Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11335 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Doc. No. AO–13–0163; AMS–FV–12–0069; 

FV13–905–1] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; 

Recommended Decision and 

Opportunity To File Written Exceptions 

to Proposed Amendments to Marketing 

Order No. 905 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and opportunity 

to file exceptions. 

SUMMARY: This recommended decision 

proposes amendments to Marketing 

Order No. 905 (order), which regulates 

the handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos (citrus) grown 

in Florida. Nine amendments are 

proposed by the Citrus Administrative 

Committee (Committee), which is 

responsible for local administration of 

the order. These proposed amendments 

would: Authorize regulation of new 

varieties and hybrids of citrus fruit, 

authorize the regulation of intrastate 

shipments of fruit, revise the process for 

redistricting the production area, change 

the term of office and tenure 

requirements for Committee members, 

authorize mail balloting procedures for 

Committee membership nominations, 

increase the capacity of financial reserve 

funds, authorize pack and container 

requirements for domestic shipments 

and authorize different regulations for 

different markets, eliminate the use of 

separate acceptance statements in the 

nomination process, and require 

handlers to register with the Committee. 

These proposed amendments are 

intended to improve the operation and 

administration of the order. 

DATES: Written exceptions must be filed 

by April 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written exceptions should 

be filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Room 

1081–S, Washington, DC 20250–9200; 

Fax: (202) 720–9776 or via the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register. 

Comments will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Hearing Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order 

and Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, Post 

Office Box 952, Moab, UT 84532; 

Telephone: (202) 557–4783, Fax: (435) 

259–1502, or Michelle Sharrow, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable 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@ams.usda.gov or 

Michelle.Sharrow@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding by 

contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing 

Order and Agreement Division, Fruit 

and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or Email: Jeffrey.Smutny@

ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior 

documents in this proceeding: Notice of 

Hearing issued on March 28, 2013, and 

published in the March 28, 2013, issue 

of the Federal Register (78 FR 18899). 

This action is governed by the 

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of 

title 5 of the United States Code and is 

therefore excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 13175. 

Preliminary Statement 

Notice is hereby given of the filing 

with the Hearing Clerk of this 

recommended decision with respect to 

the proposed amendments to Marketing 

Order 905 regulating the handling of 

oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and 

tangelos grown in Florida, and the 

opportunity to file written exceptions 

thereto. Copies of this decision can be 

obtained from Melissa Schmaedick, 

whose address is listed above. 

This recommended decision is issued 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act,’’ and 

the applicable rules of practice and 

procedure governing the formulation of 

marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR 

part 900). 

The proposed amendments are based 

on the record of a public hearing held 

on April 24, 2013, in Winter Haven, 

Florida. Notice of this hearing was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18899). The 

notice of hearing contained nine 

proposals submitted by the Committee. 

The proposed amendments were 

recommended by the Committee 

following deliberations at a public 

meeting on July 17, 2012, and were 

submitted to the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) on October 25, 2012. 

After reviewing the recommendation 

and other information submitted by the 

Committee, AMS decided to proceed 

with the formal rulemaking process and 

schedule the matter for hearing. 

The Committee’s proposed 

amendments to the order would: (1) 

Authorize regulation of new varieties 

and hybrids of citrus fruit; (2) authorize 

the regulation of intrastate shipments of 

fruit; (3) revise the process for 

redistricting the production area; (4) 

change the term of office and tenure 

requirements for Committee members; 

(5) authorize mail balloting procedures 

for Committee membership 

nominations; (6) increase the capacity of 

financial reserve funds; (7) authorize 

pack and container requirements for 

domestic shipments and authorize 

different regulations for different 

markets; (8) eliminate the use of 

separate acceptance statements in the 

nomination process; and (9) require 

handlers to register with the Committee. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) also proposed to make such 

changes to the order as may be 

necessary, if any of the proposed 

changes are adopted, so that all of the 

order’s provisions conform to the 

effectuated amendments. 

Ten industry witnesses testified at the 

hearing. The witnesses represented 

citrus producers and handlers in the 

production area, as well as the 

Committee, and they all supported the 

proposed amendments. The witnesses 

emphasized the need to restructure 

Committee representation and 

administration as well as equip the 

industry with more tools to address the 

changing needs of fresh Florida citrus. 

Witnesses offered testimony 

supporting the recommendation to 

authorize the regulation of new varieties 

and hybrids of citrus fruit. According to 

testimony, new varieties and hybrids 

could address the disease concerns of 

the industry and increase consumer 

demand for fresh citrus through the 

development of varieties with new 

characteristics. 

Witnesses testified in support of 

streamlining the order by allowing mail 

ballots for Committee membership 

nominations, eliminating the use of 

separate acceptance statements in the 

nomination process, and changing the 

term of office and tenure requirements 

for Committee members to lengthen 

their terms of service. Witnesses stated 

that these three proposals would result 

in cost savings to the Committee and 

time savings for industry members. 

Moreover, longer term limits and overall 

tenure would contribute to stability in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the administration of the order. The 

proposal to allow for greater financial 

reserves was supported by witnesses 

who indicated that additional reserves 

would result in less fluctuation in 

assessments and provide year-over-year 

budget stability. 

Witnesses favored two proposals that 

would add authority to the order to 

regulate intrastate Florida citrus 

shipments in the event the Florida 

Department of Citrus discontinues or 

modifies its regulation of the fresh 

segment. This proposal was largely 

supported as a precautionary measure, 

with witnesses clearly stating that the 

authority would not be implemented 

unless Florida state regulations are not 

in effect. Witnesses also supported a 

similar proposal that would allow the 

Committee to develop different pack 

and container regulations for different 

markets, including the intrastate market. 

Witnesses also supported the 

proposed amendment to modify the 

redistricting criteria and allow 

redistricting to occur more often than 

once every five years, as currently 

provided for under the order. The new 

criteria would give the Committee a 

clearer picture of production trends 

within the fresh citrus segment of the 

Florida citrus industry and allow the 

Committee to respond as necessary to 

best represent the fresh industry’s 

interests. 

Finally, witness testimony supported 

adding authority to require handler 

registration. Witnesses stated that 

handler registration would be helpful 

for two reasons: To assist in compliance 

and to provide the Committee with 

accurate handler information. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the 

Administrative Law Judge established a 

deadline of July 1, 2013, for interested 

persons to file proposed findings and 

conclusions or written arguments and 

briefs based on the evidence received at 

the hearing. One brief was filed. 

Material Issues 

The material issues presented on the 

record of hearing are as follows: 

1. Whether to amend the definitions 

of ‘‘fruit’’ and ‘‘variety’’ in § 905.4 and 

§ 905.5 to update terminology and 

authorize regulation of additional 

varieties and hybrids of citrus. 

2. Whether to amend the definition of 

‘‘handle or ship’’ in § 905.9 to authorize 

regulation of intrastate shipments. 

3. Whether to amend § 905.14 to 

revise the process for redistricting the 

production area. 

4. Whether to amend § 905.20 to 

change the term of office of Committee 

members from one to two years, and 

change the tenure requirements for 

Committee members from three to four 

years. 

5. Whether to amend § 905.22 to 

authorize mail balloting procedures for 

Committee membership nominations. 

6. Whether to amend § 905.42 to 

authorize the Committee to increase the 

capacity of its financial reserve funds 

from approximately six months of a 

fiscal period’s expenses to 

approximately two years’ fiscal periods’ 

expenses. 

7. Whether to amend § 905.52 to 

authorize pack and container 

requirements for domestic shipments 

and authorize different regulations for 

different markets. 

8. Whether to amend § 905.28 to 

eliminate the use of separate acceptance 

statements in the nomination process. 

9. Whether to amend § 905.7 to 

require handlers to register with the 

Committee. 

Findings and Conclusions 

The following findings and 

conclusions on the material issues are 

based on evidence presented at the 

hearing and the record thereof. 

Material Issue Number 1—Definitions 

of ‘‘Fruit’’ and ‘‘Variety’’ 

Sections 905.4, Fruit, and 905.5, 

Variety, should be amended to update 

order terminology and authorize 

regulation of additional varieties and 

hybrids of citrus. 

The proposal to authorize regulation 

of new varieties and hybrids of citrus 

fruit would assist the industry in 

addressing declines in production 

caused by diseases. Research and 

development of disease-resistant 

hybrids may improve the health of 

Florida’s fresh citrus industry. In 

addition, the industry would be better 

able to meet consumer preferences as 

new and improved fruit becomes 

available for commercial production. 

In order to regulate newly developed 

citrus varieties and hybrids, authority 

must be added to the order. While the 

order currently authorizes regulation of 

specific hybrid fruit included in the 

definitions, it does not authorize 

regulation of new hybrids. 

The proposal to amend the definitions 

of ‘‘fruit’’ and ‘‘variety’’ would revise 

order language to reflect terminology 

currently being used in the industry. 

The order currently lists varieties that 

are no longer commercially viable. 

Amendments to the definitions would 

remove those varieties and group other 

varieties under sub-definitions currently 

used within the industry. 

The order currently identifies six 

types of citrus fruit that have varieties 

that can be regulated under the order. 

These are: Citrus sinensis, Osbeck, 

commonly called ‘‘oranges;’’ Citrus 

paradisi, MacFadyen, commonly called 

‘‘grapefruit;’’ Citrus nobilis deliciosa, 

commonly called ‘‘tangerines;’’ Temple 

oranges; tangelos; and Honey tangerines. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise this list by moving Temple 

oranges, tangelos and Honey tangerines 

under the modified definition of 

‘‘variety,’’ and adding pummelos (Citrus 

maxima merr) as a new type. 

Additionally, authority would be added 

to regulate varieties of any hybrid fruit 

developed from the parent fruits of 

oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and 

pummelos. 

The definition of ‘‘varieties’’ currently 

identifies twelve classifications or 

groupings of varieties regulated under 

the order. These include: ‘‘round 

oranges;’’ late maturing oranges of the 

Valencia type; Temple oranges; Marsh 

and other seedless grapefruit, excluding 

pink grapefruit; Duncan and other 

seeded grapefruit, excluding pink 

grapefruit; Pink seedless grapefruit; Pink 

seeded grapefruit; tangelos; Dancy and 

similar tangerines, excluding Robinson 

and Honey tangerines; Robinson 

tangerines; Honey tangerines; and Navel 

oranges. 

The proposed modification of this 

definition would re-organize the 

existing list and add new varieties as 

follows: Oranges, with sub-groupings for 

early and midseason oranges, Valencia, 

Lue Gim Gong, or similar late maturing 

oranges of the Valencia type, and navel 

oranges; Grapefruit, red grapefruit and 

all shades of color and white grapefruit; 

Tangerines and mandarins, with subgroupings for Dancy, Robinson, Honey, 

Fall-Glo, Early Pride, Sunburst, and WMurcott tangerines, and tangors; and 

pummelos, including Hirado Buntan 

and other pink seeded pummelos. 

Currently regulated citrus hybrids 

would also be included, specifically: 

Tangelos, including Orlando and 

Minneola tangelos, and Temple oranges. 

A new sub-paragraph would be added 

to authorize regulation of any new 

varieties of citrus fruits specified in 

905.4, Fruit, including hybrids of those 

fruit. Any new hybrid variety subject to 

regulation would be required to exhibit 

similar characteristics and be subject to 

cultural practices common to existing 

regulated varieties. 

According to the record, the Florida 

citrus industry believes that newlydeveloped hybrids are necessary for the 

recovery and long-term health of the 

industry. The industry is funding the 

development of new varieties and 

hybrids and has developed a plan for 

field testing. The industry hopes to 

begin producing new varieties and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11337 

hybrids in the next few seasons. 

According to the witnesses, there is 

great anticipation within the fresh 

segment of the Florida citrus industry 

for the introduction of new varieties and 

hybrids that will reverse the decline of 

the Florida citrus industry. 

Witnesses explained that many of the 

varieties that have been the mainstay of 

the Florida fresh citrus industry have 

either succumbed to pest and disease 

challenges, or reached a point of market 

obsolescence. Furthermore, for the past 

decade, the Florida citrus industry has 

been contracting due to the loss of 

bearing trees and production, which has 

been brought about by the effects of two 

diseases, citrus canker and greening, 

and natural disasters, such as 

hurricanes. Also, the percentage of 

Florida’s citrus crop utilized for fresh 

shipment has decreased to 

approximately nine percent of the total 

volume of citrus produced in Florida. 

According to the record, during the 

past ten years, the number of bearing 

citrus trees has declined by 29 percent, 

while production has declined by 42 

percent, and fresh utilization has 

declined by 45 percent. In addition, the 

value of the juice produced by fresh 

fruit varieties has continued to decline, 

which has further depressed the fresh 

citrus sector. 

Witnesses gave examples of changes 

in consumer preferences that have also 

impacted the fresh Florida citrus 

industry. According to the record, 

Robinson and Dancy tangerines were 

the preferred varieties of tangerines by 

consumers thirty years ago. Over time, 

these varieties fell out of favor and were 

replaced by the Fall-Glo, Sunburst and 

Honey varieties because of their sweeter 

flavor. Consumers are now losing 

interest in these varieties and are 

showing a preference for easy-peel, 

seedless varieties. 

These competitive varieties are grown 

in areas outside of Florida, such as 

California and Spain, and are currently 

not suitable for production in the state. 

As a result, the Florida fresh citrus 

industry is in the process of developing 

easy-peel, seedless varieties that will 

grow in the production area. The new 

fruit will likely be a hybrid fruit 

currently not regulated under the order. 

Witnesses explained that the order 

should be amended to authorize 

regulation of hybrid fruit so that this 

new variety can be regulated once it is 

ready for commercial production. 

Researchers from the University of 

Florida (UF) testifying at the hearing 

stated that much research and 

development of new citrus fruit has 

been done to improve the 

competitiveness of the Florida citrus 

industry. According to the record, this 

research has resulted in the 

development and release of as many as 

ten new citrus fruits providing 

improvements such as sweeter oranges 

with earlier or later maturity and 

improved color and flavor attributes 

found in other citrus. In addition, 

research is focused on generating new 

and unique hybrids that may revitalize 

consumer interest in fresh Florida 

citrus. Two examples given by one 

witness from UF are the Sugar Belle 

mandarin hybrid and the Valquarius 

sweet orange, which are starting to be 

produced for the juice industry. 

According to the record, varieties 

developed by the UF Citrus Breeding 

Program are being released into a ‘‘fasttrack’’ testing program where a limited 

numbers of trees are grown on a test 

basis by interested growers. Fruit from 

the test trees cannot be sold. 

Once the new varieties have been 

assessed for their potential value and 

growers plant sufficient numbers of 

trees to produce a supply of fruit for 

marketing through ordinary commercial 

channels, commercialization will 

proceed. Once a new variety becomes 

commercially viable, its inclusion under 

the order is likely to be considered by 

the Committee. Without the authority to 

regulate hybrid citrus fruit, the 

Committee would not be able to 

recommend the new fruit’s inclusion 

under the marketing order. 

One example of a new fruit that is 

currently in the test phase is the 

‘‘UF914.’’ This is a hybrid of pummelo 

and grapefruit that resembles ordinary 

grapefruit in appearance, but is much 

larger. According to the record, it 

generally has higher sugar levels and 

lower acidity than an ordinary 

grapefruit, yet retains the red 

pigmentation, flavor and aroma of a 

grapefruit. 

A critically important attribute of this 

particular variety is its extremely low 

content of furanocoumarins, those 

chemicals contained in ordinary 

grapefruit that are responsible for the socalled ‘‘grapefruit juice effect’’, or a 

negative interaction between grapefruit 

juice and prescription medication, and 

subsequent medical recommendations 

for limited grapefruit consumption. As a 

consequence of its unique chemical 

composition, there could be substantial 

consumer demand for this variety. If 

this fruit were to be produced on a 

commercial scale, its inclusion under 

the order would be important to ensure 

and maintain quality and consistency of 

product in the market. 

Researchers from the UF further 

explained that while new varieties will 

likely present marketing opportunities, 

they may also have new and unique 

quality attributes. Witnesses concluded 

that the success of these new varieties, 

as well as the future of Florida’s fresh 

citrus industry, would be better secured 

by ensuring that new varieties will be 

required to meet quality standards. 

In general, witnesses testifying in 

support of Material Issue Number One 

stated that, when new varieties and 

hybrids are available to the Florida 

citrus industry, it will be important that 

the marketing order contains the 

authority to regulate quality and size 

standards, and that its language be 

inclusive of all varieties likely to emerge 

from the breeding programs. The ability 

to regulate these varieties will ensure 

that the quality and consistency of fruit 

entering channels of trade will meet 

consumer demand, compete with 

product from global production areas, 

and ensure a fair economic return for 

Florida fresh citrus growers and 

handlers. 

Two corrections to the proposed 

regulatory language were offered by a 

witness testifying from the UF Citrus 

Breeding Program. These corrections 

include: Correcting the Latin binomial 

for pummelo from ‘‘Citrus grandis’’ to 

‘‘Citrus maxima Merr,’’ as listed in the 

Notice of Hearing; and, correcting the 

spelling of the previously listed 

‘‘Poncirus trifoliate’’ to read ‘‘Poncirus 

trifoliata.’’ These corrections have been 

accepted and are incorporated into the 

revised definition of § 905.4, Fruit, 

below. 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was given at the hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

recommended that §§ 905.4, Fruit, and 

905.5, Variety, be amended to update 

terminology and authorize regulation of 

additional varieties and hybrids of 

citrus as proposed and corrected. 

A conforming change is needed in the 

title of 7 CFR part 905. It is proposed to 

be revised to ‘‘ORANGES, 

GRAPEFRUIT, TANGERINES, AND 

PUMMELOS GROWN IN FLORIDA’’ to 

reflect the proposed addition of 

pummelos as a regulated fruit and the 

inclusion of tangelos as a regulated 

hybrid variety. 

Material Issue Number 2—Intrastate 

Shipments 

Section 905.9, the definition of 

‘‘handle or ship,’’ should be amended to 

authorize regulation of fresh Florida 

citrus handled and shipped within the 

production area. This section should be 

further modified to state that any 

regulations or requirements 

implemented as a result of this new 

authority would not conflict with 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Florida state statutes or regulations in 

effect thereunder. 

The order currently regulates the 

grade and size of fresh Florida citrus 

handled and shipped to points outside 

of the production area, including 

exports, but does not regulate shipments 

within the state of Florida. Fresh citrus 

fruit handled and shipped within the 

state are currently regulated by the 

Florida Citrus Commission under the 

Florida Department of Citrus rules, 

Chapter 20. 

Witnesses explained that adding 

authority for intrastate shipments under 

the Federal marketing order would 

create one comprehensive program for 

regulating fresh Florida citrus in the 

event that the Florida state program 

were to stop regulating fresh citrus 

shipments. Witnesses further explained 

that this additional authority is being 

proposed as a precautionary measure 

and that the industry does not intend to 

implement this new authority while the 

Florida state program is in effect. 

According to the record, the 

Committee spent approximately one and 

a half years thoroughly reviewing and 

considering this proposal. This proposal 

has been discussed by industry 

organizations and with two members of 

the Florida Citrus Commission, the 

group that oversees all Florida state 

citrus regulation. Witnesses stated that 

the proposal has industry support and, 

by design, would not conflict with state 

regulations. 

According to the record, all witnesses 

who included remarks in their 

testimony about this proposal supported 

it as a precautionary measure for future 

use in the event that the State program 

no longer regulated fresh citrus 

shipments. Witnesses testifying in 

support of this proposal included 

individuals that serve or work closely 

with Florida state citrus regulatory 

programs. These witnesses stated that 

the Florida Citrus Commission is aware 

of this proposal and does not oppose it. 

Witnesses also explained that the 

proposal to allow for different handling 

regulations for different market 

destinations under the order, further 

discussed in Material Issue 8, 

complemented the industry’s effort to 

streamline regulation within Florida’s 

fresh citrus industry. According to the 

record, the two proposals would result 

in a coordination of regulation under 

the Federal and State programs, and 

would provide an added authority 

under the order to regulate fresh 

shipments in the state of Florida in the 

event that the Florida Citrus 

Commission stopped regulating them. 

These proposals would streamline 

handling operations under both 

programs and would provide continuity 

in regulation. 

No testimony or evidence opposing 

this proposal was provided at the 

hearing. For the reasons stated above, it 

is recommended that § 905.9, the 

definition of ‘‘handle or ship,’’ be 

amended to authorize regulation of fresh 

Florida citrus handled and shipped 

within the production area. 

Material Issue Number 3—Redistricting 

Section 905.14, Redistricting, should 

be amended to revise the process for 

redistricting the production area. This 

amendment would provide flexibility 

within the order allowing for the 

redefining of grower districts within the 

production area when warranted by 

relevant factors. 

Under the order, the Committee is 

authorized to consider redistricting 

every five years. Any recommendation 

to redistrict must include an analysis of 

the following factors: (1) The volume of 

fruit shipped from each district; (2) the 

volume of fruit produced in each 

district; (3) the total number of acres of 

citrus grown in each district; and (4) 

other relevant factors. The order further 

requires that any redistricting must 

retain a minimum of eight, but no more 

than nine, grower membership positions 

on the Committee. 

According to the record, the proposed 

amendment would modify three of the 

four factors used in assessing the need 

to change district boundaries and 

remove time restrictions, thereby 

increasing flexibility. Specifically, the 

amendment would change the 

assessment of total volume of fruit 

shipped from each district to the 

number of bearing trees in each district. 

It would also change the assessment of 

total volume of fruit produced in each 

district to the total volume of fresh fruit 

produced in each district. Finally, the 

consideration of total number of acres in 

each district would change to total 

number of bearing trees per district. The 

last remaining factor currently included 

in the order—other relevant factors 

when conditions warrant—would not be 

changed. 

The proposed amendment would also 

remove the restriction on redistricting 

any more frequently than every five 

years. If implemented, the proposed 

modification to the order would allow 

for redistricting as needed when the 

above factors indicate that a change in 

district boundaries would be beneficial. 

Witnesses explained that, due to the 

major declines in bearing tree numbers, 

production, and fresh shipments the 

Florida citrus industry has experienced 

over the past decade, this proposal 

would allow the Committee to 

determine the need for changes in 

grower districts on a timely basis using 

information that more accurately 

represents production trends within the 

fresh citrus industry. 

For example, given the increased loss 

of trees per acre due to disease and 

natural disasters, the current guideline 

for calculating grower districts using 

acreage is no longer applicable. 

According to the record, when 

calculating production capacity within a 

county or grower district, the new 

industry standard is to consider bearing 

trees, not acreage. Due to heavy tree 

losses within producing groves, acreage 

is not a reliable indicator of production. 

Record evidence indicates that many 

groves have anywhere from 10 percent 

to as much as or more than 50 percent 

of their grove acreage with non-bearing 

trees or no trees at all. Therefore, 

acreage count as an indicator of 

production can be misleading. For this 

reason, the Committee is recommending 

the usage of bearing trees per district 

rather than acreage per district. 

Witnesses also explained that the 

Florida Agricultural Statistical Service 

conducts a tree census every other year. 

With this information, the Committee 

would have accurate and timely 

information on bearing trees, by variety 

and county, to utilize in their 

redistricting evaluations. 

Witnesses stated that the importance 

of identifying and assessing the volume 

of fresh production per district is 

paramount to understanding trends 

within the fresh segment of the Florida 

citrus industry. According to record 

evidence, the Florida citrus industry 

utilizes 90 percent or more of its annual 

crop to produce processed products. 

Witnesses explained it is important to 

identify where the remaining 10 percent 

of fresh citrus is being produced and 

handled so that the Committee can 

assign Committee representation or redesignate districts based on the true 

distribution of fresh citrus production. 

Witnesses explained that calculating 

the volume of fresh citrus produced per 

district can be accomplished by 

identifying the number of fresh citrus 

variety trees in each district and 

multiplying that number by the average 

yield per tree of those varieties. 

Witnesses identified ‘‘fresh citrus 

varieties’’ as those varieties that return 

to the grower an on-tree value that 

exceeds the cost of production. These 

varieties currently would include Navel 

oranges, red and white grapefruit, 

specialty citrus varieties, Fall-Glo 

tangerines, Sunburst tangerines, 

tangelos, and Honey tangerines. 

Finally, witnesses stated that the 

proposed amendments would allow the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11339 

Committee the flexibility to adjust 

grower districts to reflect shifts in the 

production of fresh varieties and fresh 

volume of Florida citrus. Given industry 

concerns over the continued loss of 

trees and reduction in fresh volume, the 

Committee’s ability to react to such 

changes in a timely manner is important 

to administer the marketing order 

program effectively. 

No testimony opposing this proposal 

was presented at the hearing. For the 

reasons stated above, it is recommended 

that § 905.14, Redistricting, be amended 

to revise the process for redistricting the 

production area. This amendment 

would provide flexibility within the 

order to allow for the redefining of 

grower districts within the production 

area when relevant factors warrant 

redistricting. 

Material Issue Number 4—Term of 

Office 

Section 905.20, Term of office, should 

be amended to change the term of office 

of Committee members from one to two 

years, and change the tenure limits for 

Committee members from three to four 

years. This proposed change would 

provide more continuity in the 

administration of the order and would 

result in cost savings and efficiencies 

from fewer elections. 

The order currently limits the term of 

office for Committee members and 

alternate members to one year, with the 

number of consecutive terms, or tenure, 

that a member or alternate can serve in 

their position limited to three terms. 

Therefore, the longest a Committee 

member can serve before being required 

to take a break in service is three years. 

The proposed amendment would 

lengthen this time to a total of four 

years, or a limit of two consecutive twoyear terms. 

Witnesses explained that the current 

requirements under the order disrupt 

the administration of the order. Each 

year nominations and new selections 

occur. The annual nomination process 

not only disrupts the work of the 

Committee, but it also requires time and 

resources from handlers and growers to 

participate in nominations and from the 

Committee to conduct them. Witnesses 

stated that changing the nomination 

process to a bi-annual occurrence would 

allow Committee members to work for 

two years without interruption, which 

would also reduce costs associated with 

conducting and participating in 

nominations. The overall effect would 

be an increase in administrative 

efficiencies and stability. 

Regarding the need for increased 

continuity in leadership, witnesses 

explained that the production of fresh 

Florida citrus is rapidly changing. 

According to the record, in the last 10 

seasons the fresh citrus industry has 

experienced production declines of 50 

percent and shipment declines of 40 

percent. Witnesses stated that it will be 

important to have continuity in 

leadership and representation as the 

industry addresses the issues of disease 

and development of new, consumerfriendly citrus varieties to bolster 

production and market demand. 

No testimony opposing this proposal 

was provided at the hearing. For the 

reasons stated above, it is recommended 

that § 905.20, Term of office, be 

amended to change the term of office of 

Committee members from one to two 

years, and change the tenure limit for 

Committee members from three to four 

years. This proposed change would 

provide more continuity in the 

administration of the order and would 

result in cost savings and efficiencies 

with fewer nomination meetings to 

conduct. 

Material Issue Number 5—Mail 

Balloting 

Section 905.22, Nominations, should 

be amended to authorize the use of mail 

ballots in conducting Committee 

membership nominations. In addition, 

this section should be amended to 

provide that the nomination process 

occur in the month of June to allow 

ample time for the distribution and 

collection of mail ballots. 

The order currently does not allow for 

voting by mail during the nomination 

process; all votes must be cast in person 

or, in the case of handlers, by proxy, at 

annual nomination meetings. For 

grower nominations, meetings are held 

at set locations within each of the three 

grower districts. Growers are entitled to 

one vote for each nominee in each of the 

districts in which he or she is a 

producer. Shipper nominations are held 

at the Florida Department of Citrus 

headquarters. Shippers may vote by 

proxy, and each shipper’s vote is 

weighted by the volume of fruit handled 

by them during the then current fiscal 

period. The nomination process occurs 

in the month of July. 

If implemented, this amendment 

would simplify the nomination and 

voting process and would increase 

industry participation, specifically 

grower participation. This amendment 

would also make the nomination 

process more efficient and economical 

by eliminating the Committee’s 

expenses associated with holding a 

nomination meeting. Lastly, this change 

would reduce financial and other 

burdens currently required of growers 

commuting to vote. 

Witnesses stated that the current 

process can limit grower participation 

due to time and travel requirements to 

attend nominating meetings. Given that 

the state of Florida production area is 

divided into three grower districts, each 

of these districts covers a large 

geographic area. 

According to witnesses, the burdens 

of commuting to a nomination meeting 

have led to poor voter turnout. A 

considerable number of growers do not 

live within an easily commutable radius 

of the nomination meeting locations. 

Time spent commuting to nomination 

meetings can be costly in terms of lost 

wages, time spent away from the 

workplace, and fuel costs for travel to 

and from the nomination meetings. 

The Committee anticipates that this 

change will foster increased 

participation. By allowing voting by 

mail or other means, participation 

should increase, and the level of 

diversity among the members involved 

in the nomination process may increase 

as well. According to the record, the 

Committee believes that it will realize 

cost savings from conducting the 

nominations of members and alternate 

members by mail or other means. As 

presented earlier, this measure is 

coupled with the proposal to extend the 

term of office from a one-year term to a 

two-year term, which would decrease 

administrative and travel costs 

associated with nomination meetings. 

However, if there is any cost increase, 

it would be outweighed by the benefit 

of increased participation and 

involvement. 

The Committee further proposed that 

the nomination process take place in the 

month of June in order to allow extra 

time for the mailing and receipt of mail 

ballots. The expense of mailing the 

ballots would be outweighed by the 

savings in travel and time-related costs 

of industry members no longer needing 

to travel to nomination meetings. 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was given at the hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

recommended that § 905.22, 

Nominations, be amended to authorize 

the use of mail ballots in conducting 

Committee membership nominations 

and to conduct nominations in June. 

Material Issue Number 6—Financial 

Reserve Fund 

Section 905.42, Handler’s accounts, 

should be amended to authorize the 

Committee to increase the capacity of its 

financial reserve funds from 

approximately six months of a fiscal 

period’s expenses to approximately two 

years’ fiscal periods’ expenses. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The order currently provides 

authority to hold in reserve funds equal 

to approximately one-half of one fiscal 

period’s expenses. According to 

witnesses, this limits the Committee’s 

flexibility to develop and implement 

projects requiring advertising, 

promotion or research without raising 

the assessment rate during the season. 

The proposed amendment would allow 

the Committee to increase their reserves 

up to two fiscal periods’ expenses. The 

larger reserve fund would provide 

greater flexibility in the administration 

of the marketing order program and 

promote assessment rate stability. 

Assessment revenue funds the 

Committee’s administrative, research, 

and promotion activities. As production 

has declined over time, the Committee 

has had to either increase the 

assessment rate to generate more 

revenue, or rely on its reserves to fund 

some of its activities. This has caused 

the assessment rate to fluctuate 

substantially over time. The 

Committee’s proposal to raise the 

reserve cap to two fiscal periods’ 

expenses would reduce assessment rate 

fluctuation and make more funds 

available for the Committee to use in 

fiscal years when assessment revenue 

isn’t sufficient to cover expenses. 

According to the record, the 

Committee’s fiscal year begins on 

August 1 and ends on July 31 of the 

following year. The shipping season for 

Florida fresh citrus begins in September 

and lasts about eight months, with 

approximately 87 percent of the volume 

being shipped in six months. The 

volume of regulated fresh citrus 

declined 17 percent in the last five 

seasons, and 41 percent in the last 

decade. Committee data indicates that 

2013–2014 fresh shipments from Florida 

are projected to decrease another 10 

percent from last season. Moreover, the 

2013–2014 crop year projection of fresh 

shipments of 13.2 million boxes will be 

the lowest since the 1919–1920 season. 

Witnesses explained that the 

Committee has tried to avoid assessment 

increases each year, and would rather 

establish an assessment rate that would 

fully fund its operations and build its 

reserves to handle the fluctuations in 

fresh shipments. However, with the 

current assessment rate and reserve 

threshold combination, reserves are 

being drawn down faster than they are 

being replenished year-over-year. 

Without raising the cap on reserves, 

witnesses stated that it will become 

increasingly difficult for the Committee 

to avoid annual increases in the 

assessment rate. 

Witnesses testifying in favor of this 

proposal stated that raising the 

assessment rate to a level that would 

properly fund the Committee’s 

operations and simultaneously build 

ample reserves to handle production 

fluctuations can only be achieved by 

increasing the amount of reserves the 

Committee is allowed to carry over from 

one fiscal year to the next. 

According to the record, the 

Committee did consider a proposal that 

would increase the reserve threshold 

from one half year to one fiscal period’s 

expenses. However, this option was 

ultimately rejected because current 

fluctuations in regulated shipments 

indicate that the Committee’s reserve 

needs are greater than one year’s annual 

expenses. Witnesses explained that it 

has been the Committee’s practice to 

hold excess assessments during the past 

few fiscal years to ensure that there 

would be ample reserves to fully fund 

their operations. 

Witnesses further stated that the 

proposal to increase the reserve 

threshold to two fiscal periods’ worth of 

Committee expenses is essential to the 

Committee’s financial stability moving 

forward, until fluctuations in 

production can be remedied through the 

development of disease-resistant citrus 

and new plantings of varieties with the 

characteristics desired by consumers of 

fresh Florida citrus. 

Lastly, if the proposed amendment to 

increase the reserve fund were 

approved, witnesses stated that the 

Committee should begin building the 

reserves immediately. 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was presented at the 

hearing. For the reasons stated above, it 

is recommended that Section 905.42, 

Handler’s accounts, be amended to 

authorize the Committee to increase the 

capacity of its financial reserve funds 

from approximately six months of a 

fiscal period’s expenses to 

approximately two fiscal periods’ 

expenses. 

Material Issue Number 7—Regulation 

of Shipments 

Section 905.52, Issuance of 

regulations, should be amended to 

authorize pack and container 

requirements for domestic shipments 

and authorize different regulations for 

different markets. Additionally, in the 

event that the State of Florida opted to 

no longer regulate intrastate fresh citrus 

shipments, this amendment would also 

allow for such shipments to be regulated 

under the Federal marketing order. 

The order currently regulates the size, 

capacity, weight, dimensions, marking, 

or pack of containers used for fresh 

citrus export shipments, provided that 

the container is not prohibited under 

Chapter 601 of the Florida Statutes. The 

Committee recommends that the order 

be amended to allow for the 

establishment of such regulation for 

both export and interstate shipments, 

and that these requirements may be 

different for different market 

destinations. By adding this authority, 

the Committee could recognize and 

meet the differing demands of 

customers and consumers domestically 

and abroad. Witnesses explained that 

having the flexibility to meet differing 

demands is important in maintaining 

current markets and creating new 

markets for any new varieties developed 

in the future. 

The regulation of pack and containers 

for intrastate shipments falls under the 

authorities outlined in Chapter 20 of the 

Florida statutes. Changes to these 

regulations are developed by the Florida 

fresh citrus industry and presented to 

the Florida Citrus Commission for their 

approval. The Florida Citrus 

Commission oversees state regulation 

for both the fresh and processed 

segments of the state’s citrus industry. 

According to the record, intrastate 

markets have been recognized by the 

Florida citrus industry as being unique 

from the interstate and export markets 

in that much of the in-state fruit is sold 

locally by fruit stands and gift-fruit 

shippers. Typically, this fruit is sold in 

bins and ten-box containers so that the 

consumer may choose their own fruit. 

This is different from interstate or 

export shipments, which are typically 

packed and sold in cartons or bags. 

Intrastate shipments of fresh Florida 

citrus represent roughly six percent of 

the industry’s total fresh shipments. 

The Committee recommends 

amending the order to provide authority 

to regulate intrastate shipments of fresh 

citrus in the event that the State of 

Florida ceases to regulate them. This 

amendment would allow for orderly 

marketing of fresh citrus to continue if 

state regulations were no longer in 

effect. Witnesses explained that this 

amendment was proposed as a 

precautionary measure and that the 

Committee’s recommendation had been 

discussed openly with the Florida 

Citrus Commission. No opposition was 

expressed. 

USDA recommends modifying the 

proposed amendatory text published in 

the Notice of Hearing. USDA’s 

modifications simplify the proposed 

amendatory text to more clearly state 

the intent of the Committee’s 

recommendation and that which was 

supported by witness testimony. The 

modified language is included here 

below. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11341 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was given at the hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

recommended that § 905.52, Issuance of 

regulations, be amended to: Authorize 

different regulations for different market 

destinations; allow for the regulation of 

pack and container requirements for 

interstate shipments; and, in the 

absence of state regulation, allow for the 

establishment of requirements for 

intrastate shipments. Any regulation 

implemented under this authority 

would not conflict with Florida state 

statutes or regulation in effect 

thereunder. 

Material Issue Number 8—Nomination 

Acceptance 

Section 905.28, Qualifications and 

acceptance, should be modified to allow 

the Committee nominee acceptance 

statement and the background statement 

to be combined into one form. 

The order currently requires each 

member and alternate to complete an 

acceptance letter in addition to the 

background statement when nominated 

to serve on the Committee. 

This proposal would combine the 

separate acceptance and background 

statements into one form. Nominees 

agreeing to serve on the Committee 

would complete a background statement 

that would also include a statement of 

acceptance. If implemented, this 

proposal would reduce paperwork 

associated with the nomination process 

and result in time savings for nominees 

filling out the forms. 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was given at the hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

recommended that § 905.28, 

Qualifications and acceptance, be 

amended to allow the acceptance 

statement and the background statement 

to be combined into one form. 

Material Issue Number 9—Handler 

Registration 

Section 905.7, Handler, should be 

amended to require handlers to register 

with the Committee. This amendment 

would require handlers who intend to 

handle fresh citrus to provide the 

Committee with their contact 

information at the beginning of each 

crop year. This would assist in 

administering the compliance 

provisions of the order. 

The order does not currently require 

handlers to register with the Committee. 

At the beginning of each crop year, the 

Committee receives a manifest of 

handlers who are handling fresh citrus 

from the state Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Service. The information 

is gathered by the state of Florida 

through the state’s dealer license 

requirements and through product 

inspection and certification. The 

Committee then uses this manifest for 

compliance purposes and to generate 

their assessment billings. 

According to the record, the State of 

Florida Department of Citrus, Chapter 

601, Florida Statutes, Florida Citrus 

Code 601.4, requires each packing house 

or handler that prepares Florida citrus 

for the fresh market in Florida to register 

annually with the Florida Department of 

Agriculture through the Division of 

Fruit and Vegetables (Division). In 

addition, Section 601.56, Florida 

Statutes, also referred to as the Florida 

Citrus Code, requires Florida citrus 

handlers to be approved by the 

Department of Citrus for a citrus fruit 

dealer’s license. 

Under the order, § 905.53, Inspection 

and certification, requires each lot of 

fresh citrus handled to be inspected by 

the Division. The Division certifies that 

the lot of fruit meets all applicable 

minimum grade and size requirements 

of the order. The Committee contracts 

annually with the Division to furnish 

the Committee, by month, information 

on each handler’s regulated shipments, 

both interstate and export. This 

information allows the Committee to 

calculate each handler’s assessment, as 

well as monitor compliance with grade 

and size regulation of fresh Florida 

citrus shipments. 

Witnesses explained that while the 

Committee has not experienced major 

compliance issues in the past, adding 

authority for it to require handler 

registration would provide the 

Committee with a timely and accurate 

list of handlers who intend to handle 

fresh citrus each crop year. Witnesses 

further explained that in the event the 

Florida state program were to stop 

regulating fresh citrus shipments the 

Committee would be able to gather 

necessary information through a handler 

registration requirement to continue 

monitoring handler compliance under 

the program. 

According to the record, the 

Committee monitors compliance (for 

both adherence to the order’s grade and 

size requirements and assessment 

payments) through provisions of both its 

compliance and internal controls plans. 

There are procedures in both to ensure 

that handlers are fully informed of any 

violations and are given time to take 

corrective actions. 

Witnesses explained that, in the very 

limited cases of minimum grade and 

size regulation violations, the majority 

of the reported violations involved less 

than a full pallet of fruit each, which 

would be equivalent to 54 cartons of 

citrus. Furthermore, most of the 

violations have been clerical errors 

made by the handlers’ shipping 

departments. In the last few seasons, 

with most shippers using bar coding 

systems for loading trucks or containers, 

these violations have almost been 

eliminated. The Committee has not 

experienced many late or uncollectible 

assessments. Nonetheless, witnesses 

advocated the need to implement a 

handler registration requirement. This 

authority would provide the Committee 

with a timely and accurate list of 

handlers handling fresh citrus each crop 

year for the purposes of compliance and 

communication. 

Witnesses explained that, if the 

amendment was approved, the 

Committee would have the authority to 

develop a handler registration form 

along with other guidelines to 

implement the collection of 

information. The handler registration 

form would likely require contact 

information along with other pertinent 

information deemed necessary for the 

operation of the order. Completed 

handler registration forms would 

provide accurate contact information 

that would improve the effectiveness of 

communications between handlers and 

the Committee, and assist in 

administering the compliance 

provisions of the order. Other than the 

time required to complete the 

registration form, witnesses stated that 

this proposal would not require 

handlers to bear any additional costs. 

Witnesses also stated that this proposal 

is not controversial and has support 

within the industry. 

No testimony opposing the proposed 

amendment was given at the hearing. 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

recommended that § 905.7, Handler, be 

amended to require handler registration. 

Small Business Considerations 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

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 and amendments 

thereto are unique in that they are 

normally brought about through group 

action of essentially small entities for 

their own benefit. 

According to the 2007 US Census of 

Agriculture, the number of citrus 

growers in Florida was 6,061. According 

to the National Agriculture Statistic 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Service (NASS) Citrus Fruit Report, 

published September 19, 2012, the total 

number of acres used in citrus 

production in Florida was 495,100 for 

the 2011/12 season. Based on the 

number of citrus growers from the US 

Census of Agriculture and the total acres 

used for citrus production from NASS, 

the average citrus farm size is 81.7 acres. 

NASS also reported the total value of 

production for Florida citrus at 

$1,804,484,000. Taking the total value of 

production for Florida citrus and 

dividing it by the total number of acres 

used for citrus production provides a 

return per acre of $3,644.69. A small 

grower as defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

is one that grosses less than $750,000 

annually. Multiplying the return per 

acre of $3,644.69 by the average citrus 

farm size of 81.7 acres, yields an average 

return of $297,720.51. Therefore, a 

majority of Florida citrus producers are 

considered small entities under SBA’s 

standards. 

According to the industry, there were 

44 handlers for the 2011/12 season, 

down 25 percent from the 2002/03 

season. A small agricultural service firm 

as defined by the SBA is one that 

grosses less than $7,000,000 annually. 

Twenty one handlers would be 

considered a small entity under SBA’s 

standards. A majority of handlers are 

considered large entities under SBA’s 

standards. 

The production area regulated under 

the order covers the portion of the state 

of Florida which is bound by the 

Suwannee River, the Georgia Border, the 

Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. 

Acreage devoted to citrus production in 

the regulated area has declined in recent 

years. 

According to data presented at the 

hearing, bearing acreage for oranges 

reached a high of 605,000 acres during 

the 2000/01 crop year. Since then, 

bearing acreage for oranges has 

decreased 28 percent. For grapefruit, 

bearing acreage reached a high of 

107,800 acres during the 2000/01 crop 

year. Since the 2000/01 crop year, 

bearing acreage for grapefruit has 

decreased 58 percent. For tangelos, 

bearing acreage reached a high for the 

2000/01 crop year of 10,800 acres for 

Florida. Since the 2000/01 crop year, 

bearing acreage for tangelos has 

decreased 62 percent. For tangerines 

and mandarins, bearing acreage reached 

a high for the 2000/01 crop year of 

25,500 acres. Since the 2000/01 crop 

year, bearing acreage for tangerines and 

mandarins has decreased 53 percent. 

According to data presented at the 

hearing, the total utilized production for 

oranges reached a high during the 2003/ 

04 crop year of 242 million boxes. Since 

the 2000/01 crop year, total utilized 

production for oranges has decreased 34 

percent. For grapefruit, the total utilized 

production reached a high during the 

2001/02 crop year of 46.7 million boxes. 

Since the 2000/01 crop year, total 

utilized production for grapefruit has 

decreased 59 percent. For tangelos, the 

total utilized production reached a high 

during the 2002/03 crop year of 2.4 

million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop 

year, total utilized production for 

tangelos has decreased 45 percent. For 

tangerines and mandarins, the total 

utilized production reached a high 

during the 2001/02 crop year of 6.6 

million boxes. Since the 2000/01 crop 

year, total utilized production for 

tangerines and mandarins has decreased 

23 percent. 

During the hearing held on April 24, 

2013, interested persons were invited to 

present evidence at the hearing on the 

probable regulatory and informational 

impact of the proposed amendments to 

the order on small businesses. The 

evidence presented at the hearing shows 

that none of the proposed amendments 

would have any burdensome effects on 

small agricultural producers or firms. 

Material Issue Number 1—Definitions 

of ‘‘Fruit’’ and ‘‘Variety’’ 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 1 would amend the definitions of 

‘‘fruit’’ and ‘‘variety’’ in § 905.4 and 

§ 905.5 to update terminology and 

authorize regulation of additional 

varieties and hybrids of citrus. 

Currently, the New Varieties 

Development and Management 

Corporations, a non-profit research 

organization, is actively working to 

identify, acquire and sub-license 

promising citrus varieties and hybrids 

for the Florida citrus grower. In order to 

regulate these new varieties and 

hybrids, the definitions of fruit and 

variety must be amended so that these 

new varieties and hybrids can be 

regulated under the order. 

Witnesses supported this proposal 

and stated that Florida growers have 

invested heavily and steadily in the 

development of new citrus varieties to 

meet changing demand and consumer 

preferences. Witnesses stated that it is 

imperative that the order be amended to 

keep pace with a rapidly changing 

industry and maximize its relevance 

and utility to the industry. No 

significant impact on small business 

entities is anticipated from this 

proposed change. 

Material Issue Number 2—Intrastate 

Shipments 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 2 would amend the definition of 

‘‘handle or ship’’ in § 905.9 to authorize 

regulation of intrastate shipments. 

Currently, the Florida Citrus 

Commission, under the Florida 

Department of Citrus Rules Chapter 20, 

regulates the grade and size of intrastate 

shipments, while the Federal order 

regulates all interstate shipments and 

exports of fresh citrus. If the proposed 

amendment were implemented, 

authority to regulate intrastate 

shipments would be added to the 

Federal order. This amendment would 

allow for the eventual regulation of all 

fresh citrus shipments under the order 

if intrastate shipments were no longer 

regulated by the Florida Department of 

Citrus. 

Witnesses explained that adding the 

authority to regulate intrastate 

shipments to the order would be a 

precautionary measure. If the Florida 

Department of Citrus were to stop 

regulating fresh citrus shipments, 

having the authority to do so under the 

Federal order would facilitate a 

streamlined transition of regulation 

from one program to the other. Such a 

transition would benefit growers and 

handlers as shipments of fresh citrus 

could continue without interruption. 

Witnesses anticipated that handlers 

would incur little to no additional costs 

as a result of the proposed amendment. 

As currently proposed, the amendment 

would simply add an authority to the 

order. This authority would not be 

implemented unless warranted by other 

factors. If implemented, handlers of 

intrastate fresh citrus shipments would 

be subject to assessments under the 

order. However, the Florida Department 

of Citrus already collects assessments on 

intrastate shipments. Therefore, the cost 

of assessments collected on intrastate 

shipments, whether under the State or 

Federal program, would continue. In 

conclusion, it is determined that the 

benefits of adding the authority to 

regulate intrastate shipments of fresh 

citrus to the order would outweigh any 

costs. 

Material Issue Number 3—Redistricting 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 3 would amend § 905.14 to revise 

the process for redistricting the 

production area. 

The proposed amendment would 

grant flexibility to the Committee in 

redefining grower districts within the 

production area when the criteria and 

relevant factors within the production 

area warrant redistricting. Disease and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11343 

natural disasters over the past decade 

have significantly affected bearing 

acreage. The proposed amendment 

would allow the Committee at any time, 

subject to the approval of the Secretary, 

to base their determination of grower 

districts on the number of bearing trees, 

volume of fresh fruit, total number of 

citrus acres, and other relevant factors 

when conditions warrant redistricting. 

According to a witness, the proposed 

amendment would give the Committee, 

in future seasons, the flexibility to 

adjust grower districts to reflect the shift 

in production of fresh varieties and 

fresh volume. In addition, the 

Committee would be able to adjust 

grower districts based on the number of 

trees lost to disease and natural 

disasters. Thus, it is not expected that 

this proposal would result in any 

additional costs to growers or handlers. 

Material Issue Number 4—Term of 

Office 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 4 would amend § 905.20 to change 

the term of office of Committee 

members from one to two years, and 

change the tenure limits for Committee 

members from three to four years. 

According to a witness, a two-year 

term would allow for biennial 

nomination meetings, which would 

provide administrative efficiencies and 

stability. The current one-year term of 

office is administratively inefficient and 

requires additional Committee 

resources. Moreover, limiting terms to 

one year results in an annual effort to 

nominate and appoint new members. 

This process is costly to the Committee 

and requires time and resources for 

industry members to participate. A twoyear term would reduce these costs. For 

the reasons described above, it is 

determined that the proposed 

amendment would benefit industry 

participants and improve administration 

of the order. The costs of implementing 

this proposal would be minimal, if any. 

Material Issue Number 5—Mail 

Balloting 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 5 would amend § 905.22 to 

authorize mail balloting procedures for 

Committee membership nominations. 

Nomination meetings have low 

participation rates due to time, travel, 

and administrative costs. 

The proposed amendment would 

allow the Committee to conduct the 

nomination and/or election of members 

and alternates by mail or other means 

according to the rules and regulations 

recommended by the Committee and 

approved by the Secretary. Currently, 

the Committee holds grower nomination 

meetings in each of the three grower 

districts and one shipper nomination 

meeting annually. Witnesses indicated 

that attending these meetings is costly 

due to travel expenses and time away 

from their growing or handling 

operations. While the proposed 

amendment would result in some 

increased expenses for printing and 

mailing of ballot materials, witnesses 

indicated that the potential savings to 

growers and handlers far exceed those 

costs. 

Moreover, witnesses indicated that 

the additional benefit of increased 

participation in the nomination process 

as a result of materials being sent to all 

interested parties would outweigh the 

costs of conducting nominations by 

mail. This would be particularly true in 

the case of small business entities that 

have fewer resources and relatively less 

flexibility in managing their businesses 

compared to larger businesses. For these 

reasons, it is determined that the cost 

savings, increased participation, and 

other benefits gained from conducting 

nomination meetings via mail would 

outweigh the potential costs of 

implementing this proposal. 

Material Issue Number 6—Financial 

Reserves Fund 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 6 would amend § 905.42 to 

authorize the Committee to increase the 

capacity of its financial reserve funds 

from approximately six months of a 

fiscal period’s expenses to 

approximately two fiscal periods’ 

expenses. Such reserve funds could be 

used to cover any expenses authorized 

by the Committee or to cover necessary 

liquidation expenses if the order is 

terminated. 

The proposed amendment would 

allow the Committee to increase their 

reserves up to two fiscal periods’ 

expenses. Currently, reserves are capped 

at approximately one half of one year’s 

expenses. Witnesses explained that the 

current cap on reserves is too restrictive 

and could limit the Committee’s ability 

to develop and implement projects 

requiring advertising, promotion or 

research without raising the assessment 

rate during the season. 

As discussed earlier in this 

recommended decision, witnesses 

considered the need to develop and 

promote new hybrid varieties and 

markets to be essential to reviving the 

health of the fresh citrus sector. 

According to them, not increasing the 

reserve cap would inhibit the 

Committee’s ability to address these 

needs. 

Also, without the proposed 

amendment it would become more 

difficult for the Committee to avoid 

assessment rate increases annually or 

during a season. According to the 

record, the proposed amendment would 

also provide greater stability in the 

administration of the order’s assessment 

rate. Under the current reserve limit, the 

Committee would need to increase the 

assessment rate mid-season if the need 

for additional revenues for research or 

promotion activities occurs after the 

assessment rate and budget are 

finalized. Increasing the assessment rate 

mid-season confuses industry members 

and creates additional burdens in 

administering the order. 

For the reasons discussed above, it is 

determined that the benefits of 

increasing the maximum level of funds 

that can be held in the financial reserves 

would outweigh the costs. 

Material Issue Number 7—Regulation 

of Shipments 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 7 would amend § 905.52 to: 

Authorize different regulations for 

different market destinations; allow for 

the regulation of pack and container 

requirements for interstate shipments; 

and, in the absence of state regulation, 

allow for the establishment of 

requirements for intrastate shipments. 

This would allow shippers to meet 

varying customer demands in different 

market destinations. In addition, the 

proposed amendment would allow 

regulation and orderly marketing to 

continue for intrastate shipments if 

Florida State fresh citrus regulations 

were discontinued. This authority will 

not be implemented unless state 

regulations were no longer in effect. 

The proposed amendment to regulate 

containers and establish quality 

standards for the production area would 

not have any adverse effects on small 

businesses if approved. Continued 

orderly marketing of fresh citrus 

shipments within the State of Florida 

would equally benefit all segments of 

the industry and consumers by 

maintaining quality standards and 

consistency. 

Material Issue Number 8—Nomination 

Acceptance 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 8 would Amend § 905.28 to 

eliminate the use of separate acceptance 

statements in the nomination process. 

Currently, nominees complete both 

background and acceptance statements 

when they are nominated. The 

elimination of the acceptance statement 

would reduce paperwork and 

administrative costs. Therefore, it is 

determined that the proposed 

amendment would benefit both large 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and small-scale fresh citrus businesses, 

and would reduce costs and improve 

the administration of the order. 

Material Issue Number 9—Handler 

Registration 

The proposal described in Material 

Issue 9 would Amend § 905.7 to require 

handlers to register with the Committee. 

Currently, the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Division of Fruit and Vegetables has a 

registration program for handlers of 

Florida citrus. The Committee contracts 

annually with the Division to obtain 

information on each handler’s regulated 

shipments, both interstate and export, 

on a monthly basis. 

A handler registration form would 

serve as an efficient means for obtaining 

handler information that would improve 

communication between the Committee 

and handlers. It would also assist the 

Committee in monitoring and enforcing 

compliance. If a handler were to not 

comply with regulations in effect under 

the order, the Committee would have 

that handler’s contact information on 

file to begin the compliance 

enforcement process. Moreover, if a 

handler failed to respond to compliance 

enforcement requests, the Committee 

could revoke a handler’s registration. 

Without the registration, a handler 

would not be able to ship citrus subject 

to order regulation. 

Witnesses stated that while a handler 

registration program may result in 

additional administrative costs, the 

benefits of this proposed amendment 

would outweigh those costs. Also, the 

proposal would not disproportionately 

disadvantage small-sized businesses as 

all handlers, regardless of size, would be 

required to register with the Committee. 

Furthermore, the new requirement 

would not result in a direct cost to 

handlers as the cost of administering a 

handler registration program would be 

borne by the Committee. 

For these reasons, it is determined 

that the benefits of requiring handlers to 

register with the Committee would be 

greater than the costs. 

Interested persons were invited to 

present evidence at the hearing on the 

probable regulatory and informational 

impact of the proposed amendments to 

the order on small entities. The record 

evidence indicates that implementation 

of the proposals to authorize regulation 

of new varieties and hybrids of citrus 

fruit; authorize the regulation of 

intrastate shipments of fruit; revise the 

process for redistricting the production 

area; change the term of office and 

tenure requirements for Committee 

members; authorize mail balloting 

procedures for Committee membership 

nominations; increase the capacity of 

financial reserve funds; authorize pack 

and container requirements for 

intrastate shipments and authorize 

different regulations for different 

markets; eliminate the use of separate 

acceptance statements in the 

nomination process; and, require 

handlers to register with the Committee 

would improve the operation of the 

order and are not anticipated to impact 

small businesses disproportionately. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. These 

amendments are intended to improve 

the operation and administration of the 

order and to assist in the marketing of 

fresh Florida citrus. 

Committee meetings regarding these 

proposals, as well as the hearing date 

and location, were widely publicized 

throughout the Florida citrus industry, 

and all interested persons were invited 

to attend the meetings and the hearing 

to participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. All 

Committee meetings and the hearing 

were public forums and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

views on these issues. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Current information collection 

requirements for Part 905 are approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), under OMB Number 

0581–0189—‘‘Generic OMB Fruit 

Crops.’’ In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the termination of 

the Letter of Acceptance has been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for approval. The 

Letter of Acceptance has no time or cost 

burden associated with it due to the fact 

that handlers simply sign the form upon 

accepting nomination to the Committee. 

As a result, the current number of hours 

associated with OMB No. 0581–0189, 

Generic Fruit Crops, would remain the 

same: 7,786.71 hours. 

No other changes in these 

requirements are anticipated as a result 

of this proceeding. Should any such 

changes become necessary, they would 

be submitted to OMB for approval. 

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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The amendments to the order 

proposed herein have been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. They are not intended to 

have retroactive effect. If adopted, the 

proposed amendments would not 

preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this proposal. 

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. 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. 

Rulings on Briefs of Interested Persons 

Briefs, proposed findings and 

conclusions, and the evidence in the 

record were considered in making the 

findings and conclusions set forth in 

this recommended decision. To the 

extent that the suggested findings and 

conclusions filed by interested persons 

are inconsistent with the findings and 

conclusions of this recommended 

decision, the requests to make such 

findings or to reach such conclusions 

are denied. 

General Findings 

The findings hereinafter set forth are 

supplementary to the findings and 

determinations which were previously 

made in connection with the issuance of 

the marketing agreement and order; 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) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11345 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, would tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

(2) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, regulates the handling of 

fresh citrus grown in the production 

area (Florida) in the same manner as, 

and is applicable only to, persons in the 

respective classes of commercial and 

industrial activity specified in the 

marketing order upon which a hearing 

has been held; 

(3) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

amended, is limited in its 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 orders 

applicable to subdivisions of the 

production area would not effectively 

carry out the declared policy of the Act; 

(4) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby proposed to be further 

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 fresh citrus 

grown in the production area; and 

(5) All handling of fresh citrus grown 

in the production area as defined in the 

marketing order 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 this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate because these proposed 

changes have already been widely 

publicized and the Committee and 

industry would like to avail themselves 

of the opportunity to implement the 

changes as soon as possible. All written 

exceptions received within the 

comment period will be considered and 

a grower referendum will be conducted 

before any of these proposals are 

implemented. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905 

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Pummelos, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Tangerines. 

Recommended Further Amendment of 

the Marketing Order 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, 

TANGERINES, AND PUMMELOS 

GROWN IN FLORIDA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 905 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise the heading of part 905 to 

read as set forth above. 

■ 3. Revise § 905.4 to read as follows: 

§ 905.4 Fruit. 

Fruit means any or all varieties of the 

following types of citrus fruits grown in 

the production area: 

(a) Citrus sinensis, Osbeck, commonly 

called ‘‘oranges’’; 

(b) Citrus paradisi, MacFadyen, 

commonly called ‘‘grapefruit’’; 

(c) Citrus reticulata, commonly called 

‘‘tangerines’’ or ‘‘mandarin’’; 

(d) Citrus maxima Merr (L.); Osbeck, 

commonly called ‘‘pummelo’’; and, 

(e) ‘‘Citrus hybrids’’ that are hybrids 

between or among one or more of the 

four fruits (a) through (d) of this section 

and the following: Trifoliate orange 

(Poncirus trifoliata), sour orange (C. 

aurantium), lemon (C. limon), lime (C. 

aurantifolia), citron (C. medica), 

kumquat (Fortunella species), tangelo 

(C. reticulata x C. paradisi or C. grandis), 

tangor (C. reticulata x C. sinensis), and 

varieties of these species. In addition, 

citrus hybrids include: tangelo (C. 

reticulata x C. paradisi or C. grandis), 

tangor (C. reticulata x C. sinensis), 

Temple oranges, and varieties thereof. 

■ 4. Revise § 905.5 to read as follows: 

§ 905.5 Variety. 

Variety or varieties means any one or 

more of the following classifications or 

groupings of fruit: 

(a) Oranges; 

(1) Early and Midseason oranges 

(2) Valencia, Lue Gim Gong, and 

similar late maturing oranges of the 

Valencia type; 

(3) Navel oranges 

(b) Grapefruit; 

(1) Red Grapefruit, to include all 

shades of color 

(2) White Grapefruit 

(c) Tangerines and Mandarins; 

(1) Dancy and similar tangerines 

(2) Robinson tangerines 

(3) Honey tangerines 

(4) Fall-Glo tangerines 

(5) US Early Pride tangerines 

(6) Sunburst tangerines 

(7) W-Murcott tangerines 

(8) Tangors 

(d) Pummelos; 

(1) Hirado Buntan and other pink 

seeded pummelos 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(e) Citrus Hybrids; 

(1) Tangelos 

(i) Orlando tangelo 

(ii) Minneola tangelo 

(2) Temple oranges 

(f) Other varieties of citrus fruits 

specified in § 905.4, including hybrids, 

as recommended and approved by the 

Secretary: Provided, That in order to 

add any hybrid variety of citrus fruit to 

be regulated under this provision, such 

variety must exhibit similar 

characteristics and be subject to cultural 

practices common to existing regulated 

varieties. 

■ 5. Revise § 905.7 to read as follows: 

§ 905.7 Handler. 

Handler is synonymous with shipper 

and means any person (except a 

common or contract carrier transporting 

fruit for another person) who, as owner, 

agent, or otherwise, handles fruit in 

fresh form, or causes fruit to be handled. 

Each handler shall be registered with 

the Committee pursuant to rules 

recommended by the Committee and 

approved by the Secretary. 

■ 6. Revise § 905.9 to read as follows: 

§ 905.9 Handle or Ship. 

Handle or ship means to sell, 

transport, deliver, pack, prepare for 

market, grade, or in any other way to 

place fruit in the current of commerce 

within the production area or between 

any point in the production area and 

any point outside thereof. 

■ 7. Revise § 905.14 to read as follows: 

§ 905.14 Redistricting. 

The Committee may, with the 

approval of the Secretary, redefine the 

districts into which the production area 

is divided or reapportion or otherwise 

change the grower membership of 

districts, or both: Provided, That the 

membership shall consist of at least 

eight but not more than nine grower 

members, and any such change shall be 

based, insofar as practicable, upon the 

respective averages for the immediately 

preceding three fiscal periods of: 

(a) The number of bearing trees in 

each district; 

(b) the volume of fresh fruit produced 

in each district; 

(c) the total number of acres of citrus 

in each district; and 

(d) other relevant factors. 

Each redistricting or reapportionment 

shall be announced on or prior to March 

1 preceding the effective fiscal period. 

■ 8. Revise § 905.20 to read as follows: 

§ 905.20 Term of Office. 

The term of office of members and 

alternate members shall begin on the 

first day of August of even-numbered 

years and continue for two years and 

until their successors are selected and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

have qualified. The consecutive terms of 

office of a member shall be limited to 

two terms. The terms of office of 

alternate members shall not be so 

limited. Members, their alternates, and 

their respective successors shall be 

nominated and selected by the Secretary 

as provided in § 905.22 and § 905.23. 

■ 9. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) 

and add a new paragraph (c) in § 905.22 

to read as follows: 

§ 905.22 Nominations. 

(a) Grower members. (1) The 

Committee shall give public notice of a 

meeting of producers in each district to 

be held not later than June 10th of evennumbered years, for the purpose of 

making nominations for grower 

members and alternate grower members. 

The Committee, with the approval of the 

Secretary, shall prescribe uniform rules 

to govern such meetings and the 

balloting thereat. The chairman of each 

meeting shall publicly announce at such 

meeting the names of the persons 

nominated, and the chairman and 

secretary of each such meeting shall 

transmit to the Secretary their 

certification as to the number of votes so 

cast, the names of the persons 

nominated, and such other information 

as the Secretary may request. All 

nominations shall be submitted to the 

Secretary on or before the 20th day of 

June. 

* * * * * 

(b) Shipper members. (1) The 

Committee shall give public notice of a 

meeting for bona fide cooperative 

marketing organizations which are 

handlers, and a meeting for other 

handlers who are not so affiliated, to be 

held not later than June 10th of evennumbered years, for the purpose of 

making nominations for shipper 

members and their alternates. The 

Committee, with the approval of the 

Secretary, shall prescribe uniform rules 

to govern each such meeting and the 

balloting thereat. The chairperson of 

each such meeting shall publicly 

announce at the meeting the names of 

the persons nominated and the 

chairman and secretary of each such 

meeting shall transmit to the Secretary 

their certification as to the number of 

votes cast, the weight by volume of 

those shipments voted, and such other 

information as the Secretary may 

request. All nominations shall be 

submitted to the Secretary on or before 

the 20th day of June. 

* * * * * 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

nomination and election of members 

and alternate members to the Committee 

may be conducted by mail, electronic 

mail, or other means according to rules 

and regulations recommended by the 

Committee and approved by the 

Secretary. 

■ 10. Revise § 905.28 to read as follows: 

§ 905.28 Qualification and Acceptance. 

Any person nominated to serve as a 

member or alternate member of the 

Committee shall, prior to selection by 

the Secretary, qualify by filing a written 

qualification and acceptance statement 

indicating such person’s qualifications 

and willingness to serve in the position 

for which nominated. 

■ 11. Revise the first sentence of 

paragraph (a) in § 905.42 to read as 

follows: 

§ 905.42 Handler’s accounts. 

(a) If, at the end of a fiscal period, the 

assessments collected are in excess of 

expenses incurred, the Committee, with 

the approval of the Secretary, may carry 

over such excess into subsequent fiscal 

periods as a reserve: Provided, That 

funds already in the reserve do not 

exceed approximately two fiscal 

periods’ expenses. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Revise paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5), 

and add a new paragraph (a)(6) in 

§ 905.52 to read as follows: 

§ 905.52 Issuance of regulations. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Establish, prescribe, and fix the 

size, capacity, weight, dimensions, 

marking (including labels and stamps), 

or pack of the container or containers 

which may be used in the packaging, 

transportation, sale, shipment, or other 

handling of fruit. 

(5) Provide requirements that may be 

different for the handling of fruit within 

the production area, the handling of 

fruit for export, or for the handling of 

fruit between the production area and 

any point outside thereof within the 

United States. 

(6) Any regulations or requirements 

pertaining to intrastate shipments shall 

not be implemented unless Florida 

statutes and regulations regulating such 

shipments are not in effect. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

Rex. A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04085 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 925 and 944 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0031; FV14–925–2 

PR] 

Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of 

Southeastern California and Imported 

Table Grapes; Relaxation of Handling 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites 

comments on partially relaxing the 

handling requirements currently 

prescribed under the California table 

grape marketing order (order) and the 

table grape import regulation. The order 

regulates the handling of table grapes 

grown in a designated area of 

southeastern California and is 

administered locally by the California 

Desert Grape Administrative Committee 

(committee). The import regulation is 

authorized under section 8e of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937 and regulates the importation of 

table grapes into the United States. This 

action would partially relax the onequarter pound minimum bunch size 

requirement in the order’s regulations 

and the import regulation for U.S. No. 

1 Table grade grapes packed in 

consumer packages known as 

clamshells weighing 5 pounds or less. 

Under the proposal, up to 20 percent of 

the weight of such containers may 

consist of single grape clusters weighing 

less than one-quarter pound, but 

consisting of at least five berries each. 

This rule would provide California 

desert grape handlers and importers 

with the flexibility to respond to an 

ongoing marketing opportunity to meet 

consumer needs. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 2, 2015. 

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, Fruit and Vegetable 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS