Olives Grown in California; Proposed Amendments to the Marketing Order No. 932
| Published date | 06 November 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 59736 |
| Record Number | 2019-24224 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Agricultural Marketing Service |
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.
Proposed Rules Federal Register
59736
Vol. 84, No. 215
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 932
[Doc. No.: AMS–SC–19–0081; SC–19–
932–2]
Olives Grown in California; Proposed
Amendments to the Marketing Order
No. 932
AGENCY
: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: This proposed rule invites
comments on proposed amendments to
Marketing Order No. 932, which
regulates the handling of olives grown
in California. The proposed amendment
would change the California Olive
Committee’s (Committee) quorum
requirements.
DATES
: Comments must be received by
December 6, 2019.
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: http://www.regulations.gov. All
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: http://
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
:
Melissa Schmaedick, Senior Marketing
Specialist, or Andrew Hatch, Chief,
Rulemaking Services Branch, 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:
Melissa.Schmaedick@usda.gov or
Andrew.Hatch@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 amendments to regulations
issued to carry out a marketing order as
defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed
rule is issued under Marketing 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
Committee locally administers the
Order and is comprised of olive
producers and handlers operating
within the area of production.
Section 8c(17) of the Act (7 U.S.C
608c(17)) and the applicable rules of
practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements
and orders (7 CFR part 900.43) authorize
amendment of the Order through this
informal rulemaking action. The
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
will consider comments received in
response to this proposed rule, and
based on all the information available,
will determine if the Order amendment
is warranted. If AMS determines
amendment of the Order would
effectuate the declared policy of the Act,
a subsequent proposed rule and notice
of referendum would be issued and
producers would be allowed to vote for
or against the proposed Order
amendments. AMS would then issue a
final rule effectuating any amendments
approved by producers in the
referendum.
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.
This proposed rule would not be
deemed to preclude, preempt, or
supersede any State program covering
olives grown in California.
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C.
608c(15)(A)), 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. A 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
no later than 20 days after the date of
entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110–246)
amended section 8c(17) of the Act,
which in turn required the addition of
supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR
part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21,
2008). The amendment of section 8c(17)
of the Act and the supplemental rules of
practice authorize the use of informal
rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend
Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut
marketing agreements and orders. USDA
may use informal rulemaking to amend
marketing orders depending upon the
nature and complexity of the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1
59737
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amendments, the potential regulatory
and economic impacts on affected
entities, and any other relevant matters.
AMS has considered these factors and
has determined that the amendment
proposed herein is not unduly complex
and the nature of the proposed
amendment is appropriate for utilizing
the informal rulemaking process to
amend the Order. A discussion of the
potential regulatory and economic
impacts on affected entities is discussed
later in the ‘‘Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis’’ section of this
proposed rule.
The Committee unanimously
recommended the amendments
following deliberations at a public
meeting held on July 29, 2019. The
proposed action would amend the Order
by changing the Committee’s quorum
requirements.
Section 932.25 establishes an
administrative committee, the California
Olive Committee, with 16 members
(eight producer members and eight
handler members) and further allows
the committee to be increased by a
public member (who is not be a
producer or handler of olives nor an
officer or employee or director of any
producer or handler of olives) for a total
of 17 members. In addition, this section
requires that each member has an
alternate who meets the same
qualifications as the member. The
Committee currently operates with 17
members and 17 alternate members.
Section 932.30 further states that each
alternate member shall act in the place
and stead of such member (a) during
such member’s absence, and (b) in the
event of such member’s removal,
resignation, disqualification or death,
until a successor for such member’s
unexpired term has been selected and
has qualified.
Section 932.36 establishes the
Committee’s quorum requirements.
Current requirements state that a
quorum must consist of at least 10
members of whom at least five must be
producer members and at least five must
be handler members and, if the
Committee is increased by the addition
of a public member, a quorum must
consist of at least 11 members of which
at least five must be producer members
and at least five must be handler
members. Given that the Committee
currently has a public member, a
quorum of 11 members of which five
must be producers and five must be
handlers is required.
This proposed action would amend
§ 932.36 by removing the requirement of
having five producer members and five
handler members in attendance to form
a quorum. The proposed modified
language would define a quorum as
consisting of at least 10 members and,
if the committee is increased by the
addition of a public member, a quorum
would consist of at least 11 members.
The proposed modification would
also clarify that alternate members
acting as members could satisfy the
quorum requirement. The Committee’s
proposed amendment, which would
modify the second sentence of the
current § 932.36, adds a phrase
recognizing that alternate members who
are serving in place of an absent
member should be counted as full
Committee members in the context of
qualifying a quorum. This proposed
phrase reiterates the authority of
alternate members as specified in
§ 932.30. For clarity and consistency,
USDA recommends adding the same
phrase to the first sentence of § 932.36.
The proposed revision to the sentence
would read as follows: ‘‘Decisions of the
committee shall be by majority vote of
the members, including alternates acting
as members, present and voting, and a
quorum must be present: . . .’’ This
proposed additional revision would
clarify that alternate members acting as
members could not only fulfill quorum
requirements, but they would also be
able to vote as members on matters of
Committee business in the absence of
their member. This proposed addition
has been incorporated into the
amendatory text of this document.
Since promulgation of the Order in
1965, the California olive industry has
seen reductions of 64 percent (from
2500 to 900) and 93 percent (from 28 to
two) in the number of California olive
producers and handlers, respectively.
Industry consolidation has resulted in
increased difficulties in filling
Committee member seats as well as
fulfilling quorum requirements at
meetings.
Given the current quorum
requirement of a minimum of five
producers and five handlers in
attendance, the absence of just one
individual could result in the lack of a
quorum. Without a quorum, the
Committee is unable to vote on business
decisions or make regulatory
recommendations to USDA. Meetings
without a quorum are also costly as
attendees must travel to attend the
meeting, thus incurring travel costs in
addition to time lost operating their
businesses.
Adjusting the current quorum
requirement as proposed would lower
the risk of not reaching a quorum during
scheduled meetings due to the absence
of the required number of producer or
handler members. This change would
streamline the Committee’s operations
and increase its effectiveness by
allowing the Committee to conduct
business as long as the minimum
number of members are in attendance.
It would also reduce the risk of
members incurring costs from traveling
to meetings at which business cannot be
conducted due to lack of a quorum.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), 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 so
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 900
producers of olives in the production
area and two handlers subject to
regulation under the Order. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) defines
small agricultural producers as those
having annual receipts of less than
$1,000,000, and small agricultural
service firms as those whose annual
receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13
CFR 121.201).
According to the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
data, as of June 2019 the average price
to producers for the 2018 crop year was
$766.00 per ton, and total assessable
volume for the 2018 crop year was
17,953 tons. Based on production, the
total number of California olive
producers, and price paid to those
producers, the average annual producer
revenue is less than $1,000,000 ($766.00
times 17,953 tons equals $13,751,998
divided by 900 producers equals an
average annual producer revenue of
$15,280.00). Therefore, most olive
producers may be classified as small
entities. Both handlers may be classified
as large entities under the SBA’s
definitions because their annual receipts
are greater than $30,000,000.
The proposed change would revise
the quorum requirement for Committee
meetings by removing the requirement
of having five producer members and
five handler members in attendance to
form a quorum. The proposed modified
language would define a quorum as
consisting of at least 10 members and,
if the committee is increased by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1
59738
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
addition of a public member, a quorum
would consist of at least 11 members.
The Committee unanimously
recommended the proposed amendment
at a public meeting on July 29, 2019. If
this proposed amendment is approved
in a referendum, there would be no
direct financial effects on producers or
handlers as it is primarily
administrative in nature. The proposed
amendment would increase the
efficiency of the Committee’s operations
and allow it to respond more quickly to
the industry’s needs.
Since 1965, when the marketing order
was established, the number of
producers and handlers operating in the
industry has decreased significantly,
dropping from 2,500 to 900 (64 percent)
and from 28 to two (93 percent),
respectively. Industry consolidation has
made it difficult to find enough
members to fill positions on the
Committee. Moreover, fulfilling quorum
requirements at meetings has also
become increasingly challenging.
Changing the quorum requirement
from the current 11 member
requirement, of which five must be
producers and five must be handlers, to
simply the attendance of 11 members
would increase meeting efficiency by
making the quorum requirement more
easily fulfilled. This proposed change
would also reduce costs to members and
Committee and USDA staff who travel
to meetings where a quorum is not
established. If implemented, the
proposed amendment is not expected to
result in any increases in economic
costs or burden to industry members,
USDA staff or consumers.
Alternatives to this proposed
amendment, including making no
changes at this time, were considered by
the Committee. One alternative
included lowering the required number
of producer or handler members in
attendance. However, given that there
are only two handlers in operation
within the industry, this option was still
considered too restrictive by the
Committee. Therefore, the alternatives
were not considered viable by the
Committee.
AMS believes the proposed
amendment is justified and necessary to
ensure the Committee’s ability to locally
administer the program. Modifying the
quorum requirement as proposed in this
rule would ensure a more efficient and
orderly flow of business.
Paperwork Reduction Act
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
and Specialty Crops. No changes in
those requirements are necessary
because 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.
The Committee’s meetings were
widely publicized throughout the
California olive production area. All
interested persons were invited to
attend the meetings and encouraged to
participate in Committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all Committee
meetings, the July 29, 2019, meeting was
public, and all entities, both large and
small, were encouraged to express their
views on the proposed amendment.
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on the proposed
amendments to the Order, including
comments on the regulatory and
information collection impacts of this
action on small businesses.
Following an analysis of any
comments received on the amendments
in this proposed rule, AMS will
evaluate all available information and
determine whether to proceed. If AMS
determines that the amendments would
effectuate the declared policy of the Act,
a proposed rule and notice of
referendum would be issued, and
producers would be provided the
opportunity to vote for or against the
proposed amendments.
Information about the referendum,
including dates and voter eligibility
requirements, would be published in a
future issue of the Federal Register. A
final rule would then be issued to
effectuate the amendments if it is
favored by producers participating in
the referendum.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: http://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.
General Findings
The findings hereinafter set forth are
supplementary to the findings and
determinations which were previously
made in connection with the issuance of
Marketing Order 932; and all said
previous findings and determinations
are hereby ratified and affirmed, except
insofar as such findings and
determinations may be in conflict with
the findings and determinations set
forth herein.
1. Marketing Order 932 as hereby
proposed to be amended and all the
terms and conditions thereof, would
tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act;
2. Marketing Order 932 as hereby
proposed to be amended regulates the
handling of olives grown in California
and is applicable only to persons in the
respective classes of commercial and
industrial activity specified in the
Order;
3. Marketing Order 932 as hereby
proposed to be amended is limited in
application to the smallest regional
production area which is practicable,
consistent with carrying out the
declared policy of the Act, and the
issuance of several marketing orders
applicable to subdivisions of the
production area would not effectively
carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. Marketing Order 932 as hereby
proposed to be amended prescribes,
insofar as practicable, such different
terms applicable to different parts of the
production area as are necessary to give
due recognition to the differences in the
production and marketing of olives
produced or packed in the production
area; and
5. All handling of olives produced or
packed in the production area as
defined in Marketing Order 932 is in the
current of interstate or foreign
commerce or directly burdens,
obstructs, or affects such commerce.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to these proposed amendments.
Comments received during the
comment period on the amendments
proposed will be analyzed, and if AMS
determines to proceed based on all the
information presented, a producer
referendum would be conducted to
determine producer support for the
proposed amendment. If favored by
producers participating in the
referendum, a final rule would then be
issued to effectuate it.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1
59739
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Olives, Marketing agreements,
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.
§ 932.36 [Amended]
■2. Amend § 932.36 to read as follows:
§ 932.36 Procedure.
Decisions of the committee shall be by
majority vote of the members, including
alternates acting as members, present
and voting, and a quorum must be
present: Provided, That decisions
requiring a recommendation to the
Secretary on matters pertaining to grade
and size regulations shall require at
least 10 affirmative votes, at least 5 of
which must be from producer members
and at least 5 of which must be from
handler members and, if the committee
is increased by the addition of a public
member, at least 11 affirmative votes
shall be required, at least 5 of which
must be from producer members and at
least 5 of which must be from handler
members. A quorum shall consist of at
least 10 members, including alternates
acting as members, and, if the
committee is increased by the addition
of a public member, a quorum shall
consist of at least 11 members,
including alternates acting as members.
Except in case of an emergency, a
minimum of 5 days advance notice shall
be given with respect to any meeting of
the committee. In case of an emergency,
to be determined within the discretion
of the chairman of the committee, as
much advance notice of a meeting as is
practicable in the circumstances shall be
given. The committee may vote by mail
or telegram upon due notice to all
members, but any proposition to be so
voted upon first shall be explained
accurately, fully, and identically by mail
or telegram to all members. When voted
on by such method, at least 14
affirmative votes, of which seven shall
be producer member votes and seven
shall be handler member votes, shall be
required for adoption and, if the
committee is increased by the addition
of a public member, votes by mail or
telegram shall require at least 15
affirmative votes, of which at least 7
shall be producer member votes and at
least 7 shall be handler member votes.
The committee may recommend for the
Secretary’s approval changes in the
number of affirmative votes required for
adoption of any proposition voted upon
by means of a mail or telegram ballot:
Provided, That the number of
affirmative votes required for adoption
shall not be less than ten, and in any
case an equal number of producer
member and handler member votes
shall be required for adoption and, if the
committee is increased by the addition
of a public member, the number of
affirmative votes required for adoption
shall be increased by one.
Dated: November 1, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–24224 Filed 11–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0728; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–071–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc., Airplanes
AGENCY
: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION
: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY
: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD–
100–1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report that during
ALTS CAP or (V) ALTS CAP mode, the
flight guidance/autopilot does not
account for engine failure while
capturing an altitude. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide
the flightcrew with new warnings for
‘‘Autoflight’’ and ‘‘Engine Failure in
Climb During ALTS CAP.’’ The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES
: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by December 23,
2019.
ADDRESSES
: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
•Fax: 202–493–2251.
•Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
•Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc.,
200 Co
ˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Que
´bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North
America toll-free phone: 1–866–538–
1247 or direct-dial phone: 1–514–855–
2999; email:
ac.yul@aero.bombardier.com; internet:
https://www.bombardier.com. You may
view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2019–
0728; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace
Engineer, Avionics and Electrical
Systems Services Section, FAA, New
York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; phone: 516–228–7367; fax: 516–
794–5531; email: 9-avs-nyaco-cos@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under the
ADDRESSES
section. Include
‘‘Docket No. FAA–2019–0728; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–071–AD’’ at the
beginning of your comments. The FAA
specifically invites comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
this NPRM. The FAA will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM because of
those comments.
The FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06NOP1.SGM 06NOP1
