7430 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Commodity Loans and Purchases—

10.051.

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed in

accordance with Executive Order 12778.

The provisions of this rule do not

preempt State laws, are not retroactive,

and do not involve administrative

appeals.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It has been determined that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is not

applicable to this final rule because

CFSA is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or

any other provision of law to publish a

notice of proposed rulemaking with

respect to the subject matter of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The amendments to 7 CFR part 729

set forth in this final rule do not contain

information collection requirements that

require clearance through the Office of

Management and Budget under the

provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Announcement of the Quota

Section 358–1(a)(1) of the 1938 Act

requires that the national poundage

quota for peanuts for each of the 1991

through 1997 marketing years (MY’s) be

established by the Secretary at a level

that is equal to the quantity of peanuts

(in tons) that the Secretary estimates

will be devoted in each such MY to

domestic edible, seed, and related uses.

Section 358–1(a)(1) further provides that

the national poundage quota for a MY

shall not be less than 1,350,000 st. The

MY for 1995-crop peanuts runs from

August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996.

Poundage quotas for the 1991–95 crops

of peanuts were approved by 98.2

percent of peanut growers voting in a

referendum conducted December 10

through 13, 1990.

The national poundage quota for the

MY for the 1995 crop was established at

1,350,000 pounds, the statutory

minimum, based on comparison with

the following data:

ESTIMATED DOMESTIC EDIBLE, SEED,

AND RELATED USES FOR 1995-

CROP PEANUTS

Item

Farmer

stock

equivalent

(short

tons)

Domestic edible:

Domestic prod. for domestic

food use ................................. 984,000

On-farm and local sales ............ 19,600

Seed ............................................. 100,000

ESTIMATED DOMESTIC EDIBLE, SEED,

AND RELATED USES FOR 1995-

CROP PEANUTS—Continued

Item

Farmer

stock

equivalent

(short

tons)

Related uses:

Crushing residual ...................... 130,100

Shrinkage and other losses ...... 39,400

Segregation 2 and 3 loan transfers to quota loan .................. 20,000

Total ................................... 1,293,100

Estimates of domestic production for

domestic food use peanuts are

developed in two steps. First, the farmer

stock equivalent of peanuts for edible

food use is projected by USDA’s

Interagency Commodity Estimates

Committee (ICEC). Second, the ICEC

food use estimate is reduced by the

amount of peanut butter exports, edible

peanut imports, and peanut butter

imports since the ICEC food use

estimate is an aggregate which includes

peanut product exports and is derived

from total supply that includes imports

of peanuts and peanut butter. Peanut

product exports are in most instances

made from, or otherwise credited under

section 359a(e)(1) of the 1938 Act as

being made from, additional peanuts.

Farm use and local sales is estimated

at 1 percent of ICEC’s production

estimate. This percentage reflects the

average difference between USDA

production estimates and Federal-State

inspection data.

Seed use is based on projected 1996-

crop planted acreage and a farmer stock

equivalent seeding rate of 125 pounds

per acre.

The crushing residual is the portion of

farmer stock quota peanuts suitable only

for the crushing market. The quota must

be sufficient to provide for the shelling

of both edible and crushing grades.

Therefore, a crushing residual

representing the farmer stock equivalent

weight of crushing grade kernels shelled

from quota peanuts is included under

the ‘‘related uses’’ category. The

crushing residual is estimated under the

assumption that crushing peanuts will

be approximately 12 percent, on a

farmer stock basis, of total domestic

food and seed production.

Shrinkage and other losses is an

estimate of reduced kernel weight

available for marketing as well as for

kernel losses due to damage, fire, and

spillage. These losses were estimated by

multiplying a factor of 0.04 times

domestic food use. The utilized factor is

a CFSA estimate equal to the minimum

allowable shrinkage used in calculating

a handler’s obligation to export or crush

additional peanuts as set forth in section

359a(d)(2)(iv) of the 1938 Act. Excessive

moisture and weight loss due to foreign

material in delivered farmer stock

peanuts were not considered since such

factors are accounted for at buying

points and do not impact upon quota

marketing tonnage.

Segregation 2 and 3 loan transfers to

quota loan represent transfers of

Segregation 2 and 3 peanuts from

additional price support loan pools to

quota loan pools. Such transfers occur

when quota peanut producers have

insufficient Segregation 1 peanuts to fill

their quotas yet have Segregation 2 and

3 peanuts in additional loan pools

which would have been eligible to be

pledged as collateral for quota loans if

it were not for quality problems. In such

cases, for price support purposes only,

these peanuts may be pledged as

collateral for such loans. Regarding the

disposition of such peanuts, the

Commodity Credit Corporation will

ensure that they are crushed for oil.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 729

Poundage quotas, Peanuts, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 729 is

amended as follows:

PART 729—PEANUTS

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 729 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1301, 1357 et seq.,

1372, 1373, 1375; 7 U.S.C. 1445c–3.

2. Section 729.214 is amended by

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 729.214 National poundage quota.

* * * * *

(e) The national poundage quota for

peanuts for marketing year 1995 is

1,350,000 short tons.

Signed at Washington, DC, on February 2,

1995.

Bruce R. Weber,

Acting Administrator, Consolidated Farm

Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 95–3043 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 920

[Docket No. FV94–920–4FR]

Kiwifruit Grown in California; Changes

in District Boundaries

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7431

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule redefines the

eight district boundaries under the

Federal marketing order for kiwifruit

grown in California and makes the

districts more equitable in terms of

kiwifruit production. Kiwifruit growers

in each of these districts elect members

to represent their districts on the

Kiwifruit Administrative Committee

(committee), which locally administers

the order. Production shifts have

occurred within the California

production area that have made the

districts inequitable in terms of

kiwifruit production.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Aguayo, California Marketing Field

Office, Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721;

telephone (209) 487–5901; or Mark A.

Hessel, Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room

2526–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456,

telephone (202) 720–5127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule is issued under Marketing Order

No. 920 [7 CFR Part 920], as amended,

regulating the handling of kiwifruit

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

(Department) is issuing this final rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. This final rule

will not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this action.

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

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 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 principle

place of business, has jurisdiction in

equity to review the Secretary’s ruling

on the petition, provided a bill in equity

is filed not later than 20 days after date

of the entry of the ruling.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has

considered the economic impact of this

action on small entities.

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. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 65 handlers

of California kiwifruit subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 600 kiwifruit producers

in the production area. Small

agricultural service firms are defined by

the Small Business Administration [13

CFR 121.601] as those whose annual

receipts are less than $5,000,000, and

small agricultural producers have been

defined as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000. A majority of

handlers and producers of California

kiwifruit may be classified as small

entities.

The committee met on September 27,

1994, and recommended by a vote of 8

to 1 to change the producer district

boundaries.

The 12-member committee consists of

one public member (and alternate), one

member (and alternate) from each of the

eight California districts, and three

additional committee members and

their alternates to be selected from the

three districts with the three highest

volumes of fresh shipments in the prior

fiscal period. No more than a total of

two members and their alternates shall

represent any one district. With the

exception of the public member and

alternate, all members and their

respective alternates are growers or

employees of growers. The public

member and alternate are nominated by

the grower members and are selected

with the approval of the Secretary.

Under Section 920.31 of the

marketing order, the committee may,

with the approval of the Secretary,

redefine the districts into which the

production area is divided. Any such

changes shall reflect, insofar as

practicable, shifts in kiwifruit

production within the districts and the

production area.

Pursuant to section 920.12, the

production area, which includes all

counties in California, is divided into

eight districts. District 1 includes

Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, Lassen,

Tehama, Plumas, and Butte counties

with the exception of that area set aside

as ‘‘District 2.’’ District 2 includes the

95948 postal zip code area known as

Gridley (and surrounding area),

incorporating the area located within

the following boundaries: the area west

of the Feather River; north of the Butte/

Sutter County line; east of Pennigton

and Riley Roads; and south of Farris

Road, Ord Ranch Road and Gridley

Avenue. District 3 includes Yuba,

Sutter, Sierra, Nevada, and Placer

Counties. District 4 includes Del Norte,

Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Lake,

Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Solano, Yolo,

Colusa, and Glenn Counties. District 5

includes San Joaquin, Calaveras,

Tuolumne, Merced, Stanislaus, Contra

Costa, El Dorado, Amador, Sacramento,

Alpine, San Francisco, Alameda, San

Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San

Benito, and Monterey Counties. District

6 includes Mono, Mariposa, Madera,

Fresno, and Kings Counties. District 7

includes Tulare and Inyo Counties.

District 8 includes San Luis Obispo,

Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Kern,

Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange,

Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial

Counties.

Over the past ten years, production

shifts have occurred within the

California production area that have

made the districts unequitable in terms

of kiwifruit production. At the time the

current districts were established, the

production per district was fairly equal,

but a greater percentage of the California

kiwifruit crop was produced in

Southern California (District 8) and

Central California (District 5). However,

kiwifruit production has shifted so that

a larger percentage of the crop is

concentrated in the Gridley area in

Northern California (District 2) and

Tulare County in Central California

(District 7).

The percentage of production for each

of the eight current districts is shown in

the table below based on the 1993/94

crop year. The percentage of production

for the redefined districts based on the

1993/94 crop year is shown as a basis

for comparison. The table outlines the

inequity that currently exists among the
7432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

districts and how the redefined districts

will rectify these inequities.

District

Current

district

(percent)

Redefined

district

(percent)

1 ................................ 11.02 13.54

2 ................................ 13.24 13.24

3 ................................ 15.57 15.00

4 ................................ 1.79 12.20

5 ................................ 4.52 12.03

6 ................................ 12.19 8.59

7 ................................ 34.25 14.65

8 ................................ 7.41 10.75

Under the new boundaries, county

lines will be kept intact as boundaries

except in Tulare and Butte Counties.

This final rule will remove Glenn, Lake,

Colusa, Sonoma, Yolo, Solano, Del

Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino,

Napa, and Marin Counties from District

4 and add them to District 1.

Sacramento, El Dorado and Amador

Counties will be removed from District

5 and added to District 1. Nevada and

Placer Counties will be removed from

District 2 and added to District 1. Sierra

County will be removed from District 3

and added to District 1. In Butte County,

the town of Gridley will remain as a

whole district—District 2. Calaveras,

Tuolumne, Contra Costa, Alpine, San

Francisco, and Alameda Counties will

be removed from District 5 and added

to District 4. Mono and Mariposa

Counties will be removed from District

6 and added to District 4. Kings County

will be removed from District 6 and

added to District 5. Inyo County will be

removed from District 7 and added to

District 6. Tulare County will be divided

into four districts. District 5 will include

Tulare County north of Highway 198 to

the Kings County boundary. District 6

will include Tulare County south of

Highway 198 to Avenue 56, excluding

the west side of Highway 65 between

Highway 137 and Avenue 56. District 7

will include Tulare County west of

Highway 65 between Highway 137 and

Avenue 56, and District 8 will include

Tulare County south of Avenue 56.

Committee members serve 2-year

terms of office beginning August 1, with

about one-half of the membership

selected each year. Of the current

members, seven members are serving

terms of office that expire on July 31,

1995, and five members are serving

terms of office that expire on July 31,

1996. The committee recommended that

all of the present committee members

continue to serve through July 31, 1995,

and that this redistricting be effective

for nominations for all members to serve

for terms beginning August 1, 1995.

One-half of the committee members

selected for terms of office beginning

August 1, 1995, will serve one-year

terms and the other half will serve twoyear terms, with the determination of

the terms for each member to be decided

by lot.

The one voter in opposition to the

recommendation wanted to allocate the

additional three committee members

and their alternates to the three districts

with the highest number of growers

rather than to the three districts with the

highest production. However, the

marketing order requires that the three

additional members and alternates be

allocated to the highest producing

districts.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on December 9, 1994 [59 FR

63731], with a 30 day comment period

ending January 9, 1995. No comments

were received.

Based on the above, the Administrator

of the AMS has determined that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the committee and other

available information, 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 [5

U.S.C. 553] because: 1) Nomination

procedures begin in March for those

members and alternates to be selected

for terms beginning in 1995; 2) Handlers

are aware of this rule, which was

recommended by the committee at a

public meeting; and 3) a 30-day

comment period was provided for in the

proposed rule and no adverse comments

were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. A new § 920.131 is added to read

as follows:

§ 920.131 Redistricting of kiwifruit

districts.

Pursuant to § 920.31 (l) the districts

are redefined as follows:

(a) District 1 shall include the

counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc,

Humboldt, Trinity, Shasta, Lassen,

Mendocino, Tehama, Plumas, Glenn,

Lake, Colusa, Sonoma, Yolo, Solano,

Napa, Marin, Sacramento, Sierra,

Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, and

Butte (with the exception of that area set

aside as ‘‘District 2’’).

(b) District 2 shall include the 95948

postal zip code area known as Gridley

in Butte County, and the area

surrounding Gridley, incorporating the

area located within the following

boundaries: The area west of the Feather

River; north of the Butte/Sutter County

line; east of Pennington and Riley

Roads; and south of Farris Road, Ord

Ranch Road and Gridley Avenue.

(c) District 3 shall include the

counties of Sutter and Yuba.

(d) District 4 shall include the

counties of San Francisco, San Mateo,

Santa Cruz, Contra Costa, Alameda,

Santa Clara, Monterey, San Benito, San

Joaquin, Calaveras, Alpine, Mono,

Tuolumne, Stanislaus, Merced,

Mariposa, Madera, and Fresno.

(e) District 5 shall include Kings

county and that portion of Tulare

County north of Highway 198.

(f) District 6 shall include Inyo County

and that portion of Tulare County south

of Highway 198 to Avenue 56,

excluding the west side of Highway 65

between Highway 137 and Avenue 56.

(g) District 7 shall include that portion

of Tulare County of Tulare west of

Highway 65 and between Highway 137

and Avenue 56.

(h) District 8 shall include of Kern,

San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,

Ventura, San Bernardino, San Diego,

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Diego, Imperial Counties and that

portion of Tulare County south of

Avenue 56.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–3148 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–W

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1007, 1011, 1046

[DA–95–06]

Milk in the Carolina, Georgia,

Tennessee Valley, and LouisvilleLexington-Evansville Marketing Areas;

Suspension of Certain Provisions of

the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.