Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E, 42963-42968 [2017-19434]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
assessment bodies for testing ATVs
designed or intended primarily for
children 12 years of age or younger. 75
FR 52616. Because the revisions to the
2010 edition of the ANSI/SVIA standard
would not substantially alter third-party
conformance testing requirements for
ATVs designed or intended primarily
for children 12 years of age or younger,
the current NOR for third-party testing
of youth ATVs will remain unchanged.
Thus, the Commission considers the
existing accreditations that the
Commission has accepted for testing to
the ATV standard also cover testing to
the revised ATV standard.
XI. Request for Comments
This NPR begins a rulemaking
proceeding under section 232 of the
CPSIA to amend the Commission’s
mandatory ATV standard to reference
the 2017 edition of the ANSI/SVIA
standard. We invite all interested
persons to submit comments on any
aspect of this proposal. During the
comment period, ANSI/SVIA 1–2017,
American National Standard for FourWheel All-Terrain Vehicles Equipment
Configuration, and Performance
Requirements, is available for
inspection at the CPSC’s Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone 301–504–7923.
Comments should be submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1420
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1420
continues to read as follows:
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
Authority: The Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. Law 110–314,
§ 232, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
2. In the second sentence of § 1420.1,
remove the words, ‘‘April 30, 2012,’’
and add in their place ‘‘(date 60 days
after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register).’’
■ 3. Revise § 1420.3 to read as follows:
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
Each ATV shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the American
National Standard for Four-Wheel AllTerrain Vehicles (American National
Standards Institute, Inc. ANSI/SVIA 1–
2017), approved on June 8, 2017. The
Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy
from Specialty Vehicle Institute of
America, 2 Jenner, Suite 150, Irvine, CA
92618–3806; telephone: 949–727–3727
ext.3023; www.svia.org. You may
inspect a copy at the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814, telephone: 301–504–7923, or at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–19341 Filed 9–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 112
RIN 0910–ZA50
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting,
Packing, and Holding of Produce for
Human Consumption; Extension of
Compliance Dates for Subpart E
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA, the Agency, or
we) is proposing to extend, for covered
produce other than sprouts, the dates for
compliance with the agricultural water
provisions in the Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and
Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption rule. We are proposing to
extend the compliance dates to address
questions about the practical
implementation of compliance with
certain provisions and to consider how
we might further reduce the regulatory
burden or increase flexibility while
SUMMARY:
PART 1420—REQUIREMENTS FOR
ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Requirements for four-wheel
[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0921]
Consumer protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Infants and
children, Information, Labeling, Law
enforcement, Recreation and recreation
areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety.
■
§ 1420.3
ATVs.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42963
continuing to achieve our regulatory
objectives, in keeping with the
Administration’s policies.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on this proposed rule
by November 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the extension of the compliance
period as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be
considered. Electronic comments must
be submitted on or before November 13,
2017. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept
comments until midnight Eastern Time
at the end of November 13, 2017.
Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper
submissions) will be considered timely
if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or
before that date.
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments submitted electronically,
including attachments, to https://
www.regulations.gov will be posted to
the docket unchanged. Because your
comment will be made public, you are
solely responsible for ensuring that your
comment does not include any
confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted,
such as medical information, your or
anyone else’s Social Security number, or
confidential business information, such
as a manufacturing process. Please note
that if you include your name, contact
information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your
comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
• If you want to submit a comment
with confidential information that you
do not wish to be made available to the
public, submit the comment as a
written/paper submission and in the
manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
Written/Paper Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as
follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
written/paper submissions): Dockets
Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments
submitted to the Dockets Management
Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
well as any attachments, except for
information submitted, marked and
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
42964
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
identified, as confidential, if submitted
as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket No. FDA–
2011–N–0921 for ‘‘Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and
Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption; Extension of Compliance
Dates for Subpart E.’’ Received
comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed
in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ‘‘Confidential
Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the
Dockets Management Staff between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
• Confidential Submissions—To
submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be
made publicly available, submit your
comments only as a written/paper
submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential
with a heading or cover note that states
‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The
Agency will review this copy, including
the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The
second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information
redacted/blacked out, will be available
for public viewing and posted on
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit
both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and
contact information to be made publicly
available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not
in the body of your comments and you
must identify this information as
‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked
as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed
except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20
and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA’s posting
of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access
the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/201523389.pdf.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or the
electronic and written/paper comments
received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS–317), Food and
Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1636.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This proposed extension of
compliance dates concerns one of the
seven foundational rules that we have
established in Title 21 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of
our implementation of the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub.
L. 111–353): ‘‘Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and
Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption’’ (the produce safety
regulation, published in the Federal
Register of November 27, 2015, 80 FR
74354) (https://www.fda.gov/fsma).
In the preamble of the final rule
establishing the produce safety
regulation, we stated that the produce
safety regulation would be effective on
January 26, 2016, and provided for
compliance dates of 1 to 6 years from
the effective date depending on farm
size, commodity, and provision(s) (see
table entitled ‘‘compliance dates’’ in the
preamble of the final rule establishing
the produce safety regulation, 80 FR
74354 at 74357, as corrected in a
technical amendment at 81 FR 26466,
May 3, 2016). (Some of the compliance
dates identified in the technical
amendment fall on weekends (i.e.,
January 26, 2019, is a Saturday and
January 26, 2020, is a Sunday) and
should therefore be read as referring to
the next business day (i.e., January 28,
2019, and January 27, 2020,
respectively). We use the latter dates
throughout this document.)
For the majority of agricultural water
provisions at subpart E (and for most of
the other provisions in the rule), with
respect to covered produce other than
sprouts, we provided compliance
periods of 4 years from the effective date
of the rule for very small businesses, 3
years for small businesses, and 2 years
for all other businesses. We provided an
additional 2 years beyond those
compliance periods for certain water
quality requirements in § 112.44 and
related provisions in §§ 112.45 and
112.46. See table 1.
In a final rule, ‘‘The Food and Drug
Administration Food Safety
Modernization Act: Extension and
Clarification of Compliance Dates for
Certain Provisions of Four
Implementing Rules’’ (81 FR 57784,
August 24, 2016) we also extended the
compliance date for certain ‘‘customer
provisions’’ in the produce safety
regulation (§ 112.2(b)(3)) and clarified
the compliance dates for certain
agricultural water testing provisions as
originally established in the produce
safety regulation.
TABLE 1—AS STATED IN PRODUCE SAFETY REGULATION, COMPLIANCE DATES FOR REQUIREMENTS IN SUBPART E (AGRICULTURAL WATER) FOR COVERED ACTIVITIES INVOLVING COVERED PRODUCE (EXCEPT SPROUTS SUBJECT TO SUBPART M)
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Compliance dates of 2–4 years applicable to the farm based on its size
Extended compliance date of additional 2 years beyond the compliance
date based on size of farm
§ 112.41 ....................................................................................................
§ 112.42 ....................................................................................................
§ 112.43 ....................................................................................................
§ 112.45(a) with respect to safe and adequate standard ........................
§ 112.46(a) ................................................................................................
§ 112.46(b)(1) with respect to untreated surface water ...........................
§ 112.47.
§ 112.48.
§ 112.49.
§ 112.50.
§ 112.44.
§ 112.45(a) with respect to § 112.44(a) criterion.
§ 112.45(b).
§ 112.46(b)(1) with respect to untreated ground water.
§ 112.46(b)(2) and (b)(3).
112.46(c).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
II. Proposed Extension of Subpart E
Compliance Dates for Produce Other
Than Sprouts
FDA has received feedback from
numerous stakeholders raising issues
regarding the practicality of some of the
agricultural water requirements in the
produce safety regulation as applied to
covered produce other than sprouts.
Many of these concerns relate to the
testing requirements for pre-harvest
agricultural water, which are different
for sprouts than they are for other types
of covered produce. We are proposing
this extension in light of the feedback
we have received and under Executive
Orders 13777, 13771, and 13563.
Additional time would allow us to
consider approaches to address these
issues, as well as opportunities there
may be to reduce the cost and enhance
the flexibility of these requirements
beyond those reflected in the final rule.
As part of this proposed extension, we
also propose to simplify the subpart E
compliance period structure such that
all the compliance dates for subpart E
provisions as applied to non-sprout
produce would occur at the same time,
retaining date staggering based on farm
42965
size. Accordingly, covered farms would
have 2 years beyond the previously
published compliance dates for the
water quality requirements in § 112.44
and related provisions in §§ 112.45 and
112.46, to comply with all of subpart E.
Put another way, we propose to extend
the compliance dates for provisions in
the first column of table 1 by 4 years,
and propose to extend the compliance
dates for provisions in the second
column of table 1 by 2 years, so that the
compliance dates for non-sprout
covered produce for all provisions of
subpart E would be those in table 2.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED COMPLIANCE DATES FOR REQUIREMENTS IN SUBPART E FOR COVERED ACTIVITIES INVOLVING
COVERED PRODUCE (EXCEPT SPROUTS SUBJECT TO SUBPART M)
Proposed time periods starting from the effective date of the November 27, 2015,
produce safety final rule (January 26, 2016)
Size of covered farm
Compliance period
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Very Small Business .........................................................
Small Business .................................................................
All Other Businesses ........................................................
We believe the simpler compliance
date structure would alleviate
confusion, and because we are
proposing it as part of a proposal to
provide additional time for compliance
with all of the provisions, we expect it
to alleviate burden. We do not
anticipate that the change would result
in any practical or logistical compliance
challenges. We request comment on
whether this change to the compliance
date structure would be helpful.
This proposed rule is limited in scope
to extending the compliance dates for
covered produce other than sprouts. The
proposed rule does not address the
underlying requirements in subpart E,
but only the compliance dates for those
requirements (for covered produce other
than sprouts). We will continue to work
with stakeholders on the issues raised
regarding the agricultural water
requirements.
Our goal is to complete this
rulemaking as quickly as possible.
However, we are aware that many farms
have been working well in advance of
their compliance dates to come into
compliance. As we continue to work
with stakeholders on issues raised
regarding the agricultural water
requirements, we intend to exercise
enforcement discretion for covered
produce other than sprouts relative to
the agricultural water provisions in
subpart E of the produce safety
regulation. This means that while we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
Compliance date
8 years ...............................
7 years ...............................
6 years ...............................
January 26, 2024.
January 26, 2023.
January 26, 2022.
are considering these issues, we do not
intend to enforce the requirements in
subpart E of the regulation for covered
produce other than sprouts. Thus, by
announcing we intend to exercise
enforcement discretion for covered
produce other than sprouts relative to
the agricultural water provisions in
subpart E, farms may choose to continue
with their current water testing
programs or allocate their resources
differently to avoid incurring additional
costs based on our proposal to extend
the agricultural water compliance dates.
And, as explained above, when we
finalize compliance dates, we intend to
continue to work with stakeholders to
address agricultural water questions and
with farms to prepare for compliance.
This proposed rule also would not
change the compliance dates for
sprouts. In the final produce safety
regulation, we provided staggered
compliance periods based on farm size
for covered activities involving sprouts.
The compliance date for activities
involving sprouts for very small
businesses is January 28, 2019. The
compliance date for activities involving
sprouts for small businesses is January
26, 2018. The compliance date for
activities involving sprouts for all other
businesses is January 26, 2017. Because
sprouts present a unique safety risk, the
final produce safety regulation
established sprout-specific requirements
on multiple topics, including
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
agricultural water. The agricultural
water requirements for sprouts are
different from the agricultural water
requirements for other produce
commodities (compare §§ 112.44(a)(1)
and 112.44(b)). Moreover, based on the
information available to us, many sprout
farms use municipal water for growing
activities; and under the produce safety
regulation, covered farms are not
required to test water from a public
supply when certain conditions are met
(see 21 CFR 112.46(a)(1) and (2)). We
also established earlier compliance
dates for sprouts than for other covered
produce, and the first compliance date
for covered sprout farms (January 26,
2017) has already passed. We have not
received any significant feedback from
sprout farms that subpart E has posed
particular challenges. Accordingly, we
are proposing to take no action with
regard to compliance dates for activities
involving sprouts and thus the
compliance dates for covered farms with
respect to sprouts are the original
compliance dates, including for the
agricultural water provisions in Subpart
E.
Table 3 summarizes the compliance
dates for the produce safety regulation
as they would be if this proposed rule
is finalized. Time periods start from
effective date of the produce safety rule
(January 26, 2016) except as otherwise
specified.
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Economic Analysis of Impacts
We have examined the impacts of this
proposed rule under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601–612), the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), and
Executive Order 13771 on Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs (January 30, 2017). Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 states the
importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs and burdens,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and harmonizing rules. We conclude
that this proposed rule would not
increase compliance costs and would
instead reduce compliance costs by
delaying certain compliance dates.
Moreover, it would serve an important
purpose of providing us an opportunity
to consider how to reduce burdens on
the public. We conclude that this
proposed rule is an economically
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
EP13SE17.001
42966
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866.
This rule would extend, for nonsprout covered produce, the compliance
date for all of the provisions of subpart
E to 4 years after the relevant farm’s
compliance date for all other provisions
of the produce safety regulation (which
varies based on establishment size). The
estimated costs and benefits accrued in
any given year of compliance with the
produce safety regulation, relative to the
first year of compliance, would not
change. However, because the
compliance dates for certain provisions
would be extended, the discounted
value of both total costs and total
benefits would decrease.
There would be a reduction in costs
(i.e., cost savings) associated with
extending, for non-sprout covered
produce, the compliance date for all of
the provisions of subpart E to 4 years
after the relevant farm’s compliance
date for the rest of the produce safety
regulation. With respect to their nonsprout covered produce, covered farms
would have 4 years from the compliance
date for the other provisions of produce
safety regulation to comply with the
provisions in subpart E. Thus, while all
initial start-up costs and recurring costs
would remain the same as estimated in
the final regulatory impact analysis for
the produce safety regulation (Ref. 1),
the annualized total costs, discounted at
3 percent over 10 years, would decrease
by about 3 percent from $404 million to
$392 million, resulting in a savings of
$12 million. No additional costs would
be incurred by state, local, and tribal
42967
governments or the private sector as a
result of this proposed rule.
There would be a reduction in
benefits associated with extending the
compliance dates as described
previously. Consumers eating nonsprout covered produce would not enjoy
the potential health benefits (i.e.,
reduced risk of illness) provided by the
provisions of subpart E until 2 to 4 years
(depending on the specific provision)
later than originally established in the
produce safety regulation. Thus, the
annualized total benefits to consumers,
discounted at 3 percent over 10 years,
would decrease by $108 million from
$1.033 billion to $925 million.
Estimated changes in benefits and costs
as a result of this proposed extension
are summarized in the following table.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN BENEFITS AND COSTS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSED RULE, ANNUALIZED
OVER 10 YEARS, IN MILLIONS OF 2016 DOLLARS
Costs to
industry under
2015 final rule
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Annualized 3% .................................................................................................
Annualized 7% .................................................................................................
Net Present Value 3% .....................................................................................
Net Present Value 7% .....................................................................................
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires us to analyze regulatory options
that would minimize any significant
impact of a rule on small entities when
‘‘the agency publishes a general notice
of proposed rulemaking.’’ (5 U.S.C.
601(2)). We have analyzed this proposed
rule under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and determined that, because it
would only extend certain compliance
dates for agricultural water provisions
in the produce safety regulation, it
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to
prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before issuing ‘‘any
rule that includes any Federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year.’’
The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $148 million, using the
most current (2016) Implicit Price
Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
We have determined that this proposed
rule would not result in an expenditure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
$404
382
3,443
2,681
in any year that meets or exceeds this
amount.
Executive Order 13771, entitled
Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January
30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive
Order 13771 requires an agency, unless
prohibited by law, to identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed
when the agency publicly proposes for
notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In
furtherance of this requirement, section
2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires
that the new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to
the extent permitted by law, be offset by
the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least two prior
regulations. This proposed rule is
expected to be an Executive Order
13771 deregulatory action. Details on
the estimated cost savings of this
proposed rule can be found in the rule’s
economic analysis.
For interested persons, the detailed
preliminary regulatory impact analysis
is available in the docket for this rule
(Ref. 2) at https://www.regulations.gov,
and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Costs to
industry with
the proposed
compliance
extension
$392
370
3,340
2,598
Benefits of
reduced risk of
illness under
2015 final rule
Benefits of
reduced risk of
illness with the
proposed
compliance
extension
$1,033
983
8,811
6,901
$925
874
7,886
6,143
IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR
25.30(j) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no
collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VI. Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA
has determined that the proposed rule
does not contain policies that have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Accordingly, we
conclude that the proposed rule does
not contain policies that have
federalism implications as defined in
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
42968
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the Executive order and, consequently,
a federalism summary impact statement
is not required.
VII. Executive Order 13175
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
We have analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13175. We
have determined that the proposed rule
does not contain policies that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Accordingly, we conclude that the
proposed rule does not contain policies
that have tribal implications as defined
in the Executive order and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:14 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
consequently, a tribal summary impact
statement is not required.
VIII. References
The following references are on
display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available
for viewing by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday; they are also available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site address, as of the date this
document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.
1. FDA, ‘‘Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting,
Packing and Holding of Produce for
Human Consumption.’’ November 2015.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Available at: https://www.fda.gov/
AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/
Reports/EconomicAnalyses/
ucm472310.htm.
2. FDA, ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Impact
Analysis, Preliminary Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting,
Packing, and Holding of Produce for
Human Consumption; Extension of
Compliance Dates for Subpart E;
Proposed Rule,’’ 2017. Available at:
https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
EconomicAnalyses/.
Dated: September 8, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017–19434 Filed 9–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
E:\FR\FM\13SEP1.SGM
13SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42963-42968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19434]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 112
[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921]
RIN 0910-ZA50
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for
Subpart E
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
proposing to extend, for covered produce other than sprouts, the dates
for compliance with the agricultural water provisions in the Standards
for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption rule. We are proposing to extend the compliance dates to
address questions about the practical implementation of compliance with
certain provisions and to consider how we might further reduce the
regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve
our regulatory objectives, in keeping with the Administration's
policies.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this proposed
rule by November 13, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the extension of the compliance
period as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will
not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before
November 13, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing
system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of
November 13, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for
written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').
Written/Paper Submissions
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and
[[Page 42964]]
identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in
``Instructions.''
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2011-N-0921 for ``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing,
and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance
Dates for Subpart E.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1636.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This proposed extension of compliance dates concerns one of the
seven foundational rules that we have established in Title 21 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) as part of our implementation of
the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. L. 111-353):
``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption'' (the produce safety regulation,
published in the Federal Register of November 27, 2015, 80 FR 74354)
(https://www.fda.gov/fsma).
In the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety
regulation, we stated that the produce safety regulation would be
effective on January 26, 2016, and provided for compliance dates of 1
to 6 years from the effective date depending on farm size, commodity,
and provision(s) (see table entitled ``compliance dates'' in the
preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation,
80 FR 74354 at 74357, as corrected in a technical amendment at 81 FR
26466, May 3, 2016). (Some of the compliance dates identified in the
technical amendment fall on weekends (i.e., January 26, 2019, is a
Saturday and January 26, 2020, is a Sunday) and should therefore be
read as referring to the next business day (i.e., January 28, 2019, and
January 27, 2020, respectively). We use the latter dates throughout
this document.)
For the majority of agricultural water provisions at subpart E (and
for most of the other provisions in the rule), with respect to covered
produce other than sprouts, we provided compliance periods of 4 years
from the effective date of the rule for very small businesses, 3 years
for small businesses, and 2 years for all other businesses. We provided
an additional 2 years beyond those compliance periods for certain water
quality requirements in Sec. 112.44 and related provisions in
Sec. Sec. 112.45 and 112.46. See table 1.
In a final rule, ``The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety
Modernization Act: Extension and Clarification of Compliance Dates for
Certain Provisions of Four Implementing Rules'' (81 FR 57784, August
24, 2016) we also extended the compliance date for certain ``customer
provisions'' in the produce safety regulation (Sec. 112.2(b)(3)) and
clarified the compliance dates for certain agricultural water testing
provisions as originally established in the produce safety regulation.
Table 1--As Stated in Produce Safety Regulation, Compliance Dates for
Requirements in Subpart E (Agricultural Water) for Covered Activities
Involving Covered Produce (Except Sprouts Subject to Subpart M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended compliance date of
Compliance dates of 2-4 years additional 2 years beyond the
applicable to the farm based on its compliance date based on size
size of farm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 112.41.......................... Sec. 112.44.
Sec. 112.42.......................... Sec. 112.45(a) with respect
to Sec. 112.44(a) criterion.
Sec. 112.43.......................... Sec. 112.45(b).
Sec. 112.45(a) with respect to safe Sec. 112.46(b)(1) with
and adequate standard. respect to untreated ground
water.
Sec. 112.46(a)....................... Sec. 112.46(b)(2) and (b)(3).
Sec. 112.46(b)(1) with respect to 112.46(c).
untreated surface water.
Sec. 112.47..........................
Sec. 112.48..........................
Sec. 112.49..........................
Sec. 112.50..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42965]]
II. Proposed Extension of Subpart E Compliance Dates for Produce Other
Than Sprouts
FDA has received feedback from numerous stakeholders raising issues
regarding the practicality of some of the agricultural water
requirements in the produce safety regulation as applied to covered
produce other than sprouts. Many of these concerns relate to the
testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water, which are
different for sprouts than they are for other types of covered produce.
We are proposing this extension in light of the feedback we have
received and under Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13563. Additional
time would allow us to consider approaches to address these issues, as
well as opportunities there may be to reduce the cost and enhance the
flexibility of these requirements beyond those reflected in the final
rule.
As part of this proposed extension, we also propose to simplify the
subpart E compliance period structure such that all the compliance
dates for subpart E provisions as applied to non-sprout produce would
occur at the same time, retaining date staggering based on farm size.
Accordingly, covered farms would have 2 years beyond the previously
published compliance dates for the water quality requirements in Sec.
112.44 and related provisions in Sec. Sec. 112.45 and 112.46, to
comply with all of subpart E. Put another way, we propose to extend the
compliance dates for provisions in the first column of table 1 by 4
years, and propose to extend the compliance dates for provisions in the
second column of table 1 by 2 years, so that the compliance dates for
non-sprout covered produce for all provisions of subpart E would be
those in table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Compliance Dates for Requirements in Subpart E for
Covered Activities Involving Covered Produce (Except Sprouts Subject to
Subpart M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed time periods starting from the
effective date of the November 27, 2015,
produce safety final rule (January 26,
Size of covered farm 2016)
-----------------------------------------
Compliance period Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Small Business........... 8 years.......... January 26, 2024.
Small Business................ 7 years.......... January 26, 2023.
All Other Businesses.......... 6 years.......... January 26, 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the simpler compliance date structure would alleviate
confusion, and because we are proposing it as part of a proposal to
provide additional time for compliance with all of the provisions, we
expect it to alleviate burden. We do not anticipate that the change
would result in any practical or logistical compliance challenges. We
request comment on whether this change to the compliance date structure
would be helpful.
This proposed rule is limited in scope to extending the compliance
dates for covered produce other than sprouts. The proposed rule does
not address the underlying requirements in subpart E, but only the
compliance dates for those requirements (for covered produce other than
sprouts). We will continue to work with stakeholders on the issues
raised regarding the agricultural water requirements.
Our goal is to complete this rulemaking as quickly as possible.
However, we are aware that many farms have been working well in advance
of their compliance dates to come into compliance. As we continue to
work with stakeholders on issues raised regarding the agricultural
water requirements, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion for
covered produce other than sprouts relative to the agricultural water
provisions in subpart E of the produce safety regulation. This means
that while we are considering these issues, we do not intend to enforce
the requirements in subpart E of the regulation for covered produce
other than sprouts. Thus, by announcing we intend to exercise
enforcement discretion for covered produce other than sprouts relative
to the agricultural water provisions in subpart E, farms may choose to
continue with their current water testing programs or allocate their
resources differently to avoid incurring additional costs based on our
proposal to extend the agricultural water compliance dates. And, as
explained above, when we finalize compliance dates, we intend to
continue to work with stakeholders to address agricultural water
questions and with farms to prepare for compliance.
This proposed rule also would not change the compliance dates for
sprouts. In the final produce safety regulation, we provided staggered
compliance periods based on farm size for covered activities involving
sprouts. The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for very
small businesses is January 28, 2019. The compliance date for
activities involving sprouts for small businesses is January 26, 2018.
The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for all other
businesses is January 26, 2017. Because sprouts present a unique safety
risk, the final produce safety regulation established sprout-specific
requirements on multiple topics, including agricultural water. The
agricultural water requirements for sprouts are different from the
agricultural water requirements for other produce commodities (compare
Sec. Sec. 112.44(a)(1) and 112.44(b)). Moreover, based on the
information available to us, many sprout farms use municipal water for
growing activities; and under the produce safety regulation, covered
farms are not required to test water from a public supply when certain
conditions are met (see 21 CFR 112.46(a)(1) and (2)). We also
established earlier compliance dates for sprouts than for other covered
produce, and the first compliance date for covered sprout farms
(January 26, 2017) has already passed. We have not received any
significant feedback from sprout farms that subpart E has posed
particular challenges. Accordingly, we are proposing to take no action
with regard to compliance dates for activities involving sprouts and
thus the compliance dates for covered farms with respect to sprouts are
the original compliance dates, including for the agricultural water
provisions in Subpart E.
Table 3 summarizes the compliance dates for the produce safety
regulation as they would be if this proposed rule is finalized. Time
periods start from effective date of the produce safety rule (January
26, 2016) except as otherwise specified.
[[Page 42966]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE17.001
III. Economic Analysis of Impacts
We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4), and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 states the
importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs and
burdens, and harmonizing rules. We conclude that this proposed rule
would not increase compliance costs and would instead reduce compliance
costs by delaying certain compliance dates. Moreover, it would serve an
important purpose of providing us an opportunity to consider how to
reduce burdens on the public. We conclude that this proposed rule is an
economically
[[Page 42967]]
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
This rule would extend, for non-sprout covered produce, the
compliance date for all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after
the relevant farm's compliance date for all other provisions of the
produce safety regulation (which varies based on establishment size).
The estimated costs and benefits accrued in any given year of
compliance with the produce safety regulation, relative to the first
year of compliance, would not change. However, because the compliance
dates for certain provisions would be extended, the discounted value of
both total costs and total benefits would decrease.
There would be a reduction in costs (i.e., cost savings) associated
with extending, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance date for
all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the relevant farm's
compliance date for the rest of the produce safety regulation. With
respect to their non-sprout covered produce, covered farms would have 4
years from the compliance date for the other provisions of produce
safety regulation to comply with the provisions in subpart E. Thus,
while all initial start-up costs and recurring costs would remain the
same as estimated in the final regulatory impact analysis for the
produce safety regulation (Ref. 1), the annualized total costs,
discounted at 3 percent over 10 years, would decrease by about 3
percent from $404 million to $392 million, resulting in a savings of
$12 million. No additional costs would be incurred by state, local, and
tribal governments or the private sector as a result of this proposed
rule.
There would be a reduction in benefits associated with extending
the compliance dates as described previously. Consumers eating non-
sprout covered produce would not enjoy the potential health benefits
(i.e., reduced risk of illness) provided by the provisions of subpart E
until 2 to 4 years (depending on the specific provision) later than
originally established in the produce safety regulation. Thus, the
annualized total benefits to consumers, discounted at 3 percent over 10
years, would decrease by $108 million from $1.033 billion to $925
million. Estimated changes in benefits and costs as a result of this
proposed extension are summarized in the following table.
Table 4--Summary of the Changes in Benefits and Costs as a Result of This Proposed Rule, Annualized Over 10
Years, in Millions of 2016 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of
Costs to Benefits of reduced risk
Costs to industry with reduced risk of illness
industry under the proposed of illness with the
2015 final compliance under 2015 proposed
rule extension final rule compliance
extension
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized 3%................................... $404 $392 $1,033 $925
Annualized 7%................................... 382 370 983 874
Net Present Value 3%............................ 3,443 3,340 8,811 7,886
Net Present Value 7%............................ 2,681 2,598 6,901 6,143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities when ``the agency publishes a general notice of proposed
rulemaking.'' (5 U.S.C. 601(2)). We have analyzed this proposed rule
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and determined that, because it
would only extend certain compliance dates for agricultural water
provisions in the produce safety regulation, it would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``any rule that includes
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148
million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. We have determined that this proposed rule
would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds
this amount.
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of
Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to
identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the
agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement,
section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the new incremental
costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least two prior regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated
cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic
analysis.
For interested persons, the detailed preliminary regulatory impact
analysis is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 2) at https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.
IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(j) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no collection of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VI. Federalism
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that
the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly,
we conclude that the proposed rule does not contain policies that have
federalism implications as defined in
[[Page 42968]]
the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required.
VII. Executive Order 13175
We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that
the proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, we conclude that the
proposed rule does not contain policies that have tribal implications
as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required.
VIII. References
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.
1. FDA, ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption.'' November 2015. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/ucm472310.htm.
2. FDA, ``Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Preliminary
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Analysis for the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and
Holding of Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance
Dates for Subpart E; Proposed Rule,'' 2017. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/.
Dated: September 8, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-19434 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P