Grapes Grown in Designated Area of Southeastern California and Imported Table Grapes; Removing Varietal Exemptions; Withdrawal, 57369-57370 [2019-23236]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57369
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 207
Friday, October 25, 2019
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 Parts 925 and 944
[Doc. No. AMS–SC–16–0009; SC16–925–2]
Grapes Grown in Designated Area of
Southeastern California and Imported
Table Grapes; Removing Varietal
Exemptions; Withdrawal
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Agriculture withdraws a proposed rule
recommended by the California Desert
Grape Administrative Committee
(Committee) to remove varietal
exemptions from the California table
grape marketing order and the table
grape import regulation as well as to
remove administrative exemptions
previously granted for certain varieties
of imported grapes. After reviewing and
considering the comments received, the
proposed rule is being withdrawn.
DATES: As of October 25, 2019, the
proposed rule published on June 23,
2017, at 82 FR 28589, is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maria Stobbe, 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:
Maria.Stobbe@ams.usda.gov or
Terry.Vawter@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
withdrawal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part
925), regulating the handling of grapes
grown in a designated area of
southeastern California. Part 925
(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 as
the ‘‘Act.’’ The Committee locally
administers the Order and is comprised
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Oct 24, 2019
Jkt 250001
of producers of California table grapes
grown in a designated area of
southeastern California, and a public
member.
This withdrawal is also issued under
section 8e of the Act, which provides
that whenever certain specific
commodities, including table grapes, are
regulated under a Federal marketing
order, imports of those commodities
into the United States are prohibited
unless they meet the same or
comparable quality, grade, size, and
maturity requirements as those in effect
for the domestically produced
commodity.
This action withdraws a proposed
rule published in the Federal Register
on June 23, 2017, (82 FR 28589) to
remove varietal exemptions from the
Order and import regulation as well as
to remove administrative exemptions
from the import regulation. Specifically,
the proposed rule would have removed
existing varietal exemptions (Emperor,
Calmeria, Almeria, and Ribier) from the
Order. As a result, all table grapes,
regardless of variety, grown in the
production area during the regulatory
period (April 10 through July 10 each
year) would have been subject to grade,
size, quality, maturity, pack, and
container requirements of the Order and
would have been subject to inspection
and certification requirements.
Additionally, the proposed rule
would have removed the same varietal
exemptions from the import regulation.
Accordingly, all table grapes imported
into the United States during the
regulatory period would have been
subject to grade, size, quality, and
maturity regulations specified in the
import regulation and would have been
subject to inspection and certification
requirements.
In conjunction with these changes,
the proposed rule would have removed
administrative exemptions from the
import regulation for sixteen imported
varieties (Italia Pirovano [Blanca Italia],
Christmas Rose, Muscatel, Barlinka,
Dauphine, Kyoho, Waltham Cross,
Alphonse Lavallee, Bien Donne,
Bonnoir [Bonheur], La Rochelle, Queen,
Rouge, Sonita, Tokay, and Red Globe).
During the proposed rule’s 60-day
comment period, fifteen comments were
received. All the comments may be
viewed on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Of the fifteen
comments received, one was in support,
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
thirteen were opposed, and one did not
pertain to the issue raised in the
proposed rule. The supportive comment
was from a California table grape
industry association and was in favor of
the proposed changes. Each of the
thirteen opposing commenters
represented an entity involved in the
importation or marketing of imported
table grapes: Six were from distributors
of imported grapes based in Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
California; two represented shipping
ports; three represented trade
associations; one was from an exporters’
association; and one was from a foreign
embassy.
The opposing comments noted that
the changes would result in job losses
as well as a substantive increase in
burden and costs to shippers and
exporters in handling and storage costs,
without adding quality benefits. The
commenters stated that this could lead
to reduced efficiency and vitality of
export operations. Commenters also
stated inspection delays and associated
costs are not warranted because
imported grapes do not compete on a
seeded vs seedless basis. Another
commenter noted that the changes
would represent a major barrier to trade
by eliminating exemptions, thereby
restricting the flow of table grapes to
market, causing economic harm to the
shipper and possibly the consumer of
table grapes.
Some commenters stated that the
proposed rule did not contain
quantifiable data that demonstrated
support for the removal of all grape
varietal exemptions from the Order and
that no evidence supported eliminating
previously exempted varieties shipped
and sold prior to the first availability of
the same comparable domestic varieties.
In addition, they stated that imported
grapes have not been shown to impact
prices on any of the domestically
produced exempted varieties.
Commenters also contended that the
proposed changes are not supported by
law or data and that it is not appropriate
to deviate from the long-standing agency
determination to exempt varieties not
domestically produced.
After reviewing and considering the
comments received, the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) has
determined that the proposed rule to
remove varietal exemptions from the
Order and the table grape import
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
57370
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 / Proposed Rules
regulation should not be finalized. AMS
intends to conduct outreach with the
California table grape industry
stakeholders and consider whether
changes will be proposed in the future.
Accordingly, the proposed rule to
remove varietal exemptions from the
Order and import regulation published
in the Federal Register on June 23,
2017, (82 FR 28589) is hereby
withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925
Grapes, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards,
Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit,
Limes, Olives, Oranges.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Dated: October 21, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–23236 Filed 10–24–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Parts 244 and 259
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2019–0144]
RIN 2105–AE47
Tarmac Delay Rule
Office of the Secretary (OST),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This rulemaking would
modify U.S. and foreign air carrier
obligations with respect to tarmac
delays and conform carrier obligations
with respect to departure delays with
the changes made to the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016. This
rulemaking would also make changes to
the notification requirements regarding
the status of the tarmac delay and the
opportunity to deplane as well as carrier
tarmac delay reporting and record
retention requirements.
DATES: Comments should be filed by
December 24, 2019. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may file comments
identified by the docket number DOT–
OST–2019–9144 by any of the following
methods:
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Oct 24, 2019
Jkt 250001
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number DOT–
OST–2019–0144 or the Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your
comment. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.) You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78), or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents and
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Patanaphan, Senior Trial Attorney
or Blane A. Workie, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of Aviation Enforcement
and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–
9342, 202–366–7152 (fax),
ryan.patanaphan@dot.gov or
blane.workie@dot.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
domestic flights and four hours for
international flights without providing
passengers the option to deplane subject
to exceptions for safety, security, and
Air Traffic Control related reasons.
Carriers’ plans must also contain
assurances such as assurances that
carriers will provide adequate food and
drinking water within two hours of the
aircraft being delayed on the tarmac,
provide notifications regarding the
status of the delay and the opportunity
to deplane if the opportunity to deplane
exists, maintain operable lavatories and,
if necessary, provide medical attention.
Current Tarmac Delay Requirements
On April 25, 2011, the Department
published the ‘‘Enhancing Airline
Passenger Protections’’ rule to improve
the air travel environment for
passengers.1 Under this rule, carriers are
required to adopt and adhere to tarmac
delay contingency plans. DOT’s
regulations require that these plans
contain assurances that covered carriers
will not allow aircraft to remain on the
tarmac for more than three hours for
Need for a Rulemaking
Section 2308 of the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public
Law 114–190 (FAA Extension Act)
requires the Department to issue
regulations and take other actions
necessary to carry out the amendments
made by Section 2308. These
amendments include new language
requiring air carriers to begin to return
an aircraft to a suitable disembarkation
point no later than 3 or 4 hours after the
main aircraft door is closed for
departure. In response, the Department’s
Office of Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings (Enforcement Office) issued
an ‘‘Enforcement Policy on Extended
Tarmac Delays’’ (Enforcement Policy) 2
on November 22, 2016. The
Enforcement Policy states that, as a
matter of prosecutorial discretion, the
Department will not take enforcement
action against U.S. and foreign air
carriers with respect to departure delays
if U.S. and foreign air carriers begin to
return the aircraft to a gate or another
suitable disembarkation point no later
than three hours for domestic flights
and no later than four hours for
international flights after the main
aircraft door has closed in preparation
for departure. The Enforcement Policy
further provides that the process of
beginning to return to the gate or a
suitable disembarkation point varies
based on whether the aircraft is in a
carrier-controlled part of the airport or
a non-carrier-controlled part of the
airport. The Enforcement Policy is
intended to be a temporary fix until the
Department issues a final rule that
specifically addresses lengthy tarmac
delays pursuant to the FAA Extension
Act.
In October 2017, the Department
published a Notification of Regulatory
Review (82 FR 4570, October 2, 2017),
seeking public input on existing rules
and other agency actions that are good
candidates for repeal, replacement,
1 Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Rule,
76 FR 23110, Apr. 25, 2011.
2 https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/
enforcement-policy-extended-tarmac-delays.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25OCP1.SGM
25OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57369-57370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23236]
========================================================================
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. 84, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57369]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 925 and 944
[Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0009; SC16-925-2]
Grapes Grown in Designated Area of Southeastern California and
Imported Table Grapes; Removing Varietal Exemptions; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture withdraws a proposed rule
recommended by the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee
(Committee) to remove varietal exemptions from the California table
grape marketing order and the table grape import regulation as well as
to remove administrative exemptions previously granted for certain
varieties of imported grapes. After reviewing and considering the
comments received, the proposed rule is being withdrawn.
DATES: As of October 25, 2019, the proposed rule published on June 23,
2017, at 82 FR 28589, is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Stobbe, 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].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This withdrawal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of
grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Part 925
(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 as the ``Act.'' The Committee locally administers
the Order and is comprised of producers of California table grapes
grown in a designated area of southeastern California, and a public
member.
This withdrawal is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which
provides that whenever certain specific commodities, including table
grapes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of those
commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the
same or comparable quality, grade, size, and maturity requirements as
those in effect for the domestically produced commodity.
This action withdraws a proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on June 23, 2017, (82 FR 28589) to remove varietal exemptions
from the Order and import regulation as well as to remove
administrative exemptions from the import regulation. Specifically, the
proposed rule would have removed existing varietal exemptions (Emperor,
Calmeria, Almeria, and Ribier) from the Order. As a result, all table
grapes, regardless of variety, grown in the production area during the
regulatory period (April 10 through July 10 each year) would have been
subject to grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and container
requirements of the Order and would have been subject to inspection and
certification requirements.
Additionally, the proposed rule would have removed the same
varietal exemptions from the import regulation. Accordingly, all table
grapes imported into the United States during the regulatory period
would have been subject to grade, size, quality, and maturity
regulations specified in the import regulation and would have been
subject to inspection and certification requirements.
In conjunction with these changes, the proposed rule would have
removed administrative exemptions from the import regulation for
sixteen imported varieties (Italia Pirovano [Blanca Italia], Christmas
Rose, Muscatel, Barlinka, Dauphine, Kyoho, Waltham Cross, Alphonse
Lavallee, Bien Donne, Bonnoir [Bonheur], La Rochelle, Queen, Rouge,
Sonita, Tokay, and Red Globe).
During the proposed rule's 60-day comment period, fifteen comments
were received. All the comments may be viewed on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Of the fifteen comments received, one was in
support, thirteen were opposed, and one did not pertain to the issue
raised in the proposed rule. The supportive comment was from a
California table grape industry association and was in favor of the
proposed changes. Each of the thirteen opposing commenters represented
an entity involved in the importation or marketing of imported table
grapes: Six were from distributors of imported grapes based in
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and California; two represented
shipping ports; three represented trade associations; one was from an
exporters' association; and one was from a foreign embassy.
The opposing comments noted that the changes would result in job
losses as well as a substantive increase in burden and costs to
shippers and exporters in handling and storage costs, without adding
quality benefits. The commenters stated that this could lead to reduced
efficiency and vitality of export operations. Commenters also stated
inspection delays and associated costs are not warranted because
imported grapes do not compete on a seeded vs seedless basis. Another
commenter noted that the changes would represent a major barrier to
trade by eliminating exemptions, thereby restricting the flow of table
grapes to market, causing economic harm to the shipper and possibly the
consumer of table grapes.
Some commenters stated that the proposed rule did not contain
quantifiable data that demonstrated support for the removal of all
grape varietal exemptions from the Order and that no evidence supported
eliminating previously exempted varieties shipped and sold prior to the
first availability of the same comparable domestic varieties. In
addition, they stated that imported grapes have not been shown to
impact prices on any of the domestically produced exempted varieties.
Commenters also contended that the proposed changes are not
supported by law or data and that it is not appropriate to deviate from
the long-standing agency determination to exempt varieties not
domestically produced.
After reviewing and considering the comments received, the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has determined that the proposed
rule to remove varietal exemptions from the Order and the table grape
import
[[Page 57370]]
regulation should not be finalized. AMS intends to conduct outreach
with the California table grape industry stakeholders and consider
whether changes will be proposed in the future. Accordingly, the
proposed rule to remove varietal exemptions from the Order and import
regulation published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2017, (82 FR
28589) is hereby withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports,
Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: October 21, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-23236 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
