Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Change in Handling Requirements, 24530-24532 [E7-8459]
Download as PDF
24530
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(3) For which you fail to meet the
requirements contained in section 13(h);
or
(4) That is damaged solely by
uninsured causes.
(n) Acreage for which a Winter
Coverage Option payment has been
made is no longer insurable under the
Crop Provisions for the current crop
year. Any mint production subsequently
harvested from uninsured acreage for
the crop year and not kept separate from
production from insured acreage will be
considered production to count.
(o) Acreage for which a Winter
Coverage Option payment has been
made will receive an amount of
production of zero when computing
subsequent year’s approved yield.
(p) Sections 11(e), (f), and (g) of these
Crop Provisions do not apply to this
option.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 25,
2007.
Eldon Gould,
Manager, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation.
[FR Doc. E7–8340 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 966
[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0208; FV07–966–
1 FIR]
Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Change in
Handling Requirements
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a
final rule, without change, an interim
final rule changing the handling
requirements currently prescribed under
the Florida Tomato marketing order
(order). The order regulates the handling
of tomatoes grown in Florida, and is
administered locally by the Florida
Tomato Committee (Committee). This
rule continues in effect the action that
limited the use of inverted lids on
tomato containers to the handler whose
information initially appeared on the
lid. This rule helps ensure that lids do
not contain the information for more
than one active handler and aids in
maintaining the positive identification
and traceability of Florida tomatoes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Pimental, Marketing Specialist;
or Christian Nissen, Regional Manager,
VerDate Mar 15 2010
05:31 Aug 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
Southeast Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–
3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or E-mail:
William.Pimental@usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@usda.gov.
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 rule
is issued under Marketing Agreement
No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as
amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating
the handling of tomatoes grown in
Florida, 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.’’
USDA 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 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 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.
This rule continues in effect the
action that changed the handling
requirements currently prescribed under
the order. This rule continues to limit
the use of inverted lids on tomato
containers to the handler whose
information initially appeared on the
lid. This rule helps ensure that lids do
not contain the information for more
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
than one active handler and aids in
maintaining the positive identification
and traceability of Florida tomatoes.
This action was unanimously
recommended by the Committee at a
meeting on October 4, 2006.
Section 966.52 of the order provides
the authority to establish pack and
container requirements for tomatoes
grown under the order. This includes
fixing the size, weight, capacity,
dimensions, markings, or pack of the
container or containers which may be
used in the handling of tomatoes.
Section 966.323 of the order’s
administrative rules prescribes the
handling regulations for Florida
tomatoes. Section 966.323(a)(3)
delineates the requisite container
requirements for weight, markings, and
appearance. The section specifies, in
part, that each container or lid must
show the name and address of the
registered handler.
The majority of Florida tomatoes are
packed in containers that have a
separate lid. Most lids are preprinted
with the handler’s name and address. In
addition, most lids can be inverted by
reversing the lid so the blank side is on
the outside, and the preprinted
information is flipped to the underside
of the lid. This is done so new
information can be printed on the lid.
This rule amends § 966.323(a)(3) by
limiting the use of inverted lids on
tomato containers to the handler whose
information first appeared on the lid.
Inverted lids have been used in
minimal quantities in past seasons,
usually when a tomato packing
operation was purchased by another
entity. Any containers included in the
purchase could be used by the
purchasing handler by inverting the lids
so the purchaser’s information could be
affixed on the clean side. Usually there
were not many containers remaining, so
the containers requiring inverted lids
were fairly limited in quantity.
Recently, container sales companies
have started offering their container
overruns at discounted prices to tomato
handlers. These containers usually have
preprinted handler and product
information on the lids. The Committee
is concerned this could significantly
increase the number of inverted lids
being used by the industry and could
pose problems with the positive
identification and traceability of
tomatoes.
In their discussion of this issue, the
Committee agreed the ability to
positively identify product is a necessity
in today’s marketplace. The Committee
expressed concern that the practice of
E:\FEDREG\03MYR1.LOC
03MYR1
mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
inverting lids could result in
misidentification and confusion in cases
where tomatoes need to be traced back
to their origin. The Committee
recognized that in the past, most of the
containers being used with an inverted
lid were associated with a handler
purchasing another operation.
Consequently, the original owner of the
lid was no longer in business, and the
container was only printed with the
information for one active handler.
This would not be the case with
handlers using overrun containers. The
overrun containers being made available
are containers produced in excess of
orders, with the majority preprinted
with handler information. Therefore,
once inverted, the lids on the overrun
containers would be printed with the
information for two active handlers. The
Committee is concerned that having
multiple handler information on a
container, even with the lid inverted,
could pose problems when trying to
track tomatoes back to the original
handler.
The Committee believes it is of
critical importance that Florida
tomatoes can be traced from the farm to
the end-user. Proper handler
identification on a container is an
important part of this traceability.
Allowing the use of containers with an
active registered handler’s information
on the exterior of the lid and another on
the interior could allow for
misidentification and confusion in
product identification. The Committee
believes by limiting the use of inverted
lids to the handler whose name
originally appeared on the lid, positive
identification and traceability is better
maintained.
In addition, in cases related to
marketing order compliance, it is also
important to be able to identify the
original source of tomatoes. Allowing
the use of inverted lids could result in
the intentional misrepresentation of the
origin of the tomatoes. The box lids
could be re-inverted to display the
handler information originally printed
on the box without that handler’s
knowledge. Limiting the use of inverted
lids on tomato containers by anyone
other than the handler whose
information first appeared on the lid
helps alleviate any misidentification or
uncertainty in product identification.
Section 8e of the Act provides that
when certain domestically produced
commodities, including tomatoes, are
regulated under a Federal marketing
order, imports of that commodity must
meet the same or comparable grade,
size, quality, and maturity requirements.
As this rule changes the container
requirements under the domestic
VerDate Mar 15 2010
05:31 Aug 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
handling regulations, no corresponding
change to the import regulations is
required.
Final 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
final 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 the rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
small entities acting on their own
behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 100
producers of tomatoes in the production
area and approximately 70 handlers
subject to regulation under the
marketing order. Small agricultural
producers are defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) as those
having annual receipts less than
$750,000, and small agricultural service
firms are defined as those whose annual
receipts are less than $6,500,000 (13
CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee
data, the average annual price for fresh
Florida tomatoes during the 2005–06
season was approximately $10.27 per
25-pound container, and fresh
shipments totaled 47,880,303 25-pound
cartons of tomatoes. Committee data
indicates approximately 27 percent of
the handlers handle 95 percent of the
total volume shipped outside the
regulated area. Based on the average
price, about 75 percent of handlers
could be considered small businesses
under SBA’s definition. In addition,
based on production, grower prices as
reported by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service, and the total number
of Florida tomato growers, the average
annual grower revenue is below
$750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers
and producers of Florida tomatoes may
be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the
action that changed the handling
requirements currently prescribed under
the order. This rule continues to limit
the use of inverted lids on tomato
containers to the handler whose
information initially appeared on the
lid. This rule helps ensure that lids do
not contain the information for more
than one active handler and aids in
maintaining the positive identification
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24531
and traceability of Florida tomatoes.
This rule revises § 966.323(a)(3), which
specifies the requisite container
requirements. Authority for this action
is provided in § 966.52 of the order.
The Committee unanimously
recommended this change at a meeting
held on October 4, 2006.
At the meeting, the Committee
discussed the impact of this change on
handlers in terms of cost. This rule
could result in a slight increase in cost
for handlers that were considering
purchasing the container overruns.
However, Committee members stated
that plain containers are readily
available on the market at reasonable
prices. Consequently, the difference in
cost between a discounted overrun
container and a plain blank container
should be minimal.
In addition, last season the industry
packed more than 47 million cartons of
tomatoes. The available quantities of
overrun containers are limited,
confining the cost benefit to those
containers available. When compared to
the total containers needed, the overall
cost savings associated with using
overrun cartons would be negligible.
Also, in previous seasons, overrun
containers were not available for
purchase. Therefore, container cost for
all handlers should be similar to those
in previous seasons.
Further, this rule provides the benefit
of helping to maintain the traceability
and proper identification of Florida
tomatoes, which outweighs the minor
cost savings associated with using
overrun containers. The costs and
benefits of this rule are not expected to
be disproportionately different for small
or large entities.
One alternative to this action was to
allow the use of inverted lids. However,
Committee members agreed that having
the information for more than one active
handler appear on a carton was
confusing and could make traceability
and proper identification difficult.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
The AMS is committed to complying
with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
This action will not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on either small or large
tomato 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. In addition, as noted in
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis,
E:\FEDREG\03MYR1.LOC
03MYR1
24532
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or
conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the
Florida tomato industry and all
interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in
Committee deliberations. Like all
Committee meetings, the October 4,
2006, meeting was a public meeting and
all entities, both large and small, were
able to express views on this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on February 6, 2007. Copies of
the rule were mailed by the Committee’s
staff to all Committee members and
tomato handlers. In addition, the rule
was made available through the Internet
by USDA and the Office of the Federal
Register. That rule provided for a 60day comment period which ended April
9, 2007. No comments were received.
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.
After consideration of all relevant
material presented, including the
Committee’s recommendation, and
other information, it is found that
finalizing the interim final rule, without
change, as published in the Federal
Register (72 FR 5327, February 6, 2007)
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966
Marketing agreements, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN
FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 7 CFR part 966 which was
published at 72 FR 5327 on February 6,
2007, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB
■
Dated: April 27, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–8459 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
VerDate Mar 15 2010
05:31 Aug 19, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Part 1308
[Docket No. DEA–301F]
Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Placement of Lisdexamfetamine Into
Schedule II
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final Rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: With the issuance of this final
rule, the Deputy Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) places the substance
lisdexamfetamine, including its salts,
isomers and salts of isomers into
schedule II of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA). As a result of this rule, the
regulatory controls and criminal
sanctions of schedule II will be
applicable to the manufacture,
distribution, dispensing, importation
and exportation of lisdexamfetamine
and products containing
lisdexamfetamine.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine A. Sannerud, PhD, Chief, Drug
and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, DC 20537,
(202) 307–7183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Lisdexamfetamine is a central nervous
system stimulant drug. On February 23,
2007, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approved lisdexamfetamine for
marketing under the trade name
Vyvanse TM. Lisdexamfetamine will be
marketed as a prescription drug product
for the treatment of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Lisdexamfetamine is an amide ester
conjugate comprised of the amino acid
L-lysine covalently bound to the amino
group of d-amphetamine. The chemical
name of its dimesylate salt form is (2S)2,6-diamino-N-[(1S)-1-methyl-2phenethyl]hexanamide
dimethanesulfonate (CAS number
608137–32–3). Lisdexamfetamine per se
is pharmacologically inactive and its
effects are due to its in vivo metabolic
conversion to d-amphetamine.
Lisdexamfetamine is a new molecular
entity and has not been marketed in the
United States or other countries.
Therefore, there has been no evidence of
diversion, abuse, or law enforcement
encounters involving lisdexamfetamine.
On November 14, 2006, the Assistant
Secretary for Health, Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS),
sent the Deputy Administrator of DEA a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
scientific and medical evaluation and a
letter recommending that
lisdexamfetamine be placed into
schedule II of the CSA. Enclosed with
the November 14, 2006, letter was a
document prepared by the FDA entitled,
‘‘Basis for the Recommendation for
Control of Lisdexamfetamine in
Schedule II of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA).’’ The document contained a
review of the factors which the CSA
requires the Secretary to consider (21
U.S.C. 811(b)).
After a review of the available data,
including the scientific and medical
evaluation and the scheduling
recommendation received from DHHS,
the Deputy Administrator of the DEA, in
a February 22, 2007, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (72 FR 7945), proposed
placement of lisdexamfetamine into
schedule II of the CSA. The proposed
rule provided an opportunity for all
interested persons to submit their
written comments to be postmarked and
electronic comments be sent on or
before March 26, 2007.
Comments Received
The DEA received two comments in
response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. One commenter stated that
monthly visits to obtain refills for
Concerta [supreg]—like drugs used in
children are very expensive and the law
needs to be changed. DEA notes that
statutory requirements for schedule II
drugs do not permit prescription refills.
DEA does not regulate the size of each
prescription or the frequency of medical
visits; these matters are within the
purview of prescribing physician. DEA
has no authority regarding either the
cost of medical care or the cost of the
medications a prescribing practitioner
may prescribe. Another commenter
requested the name of the company that
filed the New Drug Application for
lisdexamfetamine in order to obtain
standard analytical reference material
and/or analytical data from the
company. This comment is not relevant
to the present scheduling action.
Scheduling of Lisdexamfetamine
Relying on the scientific and medical
evaluation and the recommendation of
the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Health, received in accordance with
section 201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C.
811(b)), and the independent review of
the available data by DEA, and after a
review of the comments received in
response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, pursuant to sections 201(a) and
201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811(a) and
811(b)), finds that:
E:\FEDREG\03MYR1.LOC
03MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24530-24532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8459]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 966
[Docket No. AMS-FV-06-0208; FV07-966-1 FIR]
Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Change in Handling Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final
rule, without change, an interim final rule changing the handling
requirements currently prescribed under the Florida Tomato marketing
order (order). The order regulates the handling of tomatoes grown in
Florida, and is administered locally by the Florida Tomato Committee
(Committee). This rule continues in effect the action that limited the
use of inverted lids on tomato containers to the handler whose
information initially appeared on the lid. This rule helps ensure that
lids do not contain the information for more than one active handler
and aids in maintaining the positive identification and traceability of
Florida tomatoes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Pimental, Marketing
Specialist; or Christian Nissen, Regional Manager, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863)
325-8793, or E-mail: William.Pimental@usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@usda.gov.
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 rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966),
regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, 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.''
USDA 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 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 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.
This rule continues in effect the action that changed the handling
requirements currently prescribed under the order. This rule continues
to limit the use of inverted lids on tomato containers to the handler
whose information initially appeared on the lid. This rule helps ensure
that lids do not contain the information for more than one active
handler and aids in maintaining the positive identification and
traceability of Florida tomatoes. This action was unanimously
recommended by the Committee at a meeting on October 4, 2006.
Section 966.52 of the order provides the authority to establish
pack and container requirements for tomatoes grown under the order.
This includes fixing the size, weight, capacity, dimensions, markings,
or pack of the container or containers which may be used in the
handling of tomatoes.
Section 966.323 of the order's administrative rules prescribes the
handling regulations for Florida tomatoes. Section 966.323(a)(3)
delineates the requisite container requirements for weight, markings,
and appearance. The section specifies, in part, that each container or
lid must show the name and address of the registered handler.
The majority of Florida tomatoes are packed in containers that have
a separate lid. Most lids are preprinted with the handler's name and
address. In addition, most lids can be inverted by reversing the lid so
the blank side is on the outside, and the preprinted information is
flipped to the underside of the lid. This is done so new information
can be printed on the lid. This rule amends Sec. 966.323(a)(3) by
limiting the use of inverted lids on tomato containers to the handler
whose information first appeared on the lid.
Inverted lids have been used in minimal quantities in past seasons,
usually when a tomato packing operation was purchased by another
entity. Any containers included in the purchase could be used by the
purchasing handler by inverting the lids so the purchaser's information
could be affixed on the clean side. Usually there were not many
containers remaining, so the containers requiring inverted lids were
fairly limited in quantity.
Recently, container sales companies have started offering their
container overruns at discounted prices to tomato handlers. These
containers usually have preprinted handler and product information on
the lids. The Committee is concerned this could significantly increase
the number of inverted lids being used by the industry and could pose
problems with the positive identification and traceability of tomatoes.
In their discussion of this issue, the Committee agreed the ability
to positively identify product is a necessity in today's marketplace.
The Committee expressed concern that the practice of
[[Page 24531]]
inverting lids could result in misidentification and confusion in cases
where tomatoes need to be traced back to their origin. The Committee
recognized that in the past, most of the containers being used with an
inverted lid were associated with a handler purchasing another
operation. Consequently, the original owner of the lid was no longer in
business, and the container was only printed with the information for
one active handler.
This would not be the case with handlers using overrun containers.
The overrun containers being made available are containers produced in
excess of orders, with the majority preprinted with handler
information. Therefore, once inverted, the lids on the overrun
containers would be printed with the information for two active
handlers. The Committee is concerned that having multiple handler
information on a container, even with the lid inverted, could pose
problems when trying to track tomatoes back to the original handler.
The Committee believes it is of critical importance that Florida
tomatoes can be traced from the farm to the end-user. Proper handler
identification on a container is an important part of this
traceability. Allowing the use of containers with an active registered
handler's information on the exterior of the lid and another on the
interior could allow for misidentification and confusion in product
identification. The Committee believes by limiting the use of inverted
lids to the handler whose name originally appeared on the lid, positive
identification and traceability is better maintained.
In addition, in cases related to marketing order compliance, it is
also important to be able to identify the original source of tomatoes.
Allowing the use of inverted lids could result in the intentional
misrepresentation of the origin of the tomatoes. The box lids could be
re-inverted to display the handler information originally printed on
the box without that handler's knowledge. Limiting the use of inverted
lids on tomato containers by anyone other than the handler whose
information first appeared on the lid helps alleviate any
misidentification or uncertainty in product identification.
Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically
produced commodities, including tomatoes, are regulated under a Federal
marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or
comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. As this
rule changes the container requirements under the domestic handling
regulations, no corresponding change to the import regulations is
required.
Final 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 final 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 the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 100 producers of tomatoes in the production
area and approximately 70 handlers subject to regulation under the
marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than
$750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those
whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for
fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2005-06 season was approximately
$10.27 per 25-pound container, and fresh shipments totaled 47,880,303
25-pound cartons of tomatoes. Committee data indicates approximately 27
percent of the handlers handle 95 percent of the total volume shipped
outside the regulated area. Based on the average price, about 75
percent of handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's
definition. In addition, based on production, grower prices as reported
by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number
of Florida tomato growers, the average annual grower revenue is below
$750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Florida
tomatoes may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that changed the handling
requirements currently prescribed under the order. This rule continues
to limit the use of inverted lids on tomato containers to the handler
whose information initially appeared on the lid. This rule helps ensure
that lids do not contain the information for more than one active
handler and aids in maintaining the positive identification and
traceability of Florida tomatoes. This rule revises Sec.
966.323(a)(3), which specifies the requisite container requirements.
Authority for this action is provided in Sec. 966.52 of the order. The
Committee unanimously recommended this change at a meeting held on
October 4, 2006.
At the meeting, the Committee discussed the impact of this change
on handlers in terms of cost. This rule could result in a slight
increase in cost for handlers that were considering purchasing the
container overruns. However, Committee members stated that plain
containers are readily available on the market at reasonable prices.
Consequently, the difference in cost between a discounted overrun
container and a plain blank container should be minimal.
In addition, last season the industry packed more than 47 million
cartons of tomatoes. The available quantities of overrun containers are
limited, confining the cost benefit to those containers available. When
compared to the total containers needed, the overall cost savings
associated with using overrun cartons would be negligible. Also, in
previous seasons, overrun containers were not available for purchase.
Therefore, container cost for all handlers should be similar to those
in previous seasons.
Further, this rule provides the benefit of helping to maintain the
traceability and proper identification of Florida tomatoes, which
outweighs the minor cost savings associated with using overrun
containers. The costs and benefits of this rule are not expected to be
disproportionately different for small or large entities.
One alternative to this action was to allow the use of inverted
lids. However, Committee members agreed that having the information for
more than one active handler appear on a carton was confusing and could
make traceability and proper identification difficult. Therefore, this
alternative was rejected.
The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
This action will not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tomato 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. In addition, as
noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis,
[[Page 24532]]
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout
the Florida tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all
Committee meetings, the October 4, 2006, meeting was a public meeting
and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on
this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
Federal Register on February 6, 2007. Copies of the rule were mailed by
the Committee's staff to all Committee members and tomato handlers. In
addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and
the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided for a 60-day
comment period which ended April 9, 2007. No comments were received.
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.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that
finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Federal Register (72 FR 5327, February 6, 2007) will tend to effectuate
the declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tomatoes.
PART 966--TOMATOES GROWN IN FLORIDA
0
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 966 which was
published at 72 FR 5327 on February 6, 2007, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
Dated: April 27, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E7-8459 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P