Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, CA; Modification of the Qualification Requirements for Approved Manufacturers of Date Products, 3315-3318 [05-1179]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules
was to allow round potatoes to be
exempted from regulations under
Certificate of Privilege provisions
provided within the order. This option
also was rejected because it would allow
lower quality potatoes to be shipped to
the fresh market. Lastly, the Committee
considered further relaxing the size
requirement for all round potatoes
below the 17⁄8 inches minimum
diameter. The Committee believed that
relaxing the minimum size requirement
for U.S. No. 2 round potatoes below 17⁄8
inches would result in buyer
dissatisfaction. Producers and handlers
who wish to ship smaller round
potatoes may do so by conforming to the
U.S. No. 1 grade standard.
With only a small amount of the total
potato crop in the production area
expected to be affected by relaxing the
size requirement, the Committee
believes that the proposed change to
relax the size requirement of non-redskinned U.S. No. 2 round potatoes to a
17⁄8 inches minimum diameter would
provide the greatest amount of benefit to
the industry with the least amount of
cost.
This proposed rule would relax the
size requirements under the marketing
order. Accordingly, this action would
not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large potato handlers and
importers. 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 USDA has not identified any
relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this proposed
rule. However, as previously stated,
potatoes handled under the order have
to meet certain requirements set forth in
the United States Standards for Potatoes
(7 CFR 51.1540–51.1566) issued under
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
(7 CFR part 1621, et seq.). Standards
issued under the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 are otherwise voluntary.
Further, the Committee’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the potato
industry, and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and
participate in Committee deliberations.
Like all Committee meetings, the
November 4, 2004, meeting was a public
meeting and all entities, both large and
small, were able to express their views
on this issue. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
be viewed at the following Web site:
https://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.
A 60-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 945
Marketing agreements, Potatoes,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR
part 945 is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 945—IRISH POTATOES GROWN
IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES
IN IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY,
OREGON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 945 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
§ 945.341
[Amended]
2. In § 945.341, paragraph (a)(2)(i),
remove the words ‘‘Round red
varieties.’’ and add in their place
‘‘Round varieties.’’
Dated: January 13, 2005.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1178 Filed 1–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 987
[Docket No. FV04–987–1 PR]
Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in
Riverside County, CA; Modification of
the Qualification Requirements for
Approved Manufacturers of Date
Products
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments
on modifications to the requirements to
be an approved manufacturer of date
products under the Federal date
marketing order (order). The order
regulates the handling of domestic dates
produced or packed in Riverside
County, California, and is administered
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3315
locally by the California Date
Administrative Committee (committee).
The committee’s approved product
manufacturer program helps assure that
higher quality whole and pitted dates
are shipped within the USA and to
Canada. This rule would clarify the
application procedures and
qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved
manufacturer of date products. This
proposal would also require an
applicant who is also a date handler
under the order to be in compliance
with the order. These modifications
would help safeguard the integrity of
the approved date product manufacturer
program under the order and the quality
of whole and pitted dates that are
shipped within the USA and Canada.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938, 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: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Vawter, 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, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., STOP
0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237;
telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)
720–8938.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail:
Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This
proposal is issued under Marketing
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
3316
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Agreement and Order No. 987, both as
amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating
the handling of domestic dates
produced or packed in Riverside
County, 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
(USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order
12866.
This proposal 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 USDA 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 USDA
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 USDA’s ruling on
the petition, provided an action is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
Summary
This proposal invites comments on
changes to the requirements to be an
approved manufacturer of date products
in § 987.157 of the date administrative
rules and regulations. This rule would
clarify the application procedures and
qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved
manufacturer of date products. This
proposal would also require an
applicant who is a date handler under
the order to be in compliance with the
order. These changes would help
safeguard the integrity of the approved
manufacturer program under the order
and the quality of whole and pitted
dates that are shipped within the United
States and to Canada. This proposed
rule was recommended unanimously by
the committee in a meeting on April 23,
2004.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
Order Authority for Approved
Manufacturers
Section 987.57 of the date order
provides authority for qualification
requirements to be an approved
manufacturer of date products. Section
987.57 states in part: ‘‘Diversion of dates
pursuant to § 987.55 or § 987.56 shall be
accomplished only by such persons
(which may include handlers) as are
approved manufacturers or feeders
* * *. The application and approval
shall be in accordance with such rules,
regulations and safeguards as may be
prescribed pursuant to § 987.59.’’
Section 987.59 states: ‘‘The Committee
may prescribe, with the approval of the
Secretary, such rules, regulations and
safeguards as are necessary to prevent
dates covered by §§ 987.55 and 987.56
from interfering with the objectives of
this part.’’
Pursuant to the authority in §§ 987.57
and 987.59 of the order, § 987.157 of the
order’s administrative rules and
regulations prescribes the qualification
requirements to become an approved
manufacturer of date products.
Background and Action Taken
At its public meeting on April 23,
2004, the committee unanimously
recommended modifying the
qualification requirements for approved
manufacturers of date products. The
committee’s approved product
manufacturer program helps assure that
higher quality whole and pitted dates
are shipped within the United States
and to Canada. Whole and pitted dates
shipped within the United States and to
Canada must, at least, meet the
requirements of U.S. Grade B. Dates
used for date products are permitted to
be U.S. Grade C, a lower quality.
Only firms on the committee’s list of
approved date product manufacturers
are allowed to receive dates for
conversion into products. These
entities, among other things, agree to
alter the form and appearance of the
lower quality dates so the dates cannot
be marketed in competition with higher
quality whole and pitted dates in the
United States and to Canada.
The committee recommended that the
application procedures for an entity to
qualify to become, and to continue to
be, an approved manufacturer of date
products be revised to help assure that
each applicant is treated similarly and
to ensure that an approved product
manufacturer remains qualified to
receive dates for conversion into
products.
Within the regulated area (Riverside
County, California), all approved
manufacturers are also date handlers
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulated under the order. Outside the
regulated area, the approved
manufacturers are not regulated date
handlers.
Finally, the committee wants to
safeguard the integrity of the approved
manufacturer program by requiring
handlers regulated under the order, who
are applying to be approved date
product manufacturers, to be in
compliance with the requirements of the
order, including the payment of
assessments and filing required reports.
Once approved, handlers would have to
continue to be in compliance with the
order to remain on the committee’s
approved date product manufacturers’
list.
Prior to revoking a handler’s approved
manufacturer status for non-compliance
with the requirements of the order,
including reporting and assessment
payment requirements, the committee
staff would consult with USDA. If, after
consultation with USDA and
appropriate communications, the
approved product manufacturer
continues to be non-compliant with the
order requirements, the committee staff
would announce the revocation of such
handler’s approved manufacturer status
by mailing or faxing a revised approved
manufacturer list to all date handlers in
the regulated area. Initial applicants
who are handlers under the order would
also have to be in compliance with the
order and meet the other qualification
requirements to become an approved
date product manufacturer.
Further, the approved manufacturers
would continue to be required to
maintain accurate date product
information and provide this to the
committee staff to enable the committee
to update each approved date product
manufacturer’s status periodically. To
ensure that each approved manufacturer
is qualified, the approved date product
manufacturers would be required to
reapply for approved manufacturer
status once a year. The procedures for
reapplication would be the same as to
become a new approved date product
manufacturer.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
has considered the economic impact of
this action 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
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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.
Industry Profile
There are approximately 124 date
producers in the regulated area and
approximately 10 handlers of California
dates subject to regulation under the
marketing order. The Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.201)
defines small agricultural service firms
as those having annual receipts of less
than $5,000,000, and defines small
agricultural producers as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
An industry profile shows that 4 out
of 10 handlers (40 percent) shipped over
$5,000,000 worth of California dates and
could be considered large handlers by
the Small Business Administration. Six
of the 10 handlers (60 percent) shipped
under $5,000,000 worth of California
dates and could be considered small
handlers.
An estimated 7 producers, or less than
6 percent, of the 124 total producers,
would be considered large producers
with annual incomes over $750,000.
The majority of handlers and producers
of California dates may, thus, be
classified as small entities.
Within the regulated area (Riverside
County, California), all approved
manufacturers are also date handlers
regulated under the order. Outside the
regulated area, the approved
manufacturers are not regulated date
handlers. Currently, there are three
approved manufacturers outside the
regulated area. We do not have
information on the size of these entities,
but believe most of them are small
entities.
Summary of Rule Change
This proposal invites comments on
changes to the requirements to be an
approved manufacturer of date products
in § 987.157 of the date administrative
rules and regulations. This rule would
clarify the application procedures and
qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved
manufacturer of date products. This
proposal would also require an
applicant who is a date handler under
the order to be in compliance with the
order. These changes would help
safeguard the integrity of the approved
manufacturer program under the order
and the quality of whole and pitted
dates that are shipped within the United
States and to Canada. This proposed
rule was recommended unanimously by
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
the committee in a meeting on April 23,
2004.
Impact of Regulation
At the meeting, the committee
discussed the impact of this change on
handlers and approved manufacturers.
The proposed rule would clarify the
application procedures and
qualifications for a product
manufacturer to be an approved
manufacturer of date products under the
order. These changes will help assure
that each applicant to be an approved
date manufacturer is treated equitably.
These changes would also clarify the
qualifications each applicant must meet
to become, and to continue as, an
approved manufacturer.
In addition, the committee wants to
safeguard the integrity of the approved
manufacturer program by requiring a
handler under the order who is applying
for an approved date product
manufacturer status to be in compliance
with the order. The benefits of this rule
are not expected to be
disproportionately greater or less for
small handlers or approved
manufacturers than for large entities.
Alternatives Considered
The committee discussed alternatives
to this change, including not making a
change to requirements to become an
approved date product manufacturer.
The committee decided that this would
likely lessen the effectiveness of
safeguards ensuring the quality of whole
and pitted dates that are shipped within
the United States and to Canada.
A second alternative would be to
require an applicant to pay all the costs
for repeated inspections to verify that
the applicant can, indeed, meet the
requirements of an approved
manufacturer. There was some
discussion about whether the committee
should continue to pay for the
committee staff’s time for verification
inspections beyond the initial visit.
However, there is no authority to charge
applicants for verification inspections
under this program.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
This proposed rule would clarify the
application procedures and
qualification requirements to become or
maintain an approved manufacturer
status of date products under the date
marketing order. Accordingly, this
action would not impose any additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on either small or large date handlers.
This information collection burden has
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3317
OMB No. 0581–0178. This is the
Vegetable and Specialty Crop Generic
information collection package. 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.
USDA 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
date industry and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and
participate in committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all committee
meetings, the April 23, 2004 meeting
was a public meeting and all entities,
both large and small, were able to
express views on this issue. 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: https://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.
A 10-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Ten days is deemed
appropriate because date handlers are
now handling 2004 new crop dates and
any changes resulting from this
proposed rule should be in place as
soon as possible. All written comments
timely received will be considered
before a final determination is made on
this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987
Dates, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 987—DOMESTIC DATES
PRODUCED OR PACKED IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 987 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 987.157 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 987.157 Approved date product
manufacturers.
Any person, including date handlers,
with facilities for converting dates into
products may apply to the Committee,
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
3318
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 14 / Monday, January 24, 2005 / Proposed Rules
by filing CDAC Form No. 3, for listing
as an approved date product
manufacturer.
(a) The applicant shall indicate on
such form: the products he/she intends
to make; the quantity of dates he/she
may use; the location of his/her
facilities; and agree that all dates
obtained for manufacturing into
products shall be used for that purpose,
none shall be resold or disposed of as
whole or pitted dates.
(b) As a condition to become an
approved date product manufacturer:
each applicant is subject to an
inspection of his/her manufacturing
plant to verify that proper equipment to
convert dates into products is in place
and that the plant meets appropriate
sanitation requirements; the applicant
also shall agree to file a report of the
disposition of each lot of dates on the
Committee’s CDAC Form No. 8 within
24 hours of the transaction, and to file
an annual usage and inventory report on
CDAC Form No. 4 by October 10 of each
year; and an applicant who is also a
handler under the order shall be in
compliance with the order, including
the assessment payment and reporting
requirements.
(c) The Committee shall approve each
such application on the basis of
information furnished or its own
investigation, and may revoke any
approval for cause. The name and
address of all approved manufacturers
shall be placed on a list and made
available to each date handler in
Riverside County.
(d) If an application is disapproved,
the Committee shall notify the applicant
in writing of the reasons for
disapproval, and allow the applicant an
opportunity to respond to the
disapproval. When the applicant has
complied with all the qualification
requirements to become an approved
manufacturer, the Committee shall
notify the applicant in writing of the
Committee’s approval. The applicant’s
name shall be added to the list of
approved manufacturers, which shall be
made available to each date handler in
Riverside County.
(e) Each approved manufacturer of
date products are required to renew
their approved manufacturer status with
the Committee by submitting an
updated CDAC Form No. 3 at the end
of a crop year, but no later than October
10 of the new crop year. In addition, the
approved manufacturer must continue
to meet the other approved
manufacturer qualification
requirements.
(f) In the event an approved date
product manufacturer does not remain
in compliance with the order, or fails or
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:25 Jan 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
refuses to submit reports or to pay
assessments required by the Committee,
such date product manufacturer shall
become ineligible to continue as an
approved date product manufacturer.
Prior to making a determination to
remove a date product manufacturer
from the approved date product
manufacturer list, the Committee shall
notify such manufacturer in writing of
its intention and the reasons for
removal. The Committee shall allow the
date product manufacturer an
opportunity to respond. In the event
that a date product manufacturer’s name
has been removed from the list of
approved date product manufacturers, a
new application must be submitted to
the Committee and the applicant must
await approval.
Dated: January 13, 2005.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–1179 Filed 1–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–20111; Directorate
Identifier 2004–NM–154–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon
Model HS.125 Series 700A Airplanes,
Model BAe.125 Series 800A Airplanes,
and Model Hawker 800 and Hawker
800XP Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Raytheon Model HS.125 series
700A airplanes, Model BAe.125 series
800A airplanes, and Model Hawker 800
and Hawker 800XP airplanes. This
proposed AD would require an
inspection to determine the current
rating of the circuit breakers of certain
cockpit ventilation and avionics cooling
system blowers; and for replacing the
circuit breakers and modifying the
blower wiring, as applicable. This
proposed AD is prompted by a report
indicating that a blower motor seized up
and gave off smoke. Investigation
revealed inadequate short circuit
protection on the blower motor
electrical circuit. We are proposing this
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AD to prevent smoke and fumes in the
cockpit in the event that a blower motor
seizes and overheats due to excessive
current draw.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by March 10, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
https://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide Rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building,
room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Raytheon
Aircraft Company, Department 62, P.O.
Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201–0085.
You can examine the contents of this
AD docket on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street
SW., room PL–401, on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, Washington, DC.
This docket number is FAA–2005–
20111; the directorate identifier for this
docket is 2004–NM–154–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Philip Petty, Aerospace Engineer,
Electrical Systems Branch, ACE–119W,
FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification
Office, 1801 Airport Road, room 100,
Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas
67209; telephone (316) 946–4139; fax
(316) 946–4107.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposed AD. Send your
comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2005–20111; Directorate Identifier
2004–NM–154–AD’’ in the subject line
of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental,
and energy aspects of the proposed AD.
We will consider all comments
submitted by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
E:\FR\FM\24JAP1.SGM
24JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 14 (Monday, January 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3315-3318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 987
[Docket No. FV04-987-1 PR]
Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County, CA;
Modification of the Qualification Requirements for Approved
Manufacturers of Date Products
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on modifications to the
requirements to be an approved manufacturer of date products under the
Federal date marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling
of domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California,
and is administered locally by the California Date Administrative
Committee (committee). The committee's approved product manufacturer
program helps assure that higher quality whole and pitted dates are
shipped within the USA and to Canada. This rule would clarify the
application procedures and qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved manufacturer of date products.
This proposal would also require an applicant who is also a date
handler under the order to be in compliance with the order. These
modifications would help safeguard the integrity of the approved date
product manufacturer program under the order and the quality of whole
and pitted dates that are shipped within the USA and Canada.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC
20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938, 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: https://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/
moab.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Vawter, 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, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202)
720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing
[[Page 3316]]
Agreement and Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR part 987),
regulating the handling of domestic dates produced or packed in
Riverside County, 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 (USDA) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal 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 USDA 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 USDA 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 USDA's ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
Summary
This proposal invites comments on changes to the requirements to be
an approved manufacturer of date products in Sec. 987.157 of the date
administrative rules and regulations. This rule would clarify the
application procedures and qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved manufacturer of date products.
This proposal would also require an applicant who is a date handler
under the order to be in compliance with the order. These changes would
help safeguard the integrity of the approved manufacturer program under
the order and the quality of whole and pitted dates that are shipped
within the United States and to Canada. This proposed rule was
recommended unanimously by the committee in a meeting on April 23,
2004.
Order Authority for Approved Manufacturers
Section 987.57 of the date order provides authority for
qualification requirements to be an approved manufacturer of date
products. Section 987.57 states in part: ``Diversion of dates pursuant
to Sec. 987.55 or Sec. 987.56 shall be accomplished only by such
persons (which may include handlers) as are approved manufacturers or
feeders * * *. The application and approval shall be in accordance with
such rules, regulations and safeguards as may be prescribed pursuant to
Sec. 987.59.'' Section 987.59 states: ``The Committee may prescribe,
with the approval of the Secretary, such rules, regulations and
safeguards as are necessary to prevent dates covered by Sec. Sec.
987.55 and 987.56 from interfering with the objectives of this part.''
Pursuant to the authority in Sec. Sec. 987.57 and 987.59 of the
order, Sec. 987.157 of the order's administrative rules and
regulations prescribes the qualification requirements to become an
approved manufacturer of date products.
Background and Action Taken
At its public meeting on April 23, 2004, the committee unanimously
recommended modifying the qualification requirements for approved
manufacturers of date products. The committee's approved product
manufacturer program helps assure that higher quality whole and pitted
dates are shipped within the United States and to Canada. Whole and
pitted dates shipped within the United States and to Canada must, at
least, meet the requirements of U.S. Grade B. Dates used for date
products are permitted to be U.S. Grade C, a lower quality.
Only firms on the committee's list of approved date product
manufacturers are allowed to receive dates for conversion into
products. These entities, among other things, agree to alter the form
and appearance of the lower quality dates so the dates cannot be
marketed in competition with higher quality whole and pitted dates in
the United States and to Canada.
The committee recommended that the application procedures for an
entity to qualify to become, and to continue to be, an approved
manufacturer of date products be revised to help assure that each
applicant is treated similarly and to ensure that an approved product
manufacturer remains qualified to receive dates for conversion into
products.
Within the regulated area (Riverside County, California), all
approved manufacturers are also date handlers regulated under the
order. Outside the regulated area, the approved manufacturers are not
regulated date handlers.
Finally, the committee wants to safeguard the integrity of the
approved manufacturer program by requiring handlers regulated under the
order, who are applying to be approved date product manufacturers, to
be in compliance with the requirements of the order, including the
payment of assessments and filing required reports. Once approved,
handlers would have to continue to be in compliance with the order to
remain on the committee's approved date product manufacturers' list.
Prior to revoking a handler's approved manufacturer status for non-
compliance with the requirements of the order, including reporting and
assessment payment requirements, the committee staff would consult with
USDA. If, after consultation with USDA and appropriate communications,
the approved product manufacturer continues to be non-compliant with
the order requirements, the committee staff would announce the
revocation of such handler's approved manufacturer status by mailing or
faxing a revised approved manufacturer list to all date handlers in the
regulated area. Initial applicants who are handlers under the order
would also have to be in compliance with the order and meet the other
qualification requirements to become an approved date product
manufacturer.
Further, the approved manufacturers would continue to be required
to maintain accurate date product information and provide this to the
committee staff to enable the committee to update each approved date
product manufacturer's status periodically. To ensure that each
approved manufacturer is qualified, the approved date product
manufacturers would be required to reapply for approved manufacturer
status once a year. The procedures for reapplication would be the same
as to become a new approved date product manufacturer.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this action 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
[[Page 3317]]
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.
Industry Profile
There are approximately 124 date producers in the regulated area
and approximately 10 handlers of California dates subject to regulation
under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR
121.201) defines small agricultural service firms as those having
annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and defines small agricultural
producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
An industry profile shows that 4 out of 10 handlers (40 percent)
shipped over $5,000,000 worth of California dates and could be
considered large handlers by the Small Business Administration. Six of
the 10 handlers (60 percent) shipped under $5,000,000 worth of
California dates and could be considered small handlers.
An estimated 7 producers, or less than 6 percent, of the 124 total
producers, would be considered large producers with annual incomes over
$750,000. The majority of handlers and producers of California dates
may, thus, be classified as small entities.
Within the regulated area (Riverside County, California), all
approved manufacturers are also date handlers regulated under the
order. Outside the regulated area, the approved manufacturers are not
regulated date handlers. Currently, there are three approved
manufacturers outside the regulated area. We do not have information on
the size of these entities, but believe most of them are small
entities.
Summary of Rule Change
This proposal invites comments on changes to the requirements to be
an approved manufacturer of date products in Sec. 987.157 of the date
administrative rules and regulations. This rule would clarify the
application procedures and qualifications for a manufacturer to
continue to be listed as an approved manufacturer of date products.
This proposal would also require an applicant who is a date handler
under the order to be in compliance with the order. These changes would
help safeguard the integrity of the approved manufacturer program under
the order and the quality of whole and pitted dates that are shipped
within the United States and to Canada. This proposed rule was
recommended unanimously by the committee in a meeting on April 23,
2004.
Impact of Regulation
At the meeting, the committee discussed the impact of this change
on handlers and approved manufacturers. The proposed rule would clarify
the application procedures and qualifications for a product
manufacturer to be an approved manufacturer of date products under the
order. These changes will help assure that each applicant to be an
approved date manufacturer is treated equitably. These changes would
also clarify the qualifications each applicant must meet to become, and
to continue as, an approved manufacturer.
In addition, the committee wants to safeguard the integrity of the
approved manufacturer program by requiring a handler under the order
who is applying for an approved date product manufacturer status to be
in compliance with the order. The benefits of this rule are not
expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or
approved manufacturers than for large entities.
Alternatives Considered
The committee discussed alternatives to this change, including not
making a change to requirements to become an approved date product
manufacturer. The committee decided that this would likely lessen the
effectiveness of safeguards ensuring the quality of whole and pitted
dates that are shipped within the United States and to Canada.
A second alternative would be to require an applicant to pay all
the costs for repeated inspections to verify that the applicant can,
indeed, meet the requirements of an approved manufacturer. There was
some discussion about whether the committee should continue to pay for
the committee staff's time for verification inspections beyond the
initial visit. However, there is no authority to charge applicants for
verification inspections under this program.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
This proposed rule would clarify the application procedures and
qualification requirements to become or maintain an approved
manufacturer status of date products under the date marketing order.
Accordingly, this action would not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large date handlers. This
information collection burden has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB No. 0581-0178. This is the
Vegetable and Specialty Crop Generic information collection package. 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.
USDA 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 date industry and all interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all
issues. Like all committee meetings, the April 23, 2004 meeting was a
public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to
express views on this issue. 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.
A 10-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. Ten days is deemed appropriate because date
handlers are now handling 2004 new crop dates and any changes resulting
from this proposed rule should be in place as soon as possible. All
written comments timely received will be considered before a final
determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 987
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 987 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 987--DOMESTIC DATES PRODUCED OR PACKED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 987 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 987.157 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 987.157 Approved date product manufacturers.
Any person, including date handlers, with facilities for converting
dates into products may apply to the Committee,
[[Page 3318]]
by filing CDAC Form No. 3, for listing as an approved date product
manufacturer.
(a) The applicant shall indicate on such form: the products he/she
intends to make; the quantity of dates he/she may use; the location of
his/her facilities; and agree that all dates obtained for manufacturing
into products shall be used for that purpose, none shall be resold or
disposed of as whole or pitted dates.
(b) As a condition to become an approved date product manufacturer:
each applicant is subject to an inspection of his/her manufacturing
plant to verify that proper equipment to convert dates into products is
in place and that the plant meets appropriate sanitation requirements;
the applicant also shall agree to file a report of the disposition of
each lot of dates on the Committee's CDAC Form No. 8 within 24 hours of
the transaction, and to file an annual usage and inventory report on
CDAC Form No. 4 by October 10 of each year; and an applicant who is
also a handler under the order shall be in compliance with the order,
including the assessment payment and reporting requirements.
(c) The Committee shall approve each such application on the basis
of information furnished or its own investigation, and may revoke any
approval for cause. The name and address of all approved manufacturers
shall be placed on a list and made available to each date handler in
Riverside County.
(d) If an application is disapproved, the Committee shall notify
the applicant in writing of the reasons for disapproval, and allow the
applicant an opportunity to respond to the disapproval. When the
applicant has complied with all the qualification requirements to
become an approved manufacturer, the Committee shall notify the
applicant in writing of the Committee's approval. The applicant's name
shall be added to the list of approved manufacturers, which shall be
made available to each date handler in Riverside County.
(e) Each approved manufacturer of date products are required to
renew their approved manufacturer status with the Committee by
submitting an updated CDAC Form No. 3 at the end of a crop year, but no
later than October 10 of the new crop year. In addition, the approved
manufacturer must continue to meet the other approved manufacturer
qualification requirements.
(f) In the event an approved date product manufacturer does not
remain in compliance with the order, or fails or refuses to submit
reports or to pay assessments required by the Committee, such date
product manufacturer shall become ineligible to continue as an approved
date product manufacturer. Prior to making a determination to remove a
date product manufacturer from the approved date product manufacturer
list, the Committee shall notify such manufacturer in writing of its
intention and the reasons for removal. The Committee shall allow the
date product manufacturer an opportunity to respond. In the event that
a date product manufacturer's name has been removed from the list of
approved date product manufacturers, a new application must be
submitted to the Committee and the applicant must await approval.
Dated: January 13, 2005.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1179 Filed 1-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
