### 35498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Under this definition, an employee who is legally married to a same-sex spouse in one State and who resides or works in a State where the marriage is not legally recognized may use FMLA leave for his or her spouse. This proposed regulation deviates from DOL’s current regulatory definition of

spouse as ‘‘a husband or wife as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the employee resides, including common law marriage in States where it is recognized.’’ (See 29 CFR 825.102 (emphasis added).) However, DOL is concurrently issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will propose to change the definition of spouse. OPM’s proposed definition in this NPRM is the same as DOL’s proposed definition.

OPM believes that this definition of spouse is appropriate for the Federal workforce and that Federal employees would benefit from this broader definition. To support an agency’s mission, employees may be stationed in a State other than the State of their marriage, and, at times, relocated throughout the United States and abroad. Accordingly, consistent with DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, OPM believes that using this definition of spouse will enable the Federal Government to consider the needs of a diverse workforce and provide consistent application of policy across the Federal Government. Uniform treatment of all Federal employees will make it more likely that employees will accept voluntary details and transfers to States where a same-sex marriage is not recognized.
Children of Same-Sex Couples

By clarifying that a same-sex spouse qualifies as a spouse for purposes of theFMLA, children of an employee’s samesex spouse now qualify as stepchildren because their parents are in a legal same-sex marriage. Same-sex spouses who stand in loco parentis to the spouse’s child are already entitled to take FMLA leave to care for the child. Additionally, the proposed rule clarifies that same-sex spouses are able to take leave to care for their spouse’s child by virtue of being the child’s stepparent regardless of whether they stand in loco parentis. For information about the ability of employees to take FMLA leave for the children of their domestic partners, employees should review the OPM memorandum CPM 2010–15, sent to agencies on August 31, 2010, titled ‘‘Interpretation of ‘Son or Daughter’ Under the Family and Medical Leave Act,’’ available at www.chcoc.gov/ Transmittals/TransmittalDetails.aspx? TransmittalID=3122

. Conforming Amendments

We are also proposing conforming amendments to revise the definition of parent and add a definition for State to align with DOL’s definitions of these terms. DOL revised its definition of parent on November 17, 2008, at 73 FR 67934, to include adoptive, step, or foster parents. This change will permit an employee to use FMLA leave to care for a stepparent who did not stand in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a child. The definition of
State clarifies that the term, as used in the definition of spouse, includes the District of Columbia and any Territory or possession of the United States.

Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 13563 and 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 630

Government employees.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Katherine Archuleta,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 630 as follows:

**PART 630—ABSENCE AND LEAVE**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 6311; § 630.205 also issued under Pub. L. 108–411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.301 also issued under Pub. L. 103–356, 108 Stat. 3410 and Pub. L. 108–411, 118 Stat 2312; § 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a); §§ 630.306 and 630.308 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102–484, 106 Stat. 2722, and Pub. L. 103–337, 108 Stat. 2663; subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 103–329, 108 Stat. 2423; § 630.501 and subpart F also issued under E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 100–566, 102 Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103– 103, 107 Stat. 1022; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6362, Pub. L 100–566, and Pub. L. 103–103; subpart K also issued under Pub. L. 105–18, 111 Stat. 158; subpart L also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103– 3, 107 Stat. 23; and subpart M also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391 and Pub. L. 102–25, 105
Stat. 92. ■ 2. In § 630.1202, the definitions of parent and spouse are revised and the definition of State is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:

**§ 630.1202 Definitions.**

* * * * *

Parent means a biological, adoptive, step, or foster father or mother, or any individual who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a son or daughter as defined below. This term does not include parents ‘‘in law.’’

* * * * *

Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either:

(1) Was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages; or

(2) If entered into outside of any State, was valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

* * * * *

State means any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United
States.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014–14514 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6325–39–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**7 CFR Parts 915 and 944**

**[Doc. No. AMS–FV–13–0069; FV13–915–3 PR]** 

**Avocados Grown in South Florida and Imported Avocados; Clarification of**  **the Avocado Grade Requirements**

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This proposed rule invites comments on changes to the minimum grade requirements currently prescribed under the Florida avocado marketing order (order) and a technical correction to the avocado import regulation. The order regulates the handling of avocados


### 35499 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

grown in South Florida, and is administered locally by the Avocado Administrative Committee (Committee). For South Florida-grown avocados, this proposed rule would align the regulations with current industry practice. It would remove language permitting the commingling of avocados with dissimilar characteristics in containers for shipment within the production area. All avocado shipments within the production area would need to meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 grade, as provided in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados. For imported avocados, this rule would also make a technical correction to the avocado import regulation to clarify that the minimum grade requirement for imported avocados remains unchanged at a U.S.
No. 2.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received by July 23, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. 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 hours, or can be viewed at: http:// www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposal 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 comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email: Doris.Jamieson@ams.usda.gov or Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov.

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation 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 :**  This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 915, as amended (7 CFR part 915), regulating the handling of avocados grown in South Florida, hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ 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.’’

This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including avocados, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. 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 not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.

This proposal invites comments on revisions to the grade requirements currently prescribed under the order and the avocado import regulation. This proposed rule would remove language permitting the commingling of avocados with dissimilar characteristics for shipment within the production area. This would require all avocados shipped within the production area to meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 grade, as provided in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados. This rule would also make a technical correction to the avocado import regulation to clarify that the minimum grade requirement for imported avocados remains unchanged
at a U.S. No. 2.

Section 915.51 of the order provides, in part, authority to issue regulations establishing specific grade and pack requirements for avocados. Section 915.52 of the order provides authority for the modification, suspension, or termination of established regulations.

Section 915.306 of the order’s container and pack regulations prescribe grade, pack, and container marking requirements for Florida avocados. Paragraph (a)(1) of that section prescribes, in part, the grade requirements for avocados shipped within the production area. Minimum grade and size requirements for avocados imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.28.

In reviewing the Florida avocado regulations, it was noted that paragraph (a)(1) of § 915.306 of the regulations currently states that avocados must grade at least U.S. No. 2 but also allows for the commingling of different shapes and sizes within the same container. However, the provisions of the U.S. No. 2 grade require that avocados packed in the same container be similar in shape and size.

USDA requested that the Committee review the Florida avocado regulations regulatory language in regards to grade for shipments within the production area. The Committee responded that the language permitting commingling was added to the regulations in 1992 to allow handlers to ship quantities of fruit of different shapes and sizes in the same container to make more fruit available for shipment within the production area. Committee members agreed that handlers no longer use this provision as ample fruit is available to fill the containers with avocados of the same shape and size. Consequently, in a June 12, 2013, meeting, the Committee recommended removing the language permitting commingling to align the regulations with current industry practices and with the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados (7 CFR 51.3050 through 51.3069). This action would remove the language permitting the commingling of avocados with dissimilar characteristics, requiring all avocados shipped within the production area to meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 grade, as


### 35500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

provided in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados.

This action would also make a technical correction to the grade requirements under the avocado import regulation. Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including avocados, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements. As it is the only marketing order covering avocados, import requirements are based on the marketing order for avocados grown in South Florida.

The minimum grade requirement for Florida avocados shipped outside the production area was recently increased by a final rule (78 FR 51041) from a U.S. No. 2 to a U.S. Combination grade. The change in grade applies only to Florida avocados shipped outside the production area. The less restrictive U.S. No. 2 grade would continue to apply to shipments within the production area and to imported avocados. As indicated in the final rule, this action would make a technical correction to the import regulation to clarify that the minimum grade requirement for imported avocados remains unchanged at a U.S. No. 2, which is the same grade requirement for avocados shipped within the production

area. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.

There are approximately 30 handlers of Florida avocados subject to regulation under the order and approximately 300 producers of avocados in the production area. There are approximately 260 importers of avocados. Small agricultural service firms, which include avocado handlers and importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Committee data and information from the National Agricultural Statistical Service, the average price for Florida avocados during the 2011–12 season was approximately $20.79 per 55-pound bushel container, and total shipments were slightly higher than 1.2 million 55- pound bushels. Using the average price and shipment information provided by the Committee, the majority of avocado handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA’s definition. In addition, based on avocado production, producer prices, and the total number of Florida avocado producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, indicates that the dollar value of imported avocados was around $1.1 billion in 2013. Using these values, most importers would have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 for avocados. Consequently, the majority of avocado handlers, producers, and importers may be classified as small entities.

Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Dominican Republic are the major production areas exporting avocados to the United States. In 2013, shipments of avocados imported into the United States totaled nearly 572,000 metric tons. Mexico accounted for around 509,700 metric tons, with 23,400 metric tons from Chile, 21,600 metric tons from Peru, and 17,000 metric tons were imported from the Dominican Republic.

This proposed rule would remove language permitting the commingling of avocados with dissimilar characteristics for shipments within the production area. This would require all avocados shipped within the production area to meet the provisions of a U.S. No. 2 grade, as provided in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados. This proposal would revise the grade requirements currently prescribed for Florida avocados shipped within the production area under § 915.306 of the regulations. This proposed change would align marketing order regulations with current industry practices and with the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 915.51 and 915.52 of the order. This action would also make a technical correction to the avocado import regulation, § 944.28, to clarify that the minimum grade requirement for imported avocados remains unchanged
at a U.S. No. 2.

Any costs associated with this change are anticipated to be minimal. Committee members indicated that the industry no longer ships containers of dissimilar fruit within the production area. In addition, the volume of U.S. No. 2 grade Florida avocados shipped during a season is small, representing less than one percent of total annual shipments. Further, any impact from this action would be limited to the volume of fruit shipped within the production area. Therefore, implementation of this proposed rule is not expected to impact the volume of fruit being utilized nor would it impact the total volume of Florida avocados on the market. There is no anticipated impact on import volume, as the proposed change to those requirements is merely a clarification. The effects of this proposed rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small handlers or growers than for large
entities.

The only alternative the Committee considered was leaving the regulations for shipments within the production area unchanged. However, Committee members agreed that this language was outdated as the industry no longer commingles shapes and sizes in production area shipments. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

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.

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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

Accordingly, this action would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida avocado 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.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this proposed rule. However, as previously stated, imported


### 35501 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules

avocados and those shipped within the production area must meet the applicable requirements for grade, as specified in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados (7 CFR 51.3050 through 51.3069) issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).

Further, the Committee’s meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida avocado industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 12, 2013, meeting was a public meeting. All entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

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/ MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide

. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule.

A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate as this proposed rule should be in place as soon as possible because handlers begin shipping in mid-May, and the technical correction to the import regulation is to clarify that the grade requirement is unchanged. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 915

Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 944

Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 915 and 944 are proposed to be amended as follows:

**PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN SOUTH FLORIDA** 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 915 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. In § 915.306, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

**§ 915.306 Florida avocado grade, pack, and container marking regulation.** 

(a) * * * (1) Such avocados grade at least U.S. Combination, except that avocados handled to destinations within the production area grade at least U.S. No.

2.

* * * * *

**PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS** 

■ 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 944 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 4. In § 944.28, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

(a) Pursuant to section 8e of the Act and Part 944—Fruits; Import Regulations, the importation into the United States of any avocados is prohibited unless such avocados grade at least U.S. No. 2, as such grade is defined in the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados (7 CFR 51.3050 through 51.3069).

* * * * *

Dated: June 16, 2014.
Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–14405 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

**Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** 

**18 CFR Part 35**

**[Docket No. RM14–11–000]**

**Open Access and Priority Rights on Interconnection Customer’s**  **Interconnection Facilities**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking;
correction.

**SUMMARY :**  This document contains corrections to the proposed rule (RM14– 11–000) which published in the Federal Register of Friday, May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31061). The regulation proposed to amend regulations to waive the Open Access Transmission Tariffrequirements, the Open Access SameTime Information System requirements of its regulations, and the Standards of Conduct requirements of its regulations, for any public utility that is subject to such requirements solely because it owns, controls, or operates
Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities, in whole or in part, and sells electric energy from its Generating Facility, as those terms are defined in the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and the pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Agreement and adopted in Order No. 2003. The Commission proposed to find that requiring the filing of an Open Access Transmission Tariff is not necessary to prevent unjust or unreasonable rates or unduly discriminatory behavior with respect to
Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities over which interconnection and transmission services can be ordered pursuant to sections 210, 211, and 212 of the Federal Power Act.

**DATES :**  Comments are due July 29, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Becky Robinson (Technical

Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8868, Becky.Robinson@ ferc.gov. Brian Gish (Legal Information), Office of

the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8998, Brian.Gish@ferc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On May 15, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the above-captioned proceeding. Open Access and Priority Rights on
Interconnection Customer’s Interconnection Facilities, 147 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2014). This errata notice makes several corrections to the NOPR as issued.

In FR Doc. 2014–11946 appearing on page 31061 in the Federal Register of Friday, May 30, 2014, the following corrections are made:

■ 1. On page 31072, second column, first paragraph, the first sentence of section 35.28(d)(1) of the proposed regulatory text is revised to read as follows:

‘‘A public utility subject to the requirements of this section and 18 CFR parts 37 (Open Access Same-Time Information System) and 358 (Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers) may file a request for waiver of all or part of such requirements for good cause shown.’’

■ 2. On page 31072, second column, fourth paragraph, the first sentence of section 35.28(d)(2)(ii) of the proposed