Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida; and Sweet Cherries Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Section 610 Reviews, 33918-33919 [E7-11929]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33918
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Processed Food Item
In an effort to make the definition of
a processed food item clearer in the
interim final rule, AMS modified the
language in the proposed rule for fish
and shellfish to provide specific
examples of the types of processing that
that would result in a product being
considered a processed food item.
Under the interim final rule, all cooked
items (e.g., canned fish, cooked shrimp)
and breaded products are considered
processed food items and are excluded
from coverage. In addition, retail items
have given a distinct flavor (e.g., Cajun
marinated catfish) are also considered
processed food items. Should the
Agency provide specific examples of the
types of processing that would result in
beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural
commodity and peanut covered
commodities being considered
processed food items and excluded from
coverage? Are there significant
differences in the preparation of beef,
lamb, pork, perishable agricultural
commodities and peanuts for retail sale,
compared to fish and shellfish, which
the Agency should consider? Are the
major components of the definition of a
processed food item set forth in the
interim final rule for fish and shellfish
(i.e., change in character and/or
combined with other substantive
components) also applicable to beef,
lamb, pork, perishable agricultural
commodities and peanuts?
Country of Origin Notification
Under § 60.200 of the interim final
rule for fish and shellfish, the
requirements and procedures for
labeling a covered commodity for
country of origin are established. The
interim final rule modified provision of
the proposed rule by changing the
labeling and notification requirements
to simplify the labels and remain
compliant and consistent with other
existing Federal regulatory
requirements. The interim final rule
changed the requirements for the
labeling of imported fish and shellfish
covered commodities not substantially
transformed in the United States,
imported fish and shellfish covered
commodities substantially transformed
in the United States, and blended
products (i.e., commingling of the same
covered commodity). AMS seeks
comments on the applicability of these
requirements and procedures to beef,
lamb, pork, perishable agricultural
commodity and peanut covered
commodities. Can the requirements
contained in the interim final rule for
fish and shellfish for determining the
origin of imported products and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
products partially produced in a foreign
country and imported into and further
processed in the United States be used
in whole or part? What would be the
impact of applying the same or similar
requirements for beef, lamb, pork,
perishable agricultural commodity and
peanut covered commodities?
Markings
Under § 60.300 of the interim final
rule for fish and shellfish the types of
markings permissible to label covered
commodities are defined. AMS seeks
comment on the established
requirements for markings for all
covered commodities which includes
the type of labels allowed, placement,
font, design, signs, location, and
allowable abbreviations.
Recordkeeping Requirements
The recordkeeping requirements for
retailers and suppliers are established
under § 60.400 of the interim final rule
for fish and shellfish. The interim final
rule for fish and shellfish modified
provisions of the proposed rule for fish
and shellfish by significantly changing
the record retention requirements of
retailers and their suppliers. For
example, the retention of records for a
specific transaction was reduced from 2
years to 1 year for both retailers and
suppliers for certain records.
Additionally, records required to verify
country of origin and method of
production for fish and shellfish
covered commodities at the retail site
were reduced from 7 days following
retail sale of the product to the
timeframe the product is for sale. AMS
seeks comment on the impact of
applying the recordkeeping
requirements of the interim final rule for
this proposed rule for beef, lamb, pork,
perishable agricultural commodity and
peanut covered commodities. Of
particular interest are comments on
internal recordkeeping systems that
beef, lamb, pork, perishable agricultural
commodity and peanut covered
commodity suppliers may use to
comply with requirements for providing
accurate country of origin information
to retailers. Are the retention periods
established for records to substantiate
claims in the interim final rule for fish
and shellfish reasonable for this
proposed rule given the nature of the
covered commodities? How will the
recordkeeping requirements set forth in
the interim final rule for fish and
shellfish impact the initial and
intermediary suppliers of beef, lamb,
pork, perishable agricultural commodity
and peanut covered commodities in the
supply chain?
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Timeframes for Products Produced
Prior to the Implementation Date To
Clear the Channels of Commerce
In the interim final rule, fish and
shellfish covered commodities derived
from fish and shellfish caught or
harvested before December 6, 2004,
were exempt from the mandatory COOL
program. This provision was provided
to allow products without source
verification information produced prior
to the implementation date (i.e., April 4,
2005) to clear the channels of
commerce. Since harvest is a key
component of determining origin, this
provision allowed suppliers time to
develop the necessary verification and
recordkeeping systems to comply with
the mandatory COOL program. That
being said, should specific timeframes
for exempting beef, lamb, pork,
perishable agricultural commodity and
peanut covered commodities without
verifiable records produced prior to an
implementation date be established in
this proposed rule? If so, what should be
the specific timeframe for each covered
commodity?
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.
Dated: June 14, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 07–3029 Filed 6–15–07; 8:53 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 905 and 923
[Docket Nos. AMS–FV–07–0017; FV07–905–
610 Review; and AMS–FV–07–0018; FV07–
923–610 Review]
Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and
Tangelos Grown in Florida; and Sweet
Cherries Grown in Designated
Counties in Washington; Section 610
Reviews
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of review and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces
that the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) plans to review Marketing Order
905 (Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines,
and Tangelos Grown in Florida), and
Marketing Order 923 (Sweet Cherries
Grown in Designated Counties in
Washington) under the criteria
contained in section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Written comments on this notice
must be received by August 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this notice of review.
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
Internet: https://www.regulations.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
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christian Nissen, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA,
Southeast Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, Winter Haven, Florida;
Telephone: (863) 324–3375; Fax: (863)
325–8793; or e-mail:
Christian.Nissen@usda.gov regarding
the Florida citrus marketing order; and
Robert Curry, Northwest Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA,
Portland, Oregon; Telephone: (503) 326–
2724; Fax: (503) 326–7440; or e-mail:
Robert.Curry@usda.gov regarding the
Washington sweet cherry marketing
order.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marketing
Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part
905), regulates the handling of oranges,
grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos
grown in Florida. Marketing Order No.
923, as amended (7 CFR part 923),
regulates the handling of sweet cherries
grown in designated counties in
Washington. These marketing orders are
effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
(AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–
674).
AMS initially published in the
Federal Register on February 18, 1999
(64 FR 8014), its plan to review certain
regulations, including Marketing Order
Nos. 905 and 923, under criteria
contained in section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601–612). Due to certain changes
and additions, updated plans were
published in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), August 14,
2003 (68 FR 48574), and finally on
March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). Because
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:23 Jun 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
many AMS regulations impact small
entities, AMS has decided, as a matter
of policy, to review certain regulations
which, although they may not meet the
threshold requirement under section
610 of the RFA, warrant review.
The purpose of the review will be to
determine whether the marketing orders
for Florida citrus and Washington sweet
cherries should be continued without
change, amendment, or termination
(consistent with the objectives of the
AMAA) to minimize the impacts on
small entities. In conducting these
reviews, AMS will consider the
following factors: (1) The continued
need for each of the marketing orders;
(2) the nature of complaints or
comments received from the public
concerning these marketing orders; (3)
the complexity of these marketing
orders; (4) the extent to which these
marketing orders overlap, duplicate, or
conflict with other Federal rules, and, to
the extent feasible, with State and local
governmental rules; and (5) the length of
time since these marketing orders have
been evaluated, or the degree to which
technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the areas
affected by both of these marketing
orders.
Written comments, views, opinions,
and other information regarding the
impact the Florida citrus and
Washington sweet cherry marketing
orders have on small businesses are
invited.
Dated: June 14, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–11929 Filed 6–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 916 and 917
[Docket No. AMS–FV–07–0053; FV07–916/
917–5 PR]
Nectarines and Peaches Grown in
California; Decreased Assessment
Rates
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule would decrease the
assessment rates established for the
Nectarine Administrative Committee
and the Peach Commodity Committee
(committees) for the 2007–08 and
subsequent fiscal periods from $0.21 to
$0.06 per 25-pound container or
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33919
container equivalent of nectarines and
peaches handled. The committees
locally administer the marketing orders
that regulate the handling of nectarines
and peaches grown in California.
Assessments upon nectarine and peach
handlers are used by the committees to
fund reasonable and necessary expenses
of the programs. The fiscal period runs
from March 1 through the last day of
February. The assessment rates would
remain in effect indefinitely unless
modified, suspended, or terminated.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 2, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be
sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing
Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237,
Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202)
720–8938; or Internet: https://
www.regulations.gov. 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.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Garcia, Marketing Specialist, or
Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager,
California Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–
5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or e-mail:
Jennifer.Garcia3@usda.gov or
Kurt.Kimmel@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.
This rule
is issued under Marketing Order Nos.
916 and 917, both as amended (7 CFR
parts 916 and 917), regulating the
handling of nectarines and peaches
grown in California, respectively,
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘orders.’’
The orders 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM
20JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33918-33919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11929]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 905 and 923
[Docket Nos. AMS-FV-07-0017; FV07-905-610 Review; and AMS-FV-07-0018;
FV07-923-610 Review]
Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida;
and Sweet Cherries Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Section
610 Reviews
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of review and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces that the Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) plans to review Marketing Order 905 (Oranges, Grapefruit,
Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida), and Marketing Order 923
(Sweet Cherries Grown in Designated Counties in Washington) under the
criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA).
[[Page 33919]]
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by August 20,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this notice of review. 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 Internet: https://
www.regulations.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 may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Nissen, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Southeast Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, Winter Haven, Florida; Telephone: (863) 324-3375; Fax: (863)
325-8793; or e-mail: Christian.Nissen@usda.gov regarding the Florida
citrus marketing order; and Robert Curry, Northwest Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, USDA, Portland, Oregon; Telephone: (503) 326-2724; Fax:
(503) 326-7440; or e-mail: Robert.Curry@usda.gov regarding the
Washington sweet cherry marketing order.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR
part 905), regulates the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines,
and tangelos grown in Florida. Marketing Order No. 923, as amended (7
CFR part 923), regulates the handling of sweet cherries grown in
designated counties in Washington. These marketing orders are effective
under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674).
AMS initially published in the Federal Register on February 18,
1999 (64 FR 8014), its plan to review certain regulations, including
Marketing Order Nos. 905 and 923, under criteria contained in section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Due to
certain changes and additions, updated plans were published in the
Federal Register on January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), August 14, 2003 (68 FR
48574), and finally on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). Because many AMS
regulations impact small entities, AMS has decided, as a matter of
policy, to review certain regulations which, although they may not meet
the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA, warrant review.
The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the
marketing orders for Florida citrus and Washington sweet cherries
should be continued without change, amendment, or termination
(consistent with the objectives of the AMAA) to minimize the impacts on
small entities. In conducting these reviews, AMS will consider the
following factors: (1) The continued need for each of the marketing
orders; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the
public concerning these marketing orders; (3) the complexity of these
marketing orders; (4) the extent to which these marketing orders
overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal rules, and, to the
extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (5) the
length of time since these marketing orders have been evaluated, or the
degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have
changed in the areas affected by both of these marketing orders.
Written comments, views, opinions, and other information regarding
the impact the Florida citrus and Washington sweet cherry marketing
orders have on small businesses are invited.
Dated: June 14, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E7-11929 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
