[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30372]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 9, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 236
Friday, December 9, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 920
[Docket No. FV94-920-4PR]
Kiwifruit Grown in California; Proposed Changes in District
Boundaries
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would redefine the eight district
boundaries under the Federal marketing order for kiwifruit grown in
California to make 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.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be submitted in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P. O. Box 96456,
Room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, or by facsimile at (202) 720-
5698. Comments should reference this 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.
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 proposed 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 proposed
rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This proposed rule would 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
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 proposed 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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 proposed 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 districts and how
the proposed districts would rectify these inequities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed
District district(percent) 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 proposed new boundaries, county lines would be kept
intact as boundaries except in Tulare and Butte Counties. This proposed
rule would 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
would be removed from District 5 and added to District 1. Nevada and
Placer Counties would be removed from District 2 and added to District
1. Sierra County would be removed from District 3 and added to District
1. In Butte County, the town of Gridley would remain as a whole
district--District 2. Calaveras, Tuolumne, Contra Costa, Alpine, San
Francisco, and Alameda Counties would be removed from District 5 and
added to District 4. Mono and Mariposa Counties would be removed from
District 6 and added to District 4. Kings County would be removed from
District 6 and added to District 5. Inyo County would be removed from
District 7 and added to District 6. Tulare County would be divided into
four districts. District 5 would include Tulare County north of Highway
198 to the Kings County boundary. District 6 would 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 would include
Tulare County west of Highway 65 between Highway 137 and Avenue 56, and
District 8 would 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 two-year 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 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.
Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920
Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7
CFR Part 920 be 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 Sec. 920.131 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 920.131 Redistricting of kiwifruit districts.
Pursuant to Sec. 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: December 5, 1994.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 94-30372 Filed 12-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P