Olives Grown in California; Establish Procedures To Meet Via Electronic Communications, 57691-57693 [2018-25006]
Download as PDF
57691
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 222
Friday, November 16, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 932
[Doc. No. AMS–SC–18–0061; SC18–932–1
PR]
Olives Grown in California; Establish
Procedures To Meet Via Electronic
Communications
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule invites
comments on a recommendation made
by the California Olive Committee
(Committee) to establish procedures to
conduct meetings and voting using
electronic means of communication.
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposed rule.
Comments must be sent to the Docket
Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
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
document number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal
Register and will be made available for
public inspection in the Office of the
Docket Clerk during regular business
hours, or can be viewed at: https://
www.regulations.gov. All comments
submitted in response to this proposed
rule will be included in the record and
will be made available to the public.
Please be advised that the identity of the
individuals or entities submitting the
comments will be made public on the
internet at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing
Specialist, California Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order and Agreement
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Nov 15, 2018
Jkt 247001
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487–
5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or Email:
PeterR.Sommers@usda.gov or
Terry.Vawter@usda.gov.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
Richard.Lower@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,
proposes to amend regulations issued to
carry out a marketing order as defined
in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is
issued under Marketing Agreement and
Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR part
932), regulating the handling of olives
grown in California. Part 932 (referred to
as the ‘‘Order’’) is effective under the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ The
California Olive Committee (Committee)
locally administers the Order and is
comprised of producers and handlers of
olives operating within the area of
production.
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in
conformance with Executive Orders
13563 and 13175. This action falls
within a category of regulatory actions
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive
Order 12866 review. Additionally,
because this proposed rule does not
meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action, it does not trigger the
requirements contained in Executive
Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum
titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing
Section 2 of the Executive Order of
January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This proposed rule is
not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any
handler subject to an order may file
with USDA a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with law
and request a modification of the order
or to be exempted therefrom. Such
handler is afforded the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. After the
hearing, USDA would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the
district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an
inhabitant, or has his or her principal
place of business, has jurisdiction to
review USDA’s ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than
20 days after the date of the entry of the
ruling.
On May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22831), the
Agricultural Marketing Service
published a final rule amending 7 CFR
part 900, the general regulations for
federal fruit, vegetable, and specialty
crop marketing agreements and orders,
to authorize the use of electronic means
of communication for meetings and
voting.
During a meeting on June 13, 2018,
the Committee unanimously
recommended adoption of modern
communication methods to conduct
Committee meetings, as outlined in the
Federal Register volume referenced
above. On August 17, 2018, the
Committee unanimously approved the
recommended procedures for the use of
communication technology. This
proposed rule would establish those
procedures in a new section § 932.136,
Use of communication technology in
Subpart B—Administrative
Requirements.
The Order currently states that the
Committee may only meet in assembled,
in-person, meetings and that voting may
only be conducted at meetings or via
mail or telegraph. Such limitations
present logistical problems for many
Committee members since membership
is widely distributed across California.
Some members travel over 400 miles to
attend a Committee meeting, thus
resulting in lost work hours for the
members and increased costs for the
Committee.
Allowing the Committee to conduct
meetings via electronic means of
communication would likely result in
increased member participation and
productivity at a reduced cost, as well
as greater potential for meeting quorum
and voting requirements.
The Committee recommended that
audio or audiovisual technology (AVT)
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
57692
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
that facilitates open communication and
effectively assembles Committee
members be used to conduct meetings
by AVT or partial in-person meetings
(meaning some members not present
participate in an in-person meeting via
technology). These meetings would be
subject to the same quorum and voting
requirements currently in effect for inperson meetings under § 932.36. These
requirements define a quorum as a
majority of the 16-member Committee,
of which at least half are producer
members and half are handler members.
Voting requirements state that a passing
recommendation must receive a
majority vote, with at least half of the
voting members representing producers
and half representing handlers. For
recommendations regarding grade and
size, a minimum of ten votes
representing five producer and five
handler members are necessary for
approval. The requirements further state
that issues to be voted on shall be
explained accurately and fully, and that
all votes cast will be confirmed through
a roll call.
Regarding casting votes electronically
or by email, the Committee proposed
that such votes be subject to the same
requirements currently in effect for mail
voting in § 932.36. These requirements
state that advanced notice, as well as an
accurate, full and identical description
of the issues to be voted on, be given to
all members. For a recommendation to
pass, at least 14 affirmative votes
representing seven producer and seven
handler members are required.
The Committee recommended these
changes to provide an opportunity to
conduct meetings more efficiently and
cost-effectively; use of audio and or
audiovisual communication technology
would result in time and cost savings to
the Committee and its members by
allowing for meetings to be conducted
with all or a portion of its membership
attending by audio and or AVT.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this
action on small entities. Accordingly,
AMS has prepared this initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in
order that small businesses will not be
unduly or disproportionately burdened.
Marketing orders issued pursuant to the
Act, and rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Nov 15, 2018
Jkt 247001
small entities acting on their own
behalf.
There are approximately 1,100
producers of olives in the production
area and two handlers subject to
regulation under the Order. Small
agricultural producers are defined by
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) as those having annual receipts
less than $750,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual receipts are less
than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) information,
the average price to producers for the
2017 crop year was $974.00 per ton, and
total assessable volume for the 2017
crop year was 83,799 tons. Based on
production, price paid to producers, and
the total number of California olive
producers, the average annual producer
revenue is less than $750,000 ($974.00
times 83,799 tons equals $81,620,226,
divided by 1,100 producers equals an
average annual producer revenue of
$74,200). Based on Committee data,
both handlers may be classified as large
entities under the SBA’s definitions
because their annual receipts are greater
than $7,500,000.
This proposed rule would not impose
additional costs on handlers or
producers of any size. Committee
members are expected to see a reduction
in their travel expenses and time lost
from work in order to attend Committee
meetings in person. Thus, this proposed
rule would reduce the cost burden on
both handlers and producers.
The Committee considered the
alternative of making no changes to the
regulations. However, it was determined
that by taking no action, the Committee
would be unnecessarily limiting the
participation of some members due to
time constraints and travel
considerations. Therefore, the
Committee determined that
recommending this change was in the
best interest of the Committee, its
members, and the industry.
Like all Committee meetings, the June
13, 2018, meeting was public and was
widely publicized throughout the
production area. All entities, both large
and small, were able to express their
views on this issue and participate in
Committee deliberations. Following the
meeting, ballots along with the
proposed procedures were sent to all
Committee members on July 31, 2018,
and the mail vote concluded on August
17, 2018. The proposal received
unanimous support.
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information collection impacts of this
action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 Vegetable
Crops. No changes in those
requirements would be necessary as a
result of this action. Should any changes
become necessary, they would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements on either small or large
California olive handlers. As with all
Federal marketing order programs,
reports and forms are periodically
reviewed to reduce information
requirements and duplication by
industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 932 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Add § 932.136 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 932.136 Use of communication
technology.
The Committee may conduct meetings
by any means of audio and/or
audiovisual communication technology
available that effectively assembles
members and alternates, and facilitates
open communication; Provided, That,
quorum and voting requirements
specified in § 932.36 for physically
assembled meetings shall apply. The
Committee may also vote electonically;
Provided, That, such voting shall be
subject to the same requirements
specified for mail voting in § 932.36.
Dated: November 9, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–25006 Filed 11–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Parts 103, 120, and 121
RIN 3245–AG74
Express Loan Programs; Affiliation
Standards
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
On September 28, 2018, the
U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register to
solicit public comments on, among
other things, Express loan programs and
affiliation standards. This document
announces the extension of the current
comment period for an additional 15
business days until December 18, 2018.
DATES: The comment period for the
notice of proposed rulemaking
published on September 28, 2018 (83 FR
49001) is extended until December 18,
2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 3245–AG74, by any of
the following methods: (1) Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments;
or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S.
Small Business Administration, Attn:
Kimberly Chuday or Thomas Heou,
Office of Financial Assistance, 409
Third Street SW, 8th Floor, Washington,
DC 20416. SBA will post all comments
to this notice of proposed rulemaking on
https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish
to submit confidential business
information (CBI) as defined in the User
Notice at https://www.regulations.gov,
tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:48 Nov 15, 2018
Jkt 247001
you must submit such information to
the U.S. Small Business Administration,
Attn: Kimberly Chuday or Thomas
Heou, Office of Financial Assistance,
409 Third Street SW, 8th Floor,
Washington, DC 20416. Highlight the
information that you consider to be CBI
and explain why you believe SBA
should hold this information as
confidential. SBA will review your
information and determine whether it
will make the information public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Carpenter, Acting Chief, 7(a)
Policy & Program Branch, U.S. Small
Business Administration, Office of
Financial Assistance, 409 3rd Street SW,
8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416;
telephone: (202) 619–1654; email:
robert.carpenter@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 28, 2018, SBA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking at 83 FR
49001 to solicit comments on the
Express loan program, affiliation
standards, and other miscellaneous
amendments to SBA business loan
programs. This proposed rulemaking,
which is identified by RIN 3245–AG74,
is also available at https://
www.regulations.gov/
searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=SBA2018-0009&fp=true&ns=true.
SBA received a formal request from
several trade associations that represent
participants in SBA’s business loan
programs to extend the comment period
on this proposed rulemaking for an
additional 60 days. After considering
the request, SBA decided to extend the
comment period an additional 15
business days until December 18, 2018.
This extension will give commenters
additional time to consider the
proposed rulemaking and submit
comments.
Dianna L. Seaborn,
Director, Office of Financial Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2018–25037 Filed 11–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 609
RIN 3084–AB54]
Military Credit Monitoring
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for public comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
is publishing for comment a proposed
rule to implement the credit monitoring
provisions applicable to active duty
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57693
military consumers in section 302 of the
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief,
and Consumer Protection Act, which
amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA). That section requires
nationwide consumer reporting agencies
to provide a free electronic credit
monitoring service to active duty
military consumers, subject to certain
conditions. The proposed rule defines
‘‘electronic credit monitoring service,’’
‘‘contact information,’’ ‘‘material
additions or modifications to the file of
a consumer,’’ and ‘‘appropriate proof of
identity,’’ among other terms. It also
contains requirements on how
nationwide consumer reporting agencies
must verify that an individual is an
active duty military consumer.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before January 7, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a
comment online or on paper by
following the Request for Comment part
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below. Write ‘‘Military Credit
Monitoring Rulemaking, Matter No.
R811007’’ on your comment and file
your comment online at https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
militarycreditmonitoringnprm following
the instructions on the web-based form.
If you prefer to file your comment on
paper, mail your comment to the
following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite
CC–5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC
20580, or deliver your comment to the
following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW,
5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B),
Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanda Koulousias (202–326–3334),
Division of Privacy and Identity
Protection, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Federal Trade Commission,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Economic Growth, Regulatory
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
(‘‘the Act’’) was signed into law on May
24, 2018. Public Law 115–174. The Act,
among other things, amends section
605A of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681c–1 to
add a section 605A(k). Section
605A(k)(2) requires that nationwide
consumer reporting agencies provide
free electronic credit monitoring
services to active duty military
consumers.
Section 605A(k)(3) of the FCRA
requires the Commission to issue a
E:\FR\FM\16NOP1.SGM
16NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57691-57693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25006]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57691]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 932
[Doc. No. AMS-SC-18-0061; SC18-932-1 PR]
Olives Grown in California; Establish Procedures To Meet Via
Electronic Communications
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites comments on a recommendation made
by the California Olive Committee (Committee) to establish procedures
to conduct meetings and voting using electronic means of communication.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket
Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program,
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 document number and
the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will
be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket
Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this
proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available
to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals
or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet
at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist,
or Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, California Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops
Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or
Email: [email protected] or [email protected].
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491,
Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,
proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as
defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating
the handling of olives grown in California. Part 932 (referred to as
the ``Order'') is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as
the ``Act.'' The California Olive Committee (Committee) locally
administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of
olives operating within the area of production.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule
in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls
within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition
of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the
requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order
of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition
stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and
request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such
handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition.
After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides
that the district court of the United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
On May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22831), the Agricultural Marketing Service
published a final rule amending 7 CFR part 900, the general regulations
for federal fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements
and orders, to authorize the use of electronic means of communication
for meetings and voting.
During a meeting on June 13, 2018, the Committee unanimously
recommended adoption of modern communication methods to conduct
Committee meetings, as outlined in the Federal Register volume
referenced above. On August 17, 2018, the Committee unanimously
approved the recommended procedures for the use of communication
technology. This proposed rule would establish those procedures in a
new section Sec. 932.136, Use of communication technology in Subpart
B--Administrative Requirements.
The Order currently states that the Committee may only meet in
assembled, in-person, meetings and that voting may only be conducted at
meetings or via mail or telegraph. Such limitations present logistical
problems for many Committee members since membership is widely
distributed across California. Some members travel over 400 miles to
attend a Committee meeting, thus resulting in lost work hours for the
members and increased costs for the Committee.
Allowing the Committee to conduct meetings via electronic means of
communication would likely result in increased member participation and
productivity at a reduced cost, as well as greater potential for
meeting quorum and voting requirements.
The Committee recommended that audio or audiovisual technology
(AVT)
[[Page 57692]]
that facilitates open communication and effectively assembles Committee
members be used to conduct meetings by AVT or partial in-person
meetings (meaning some members not present participate in an in-person
meeting via technology). These meetings would be subject to the same
quorum and voting requirements currently in effect for in-person
meetings under Sec. 932.36. These requirements define a quorum as a
majority of the 16-member Committee, of which at least half are
producer members and half are handler members. Voting requirements
state that a passing recommendation must receive a majority vote, with
at least half of the voting members representing producers and half
representing handlers. For recommendations regarding grade and size, a
minimum of ten votes representing five producer and five handler
members are necessary for approval. The requirements further state that
issues to be voted on shall be explained accurately and fully, and that
all votes cast will be confirmed through a roll call.
Regarding casting votes electronically or by email, the Committee
proposed that such votes be subject to the same requirements currently
in effect for mail voting in Sec. 932.36. These requirements state
that advanced notice, as well as an accurate, full and identical
description of the issues to be voted on, be given to all members. For
a recommendation to pass, at least 14 affirmative votes representing
seven producer and seven handler members are required.
The Committee recommended these changes to provide an opportunity
to conduct meetings more efficiently and cost-effectively; use of audio
and or audiovisual communication technology would result in time and
cost savings to the Committee and its members by allowing for meetings
to be conducted with all or a portion of its membership attending by
audio and or AVT.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,100 producers of olives in the production
area and two handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small
agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
information, the average price to producers for the 2017 crop year was
$974.00 per ton, and total assessable volume for the 2017 crop year was
83,799 tons. Based on production, price paid to producers, and the
total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer
revenue is less than $750,000 ($974.00 times 83,799 tons equals
$81,620,226, divided by 1,100 producers equals an average annual
producer revenue of $74,200). Based on Committee data, both handlers
may be classified as large entities under the SBA's definitions because
their annual receipts are greater than $7,500,000.
This proposed rule would not impose additional costs on handlers or
producers of any size. Committee members are expected to see a
reduction in their travel expenses and time lost from work in order to
attend Committee meetings in person. Thus, this proposed rule would
reduce the cost burden on both handlers and producers.
The Committee considered the alternative of making no changes to
the regulations. However, it was determined that by taking no action,
the Committee would be unnecessarily limiting the participation of some
members due to time constraints and travel considerations. Therefore,
the Committee determined that recommending this change was in the best
interest of the Committee, its members, and the industry.
Like all Committee meetings, the June 13, 2018, meeting was public
and was widely publicized throughout the production area. All entities,
both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue
and participate in Committee deliberations. Following the meeting,
ballots along with the proposed procedures were sent to all Committee
members on July 31, 2018, and the mail vote concluded on August 17,
2018. The proposal received unanimous support.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed
rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of
this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable
Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result
of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive
handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and
specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions
about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the
previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received
will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
0
2. Add Sec. 932.136 to subpart B to read as follows:
[[Page 57693]]
Sec. 932.136 Use of communication technology.
The Committee may conduct meetings by any means of audio and/or
audiovisual communication technology available that effectively
assembles members and alternates, and facilitates open communication;
Provided, That, quorum and voting requirements specified in Sec.
932.36 for physically assembled meetings shall apply. The Committee may
also vote electonically; Provided, That, such voting shall be subject
to the same requirements specified for mail voting in Sec. 932.36.
Dated: November 9, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-25006 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P