Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27245

reduce it. To establish the appropriate

factor for reducing the production to

count to take into consideration an

amount of damaged production, the

regulation should have stated that the

price per bushel received for damaged

production would be divided by the

established value of undamaged

production.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations

contain errors which may prove to be

misleading and are in need of

clarification.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457

Malting Barley Crop Insurance.

PART 457—COMMON CROP

INSURANCE REGULATIONS;

REGULATIONS FOR THE 1991 AND

SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT YEARS

Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 457 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendments:

1. On page 8856 in the second

column, section 4(b)(2) of Option A is

corrected to read ‘‘Dividing the price per

bushel received for the damaged

production by the result of paragraph

(1); and’’

2. On page 8857 in the second

column, section 4(b)(2) of Option B is

corrected to read ‘‘Dividing the price per

bushel received for the damaged

production by the result of paragraph

(1); and’’

Signed in Washington, D.C., on May 23,

1996.

Kenneth D. Ackerman,

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 96–13591 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–FA–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 925

[Docket No. FV95–925–1FIR]

Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of

Southeastern California; Revision of

Container Requirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture (Department) is adopting as

a final rule, the provisions of an interim

final rule with correction which added

two new containers to the list of

containers authorized for use by table

grape handlers regulated under the

marketing order. This rule also reduces

the minimum net weight of containers

of California table grapes from 22

pounds to 20 pounds and for grapes

packed in poly bags from 20 pounds to

18 pounds. The marketing order

regulates the handling of table grapes

grown in a designated area of

Southeastern California. The marketing

order is locally administered by the

California Desert Grape Administrative

Committee (CDGAC). This rule allows

for more efficient use of containers and

helps handlers meet industry needs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles L. Rush, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2526–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone (202) 690–

3670; or Rose M. 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule is issued under Marketing Order

No. 925 [7 CFR Part 925], as amended,

regulating the handling of table grapes

grown in a designated area of

Southeastern 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 rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, 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 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 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.

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.

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 20 handlers

of California table grapes subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 80 table grape 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 minority of

handlers and producers are classified as

small entities.

This rule finalizes changes in the

container requirements under the

marketing order for grapes grown in

designated areas of Southeastern

California. This rule also finalizes a

reduction in the minimum net weight of

containers of California table grapes

from 22 pounds to 20 pounds and for

grapes packed in poly bags from 20

pounds to 18 pounds. These changes

were unanimously recommended by the

CDGAC.

An interim final rule was issued on

March 11, 1996, and published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 11127, March

19, 1996), with an effective date of

March 19, 1996. That rule amended

§ 925.304 of the rules and regulations in

effect under the order. That rule

provided a 30-day comment period

which ended April 18, 1996. No

comments were received. A correction

document was issued on March 25,

1996, and published in the Federal

Register (61 FR 14013, March 29, 1996).

The document corrected amendatory

language number 2 of the interim final

rule.

This action is in accordance with

§ 925.52(a)(4) of the order. This section

authorizes the Secretary to fix the size,

capacity, weight, dimensions, markings,
27246 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

materials, and pack of containers which

may be used in the handling of grapes.

Prior to the effective date of the

interim final rule, § 925.304 (b)(2) of the

regulations specified that the minimum

net weight requirement for grapes in any

container, except for containers

containing grapes packed in sawdust,

cork, excelsior, or similar packing

material, or packed in bags or wrapped

in plastic or paper, and experimental

containers, be 22 pounds based on the

average net weight of grapes in a

representative sample of containers.

Containers of grapes packed in bags or

wrapped in plastic or paper prior to

being placed in these containers were

required to meet a net weight

requirement of 20 pounds.

Section 925.304 (b)(1) of the

regulations specified the dimensions of

six containers that could be used by

handlers of table grapes and authorized

the use of other types and sizes of

containers on an experimental basis.

The CDGAC met on November 27,

and December 4, 1995, and

unanimously recommended changes in

the container requirements. Specifically,

the CDGAC recommended reducing the

minimum net weight of containers from

22 to 20 pounds and for containers of

grapes wrapped or packed in poly bags

from 20 to 18 pounds, effective April 20,

1996. The CDGAC also unanimously

recommended adding two new

containers (38S, 12 x 20 inches) and

(38T, 131⁄8 x 157⁄8 inches) to the list of

authorized containers. These changes

are intended to improve the quality of

grapes delivered to consumers and

reduce handling costs.

The genesis for discussion of revising

containers used to pack grapes began

about 6 years ago when the recyclability

of packaging materials became of

interest to consumers worldwide and

then to retailers who bore the brunt of

consumers’ concern. In addition to the

environmental concern expressed by

consumers, retailers were concerned

about the increasing costs of disposing

of packing and shipping materials.

Simultaneously, in an effort to

differentiate themselves in the

marketplace, many in the retail industry

began demanding that grape growers

provide custom packs. One customer

wanted only a certain type of bag,

another wanted only 5-kilo bags,

another wanted bags with nothing

printed on them, while yet another

wanted a special store code.

These kinds of demands from the

retail and food service industry led to a

great deal of packaging experimentation

within the California grape industry. It

also led to the realization that it had

been 25 years since there had been any

quantifiable packaging research. The

industry decided to take a critical look

at grape packaging and determine if

current practices were getting the

product to the retailer and ultimately

the consumer in the best possible

condition; and if not, what changes

needed to be made to improve delivery.

Toward that end, the California Table

Grape Commission funded a three-year

research project designed to answer a

simple question: what types of

containers get grapes to the consumer in

the best possible condition?

Grapes are a fragile product. The

current method of packing is a holdover

from 25 years ago when grapes were

sold at auctions and it was considered

a marketing advantage to overpack the

box so that when buyers looked at the

box it was bulging with fruit. Too often

though, what they did not see was the

condition of the fruit inside; crushed,

split or falling off the stem. In addition,

the standard lug box in use today was

designed to fit railroad cars. Shipping

grapes by rail car is a part of the

industry’s past.

The study of table grape packaging

was conducted by the University of

California at Davis and the University of

California at Kearney Agricultural

Center at Parlier. The objective of the

study was to develop knowledge

concerning packaging that allows the

movement of table grapes from the field

to the consumer in the best possible

condition. At the reduced weight, the

damage to the grapes, particularly in

terms of bruising, splitting and

shattering, decreases. Table grapes of

most varieties suffered considerable

damage when packed at net weights of

22 or 23 pounds. The damage was

reduced considerably when the pack

weights were reduced to 20 to 21

pounds.

Through the research conducted the

CDGAC determined that other container

size and net weight options available

were not in the best interest of the

industry. Further, wholesalers and

retailers support the recommended

changes, and believe it is the best

option.

Thus, the CDGAC’s recommendation

to reduce the minimum net weight

requirements is expected to result in

higher quality grapes being offered to

consumers. This should increase

satisfaction, strengthen demand, and

improve returns to growers and

handlers.

Most grapes packed in California are

palletized on 35- x 42-inch or 53- x 42-

inch pallets prior to shipment. When

received by wholesalers or retailers, the

grapes are unloaded and restacked on

48- x 40-inch pallets.

Grocery and wholesale warehouse

operations use 48- x 40-inch pallets as

the standard pallet for most products.

The bulk of product sold at retail outlets

(e.g., cereal, paper products, canned

goods, etc.) are dry goods. These

products are generally shipped on 48- x

40-pallets. Consequently, the

distribution channel is set up to

accommodate 48- x 40-inch pallets.

Nonstandard pallets such as those

used by grape handlers have to be

disposed of at the receivers’ expense.

However, with the use of 48- x 40-inch

pallets, which can be recycled, there

should be a reduction in expenses

associated with pallets. The recycling

program allows the receiver to use the

pallet more than once or remove it from

the waste stream to use or sell.

The changes in container

requirements are supported by the

California Department of Agriculture,

the California Grape and Tree Fruit

League, the California Table Grape

Commission, the Food Marketing

Institute, and the National Association

of Perishable Agricultural Receivers.

These organizations have all agreed that

the reduction in net weight is necessary

to facilitate the implementation of an

industry-wide adoption of the

standardized 48- x 40-inch pallet and

the incidence of damage to fruit due to

over packing.

Thus, this rule allows the industry to

use more efficient containers and

provides handlers with more flexibility

in packing table grapes. Imported table

grapes will not be affected by this rule.

Based on the above, 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

material presented, including the

CDGAC’s recommendation, and other

available information, it is found that

finalizing the interim final rule, which

was published in the Federal Register

(61 FR 11127, March 19, 1996) and

corrected in the Federal Register (61 FR

14013, March 29, 1996) will tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925

Grapes, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 925 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27247

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A

DESIGNATED AREA OF

SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule

amending 7 CFR part 925 which was

published at 61 FR 11127, March 19,

1996, and corrected at 61 FR 14013,

March 29, 1996, is adopted as a final

rule.

Dated: May 22, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–13616 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 947

[Docket No. FV96–947–1IFR]

Oregon-California Potatoes;

Assessment Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request

for comments.

SUMMARY: This interim final rule

establishes an assessment rate for the

Oregon-California Potato Committee

(Committee) under Marketing Order No.

947 for the 1996–97 and subsequent

fiscal periods. The Committee is

responsible for local administration of

the marketing order which regulates the

handling of Irish potatoes grown in

Oregon-California. Authorization to

assess potato handlers enables the

Committee to incur expenses that are

reasonable and necessary to administer

the program.

DATES: Effective on July 1, 1996.

Comments received by July 1, 1996, will

be considered prior to issuance of a final

rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this rule. Comments must be

sent in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,

Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,

USDA, PO Box 96456, room 2523–S,

Washington, DC 20090–6456, FAX 202–

720–5698. 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:

Martha Sue Clark, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, PO

Box 96456, room 2523–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone 202–720–

9918, FAX 202–720–5698, or Teresa L.

Hutchinson, Northwest Marketing Field

Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, Green-Wyatt Federal

Building, room 369, 1220 Southwest

Third Avenue, Portland, OR 97204,

telephone 503–326–2724, FAX 503–

326–7440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

No. 114 and Order No. 947, both as

amended (7 CFR part 947), regulating

the handling of Irish potatoes grown in

Oregon-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 rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. Under the marketing order now

in effect, Oregon-California potato

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 potatoes beginning July 1,

1996, and continuing 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

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.

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.

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 550

producers of Oregon-California potatoes

in the production area and

approximately 40 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 whose annual

receipts are less than $5,000,000. The

majority of Oregon-California potato

producers and handlers may be

classified as small entities.

The Oregon-California potato

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 handlers

of Oregon-California potatoes. 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.

The Committee met on March 28,

1996, and unanimously recommended

1996–97 expenditures of $61,200 and an

assessment rate of $0.005 per

hundredweight of potatoes. In

comparison, last year’s budgeted

expenditures were $46,200. The

assessment rate of $0.005 is $0.001 less

than last year’s established rate. Major

expenditures recommended by the

Committee for the 1996–97 year include

$30,000 for an agreement with the

Oregon Potato Commission to provide

services to the Committee and $8,100

for a contingency fund. Budgeted

expenses for these items in 1995–96

were $24,000 and $100, respectively.

The contingency fund was increased as

the Committee is considering a possible

marketing research and development

project in conjunction with the Oregon

Potato Commission.

The assessment rate recommended by

the Committee was derived by dividing

anticipated expenses by expected

shipments of Oregon-California

potatoes. Potato shipments for the year