13454 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. Revise § 923.4 to read as follows:

§ 923.4 Production area.

Production area means the counties of

Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima,

Klickitat in the State of Washington and

all of the counties in Washington lying

east thereof.

3. Amend § 923.14 by revising

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

§ 923.14 District.

* * * * *

(a) District 1 shall include the

Counties of Chelan, Okanogan, Douglas,

Grant, Lincoln, Spokane, Pend Oreille,

Stevens, and Ferry.

(b) District 2 shall include the

counties of Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat,

Benton, Adams, Franklin, Walla Walla,

Whitman, Columbia, Garfield and

Asotin.

§ 923.20 [Amended]

4. Amend § 923.20 as follows:

(a) In the first sentence remove the

word ‘‘fifteen’’ and add the word

‘‘sixteen’’ in its place;

(b) In the third and fourth sentences

remove the word ‘‘five’’ and add the

word ‘‘six’’ in its place;

(c) In the fifth sentence, remove the

words ‘‘four’’ and ‘‘six’’ and add the

word ‘‘five’’ in their place; and

(d) In the sixth sentence, remove the

word ‘‘two’’ and add the word ‘‘three’’

in its place.

5. Revise § 923.21 to read as follows:

§ 923.21 Term of office.

The term of office of each member

and alternate member of the committee

shall be for two years beginning April 1

and ending March 31. Members and

alternate members shall serve in such

capacities for the portion of the term of

office for which they are selected and

have qualified and until their respective

successors are selected and have

qualified. Committee members shall not

serve more than three consecutive

terms. Members who have served for

three consecutive terms must leave the

committee for at least one year before

becoming eligible to serve again.

6. Revise § 923.25 to read as follows:

§ 923.25 Acceptance.

Any person prior to selection as a

member or an alternate member of the

committee shall qualify by filing with

the Secretary a written acceptance of

willingness to serve on the committee.

7. Revise § 923.41 by adding a new

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 923.41 Assessments.

* * * * *

(c) If a handler does not pay any

assessment within the time prescribed

by the committee, the assessment may

be subject to an interest or late payment

charge, or both, as may be established

by the Secretary as recommended by the

committee.

§ 923.52 [Amended]

8. In § 923.52, paragraph (a)(3) is

amended by adding the word

‘‘markings,’’; after the word

‘‘dimensions,’’.

9. Amend § 923.54 as follows

Remove the words ‘‘(including

shipments to facilitate the conduct of

marketing research and development

projects established pursuant to

§ 923.45),’’ in paragraph (b) and add a

new sentence at the end of the

paragraph; and add a new sentence at

the end of paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 923.54 Special purpose shipments.

* * * * *

(b) * * * Specified purposes under

this section may include shipments of

cherries for grading or packing to

specified locations outside the

production area and shipments to

facilitate the conduct of marketing

research and development projects

established pursuant to § 923.45.

(c) * * * The committee may rescind

or deny to any packing facility the

special purpose shipment certificate if

proof satisfactory to the committee is

obtained that cherries shipped for the

purpose stated in this section were

handled contrary to the provisions of

this section.

10. Amend § 923.64 by adding a new

sentence at the beginning of paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 923.64 Termination

* * * * *

(c) The Secretary shall conduct a

referendum six years after [the effective

date of this paragraph] and every sixth

year thereafter to ascertain whether

continuance of this part is favored by

growers. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–5418 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 993

[Docket No. FV01–993–1 PR]

Dried Prunes Produced in California;

Undersized Regulation for the 2001–02

Crop Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments

on changes to the undersized regulation

for dried prunes received by handlers

from producers and dehydrators under

Marketing Order No. 993 for the 2001–

02 crop year. The marketing order

regulates the handling of dried prunes

produced in California and is

administered locally by the Prune

Marketing Committee (Committee). This

rule would remove the smallest, least

desirable of the marketable size dried

prunes produced in California from

human consumption outlets and allow

handlers to dispose of the undersized

prunes in such outlets as livestock feed.

The Committee estimated that this rule

would reduce the excess of dried prunes

by approximately 3,400 tons while

leaving sufficient prunes to fulfill

foreign and domestic trade demand.

DATES: Comments received by April 16,

2001, 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 to the Docket Clerk, Marketing

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; Fax: (202) 720–5698, or

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.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.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Van Diest, 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, room

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13455

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698.

Small businesses may request

information on complying with this

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

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

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698, or E-mail:

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 993, both as amended (7

CFR part 993), regulating the handling

of dried prunes in California, hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The

marketing agreement and order are

effective under the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. 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 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.

This proposal invites comments on

changes to the undersized regulation in

§ 993.49(c) of the prune marketing order

for the 2001–02 crop year for supply

management purposes. The regulation

removes prunes passing through

specified screen openings. For French

prunes, the screen opening would be

increased from 23⁄32 to 24⁄32 of an inch

in diameter; and for non-French prunes,

the opening would be increased from

28⁄32 to 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter. This

rule would remove the smallest, least

desirable of the marketable size dried

prunes produced in California from

human consumption outlets. This rule

would be in effect from August 1, 2001,

through July 31, 2002, and was

unanimously recommended by the

Committee at a November 29, 2000,

meeting.

Section 993.19b of the prune

marketing order defines undersized

prunes as prunes which pass freely

through a round opening of a specified

diameter. Section 993.49(c) of the prune

marketing order establishes an

undersized regulation of 23⁄32 of an inch

for French prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings have been in effect for quality

control purposes. Section 993.49(c) also

provides that the Secretary upon a

recommendation of the Committee may

establish larger openings for undersized

dried prunes whenever it is determined

that supply conditions for a crop year

warrant such regulation. Section

993.50(g) states in part: ‘‘No handler

shall ship or otherwise dispose of, for

human consumption, the quantity of

prunes determined by the inspection

service pursuant to § 993.49(c) to be

undersized prunes.’’ Pursuant to

§ 993.52 minimum standards, pack

specifications, including the openings

prescribed in § 993.49(c), may be

modified by the Secretary on the basis

of a recommendation of the Committee

or other information.

Pursuant to the authority in § 993.52

of the order, § 993.400 modifies the

undersized prune openings prescribed

in § 993.49(c) to permit openings of 23⁄32

or 24⁄32 of an inch for French prunes and 28⁄32 or 30⁄32 of an inch for non-French

prunes.

During the 1974–75 and 1977–78 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established by the Department at

23⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.401

and 993.404, respectively (39 FR 32733,

September 11, 1974; and 42 FR 49802,

September 28, 1977). In addition, the

Committee recommended and the

Department established volume

regulation percentages during the 1974–

75 crop year with an undersized

regulation at the aforementioned 23/32

and 28⁄32 inch diameter screen sizes.

During the 1975–76 and 1976–77 crop

years, the undersized prune regulation

was established at 24⁄32 of an inch for

French prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch for

non-French prunes. These diameter

openings were established in §§ 993.402

and 993.403 respectively (40 FR 42530,

September 15 1975; and 41 FR 37306,

September 3, 1976). The prune industry

had an excess supply of prunes—

particularly small size prunes. Rather

than recommending volume regulation

percentages for the 1975–76, 1976–77,

and 1977–78 crop years, the Committee

recommended the establishment of an

undersized prune regulation applicable

to all prunes received by handlers from

producers and dehydrators during each

of those crop years.

The objective of the undersized prune

regulations during each of those crop

years was to preclude the use of small

prunes in manufactured prune products

such as juice and concentrate. Handlers

could not market undersized prunes for

human consumption, but could dispose

of them in nonhuman outlets such as

livestock feed.

With these experiences as a basis, the

marketing order was amended on

August 1, 1982, establishing the

continuing quality-related regulation for

undersized French and non-French

prunes under § 993.49(c). That

regulation has removed from the

marketable supply those prunes which

are not desirable for use in prune

products.

As in the 1970’s, the prune industry

is currently experiencing an excess

supply of prunes. During the 1998–99

crop year, an undersized prune

regulation was established at 24⁄32 of an

inch for French prunes, and 30⁄32 of an

inch for non-French prunes. These

diameter openings were established in

§ 993.405 (63 FR 20058, April 23, 1998).

With larger than desired carryin

inventories and a 1999–2000 prune crop

of about 172,000 natural condition tons,

the Committee unanimously

recommended continuing with an

undersized prune regulation at 24⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes. These diameter

openings were established in § 993.406

(64 FR 23759, May 4, 1999) and made

effective from August 1, 1999, through

July 31, 2000. With larger than desired

carryin inventories and a 2000–01 prune

crop of about 203,000 natural condition

tons, the Committee unanimously

recommended continuing with an

undersized prune regulation at 24⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes. These diameter

openings were established in § 993.407

(65 FR 29945, May 10, 2000) and made

effective from August 1, 2000, through

July 31, 2001.

For the 1998–99 crop year, the carryin

inventory level reached a record high of

13456 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

126,485 natural conditions tons.

Excessive inventories tend to dampen

producer returns, and cause weak

marketing conditions. The carryin for

the 1999–2000 crop year was reduced to

59,944 natural condition tons. This

reduction was due to the low level of

salable production in 1998–99 (about

102,521 natural condition tons and 50

percent of a normal size crop) and the

undersized prune regulation. The

carryin for the 2000–01 crop increased

to 65,131 natural condition tons. This

increase was due to a larger crop size of

about 172,000 natural condition tons

and reduced shipments during the

1999–2000 crop year. According to the

Committee, the desired inventory level

to keep trade distribution channels full

while awaiting the new crop has ranged

between 35,353 and 42,071 natural

condition tons since the 1996–97 crop

year, while the actual inventory has

ranged between 59,944 and 126,485

natural condition tons since that year.

The desired inventory level for early

season shipments fluctuates from yearto-year depending on market conditions.

At its meeting on November 29, 2000,

the Committee unanimously

recommended continuing an undersized

prune regulation at 24⁄32 of an inch in

diameter for French prunes and 30⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for non-French

prunes during the 2001–02 crop year for

supply management purposes. This

regulation would be in effect from

August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.

The Committee estimated that there

would be an excess of about 41,476

natural condition tons of dried prunes

as of July 31, 2001. This proposed rule

would continue to remove primarily

small-sized prunes from human

consumption channels, consistent with

the undersized prune regulation that

was implemented for the 1998–99,

1999–2000, and 2000–01 crop years. It

is estimated that approximately 3,400

natural condition tons of small prunes

would be removed from human

consumption channels during the 2001–

02 crop year as a result of this rule. This

would leave sufficient prunes to fill

domestic and foreign trade demand

during the 2001–02 crop year, and

provide an adequate carryout on July 31,

2002, for early season shipments until

the new crop is available for shipment.

According to the Committee, the desired

inventory level to keep trade

distribution channels full while

awaiting the 2001–02 crop is about

41,000 natural condition tons.

In its deliberations, the Committee

reviewed statistics reflecting: (1) A

worldwide prune demand which has

been relatively stable at about 260,000

tons; (2) a worldwide oversupply that is

expected to continue growing this

century (estimated at 299,420 natural

condition tons by the year 2005; (3) a

continuing oversupply situation in

California caused by increased

production from increased plantings

and higher yields per acre (between the

1990–91 and 2000–01 crop years, the

yields ranged from 1.2 to 2.6 versus a

10-year average of 2.1 tons per acre);

and (4) California’s continued excess

inventory situation. The production of

these small sizes ranged from 1,335 to

8,778 natural condition tons during the

1990–91 through the 1999–2000 crop

years. The Committee concluded that it

has to continue utilizing supply

management techniques to accelerate

the return to a balanced supply/demand

situation in the interest of the California

dried prune industry. The proposed

changes to the undersized regulation for

the 2001–02 crop year are the result of

these deliberations, and the Committee’s

desire to gradually bring supplies in line

with market needs.

The industry’s oversupply situation is

expected to continue over the next few

years due to new prune plantings in

recent years with higher yields per acre.

These plantings have a higher tree

density per acre than the older prune

plantings. During the 1990–91 crop

year, the non-bearing acreage totaled

5,900 acres; but by 1998–99, the nonbearing acreage had quadrupled to more

than 26,000 acres. The non-bearing

acreage has subsequently been reduced

to 22,000 acres during the 1999–2000

crop year. The 1996–97 through 1999–

2000 yields have ranged from 1.2 to 2.6

tons per acre. Over the last 10-years, the

average was 2.1 tons per acre.

The 2000–01 dried prune crop is

expected to be 203,000 natural

condition tons. Another large crop of

about 193,000 natural condition tons is

expected for the 2001–02 crop year,

partly because of an anticipated increase

in bearing acreage.

The 1997–98 crop year producer

prices for the 24⁄32 size French prunes

have been about $40–$50 per ton, about

$260–$270 per ton below post harvest

costs. During the 2000–01 crop year,

feedlots are paying about $35 to $40 per

ton for the 24⁄32 size French prunes,

which is about $270–275 per ton below

post harvest costs. The lower producer

prices are expected to continue as an

incentive for production of larger size

prunes. The larger sizes will help the

industry better meet the increasing

market demand for larger-sized pitted

prunes.

The 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–

01 undersized prune rules of 24⁄32 of an

inch for French prunes and 30⁄32 of an

inch for non-French prunes have

expedited the reduction of small prune

inventories, but more needs to be done

to bring supplies into balance with

market demand. The excess inventory

on July 31, 2000, was 65,131 natural

condition tons, and about 3,400 natural

condition tons of dried prunes are

expected to be removed from the 2000–

01 marketable supply by the current

undersized regulation. The Committee

believes that the same undersized

regulation also should be implemented

during the 2001–02 crop year to

continue reducing the inventories of

small prunes, to help reduce the

expected large 2001–02 prune crop, and

more quickly bring supplies in line with

demand. Attainment of this goal would

benefit all of the producers and handlers

of California prunes.

The recommended decision of June 1,

1981 (46 FR 29271) regarding

undersized prunes states that the

undersized prune regulation at the 23⁄32

and 28⁄32 inch diameter size openings

would be continuous for the purposes of

quality control even in above parity

situations. It further states that any

change (i.e., increase) in the size of

those openings would not be for the

purpose of establishing a new qualityrelated minimum. Larger openings

would only be applicable when supply

conditions warranted the regulation of a

larger quantity of prunes as undersized

prunes. Thus, any regulation prescribing

openings larger than those in § 993.49(c)

should not be implemented when the

grower average price is expected to be

above parity. The season average price

received by prune growers ranged from

39 percent to 62 percent of parity during

the 1994 through 1999 seasons. As

discussed later, the average grower price

for prunes during the 2001–02 crop year

is not expected to be above parity, and

implementation of this more restrictive

undersized regulation would be

appropriate in reference to parity.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action would not

impact the dried prune import

regulation because the action would

affect volume control, not quality

control. The smaller diameter openings

of 23⁄32 of an inch for French prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch for non-French prunes

were implemented to improve product

quality. The recommended increases to

24⁄32 of an inch in diameter for French

prunes and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter

for non-French prunes are for purposes

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13457

of volume control. Therefore, the

increased diameters would not be

applied to imported prunes.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule on small entities. Accordingly,

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory

flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and 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 1,250

producers of dried prunes in the

production area and approximately 22

handlers subject to regulation under the

marketing order. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201) 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.

An updated industry profile shows

that 9 out of 22 handlers (41%) shipped

over $5,000,000 worth of dried prunes

and could be considered large handlers

by the Small Business Administration.

Thirteen of the 22 handlers (59%)

shipped under $5,000,000 worth of

prunes and could be considered small

handlers. An estimated 109 producers,

or less than 9% of the 1,250 total

producers, would be considered large

growers with annual incomes over

$500,000. The majority of handlers and

producers of California dried prunes

may be classified as small entities.

This proposed rule would establish an

undersized prune regulation of 24⁄32 of

an inch in diameter for French prunes

and 30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes for the 2001–02 crop year

for inventory management purposes.

This change in regulation would result

in more of the smaller sized prunes

being classified as undersized prunes

and is expected to benefit producers,

handlers, and consumers. The larger

screen openings currently in place for

2000–01 are expected to remove about

3,400 tons of dried prunes from the

excess marketable supply. The

Committee estimated that there will be

an excess of about 41,400 natural

condition tons of dried prunes on July

31, 2001. Implementation of the larger

openings in 2001–02 is expected to

reduce that surplus by about 3,400 tons.

Because the benefits and costs of the

proposed action would be directly

proportional to the quantity of 24⁄32

screen French prunes and 30⁄32 screen

non-French prunes produced or

handled, small businesses should not be

disproportionately affected by the

proposal. While variation in sugar

content, prune density, and dry-away

ratio vary from county to county, they

also vary from orchard to orchard and

season to season. In the major producing

areas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin

Valleys (which account for over 99

percent of the state’s production), the

prunes produced are homogeneous

enough that the proposal should not be

viewed as inequitable by large and small

producers in any area of the State.

The quantity of small prunes in a lot

is not dependent on whether a producer

or handler is small or large; but is

primarily dependent on cultural

practices, soil composition, and water

costs. The cost to minimize the quantity

of small prunes is similar for small and

large entities. The anticipated benefits

of this rule are not expected to be

disproportionately greater or lesser for

small handlers or producers than for

large entities. The only additional costs

on producers and handlers expected

from the increased openings would be

the disposal of additional tonnage (now

estimated to be about 3,400 tons) to

nonhuman consumption outlets. These

costs are expected to be minimal and

would be offset by the benefits derived

by the elimination of some of the excess

supply of small-sized prunes.

At the November 29, 2000, meeting,

the Committee discussed the financial

impact of this change on handlers and

producers. Handlers and producers

receive higher returns for the larger size

prunes. Prunes eliminated through the

implementation of this rule have very

little value. As mentioned earlier, the

current situation for producers of these

small sizes is quite bleak with producers

losing about $270–$275 on every ton

delivered to handlers. During the 2000–

01 crop year, the feedlot prices for 24⁄32

screen French prunes ranges between

$35 and $40 per ton. This price is a little

lower than the $40–50 price during the

1998–99 crop year. The cost of drying a

ton of such prunes is $260 per ton at a

4 to 1 dry-away ratio, transportation is

at least $20 per ton, and the producer

assessment paid to the California Prune

Board (a body which administers the

State marketing order for promotion) is

$30 per ton. The total cost is about $310

per ton which equates to a loss of about

$270–$275 per ton for every ton of 24⁄32

screen French prunes produced and

delivered to handlers.

Utilizing data provided by the

Committee, the Department has

evaluated the impact of the proposed

undersized regulation change upon

producers and handlers in the industry.

The analysis shows that a reduction in

the marketable production and handler

inventories could result in higher

season-average prices, which would

benefit all producers. The removal of

the smallest, least desirable of the

marketable dried prunes produced in

California from human consumption

outlets would eliminate an estimated

3,400 tons of small-sized dried prunes

during the 2001–02 crop year from the

marketplace. This would help lessen the

negative marketing and pricing effects

resulting from the excess inventory

situation facing the industry. California

prune handlers reported that they held

65,131 tons of natural condition prunes

on July 31, 2000, the end of the 1999–

2000 crop year. The 65,131 ton year-end

inventory is larger than what is desired

for early season shipments by the prune

industry. The desired inventory level is

based on an average 12-week supply to

keep trade distribution channels full

while awaiting new crop. Currently, it is

about 41,000 natural condition tons.

This leaves a 2000–01 inventory surplus

of about 24,000 tons. The undersized

regulation will help reduce the surplus,

but the anticipated large 2001–02 prune

crop is expected to worsen the supply

imbalance.

One of the primary reasons for this

proposed rulemaking action is that the

dried prune industry continues to be

plagued by high carryin inventories.

California prune handlers estimate that

82,286 tons of prunes (natural

condition) will be inventoried at the end

of the 2000–01 crop year. This will

result in a surplus of 41,476 tons over

the industry’s desired carryout of 40,810

tons.

Increasing the screen openings is an

attempt to moderately reduce and

control the marketable production and

carryin inventory. If the marketable

supply and the carryin inventory are

both reduced, then prices may be

expected to increase. If no action is

taken, rising production levels, high

inventories, and low grower prices will

continue.

To assess the impacts that regulation

has on the prices growers receive for

their product, an econometric model has

been estimated. The two variables of

interest in this model are marketable

production and carryin inventory. Both

of the estimated parameters for these

variables are negative and statistically

significant. This provides evidence that

13458 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules

reducing the marketable supply and the

carryin inventory would result in higher

grower prices. This action would benefit

all growers and handlers regardless of

size.

Increasing the undersized openings

would result in a reduced level of

marketable production. The Committee

estimates that marketable production

will be reduced by 3,400 tons, or 2.2

percent. If marketable production for the

2001–02 crop year is reduced by 2.2

percent, the model suggests an increase

in prices of approximately 0.9 percent

compared to taking no action. Although

increasing the undersized openings will

only have a modest effect on marketable

production, price increases would

result. This proposed action would not

only help reduce the oversupply

situation, but improve the quality of the

manufactured prune products by

removing the smaller, less desirable

prunes from the supply chain.

Without increasing the undersized

openings, the industry could be

expected to continue to build unwanted

inventories. These inventories have a

depressing effect on grower prices. The

econometric model shows that, for every

1 percent increase in carryin

inventories, a decrease in grower prices

of 0.12 percent occurs.

This action would not result in a

shortage of prunes for either retail or

food service outlets. Inventories are

expected to remain above desired levels

and marketable production is

anticipated to be in excess of demand.

Additionally, this action is not expected

to have a significant impact on retail or

food service outlet prices.

In summary, increasing the openings

in the sizing screens may reduce the

volume of marketable production and

decrease the carryin inventory. If the

rule change accomplishes these two

intended effects, the model shows that

season-average prices will be slightly

higher than if the screen openings

remain unchanged. A higher seasonaverage price should benefit all

producers regardless of size.

As the marketable dried prune

production and surplus prune

inventories are reduced through this

proposal, and producers continue to

implement improved cultural and

thinning practices to produce largersized prunes, continued improvement

in producer returns is expected.

For the 1991–92 through the 1999–

2000 crop years, the season average

price received by the producers ranged

from a high of $1,140 per ton to a low

of $778 per ton during the 1998–99 crop

year. The season average price received

by producers during that 9-year period

ranged from 39 percent to 68 percent of

parity. Based on available data and

estimates of prices, production, and

other economic factors, the season

average producer price for 2000–01

season is expected to be about the same

as the 1999–2000 season average

producer price of $892 per ton, or about

42 percent of parity.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including making no

changes to the undersized prune

regulation and allowing market

dynamics to foster prune inventory

adjustments through lower prices on the

smaller prunes. While reduced grower

prices for small prunes are expected to

contribute toward a slow reduction in

dried prune inventories, the Committee

believed that the undersized rule change

is needed to expedite that reduction.

With the excess tonnage of dried

prunes, the Committee also considered

establishing a reserve pool and

diversion program to reduce the

oversupply situation. A third alternative

discussed was to advance to a 25⁄32

screen undersized regulation for French

prunes. However, handlers expressed

concern that this would reduce the

amount of manufacturing prunes

available for the manufacture of prune

juice and concentrate. The first two

initiatives were not supported because

they would not specifically eliminate

the smallest, least valuable prunes,

which are in oversupply. Instead, the

reserve pool and diversion program

would eliminate larger size prunes from

human consumption outlets. Reserve

pools for prunes have historically been

implemented on dried prunes regardless

of the size of the prunes. While the

marketing order also allows handlers to

remove the larger prunes from the pool

by replacing them with small prunes

and the value difference in cash, this

exchange would be cumbersome and

expensive to administer compared to

the proposal.

Section 8e of the Act requires that

when certain domestically produced

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity must

meet the same or comparable grade,

size, quality, or maturity requirements

for the domestically produced

commodity. This action does not impact

the dried prune import regulation

because the action to be implemented is

for inventory management, not quality

control purposes. The smaller diameter

openings of 23⁄32 of an inch for French

prunes and 28⁄32 of an inch for nonFrench prunes were implemented to

improve product quality. The

recommended increases to 24⁄32 of an

inch in diameter for French prunes and

30⁄32 of an inch in diameter for nonFrench prunes are for purposes of

inventory management. Therefore, the

increased diameters would not be

applied to imported prunes.

This action would not impose any

additional reporting or recordkeeping

requirements on either small or large

California dried prune handlers. As

with all Federal marketing order

programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

proposed rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meeting

was widely publicized throughout the

prune industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations on all issues. Like all

Committee meetings, the November 29,

2000, meeting was a public meeting and

all entities, both large and small, were

able to express views on this issue. The

Committee itself is composed of twentytwo members. Seven are handlers,

fourteen are producers, and one is a

public member. Moreover, the

Committee and its Supply Management

Subcommittee have been monitoring the

supply situation, and this proposed rule

reflects their deliberations completely.

Finally, interested persons are invited to

submit information on 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/

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.

The Committee requested a comment

period through April 16, 2001, to allow

interested persons to respond to this

proposal. This longer comment period is

needed to give the Committee more time

to observe the bloom period during the

spring and industry shipment trends

during the year and allow sufficient

time to comment to the Department

concerning any changes that are deemed

appropriate. All written comments

timely received will be considered

before a final determination is made on

this matter.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993

Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13459

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 993 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Note: This section will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

A new § 993.408 is added to read as

follows:

§ 993.408 Undersized prune regulation for

the 2001–02 crop year.

Pursuant to §§ 993.49(c) and 993.52,

an undersized prune regulation for the

2001–02 crop year is hereby established.

Undersized prunes are prunes which

pass through openings as follows: for

French prunes, 24⁄32 of an inch in

diameter; for non-French prunes, 30⁄32 of

an inch in diameter.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5321 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

RIN 3150–AG70

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage

Casks: VSC–24 Revision

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations revising the

Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates

(PSNA) VSC–24 listing within the ‘‘List

of approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to

include Amendment No. 3 to the

Certificate of Compliance (CoC). This

amendment will allow holders of power

reactor operating licenses as general

licensees to store Combustion

Engineering 16x16 spent fuel assemblies

in accordance with revised technical

specifications in the VSC–24 cask

system. The proposed Amendment No.

3 to the VSC–24 CoC changes Technical

Specifications 1.2.1 and 1.2.6 to modify

the fuel specifications for Combustion

Engineering 16x16 spent fuel stored in

the VSC–24 cask system, modifies the

text in TS 1.2.7 for accuracy, modifies

the text in Certificate Section 2.b. to

remove ambiguity, modifies Certificate

Section 3 to be consistent with TS 1.1.4,

modifies Certificate Section 4 for

consistency with TS 1.1.3, and modifies

Certificate Section 5 to remove

ambiguity.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received on or before April 5,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attn: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff. Deliver comments

to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD,

between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on

Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). This

site provides the capability to upload

comments as files (any format) if your

web browser supports that function. For

information about the interactive

rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol

Gallagher (301) 415–5905; e-mail

CAG@nrc.gov.

Certain documents related to this rule,

including comments received by the

NRC, may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. These

documents may also be viewed and

downloaded electronically via the

rulemaking website.

Documents created or received at the

NRC after November 1, 1999 are also

available electronically at the NRC

Public Electronic Reading Room on the

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the

public can gain entry into the NRC’s

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS), which

provides text and image files of NRC’s

public documents. An electronic copy

of the proposed CoC and preliminary

safety evaluation report (SER) can be

found in ADAMS under Accession No.

ML003733556. For more information,

contact the NRC’s Public Document

Room Reference Staff at 1–800–397–

4209, 301–415–4737 or by e-mail at

pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Turel, telephone (301) 415–6234, e-mail,

spt@nrc.gov, of the Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the Direct

Final Rule published in the final rules

section of this Federal Register.

Procedural Background

The NRC is also publishing this

proposed rule as a direct final rule

because it represents a limited and

routine change to an existing CoC that

is expected to be noncontroversial;

adequate protection of public health and

safety continues to be ensured. The

direct final rule will become effective on

May 21, 2001. However, if the NRC

receives significant adverse comments

on the direct final rule by April 5, 2001,

then the NRC will publish a document

to withdraw the direct final rule. If the

direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC

will address the comments received in

response to the proposed revisions in a

subsequent final rule. Absent significant

modifications to the proposed revisions

requiring republication, the NRC will

not initiate a second comment period

for this action if the direct final rule is

withdrawn.

List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72

Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear materials,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Spent

fuel.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR Part 72.

PART 72—LICENSING

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT

NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 72

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69,

81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat.

929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954,

955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092,

2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub.

L. 86–373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95–601, sec.

10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L.

10d–48b, sec. 7902, 10b Stat. 31b3 (42 U.S.C.

5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853

(42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135,

137, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230,

2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152,

10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168).

Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.

142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100–203, 101

Stat. 1330–232, 1330–236 (42 U.S.C.

10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also

issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230

(42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also

issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100–203,