Olives Grown in California; Expenses and Assessment Rate for 1995 Fiscal Year

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a

final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule

that authorized expenses and established an assessment rate for the

California Olive Committee (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 932

for the 1995 fiscal year. Authorization of this budget enables the

Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to

administer this program. Funds to administer this program are derived

from assessments on handlers.

EFFECTIVE DATES: January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline C. Thorpe, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone: (202)

720-5127; or Terry Vawter, California Marketing Field Office, 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

Agreement and Order No. 932 (7 CFR part 932), as amended, regulating

the handling of olives grown in California. 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 is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,

Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order provisions now in

effect, olives grown in California are subject to assessments. It is

intended that the assessment rate specified herein will be applicable

to all assessable olives and expenses applied to the 1995 fiscal year,

beginning January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995. This final 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 requesting 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 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 the requirements set forth in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrator of 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 5 handlers of olives regulated under the marketing order

each season and approximately 1,350 olive producers in California.

Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR Sec. 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. None of the

handlers may be classified as small entities. The majority of the

producers may be classified as small entities.

The marketing order, administered by the Department, requires that

the assessment rate for a particular fiscal year apply to all

assessable olives. Annual budgets of expenses are prepared by the

Committee, the agency responsible for local administration of this

marketing order, and submitted to the Department for approval. The

members of the Committee are handlers and producers of California

olives. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs

for goods, services, and personnel in their local area, and are thus in

a position to formulate appropriate budgets. The Committee's budget is

formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly

affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee is derived by

dividing the anticipated expenses by actual receipts of olives by

handlers. Because that rate is applied to olive receipts, it must be

established at a rate which will provide sufficient income to pay the

Committee's expected expenses.

The California Olive Committee met on December 8, 1994, and

unanimously recommended a total expense amount of $2,881,650, for its

1995 budget. This is $866,640 less in expenses than the previous year.

The Committee also unanimously recommended an assessment rate of

$30.04 per ton for the 1995 fiscal year, which is $2.83 more in the

assessment rate from the 1994 fiscal year. The assessment rate, when

applied to actual receipts of 69,300 tons from the 1994 olive crop,

would yield $2,081,772 in assessment income. This, along with

approximately $800,000 from the Committee's authorized reserves will be

adequate to cover estimated expenses.

Major expense categories for the 1995 fiscal year include

$1,479,000 for marketing expenses, $682,000 for food

[[Page 18540]] services, and $178,630 for salaries. Funds in the

reserve at the end of the fiscal year, estimated at $200,000 will be

within the maximum permitted by the order of one fiscal year's

expenses.

An interim final rule was issued on January 18, 1995, and published

in the Federal Register. That rule provided a 30-day comment period

which ended February 23, 1995. No comments were received.

While this action will impose some additional costs on handlers,

the costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some

of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these

costs should be significantly offset by the benefits derived from the

operation of the marketing order. Therefore, the Administrator of the

AMS has determined that this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

It is found that the specified expenses for the marketing order

covered in this rule are reasonable and likely to be incurred and that

such expenses and the specified assessment rate to cover such expenses

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 action until 30 days after publication in the

Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because the Committee needs to have

sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous

basis. The 1995 fiscal year for the program began January 1, 1995. The

marketing order requires that the rate of assessment apply to all

assessable olives as applicable during the fiscal year. In addition,

handlers are aware of this action which was recommended by the

Committee at a public meeting and published in the Federal Register as

an interim final rule that is adopted in this action as a final rule

without change.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932

Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is

amended as follows:

PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 932 which

was published at 60 FR 4531 on January 24, 1995, is adopted as a final

rule without change.

Dated: April 6, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95-8947 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P