Handling Regulations for Leafy Greens Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 56678-56680 [E7-19629]
Download as PDF
56678
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 192 / Thursday, October 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
permanently reduced to the average
amount entered during those five years.
These provisions are intended to
provide a strong incentive for
companies with historical licenses to
utilize their licenses.
The current regulation permitted the
Secretary of Agriculture to suspend the
historical license reduction provisions
applicable prior to 1999. In 1998, the
Secretary published a notice in the
Federal Register suspending these
provisions for five years, thereby
delaying their implementation until
2004. The provisions were suspended in
order to ‘‘provide adequate time for
historical licensees of European Union
(EU) cheeses to adjust to changing
market conditions; to find alternative
suppliers of cheese in the EU; and to
develop new markets to enable
importers to fully utilize their historical
licenses for EU cheese.’’ FAS also noted:
‘‘The suspension is consistent with the
intent of the U.S.-EU Uruguay Round
bilateral agreement on maximizing
utilization of U.S. licenses for EU
cheese.’’
However, current market conditions
have again prompted the need for a
temporary suspension of the historical
license reduction provisions. The
production of certain cheeses in the EU,
particularly Swiss cheese, has declined
primarily due to a reduction in
subsidies. Other cheeses, particularly
processed Gruyere cheese, have
declined in production primarily due to
a change in consumer preferences and
market demand. And finally, production
of industrial grade low-fat cheeses has
declined precipitously due to a switch
to more profitable, consumer-oriented
cheeses. Additionally, the expansion of
the EU from 15 to 27 countries has
diminished the availability of milk for
cheese production and reduced
availability of cheese for export.
This temporary suspension is
intended to improve program
administration and reflect changes in
the markets for cheese and other dairy
products subject to import licensing
requirements. The historical licenses
provide for orderly importation of a
wide variety of cheeses and permit
companies to invest in market
development with some assurance of
future ability to provide specific types
of cheese.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 6
Agricultural commodities, Cheese,
Dairy products, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons described in the
preamble, the Department of Agriculture
proposes to amend 7 CFR part 6 as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Oct 03, 2007
Jkt 214001
PART 6—IMPORT QUOTAS AND FEES
1. The authority citation for part 6
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 8, 65 Stat. 75; 19 U.S.C.
1365.
2. Section 6.25 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) to read as
follows:
§ 6.25
Allocation of Licenses
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Beginning with the 2012 quota
year, a person who has surrendered
more than 50 percent of such historical
license in each of the prior three quota
years will thereafter be issued a license
in an amount equal to the average
annual quantity entered during those
three quota years; and
(ii) Beginning with the 2014 quota
year, a person who has surrendered
more than 50 percent of such historical
license in at least three of the prior five
quota years will thereafter be issued a
license in an amount equal to the
average annual quantity entered during
those five quota years.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 14, 2007.
Michael W. Yost,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 07–4780 Filed 10–1–07; 2:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410–10–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 962
[Docket No. AMS–FV–07–0090; FV07–962–
1 AN]
Handling Regulations for Leafy Greens
Under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) is issuing this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking in
response to industry interest in the
establishment of a marketing program to
address the handling of fresh and freshcut leafy green vegetables. The program
would allow packers, processors,
shippers, and marketers (collectively
referred to as handlers) to maintain the
quality of their products by reducing the
risk of pathogenic contamination during
the production and handling of leafy
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
greens. Authorities and regulations
under the program would not supplant
those of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which is
responsible for ensuring that foods are
safe, wholesome, and sanitary.
Comments are being sought from the
public, particularly from growers,
handlers, buyers, and sellers of leafy
green commodities, regarding whether
to issue such regulations under an AMS
marketing program and if so, the
possible substance and implementation
of the program.
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning the issues contained in this
notice. 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
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:
Laurel May or Kathleen Finn, 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:
laurel.may@usda.gov or
kathy.finn@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
advance notice of proposed rulemaking
invites comments on a potential
regulatory program intended to
maintain the quality of leafy green
commodities by reducing the risk of
pathogenic contamination during their
production and handling. AMS is
considering implementation of a
marketing agreement (agreement) in
response to heightened public and
industry concern about the safe
production and handling of leafy greens.
Under the program being considered,
handlers could voluntarily enter into
the agreement, but signatories would
then be required to comply with the
agreement’s regulations, which would
specify Best Practices for minimizing
the risk of pathogenic contamination of
leafy greens. The Best Practices could
include commodity-specific production
and handling guidelines that would be
developed in cooperation with the
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 192 / Thursday, October 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
industry and based upon FDA’s
voluntary Guide to Minimize Microbial
Food Safety Hazards in Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables, Guide to Minimize Microbial
Food Safety Hazards in Fresh-cut Fruits
and Vegetables, and other FDA-issued
guidance (https://www.fda.gov).
The agreement could include a
compliance certification and
verification program. For example,
handlers could be required to certify
that the leafy green products they
handle are produced in accordance with
the specified guidelines. Handlers
would further certify that the shipping,
processing, and packing of their leafy
green products meet the agreement’s
specifications. Signatory handlers that
meet the agreement’s requirements may
be authorized to affix an official
certification mark to their leafy green
products. Use of the mark would certify
that the products bearing the mark have
been grown, harvested, packed,
shipped, processed, and/or handled in
accordance with the agreement’s
regulations.
Verification audits would be
conducted by the Federal or FederalState Inspection Program to ensure that
handlers have complied with the
prescribed requirements. Violation of
the requirements could disqualify a
non-compliant handler from using the
mark for a certain period of time.
In addition to handling regulations,
the agreement could include consumer
education, production research, generic
promotion, or other programs,
depending upon the industry’s needs
and goals.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
would consider the economic impact
that implementation of the proposed
agreement would have on small entities
and would prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for inclusion in any
subsequent rulemaking action. The
informational impact of this action
would also be considered under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Any action
undertaken as a result of this advance
notice would be reviewed by USDA
under Executive Orders 12866 and
12988.
AMS is considering establishment of
a marketing agreement rather than a
marketing order (order), which is
another regulatory program structure
available through AMS. Below is a brief
comparison of these two regulatory
instruments, which is intended to allow
interested persons a way to distinguish
between an agreement and an order so
they may better be able to provide
comments to USDA.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Oct 03, 2007
Jkt 214001
Marketing Orders and Agreements
The Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to
as the ‘‘Act,’’ authorizes the
implementation of Federal marketing
orders and agreements designed to
establish and maintain orderly
marketing conditions for the regulated
commodities. Orders and agreements
are implemented by AMS following
public notice and hearing at the request
of industries that demonstrate interest
in regulating the handling of
commodities produced within specified
geographic areas.
Orders may include the authority to
regulate the grade, size, quality,
packaging, inspection, and/or volume
handled of certain agricultural
commodities. Orders may also provide
for production and marketing research,
market development, and promotional
activities. Once established, compliance
with order regulations is mandatory for
all handlers of the affected commodity
within the production area. Orders must
be approved by growers in referenda
prior to implementation.
In comparison, agreements may be
entered into by growers, handlers,
processors, or others engaged in the
handling of any agricultural commodity
or its product. Signatories voluntarily
agree to participate in the programs and
comply with the regulations established
by the agreements, which may
include—but are not limited to—the
types authorized for orders.
Violation of order regulations may
result in the assessment of civil
penalties. The violation of orders and
agreements may result in enforcement
actions filed in the United States
District courts. Violation of agreements
could also result in suspension of
program privileges, such as use of the
program’s certification mark. Under the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities
Act, AMS is also authorized to
investigate and prosecute alleged
violations concerning misbranding or
mislabeling of commodity containers,
which would include misuse of a
certification mark developed under the
agreement. The FDA is responsible for
determining whether a regulated
product is causing an illness and may
recall products or take other actions to
halt the spread of that illness.
Orders and agreements offer
flexibility in designing and modifying
requirements to reflect changes in
production and handling practices. Both
are administered by committees of
representatives that are nominated by
the industries and selected by USDA.
Committees plan annual program
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56679
activities and submit budgets of
expenditures for approval by USDA.
Programs are funded by assessments,
which are levied on handlers and based
on the volume of commodity they
handle.
USDA provides oversight of
marketing programs to make sure the
orders and agreements operate in a
manner consistent with the Act. AMS
representatives attend committee
meetings and provide guidance to
program committees regarding
implementation of regulations and
conduct of committee business and
program activities. Regulations are
implemented following USDA approval
through the public rulemaking process.
The Federal or Federal-State Inspection
Programs inspect commodities, audit
handler procedures, and/or review
handler records to verify compliance
with mandatory regulations under
marketing orders and agreements.
Background
In mid-September 2006, the FDA
issued the first public alerts 1 of a multistate Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak
linked to fresh spinach grown in
California’s Salinas Valley. The
resulting recall was the largest ever for
leafy green products. The produce
industry responded quickly to the recall
in an effort to rebuild consumer
confidence and minimize the risk of
future outbreaks.
Investigations by the FDA and the
California Department of Health
Services, in cooperation with the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service,2
concluded that the E. coli
contamination might have been
attributed to environmental factors in
the production area. In response,
members of the California industry
initiated the establishment of a State
marketing agreement for handlers of
leafy greens (https://
www.caleafygreens.ca.gov/docs/
resources.asp), which became effective
February 10, 2007. Signatories to the
State agreement certify that the
production, handling, shipment, and
sale of leafy green products they handle
are compliant with commodity-specific
food safety guidelines adopted as Best
Practices under the agreement. The Best
Practices and its guidelines are designed
1 FDA Warning on Serious Foodborne E. coli
O157:H7 Outbreak; FDA News, September 14, 2006;
https://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/
NEW01450.html.
2 FDA Finalizes Report on 2006 Spinach
Outbreak, FDA News, March 23, 2007, https://
www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/
NEW01593.html.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
56680
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 192 / Thursday, October 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
to minimize the risk of pathogenic
contamination. Compliance with the
Best Practices is verified by agricultural
inspection agencies under contract with
the administrative Board established
under the agreement.
Although AMS has not received an
official proposal, members of the leafy
greens industry have expressed interest
in the establishment of similar
standards through a Federal marketing
program. Industry discussions have
focused on the need for a program with
national scope. In response, AMS is
considering the development of a
marketing agreement as previously
described in this document. AMS
believes that an agreement, rather than
an order, is more likely to meet the
needs of the produce industry across the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
Agreements offer greater flexibility in
designing regulatory programs since the
programs authorized for agreements are
not limited to those specified for orders
under the Act. Also, handlers
voluntarily enter into agreements, giving
individuals the opportunity to
determine whether they want to
participate, which may be more
responsive to the needs of a nationwide
industry.
As part of its review, AMS is seeking
public comments and proposals
regarding establishment of a nationwide
agreement for the handling of leafy
green products. If further development
is warranted by response to this request,
AMS would publish a notice of hearing
on a proposed marketing agreement in
the Federal Register in accordance with
the provisions of sections 556 and 557
of title 5 of the United States Code and
the applicable rules of practice and
procedure governing the formulation of
marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR
part 900). Public hearings regarding the
proposed agreement would be held
throughout the country, and handler
sign-ups would be conducted if the
agreement was approved by USDA.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Agency Request for Information
AMS is soliciting the views of
growers, handlers, buyers, sellers,
consumers, and other interested persons
on a possible marketing agreement to
regulate the handling of leafy green
commodities. Additionally, AMS is
interested in any information from
industry organizations that could assist
with the development of leafy green
produce industry profiles. The agency
will use information, comments, and
proposals received to evaluate whether
development of such an agreement for
the fifty States and the District of
Columbia should be pursued. In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Oct 03, 2007
Jkt 214001
particular, AMS invites responses to the
following questions:
(1) Would the handling of leafy greens
be better addressed though regulations
under a voluntary marketing agreement
signed by handlers, or under a
mandatory marketing order regulating
handlers and approved by a producer
referendum?
(2) Would such a program be better
implemented on a national or a regional
basis?
(3) How should the United States be
subdivided into smaller regions for the
purposes of committee representation
and program administration?
(4) How should committee
membership be allocated to adequately
represent the interests of industry
throughout all regions of the United
States?
(5) What process should the
committee follow to recommend
regulations appropriate to the various
regions? For example, would regulations
for handling leafy greens on the east
coast differ from those on the west
coast, and if so, how should the
administrative committee address the
differences while developing
recommendations for regulations?
(6) What specific problems or issues
should be addressed by such a
marketing program?
(7) Would Best Practices based upon
FDA guidelines be the best criteria for
regulation of leafy green handling, or are
there other criteria available that might
better meet the industry’s needs?
(8) Which specific leafy green
commodities should be included under
the program’s handling regulations?
(9) What are potential obstacles to the
implementation of such a marketing
program? For example, would distance
make it impractical for the committee to
meet frequently? Might regional
subcommittees be appointed to meet
more frequently and consider local
matters for presentation at annual
national committee meetings?
(10) What are the potential costs
associated with the implementation of
such a program, including changes to
current production and handling
procedures, assessments, and audits?
(11) How would a marketing program
complement, duplicate, or conflict with
any other existing programs, such as
state food safety regulations? and
(12) Are there other issues and/or
suggestions about such a marketing
program?
All views are solicited so that every
aspect of this potential regulation may
be studied prior to formulating a
proposed rule, if warranted, by AMS.
This request for public comment does
not constitute notification that the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
agreement described in this document is
or will be proposed or adopted.
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow sufficient time for interested
parties to comment on a possible leafy
green marketing program. All timely
written comments received will be
considered before any subsequent
rulemaking action is undertaken.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Dated: October 1, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–19629 Filed 10–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 233
[Regulation GG; Docket No. R–1298]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 132
RIN 1505–AB78
Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful
Internet Gambling
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and
Departmental Offices, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of joint proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: This notice is published
jointly by the Departmental Offices of
the Department of the Treasury (the
‘‘Treasury’’) and the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System (the
‘‘Board’’) (collectively, the ‘‘Agencies’’)
and proposes rules to implement
applicable provisions of the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of
2006 (the ‘‘Act’’). In accordance with the
requirements of the Act, the proposed
rule designates certain payment systems
that could be used in connection with
unlawful Internet gambling transactions
restricted by the Act. The proposed rule
requires participants in designated
payment systems to establish policies
and procedures reasonably designed to
identify and block or otherwise prevent
or prohibit transactions in connection
with unlawful Internet gambling. As
required by the Act, the proposed rule
also exempts certain participants in
designated payment systems from the
requirements to establish such policies
and procedures because the Agencies
believe it is not reasonably practical for
those participants to identify and block,
or otherwise prevent or prohibit,
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 192 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56678-56680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 962
[Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0090; FV07-962-1 AN]
Handling Regulations for Leafy Greens Under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking in response to industry interest
in the establishment of a marketing program to address the handling of
fresh and fresh-cut leafy green vegetables. The program would allow
packers, processors, shippers, and marketers (collectively referred to
as handlers) to maintain the quality of their products by reducing the
risk of pathogenic contamination during the production and handling of
leafy greens. Authorities and regulations under the program would not
supplant those of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is
responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and sanitary.
Comments are being sought from the public, particularly from growers,
handlers, buyers, and sellers of leafy green commodities, regarding
whether to issue such regulations under an AMS marketing program and if
so, the possible substance and implementation of the program.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning the issues contained in this notice. 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 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: Laurel May or Kathleen Finn, 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:
laurel.may@usda.gov or kathy.finn@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking
invites comments on a potential regulatory program intended to maintain
the quality of leafy green commodities by reducing the risk of
pathogenic contamination during their production and handling. AMS is
considering implementation of a marketing agreement (agreement) in
response to heightened public and industry concern about the safe
production and handling of leafy greens.
Under the program being considered, handlers could voluntarily
enter into the agreement, but signatories would then be required to
comply with the agreement's regulations, which would specify Best
Practices for minimizing the risk of pathogenic contamination of leafy
greens. The Best Practices could include commodity-specific production
and handling guidelines that would be developed in cooperation with the
[[Page 56679]]
industry and based upon FDA's voluntary Guide to Minimize Microbial
Food Safety Hazards in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Guide to Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables, and
other FDA-issued guidance (https://www.fda.gov).
The agreement could include a compliance certification and
verification program. For example, handlers could be required to
certify that the leafy green products they handle are produced in
accordance with the specified guidelines. Handlers would further
certify that the shipping, processing, and packing of their leafy green
products meet the agreement's specifications. Signatory handlers that
meet the agreement's requirements may be authorized to affix an
official certification mark to their leafy green products. Use of the
mark would certify that the products bearing the mark have been grown,
harvested, packed, shipped, processed, and/or handled in accordance
with the agreement's regulations.
Verification audits would be conducted by the Federal or Federal-
State Inspection Program to ensure that handlers have complied with the
prescribed requirements. Violation of the requirements could disqualify
a non-compliant handler from using the mark for a certain period of
time.
In addition to handling regulations, the agreement could include
consumer education, production research, generic promotion, or other
programs, depending upon the industry's needs and goals.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would consider
the economic impact that implementation of the proposed agreement would
have on small entities and would prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for inclusion in any subsequent rulemaking action. The
informational impact of this action would also be considered under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Any action undertaken as a result of this
advance notice would be reviewed by USDA under Executive Orders 12866
and 12988.
AMS is considering establishment of a marketing agreement rather
than a marketing order (order), which is another regulatory program
structure available through AMS. Below is a brief comparison of these
two regulatory instruments, which is intended to allow interested
persons a way to distinguish between an agreement and an order so they
may better be able to provide comments to USDA.
Marketing Orders and Agreements
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act,'' authorizes the
implementation of Federal marketing orders and agreements designed to
establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions for the regulated
commodities. Orders and agreements are implemented by AMS following
public notice and hearing at the request of industries that demonstrate
interest in regulating the handling of commodities produced within
specified geographic areas.
Orders may include the authority to regulate the grade, size,
quality, packaging, inspection, and/or volume handled of certain
agricultural commodities. Orders may also provide for production and
marketing research, market development, and promotional activities.
Once established, compliance with order regulations is mandatory for
all handlers of the affected commodity within the production area.
Orders must be approved by growers in referenda prior to
implementation.
In comparison, agreements may be entered into by growers, handlers,
processors, or others engaged in the handling of any agricultural
commodity or its product. Signatories voluntarily agree to participate
in the programs and comply with the regulations established by the
agreements, which may include--but are not limited to--the types
authorized for orders.
Violation of order regulations may result in the assessment of
civil penalties. The violation of orders and agreements may result in
enforcement actions filed in the United States District courts.
Violation of agreements could also result in suspension of program
privileges, such as use of the program's certification mark. Under the
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, AMS is also authorized to
investigate and prosecute alleged violations concerning misbranding or
mislabeling of commodity containers, which would include misuse of a
certification mark developed under the agreement. The FDA is
responsible for determining whether a regulated product is causing an
illness and may recall products or take other actions to halt the
spread of that illness.
Orders and agreements offer flexibility in designing and modifying
requirements to reflect changes in production and handling practices.
Both are administered by committees of representatives that are
nominated by the industries and selected by USDA. Committees plan
annual program activities and submit budgets of expenditures for
approval by USDA. Programs are funded by assessments, which are levied
on handlers and based on the volume of commodity they handle.
USDA provides oversight of marketing programs to make sure the
orders and agreements operate in a manner consistent with the Act. AMS
representatives attend committee meetings and provide guidance to
program committees regarding implementation of regulations and conduct
of committee business and program activities. Regulations are
implemented following USDA approval through the public rulemaking
process. The Federal or Federal-State Inspection Programs inspect
commodities, audit handler procedures, and/or review handler records to
verify compliance with mandatory regulations under marketing orders and
agreements.
Background
In mid-September 2006, the FDA issued the first public alerts \1\
of a multi-state Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak linked to fresh
spinach grown in California's Salinas Valley. The resulting recall was
the largest ever for leafy green products. The produce industry
responded quickly to the recall in an effort to rebuild consumer
confidence and minimize the risk of future outbreaks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA Warning on Serious Foodborne E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak;
FDA News, September 14, 2006; https://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/
2006/NEW01450.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigations by the FDA and the California Department of Health
Services, in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,\2\
concluded that the E. coli contamination might have been attributed to
environmental factors in the production area. In response, members of
the California industry initiated the establishment of a State
marketing agreement for handlers of leafy greens (https://
www.caleafygreens.ca.gov/docs/resources.asp), which became effective
February 10, 2007. Signatories to the State agreement certify that the
production, handling, shipment, and sale of leafy green products they
handle are compliant with commodity-specific food safety guidelines
adopted as Best Practices under the agreement. The Best Practices and
its guidelines are designed
[[Page 56680]]
to minimize the risk of pathogenic contamination. Compliance with the
Best Practices is verified by agricultural inspection agencies under
contract with the administrative Board established under the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FDA Finalizes Report on 2006 Spinach Outbreak, FDA News,
March 23, 2007, https://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/
NEW01593.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although AMS has not received an official proposal, members of the
leafy greens industry have expressed interest in the establishment of
similar standards through a Federal marketing program. Industry
discussions have focused on the need for a program with national scope.
In response, AMS is considering the development of a marketing
agreement as previously described in this document. AMS believes that
an agreement, rather than an order, is more likely to meet the needs of
the produce industry across the fifty States and the District of
Columbia. Agreements offer greater flexibility in designing regulatory
programs since the programs authorized for agreements are not limited
to those specified for orders under the Act. Also, handlers voluntarily
enter into agreements, giving individuals the opportunity to determine
whether they want to participate, which may be more responsive to the
needs of a nationwide industry.
As part of its review, AMS is seeking public comments and proposals
regarding establishment of a nationwide agreement for the handling of
leafy green products. If further development is warranted by response
to this request, AMS would publish a notice of hearing on a proposed
marketing agreement in the Federal Register in accordance with the
provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code
and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). Public
hearings regarding the proposed agreement would be held throughout the
country, and handler sign-ups would be conducted if the agreement was
approved by USDA.
Agency Request for Information
AMS is soliciting the views of growers, handlers, buyers, sellers,
consumers, and other interested persons on a possible marketing
agreement to regulate the handling of leafy green commodities.
Additionally, AMS is interested in any information from industry
organizations that could assist with the development of leafy green
produce industry profiles. The agency will use information, comments,
and proposals received to evaluate whether development of such an
agreement for the fifty States and the District of Columbia should be
pursued. In particular, AMS invites responses to the following
questions:
(1) Would the handling of leafy greens be better addressed though
regulations under a voluntary marketing agreement signed by handlers,
or under a mandatory marketing order regulating handlers and approved
by a producer referendum?
(2) Would such a program be better implemented on a national or a
regional basis?
(3) How should the United States be subdivided into smaller regions
for the purposes of committee representation and program
administration?
(4) How should committee membership be allocated to adequately
represent the interests of industry throughout all regions of the
United States?
(5) What process should the committee follow to recommend
regulations appropriate to the various regions? For example, would
regulations for handling leafy greens on the east coast differ from
those on the west coast, and if so, how should the administrative
committee address the differences while developing recommendations for
regulations?
(6) What specific problems or issues should be addressed by such a
marketing program?
(7) Would Best Practices based upon FDA guidelines be the best
criteria for regulation of leafy green handling, or are there other
criteria available that might better meet the industry's needs?
(8) Which specific leafy green commodities should be included under
the program's handling regulations?
(9) What are potential obstacles to the implementation of such a
marketing program? For example, would distance make it impractical for
the committee to meet frequently? Might regional subcommittees be
appointed to meet more frequently and consider local matters for
presentation at annual national committee meetings?
(10) What are the potential costs associated with the
implementation of such a program, including changes to current
production and handling procedures, assessments, and audits?
(11) How would a marketing program complement, duplicate, or
conflict with any other existing programs, such as state food safety
regulations? and
(12) Are there other issues and/or suggestions about such a
marketing program?
All views are solicited so that every aspect of this potential
regulation may be studied prior to formulating a proposed rule, if
warranted, by AMS. This request for public comment does not constitute
notification that the agreement described in this document is or will
be proposed or adopted.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow sufficient time for
interested parties to comment on a possible leafy green marketing
program. All timely written comments received will be considered before
any subsequent rulemaking action is undertaken.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: October 1, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19629 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P