 

regulation percentages. Factor (4) states 

that the Committee must consider, if 

different than the computed trade 

demand, the estimated trade demand for 

raisins in free tonnage outlets. Section 

989.154(b) provides parameters for use 

of an estimated trade demand for the 

2007–08 crop year. 

By October 5, the Committee must 

announce preliminary crop estimates 

and determine whether volume 

regulation is warranted for the varietal 

types for which it computed trade 

demands. Preliminary volume 

regulation percentages are then 

computed to release 85 percent of the 

computed trade demand if a free 

tonnage price for raisins has been 

established or 65 percent of the trade 

demand if no free tonnage price for 

raisins has been established. Free 

tonnage price for raisins is the price that 

handlers pay producers for the free 

tonnage portion of their crop. By 

February 15, the Committee must 

recommend final free and reserve 

percentages that will tend to release the 

full trade demand. 

The order also requires that, when 

volume regulation is in effect, two offers 

of reserve raisins must be made 

available 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. 

Development of Export Markets 

With the exception of 11 crop years, 

volume regulation has been utilized for 

NS raisins since the order’s inception in 

1949. The procedures for determining 

volume regulation percentages have 

been modified over the years to address 

the industry’s needs. In the past, volume 

regulation has been utilized primarily to 

help the industry manage an oversupply 

of raisins. Through the use of various 

marketing programs operated through 

reserve pools and other industry 

promotional activities, the industry has 

also developed its export markets. 

Between 1980 and 1985, exports of 

California NS raisins averaged about 26 

percent (53,700 packed tons, or raisins 

which have been processed) of the 

industry’s total NS raisin shipments 

(207,600 packed tons) per year. During 

the last ten years (1997–2006) these 

exports averaged about 37 percent 

(103,833 packed tons) of the industry’s 

total NS raisin shipments (281,416 

packed tons) per year. The total 

shipment figures exclude government 

purchases. 

Export Replacement Offer 

One market development program 

operated through reserve pools, the 

Export Replacement Offer (ERO), has 

helped U.S. raisins to be price 

competitive in export markets. Prices in 

export markets are generally lower than 

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 use. This effectively 

blended down the cost of the raisins 

that were exported. The NS raisin ERO 

was changed to a ‘‘cash-back’’ program 

in 1996 whereby handlers could receive 

cash from the reserve pool for export 

shipments. 

The ERO has been operated as a ‘‘cash 

back’’ program in all years since then, 

except for 2000, 2001, and a portion of 

2002. Financing for the cash-back ERO 

program has been primarily from the 

Committee’s ‘‘10 plus 10’’ sales of 

reserve raisins. Since 2002, an average 

of $42.7 million of reserve pool funds 

were utilized to support the export of 

about 103,000 packed tons of NS raisins 

annually. 

Current Industry Situation 

The Committee is concerned that the 

2008–09 crop may be short because of 

grape vine removals over the last several 

years and an April frost. About 53,000 

acres of grape vines have been removed 

in favor of other crops, which have 

recently been providing higher returns. 

Additionally, this year’s raisin crop in 

Turkey was small due to inclement 

weather. This led to an increase in 

exports of California raisins which will 

likely inflate next year’s computed trade 

demand. Thus, with a smaller crop and 

a higher trade demand, volume 

regulation may not be warranted for 

2008–09 NS raisins based on the order’s 

trade demand formula. 

If no 2008–09 reserve were 

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 a significant portion, perhaps 50 

percent, of its export markets. Further, 

handlers who could not sell their raisins 

in export may sell their raisins 

domestically. Annual domestic 

shipments of NS raisins for the past ten 

years have averaged about 178,000 

packed tons. The Committee is 

concerned that additional raisins sold 

into the domestic market could create 

instability. 

Implementing Volume Regulation if 

Supplies Are Short To Maintain the 

ERO 

Thus, the Committee unanimously 

recommended using an estimated trade 

demand to establish no more than a 10 

percent reserve if the 2008–09 NS raisin 

crop is small. This would allow the 

industry to maintain the ERO. No 

volume regulation would be 

implemented if the crop estimate is 

below 215,000 tons. At that level, the 

needs of the domestic market would be 

met and about half of the industry’s 

export markets. Section 989.154(b) of 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations is proposed to be revised 

accordingly. Similar rulemaking actions 

were completed in 1999 (64 FR 43897) 

and 2007 (72 FR 54343). 

To illustrate how this would work, 

the Committee would compute a trade 

demand for NS raisins by August 15 (as 

an example, 267,000 natural condition 

tons). At that time, the Committee 

would also announce its intention to 

use an estimated trade demand to 

compute volume regulation percentages 

if the 2008–09 NS raisin crop is at least 

215,000 tons but no more than 10 

percent above the computed trade 

demand (293,700 tons in the example). 

Crop Estimate Below 215,000 Tons—No 

Regulation 

The Committee would meet by 

October 5 to announce a NS crop 

estimate and determine whether volume 

regulation was warranted. Under the 

Committee’s proposal, if the 2008–09 

crop estimate is under 215,000 natural 

condition tons, volume regulation 

would not be recommended. With a 

crop of 215,000 natural condition tons, 

and about 109,000 natural condition 

tons of NS raisins projected to be carried 

forward from the 2007–08 crop year, a 

supply of about 324,000 natural 

condition tons of raisins would be 

available for the 2008–09 crop year. As 

previously mentioned, annual NS raisin 

shipments average about 282,000 

packed tons (almost 300,000 natural 

condition tons), excluding government 

purchases. 

With an available supply of only 

324,000 natural condition tons of NS 

raisins, the Committee believes that the 

industry’s first priority would be to 

satisfy the needs of the domestic market, 

which absorbs annually an average of 

about 178,000 packed tons (189,000 

natural condition tons). Assuming that 

189,000 natural condition tons were 

shipped domestically, the Committee 

estimates that, with no ERO program to 

help U.S. raisins be price competitive in 

export markets, the industry would 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
41304 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

export about half of its usual tonnage, or 

about 55,000 natural condition tons. 

The remaining 80,000 natural condition 

tons would likely be held in inventory 

for the following 2009–10 crop year. 

Annual carryout inventory for NS 

raisins for the past 5 years has averaged 

about 109,000 natural condition tons. 

Crop Estimate Equal to 215,000 Tons 

But No More Than 10 Percent Above 

the Computed Trade Demand—Volume 

Regulation 

If the October 2008–09 crop estimate 

for NS raisins is at least 215,000 natural 

condition tons but 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 2008–09 crop. Thus, 

using the 267,000 natural condition ton 

computed trade demand figure, an 

estimated trade demand would be used 

to compute volume regulation 

percentages if the crop estimate is 

215,000 but no more than 293,700 

natural condition tons. 

The Committee would meet by 

February 15 to compute final free and 

reserve percentages. The Committee 

recommended that if an estimated trade 

demand figure is used to compute 

percentages, the final reserve percentage 

be computed to equal no more than 10 

percent of the estimated crop. Producers 

would ultimately be paid the free 

tonnage price for raisins for 90 percent 

of their crop, or their free tonnage. 

The remaining 10 percent of the crop 

would be held in reserve and offered for 

sale to handlers in the ‘‘10 plus 10’’

offers. As previously described, the ‘‘10 

plus 10’’ offers are two offers of reserve 

raisins that are made available to 

handlers for free use. The order 

specifies that each offer consists of a 

quantity of reserve raisins equal to 10 

percent of the prior year’s shipments. 

This requirement would not be met if 

volume regulation were implemented 

when raisin supplies were short. 

However, all of the raisins held in 

reserve would be made available to 

handlers for free use. Handlers would 

pay the Committee for the ‘‘10 plus 10’’

raisins and that money would be 

utilized to fund a 2008–09 ERO 

program. Any unused 2008–09 reserve 

pool funds could be used to initiate a 

2009–10 ERO program or be paid to 

2008–09 reserve pool equity holders. 

Crop Estimate More Than 10 Percent 

Above the Computed Trade Demand 

Finally, the Committee recommended 

that, if the 2008–09 crop estimate is 

more than 10 percent greater than the 

computed trade demand (or above 

293,700 natural condition tons in the 

earlier example), the computed trade 

demand (as an example, 267,000 natural 

condition tons) would be utilized to 

compute volume regulation percentages. 

Under this scenario, enough raisins 

(over 29,000 natural condition tons) 

would be available in reserve to 

continue the ERO program. 

Summary of Alternatives 

It is anticipated that allowing the use 

of an estimated trade demand figure to 

compute volume regulation percentages 

for 2008–09 crop NS raisins if supplies 

are short would assist the industry in 

maintaining a portion of its export 

markets and stabilize the domestic 

market. If the crop estimate is below 

215,000 natural condition tons, no 

volume regulation would be 

implemented. If this occurs, it is likely 

that domestic market needs would be 

met, while export markets would not be 

satisfied. 

However, if the crop is at least 

215,000 natural condition tons but no 

more than 10 percent above the 

computed trade demand, establishing a 

small reserve pool would 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, exporters could continue 

to be price competitive and sell their 

raisins abroad. The domestic market 

would remain stable because it would 

not have to absorb any additional raisins 

that handlers could not afford to sell in 

export markets. 

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, 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 21 handlers 

of California raisins who are subject to 

regulation under the order and 

approximately 3,000 raisin producers in 

the regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms have been defined by the 

Small Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $6,500,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. No more than 8 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 regarding use of an 

estimated trade demand figure to 

establish no more than a 10 percent 

reserve if the 2008–09 NS raisin crop is 

small. This would allow the industry to 

maintain the ERO. Volume regulation 

would not be implemented if the crop 

falls below 215,000 tons. At that level, 

the needs of the domestic market and 

about half of the industry’s export 

markets would be met. Authority for 

this action is provided in § 989.54(e)(4) 

of the order. 

Regarding the impact of the action on 

producers and handlers, under the 

Committee’s proposal, if an estimated 

trade demand figure was 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. About 10 percent 

of their crop would go into a reserve 

pool. The free tonnage price for raisins 

for NS raisins for the past 5 years has 

averaged $1,130 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 

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 $1,233 per ton. 

Proceeds from the ‘‘10 plus 10’’ sales 

would be used to support export sales. 

While there may be some initial costs 

for both producers and handlers, the 

long term benefits of this action far 

outweigh the costs. The Committee 

believes that with no reserve pool, and 

hence, no ERO program, export sales 

would decline dramatically, perhaps up 

to 50 percent. Handlers would likely 

sell into the domestic market raisins 

that they were unable to sell into lower 

priced export markets. Additional NS 

raisins sold into the domestic market, 

which typically absorbs about 178,000 

packed tons, could create instability. 

The industry would likely lose a 

substantial portion of its export markets, 

which now account for about 37 percent 

(103,833 packed tons) of the industry’s 

annual shipments (281,416 packed 

tons), excluding government purchases. 

Committee members have also 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 41305 

commented that, once export markets 

were lost, it would be difficult and 

costly for the industry to recover those 

sales. Raisins are mostly used as an 

ingredient in baked goods, cereals, and 

snacks. Typically, buyers want reliable 

suppliers from year to year and are 

generally reluctant to find alternative 

ingredients or sources. In turn, once 

buyers change sources, they may not 

switch back. 

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 product source 

for raisin buyers. Turkey’s 2007–08 

raisin crop was small due to a drought 

and high temperatures. Consequently, 

exports of Turkish raisins decreased 

while exports of California raisins 

increased significantly (up about 30 

percent). 

Maintaining the industry’s export 

markets would help the industry 

maximize its 2008–09 total shipments of 

NS raisins and prevent handlers from 

carrying forward large quantities of 

inventory into the 2009–10 crop year. If 

the industry is unable to maximize its 

2008–09 shipments of NS raisins, 

carryin inventory could be high. This 

would result in a lower computed trade 

demand figure for the 2009–10 crop year 

and ultimately a lower free tonnage 

percentage. Since NS raisin producers 

are paid significantly more for their free 

tonnage raisins than for reserve tonnage 

raisins, this would mean reduced 

returns to producers. Projected reduced 

2009–10 returns to producers, coupled 

with the risks of rain and labor 

shortages during harvest, may influence 

producers to ‘‘go green,’’ or sell their 

raisin-variety grapes to the fresh-grape, 

wine, or juice concentrate markets. 

Additional supplies to those outlets 

could potentially reduce ‘‘green’’

returns as well. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this change. One option considered 

was using one of the three prior year’s 

shipments to compute trade demand, 

pursuant to § 989.54(a) of the order. 

However, the order only allows this if 

prior year’s shipments were limited due 

to crop conditions. Since 2007–08 

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 (about $21.7 million from the 

2007–08 reserve pool). However, these 

funds would only support the ERO 

through December 2008. Thus, the 

Committee ultimately recommended 

using an estimated trade demand to 

compute volume regulation percentages 

next year if 2008–09 crop NS raisin 

supplies are short. 

This proposed rule would provide 

parameters for implementing volume 

regulation for 2008–09 crop NS raisins, 

if supplies are short, for the purposes of 

maintaining a portion of the industry’s 

export markets and stabilizing the 

domestic market. 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 

Administrative Issues Subcommittee 

deliberated this issue prior to the 

Committee’s meeting on April 3, 2008. 

Both meetings were widely publicized 

throughout the raisin industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the April 

3, 2008, meetings were public meetings 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express 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/ 

AMSv1.0/

ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=

TemplateN&page=MarketingOrders

SmallBusinessGuide. Any questions 

about the compliance guide should be 

sent to Jay Guerber 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 2008–09 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. 

§ 989.154 [Amended] 

2. In the second sentence of 

§ 989.154(b), the words ‘‘2007–08’’ are 

removed in both locations and the 

words ‘‘2008–09’’ are added in their 

place. 

Dated: July 16, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–1447 Filed 7–16–08; 12:23 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0790; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–CE–042–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company 150 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Cessna Aircraft Company 150 series 

airplanes with the BRS–150 Parachute 

System installed via Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) SA64CH. This 

proposed AD would require the 

replacement of the pick-up collar 

support and nylon screws for the BRS–

150 Parachute System. This proposed 

AD results from notification by Ballistic 

Recovery Systems, Inc. (BRS) that the 

pick-up collar assembly may 

prematurely move off the launch tube 

and adversely affect rocket trajectory 

during deployment. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent premature separation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS