This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

9455 

Vol. 87, No. 35 

Tuesday, February 22, 2022 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 981 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC–21–0076; SC21–981–1 

PR] 

Marketing Order Regulations for 

Almonds Grown in California 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement a recommendation from the 

Almond Board of California (Board) to 

make changes to multiple provisions in 

the administrative requirements 

prescribed under the Federal marketing 

order regulating the handling of 

almonds grown in California. This 

action would revise several provisions 

in the Order’s requirements to facilitate 

the efficient administration of the Order. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

April 25, 2022. Comments on the forms 

and information collection must also be 

received by April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposed rule. 

Comments must be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Market Development Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: 

(202) 720–8938; or via internet at: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Comments 

should reference the document number 

and the date and page number of this 

issue of the Federal Register. All 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

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

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule will be included in the record and 

will be made available to the public on 

the internet at the address provided 

above. Please be advised that the 

identity of individuals or entities 

submitting comments will be made 

public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or 

Gary Olson, Regional Director, West 

Region Field Office, Market 

Development Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 

487–5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or 

Email: PeterR.Sommers@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Richard Lower, 

Market Development Division, Specialty 

Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

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

720–8938, or Email: Richard.Lower@

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, 

proposes to amend regulations issued to 

carry out a marketing order as defined 

in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is 

issued under Marketing Order No. 981, 

as amended (7 CFR part 981), regulating 

the handling of almonds grown in 

California. Part 981 (referred to as the 

‘‘Order’’) is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

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

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ The 

Board locally administers the Order and 

comprises growers and handlers of 

almonds operating within the 

production area. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563. Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. This action falls 

within a category of regulatory actions 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive 

Order 12866 review. 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 13175— 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, which 

requires agencies to consider whether 

their rulemaking actions would have 

tribal implications. The Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

determined this proposed rule is 

unlikely to have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This proposed rule is 

not intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. 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. 

This proposed rule would amend 

administrative requirements in the 

Order regulating the roadside stand 

exemption, credit for market promotion 

activities, quality control, exempt 

dispositions, and interest and late 

charges provisions. In addition, the 

proposed rule would stay two sections 

of the administrative requirements that 

define almond butter and stipulate 

disposition in reserve outlets by 

handlers. These proposed changes 

modify the requirements to reflect 

updates in industry practices and are 

expected to help facilitate the orderly 

administration of the Order. The Board 

unanimously recommended these 

changes at meetings held on December 

7, 2020, and June 17, 2021. 

Multiple sections in the Order 

provide the authority for this proposed 

action. The authorities are cited with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the descriptions of each of the proposed 

changes in the following narrative. 

Section 981.13 of the Order defines 

the term ‘‘handler.’’ The definition 

includes an exemption for roadside 

stand sales. Section 981.413 of the 

Order’s administrative requirements 

further expounds roadside stand sales 

by setting certain conditions that must 

be met for sales to be exempted from 

regulation under the Order. This 

proposed rule would add language to 

the requirements to clarify that sales of 

almonds through 

E-commerce (electronic commerce) are 

not exempt from regulation under the 

roadside stand exemption. 

Section 981.41(c) of the Order 

provides the authority to establish 

provisions for crediting a handler’s 

direct expenditures for marketing 

promotion against that handler’s 

assessment obligation. Section 981.441 

of the Order’s administrative 

requirements delineates the provisions 

that handlers must meet to have a 

portion of their marketing promotion 

expenditures, including paid 

advertising, credited against their pro 

rata assessment obligation. This 

provision is otherwise known as CreditBack. This proposed rule would allow 

the Board, with the approval of the 

Secretary, to annually establish a limit 

on the Credit-Back amount allowed for 

a handler’s expenditures on Ecommerce. Further, this rule would 

modify the receipt submission and 

reimbursement requirements for the 

Credit-Back program and update the 

provisions for appealing the Board’s 

Credit-Back decisions. 

Section 981.42 of the Order provides 

the authority to establish quality control 

regulations for both incoming and 

outgoing product. Section 981.442 of the 

Order’s administrative requirements 

establishes quality control regulations 

under that authority. Section 981.442(a) 

establishes the quality requirements for 

incoming product received by handlers. 

Section 981.442(b) establishes the 

quality requirements for outgoing 

product prior to being shipped by 

handlers. 

This proposal would modify 

provisions in § 981.442(a) to clarify 

ambiguous language, remove irrelevant 

dates, and more clearly define 

‘‘accepted user’’ as it is referenced in the 

regulations. The proposed rule would 

also relax the requirements for handlers 

in meeting their disposition obligation 

under the regulations. The incoming 

quality requirements would be amended 

to allow inedible kernels, foreign 

material, and other defects sorted from 

off-site cleaning facilities to be credited 

to a handler’s disposition obligation. In 

addition, almond meal would be 

allowed to meet the non-inedible 

portion of the disposition obligation, 

with the meal content to be determined 

in a manner acceptable to the Board. 

In § 981.442(b), the proposed rule 

would amend the regulations to 

facilitate handlers utilizing off-site 

cleaning and treatment facilities in 

fulfillment of their quality control 

requirements. The proposal would 

allow the transfer of product for off-site 

cleaning without being considered a 

shipment, would designate off-site 

treatment facilities as ‘‘custom 

processors,’’ and would establish 

application and approval procedures for 

Board authorization of such custom 

processors. This action would also 

clarify the roles of the Technical Expert 

Review Panel (TERP) and the Board in 

administering the program as detailed in 

several provisions in § 981.442(b). 

Lastly, the proposed rule would refine 

the duties of a Direct Verifiable (DV) 

program auditor to disallow individuals 

who conduct process validations from 

being named as the DV auditor for that 

same equipment used in the treatment 

process. 

Section 981.50 of the Order 

establishes handler reserve obligation 

requirements. Under those Order 

provisions, certain products are 

exempted from the reserve obligation, 

subject to the accountability of the 

Board. Section 981.450 establishes the 

provisions for exempt dispositions 

under the reserve obligation. This 

proposed rule would enhance the 

procedures currently in place for the 

Board to account for exempt 

dispositions. Under the proposed rule, 

outlets for exempted product would 

need to be pre-approved by the Board in 

accordance with the requirements 

contained in § 981.442(a)(7). 

Section 981.66(b) of the Order 

establishes the conditions governing the 

disposition of reserve product. Within 

that paragraph, diversion of reserve 

almonds to be manufactured into 

almond butter is listed as an allowable 

outlet for such product. Section 981.466 

further defines ‘‘almond butter’’ as used 

in § 981.66. The expanded definition of 

almond butter is no longer relevant in 

the administration of the program. The 

proposed rule would stay § 981.466 

indefinitely. 

Section 981.467 establishes the 

requirements regarding the disposition 

in reserve outlets by handlers. The 

section details the establishment of 

agents of the Board, delineates reserve 

credit in satisfaction of a reserve 

obligation, sets minimum prices, and 

establishes certain dates pertaining to 

the reserve disposition obligations. As 

the Order is not currently regulating 

volume, and a significant portion of the 

requirements is outdated, the provisions 

in § 981.467 are not currently relevant to 

the administration of the Order. As 

such, this proposed rule would stay the 

entire section indefinitely. 

Lastly, § 981.481 stipulates the 

requirements for submission of handler 

assessment payments, which includes 

documentary requirements for proof of 

timely submission of assessment 

payments. Other than actual receipt of 

payment in the Board’s office within 30 

days of the invoice date on the handler’s 

statement, the current provisions only 

identify the U.S. Postal Service 

postmark as proof of timely submission. 

This proposed rule would add ‘‘or by 

some other verifiable delivery tracking 

system’’ to allow handlers alternative 

delivery methods. 

The Board believes that the changes 

recommended herein are necessary to 

update the Order’s administrative 

requirements to adapt to changes in the 

industry and to reflect current industry 

practices. Many of the revisions may be 

considered conforming changes, but the 

proposed rule also makes changes to the 

Credit-Back provisions and quality 

control regulations that the Board views 

as essential to the continued efficient 

administration of the Order. The 

proposed changes contained herein are 

expected to facilitate the orderly 

marketing of California almonds and 

benefit growers and handlers in the 

industry. 

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, are unique in that they are brought 

about through group action of 

essentially small entities acting on their 

own behalf. 

There are approximately 7,600 

almond growers in the production area 

and approximately 100 handlers subject 

to regulation under the Order. Small 

agricultural producers are defined by 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) as those having annual receipts of 

less than $1,000,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9457 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). 

The National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) reported in its 2017 

Census of Agriculture (Census) that 

there were 7,611 almond farms in the 

production area, of which 6,683 had 

bearing acres. Additionally, the Census 

indicates that out of the 6,683 California 

farms with bearing acres of almonds, 

4,425 (66 percent) have fewer than 100 

bearing acres. 

In another publication, NASS 

reported a 2019 crop year average yield 

of 2,160 pounds per acre and a season 

average grower price of $2.43 per 

pound. Therefore, a 100-acre farm with 

an average yield of 2,160 pounds per 

acre would produce about 216,000 

pounds of almonds (2,160 pounds times 

100 acres equals 216,000 pounds). At 

$2.43 per pound, that farm’s production 

would be valued at $524,880 (216,000 

pounds times $2.43 per pound equals 

$524,880). Since the Census indicated 

that 66 percent of California’s almond 

farms are less than 100 acres, it could 

be concluded that the majority of 

California almond growers had annual 

receipts from the sale of almonds of less 

than $524,880 for the 2019–20 crop 

year, which is below the SBA threshold 

of $1,000,000 for small producers. 

Therefore, the majority of growers may 

be classified as small businesses. 

To estimate the proportion of almond 

handlers that would be considered 

small businesses, it was assumed that 

the unit value per pound of almonds 

exported in a particular year could serve 

as a representative almond price at the 

handler level. A unit value for a 

commodity is the value of exports 

divided by the quantity exported. Data 

from the Global Agricultural Trade 

System (GATS) database of USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service showed 

that the value of almond exports from 

August 2019 to July 2020 (combining 

shelled and inshell) was $4.691 billion. 

The quantity of almond exports over 

that time-period was 1.78 billion 

pounds. Dividing the export value by 

the quantity yields a unit value of $2.64 

per pound ($4.691 billion divided by 

1.78 billion pounds equals $2.64). 

NASS estimated that the California 

almond industry produced 2.55 billion 

pounds of almonds in 2019. Applying 

the $2.64 derived representative handler 

price per pound to total industry 

production results in an estimated total 

revenue at the handler level of $6.73 

billion (2.55 billion pounds × $2.64 per 

pound). With an estimated 100 handlers 

in the California almond industry, 

average revenue per handler would be 

approximately $67.3 million ($6.73 

billion divided by 100). Assuming a 

normal distribution of revenues, most 

almond handlers shipped almonds 

valued at more than $30,000,000 during 

the 2019–20 crop year. Therefore, the 

majority of handlers may be classified as 

large businesses. 

This proposed rule would revise 

multiple provisions in the Order’s 

administrative requirements. This 

proposal would amend regulations 

covering the Order’s roadside stand 

exemption, credit for market promotion 

activities, quality control, exempt 

dispositions, and interest and late 

charges provisions. In addition, it would 

stay regulations contained in §§ 981.466 

and 981.467. One of the sections defines 

almond butter and the other regulates 

almond disposition in reserve outlets by 

handlers. Both sections would be stayed 

indefinitely. 

More specifically, the proposed rule 

would add language in § 981.413 to 

clarify that sales of almonds through Ecommerce are not exempt from 

regulation under the roadside stand 

exemption. 

In addition, the action would modify 

§ 981.441 to allow the Board, with the 

approval of the Secretary, to annually 

establish a limit on the Credit-Back 

amount allowed for a handler’s 

expenditures on E-commerce. Further, 

this rule would modify the receipt 

submission and reimbursement 

requirements for the Credit-Back 

program, as well as update the 

provisions for appealing the Board’s 

Credit-Back decisions. 

In § 981.442(a), the proposed rule 

would clarify ambiguous language, 

remove irrelevant dates, and more 

clearly define the term ‘‘accepted user’’ 

as it is referenced in the regulations. It 

would also relax the requirements for 

handlers in meeting their disposition 

obligation under the Order. 

In § 981.442(b), the proposed rule 

would allow the transfer of product for 

off-site cleaning without being 

considered a shipment, designate offsite treatment facilities as ‘‘custom 

processors,’’ and establish the 

application and approval procedures for 

Board authorization of custom 

processors. This proposal would also 

clarify the roles of the TERP and the 

Board in administering the program in 

several subparagraphs in the section. 

Further, the proposed rule would refine 

the definition of a DV program auditor 

to disallow individuals who conduct 

process validations from being named as 

the DV auditor for that same equipment 

used in the treatment process. 

Additionally, this proposed rule 

would amend § 981.450 to require 

outlets for exempted product be Boardapproved, in accordance with 

§ 981.442(a)(7). 

Further, under the proposed action, 

§ 981.466, which defines ‘‘almond 

butter’’ as it is used in § 981.66(b), is no 

longer relevant in the administration of 

the program and would be stayed 

indefinitely. In addition, as the Order is 

not currently regulating volume, 

§ 981.467 is not necessary for the 

administration of the Order and would 

also be stayed indefinitely. 

Lastly, this action would revise 

§ 981.481 by adding ‘‘or by some other 

verifiable delivery tracking system’’ to 

the requirements to allow handlers 

alternative trackable delivery methods 

for demonstration of timely submission 

of assessment payments. 

The authorities for the proposed 

changes above are contained in 

§§ 981.13, 981.41, 981.42, 981.50, 

981.66, 981.67, and 981.81 of the Order. 

The Board believes that the 

administrative requirement revisions 

recommended herein are necessary to 

reflect changes in the industry and to 

update the regulations to reflect current 

practices. Many of the modifications 

may be considered conforming changes, 

but this proposal also makes substantive 

changes to the Credit-Back provisions 

and quality control requirements that 

the Board views as essential to the 

efficient administration of the Order. 

The proposed changes contained herein 

are expected to facilitate the orderly 

marketing of California almonds and 

benefit growers and handlers in the 

industry. The Board unanimously 

recommended these changes at meetings 

held on December 7, 2020, and June 17, 

2021. 

AMS anticipates that this proposed 

rule would impose minimal, if any, 

additional costs on handlers or growers, 

regardless of size. The proposed changes 

to the administrative requirements are 

intended to clarify certain provisions, 

remove ambiguous and obsolete 

language, and adapt the requirements to 

facilitate the orderly marketing of 

almonds. The benefits derived from this 

proposed rule are not expected to be 

disproportionately more or less for 

small handlers or growers than for larger 

entities. 

The Board considered alternatives to 

this action, including making no 

changes to the current requirements, 

only making changes to some of the 

requirements, and recommending the 

changes be considered as two separate 

rulemaking actions. Prior to the 

recommendation of the Board, the 

Board’s Almond Quality, Food Safety 

and Services Committee reviewed the 

program, surveyed handlers, and 

unanimously recommended this action 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

to the Board. After consideration of all 

the alternatives, and in consultation 

with USDA, the Board determined that 

making all the recommended changes, 

collectively in one rule, would be the 

best option to facilitate the Order’s 

administration, contribute to the orderly 

marketing of almonds, and provide the 

greatest benefit to growers and handlers 

while maintaining the integrity of the 

Order. 

Further, the Board’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

California almond industry, and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and participate in 

Board deliberations. Like all Board and 

subcommittee meetings, the December 

7, 2020, and June 17, 2021, meetings 

were public meetings, and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express their views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

information collection impacts of this 

proposed action on small businesses. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB Nos. 0581–0178 

(Vegetable and Specialty Crops) and 

0581–0242 (Almond Salmonella). This 

proposed rule announces AMS’s intent 

to request approval from OMB for 

amendments made to existing 

information collections under OMB 

Nos. 0581–0178 and 0581–0242, and for 

a new information collection under 

OMB No. 0581–NEW. 

Upon finalization of the proposed 

rule, AMS will submit a Justification for 

Change to OMB for the Statement of 

Intent form contained in the ABC 

Credit-Back Guide (OMB No. 0581– 

0178). The form is necessary to 

administer the Credit-Back provisions as 

established in § 981.441 of the Order’s 

requirements. This proposed rule would 

change the number of days that the 

applicant is afforded to submit all 

necessary paperwork for proper 

evaluation of their Credit-Back claim 

from 76 days to 60 days. The CreditBack Statement of Intent form included 

in the Credit-Back Guide would be 

changed accordingly. 

In addition, also upon finalization of 

the proposed rule, AMS will submit a 

Justification for Change to OMB for the 

ABC Form 52—Direct Verifiable (DV) 

Program for Further Processing of 

Untreated Almonds Application Form 

(OMB No. 0581–0242). The form is 

necessary to administer the DV Program 

established by § 981.442(b)(6)(i) in the 

Order’s quality control requirements. 

The proposed rule would change the 

body that approves DV Program 

applications from the TERP to the 

Board. The instructions that accompany 

ABC Form 52 would need to be revised 

accordingly. 

Lastly, this proposed rule would 

create a new form for California almond 

handlers, titled ABC Form 55—Custom 

Processor Application. 

Title: Custom Processor Application 

(7 CFR part 981). 

OMB Number: 0581–NEW. 

Type of Request: New Collection. 

Abstract: The information 

requirements in this request are 

essential to carry out the intent of the 

Act and to administer the Order. The 

Order is effective under the Act, and 

USDA is responsible for the oversight of 

the Order’s administration. 

The Order’s quality control 

requirements for outgoing product 

require handlers to subject their 

almonds to a treatment process or 

processes prior to shipment to reduce 

potential Salmonella bacteria 

contamination. The Order’s quality 

control requirements allow handlers to 

utilize off-site treatment facilities to 

fulfill that requirement. The Committee 

unanimously recommended that the 

Order’s quality control requirements be 

amended to define off-site treatment 

facilities located within the production 

area as ‘‘custom processors’’ and to 

require such custom processors to 

annually apply to the Board for 

approval. 

An individual desiring approval as a 

custom processor must demonstrate that 

their facility meets the Order’s treatment 

process requirements and must submit 

an application to the Board. This form, 

numbered ABC Form 55 and titled 

‘‘Custom Processor Application,’’ would 

be submitted directly to the Board once 

each year no later than July 31. The 

application would provide the Board 

with the name of the applicant, the 

location of each treatment facility 

covered by the application, applicant 

contact information, and certification 

that the applicant’s technology and 

equipment provide a treatment process 

that has been validated by a Boardapproved process authority. 

The Order authorizes the Board to 

collect certain information necessary for 

the administration of the Order. The 

information collected would only be 

used by authorized representatives of 

the USDA, including the AMS Specialty 

Crops Program regional and 

headquarters staff, and authorized 

employees of the Board. All proprietary 

information would be kept confidential 

in accordance with the Act and the 

Order. 

The proposed request for new 

information collection under the Order 

is as follows: 

Custom Processor Application 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to be an average of 0.5 

hours per response. 

Respondents: Nut processors located 

within the Order’s area of production. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

25. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

25. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 12.5 hours. 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Agency, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the Agency’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments should reference OMB No. 

0581–NEW and the marketing order for 

almonds grown in California. Comments 

should be sent to the USDA in care of 

the Docket Clerk at the previously 

mentioned address or at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments 

received will become a matter of public 

record and will be available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours at the address of the Docket Clerk 

or at https://www.regulations.gov. 

If this proposed rule is finalized, this 

information collection will be merged 

with the forms currently approved 

under OMB No. 0581–0242 (Almond 

Salmonella). 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9459 

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. 

Further, the Board’s meetings are 

widely publicized throughout the 

California almond industry, and all 

interested persons are invited to attend 

the meetings and participate in Board 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Board meetings, the December 7, 2020, 

and June 17, 2021, meetings were open 

to the public, and all entities, both large 

and small, were able to express their 

views on this issue. Also, the Board has 

several appointed committees to review 

certain issues and make 

recommendations to the Board. The 

Board’s Almond Quality, Food Safety, 

and Services Committee met several 

times in 2019 and discussed this issue 

in detail. Those meetings were also 

public meetings, and both large and 

small entities were able to participate 

and express their views. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

information collection 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: https://

www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/ 

moa/small-businesses. Any questions 

about the compliance guide should be 

sent to Richard Lower at the previously 

mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 

Marketing agreements, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Agricultural Marketing 

Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 

981 as follows: 

PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 981 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Amend § 981.413 by adding a 

sentence at the end of the paragraph to 

read as follows: 

§ 981.413 Roadside stand exemption. 

* * * Sales of almonds through 

E-commerce are not eligible for this 

exemption. 

■ 3. Amend § 981.441 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(4)(ii)(K), (e)(5), (e)(6)(ii) 

through (iv), and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 981.441 Credit for market promotion 

activities, including paid advertising. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(K) Development and use of website 

on the internet for advertising and 

public relations purposes, including Ecommerce (mail ordering through the 

internet): Provided, That Credit-Back for 

such activities shall be limited to a 

specific amount per crop year, to be 

established in conjunction with the 

approval of the Board’s annual budget 

by the Secretary. No credit shall be 

given for costs for E-commerce 

administration, Extranet (restricted 

websites within the internet), Intranet 

(inter-office communication network), 

or portions of a website that target the 

farming or grower trade. 

* * * * * 

(5) If the handler is promoting 

pursuant to a contract with the Foreign 

Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and/ 

or the California Department of Food 

and Agriculture (CDFA), such activities 

must also meet the requirements of 

paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) of 

this section. Unless the Board is 

administering the foreign marketing 

program, such activities shall not be 

eligible for Credit-Back unless the 

handler certifies that it was not and will 

not be reimbursed by either FAS or the 

CDFA for the amount claimed for 

Credit-Back, and has on record with the 

Board all claims for reimbursement 

made to FAS and/or the CDFA. Foreign 

market expenses paid by third parties as 

part of a handler’s contract with FAS or 

CDFA will not be eligible for CreditBack. 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Handlers may receive credit 

against their assessment obligation up to 

the year-to-date advertising amount of 

the assessment, less the year-to-date 

reimbursed claims: Provided, That 

handlers submit the required 

documentation for a qualified activity at 

least 2 weeks prior to the mailing of 

each of the Board’s first and second 

assessment notices, and at least 3 weeks 

prior to the mailing of each of the 

Board’s third and fourth assessment 

notices in a crop year. In all other 

instances, handlers must remit the 

advertising assessment to the Board 

when billed, and a refund will be issued 

to the extent of proven, qualified 

activities. 

(iii) In addition to the credit against 

an assessment obligation as provided in 

paragraph (e)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

Board will issue Credit-Back 

reimbursements, by check or other 

means, on June 30 for any claim 

submission received by May 31 of the 

same crop year. 

(iv) The final opportunity to submit a 

claim for any given crop year requires 

submission of notice to the Board by 

August 15 of the following crop year. 

Notice must be given using the 

Statement of Intent form that is 

included in the Credit-Back Guide. 

Final claim submissions for activities 

outlined in the Statement of Intent must 

be submitted with all required elements 

no more than 60 days after the close of 

the crop year. 

(f) If a determination is made by the 

Board staff that a particular promotional 

activity is not eligible for Credit-Back 

because it does not meet the criteria 

specified in this section, or for any other 

reason, the affected handler may request 

a Board-designated committee to review 

the Board staff’s decision. If the affected 

handler disagrees with the decision, the 

handler may request that the Board 

review the designated committee’s 

decision. If the handler disagrees with 

the decision of the Board, the handler, 

through the Board, may request that the 

Secretary review the Board’s decision. 

Handlers have the right to request 

anonymity in the review of their appeal. 

The Secretary maintains the right to 

review any decisions made by the 

aforementioned bodies at his/her 

discretion. 

■ 4. Amend § 981.442 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4)(i), 

and (a)(5); 

■ b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3)(i) 

and (v), and (b)(4)(i) and (v); 

■ d. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b)(6)(i); and 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A), (C), 

and (D). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 981.442 Quality control. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Sampling. Each handler shall 

cause a representative sample of 

almonds to be drawn from each lot of 

any variety received from any incoming 

source. The sample shall be drawn 

before inedible kernels are removed 

from the lot after hulling/shelling, or 

before the lot is processed or stored by 

the handler. For receipts at premises 

with mechanical sampling equipment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9460 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

and under contracts providing for 

payment by the handler to the grower 

for sound meat content, samples shall 

be drawn by the handler in a manner 

acceptable to the Board and the 

inspection agency. The inspection 

agency shall make periodic checks of 

the mechanical sampling procedures. 

For all other receipts, including but not 

limited to field examination and 

purchase receipts, accumulations 

purchased for cash at the handler’s door 

or from an accumulator, or almonds of 

the handler’s own production, sampling 

shall be conducted or monitored by the 

inspection agency in a manner 

acceptable to the Board. All samples 

shall be bagged and identified in a 

manner acceptable to the Board and the 

inspection agency. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) The weight of inedible kernels in 

excess of 2 percent of kernel weight 

reported to the Board of any variety 

received by a handler shall constitute 

that handler’s disposition obligation. 

For any almonds sold inshell, the 

weight may be reported to the Board 

and that disposition obligation for that 

variety reduced proportionately. 

* * * * * 

(5) Meeting the disposition obligation. 

Each handler shall meet its disposition 

obligation by delivering packer 

pickouts, kernels rejected in blanching, 

pieces of kernels, meal accumulated in 

manufacturing, or other material, to 

Board-approved accepted users, which 

can include, but is not limited to, 

crushers, feed manufacturers, feeders, or 

dealers in nut wastes, located withing 

the production area. Inedible kernels, 

foreign material, and other defects 

sorted from edible kernels by off-site 

cleaning facilities may be used towards 

that handler’s disposition obligation or 

destroyed. Handlers shall notify the 

Board at least 72 hours prior to delivery 

of product to an off-site cleaning facility 

or accepted user location: Provided, 

That the Board or its employees may 

lessen this notification time whenever it 

determines that the 72 hour requirement 

is impracticable. The Board may 

supervise deliveries at its option. In the 

case of a handler having an annual total 

obligation of less than 1,000 pounds, 

delivery may be to the Board in lieu of 

an accepted user, in which case the 

Board would certify the disposition lot 

and report the results to the USDA. For 

dispositions by handlers with 

mechanical sampling equipment, 

samples may be drawn by the handler 

in a manner acceptable to the Board and 

the inspection agency. For all other 

dispositions, samples shall be drawn by 

or under supervision of the inspection 

agency. Upon approval by the Board 

and the inspection agency, sampling 

may be accomplished at the accepted 

user’s destination. The edible and 

inedible almond meat content of each 

delivery shall be determined by the 

inspection agency and reported by the 

inspection agency to the Board and the 

handler. The handler’s disposition 

obligation will be credited upon 

satisfactory completion of ABC Form 8. 

ABC Form 8, Part A, is filled out by the 

handler, and Part B by the accepted 

user. At least 50 percent of a handler’s 

total crop year inedible disposition 

obligation shall be satisfied with 

dispositions consisting of inedible 

kernels as defined in § 981.408: 

Provided, That this 50 percent 

requirement shall not apply to handlers 

with total annual obligations of less 

than 1,000 pounds. Each handler’s 

disposition obligation shall be satisfied 

when the almond meat content of the 

material delivered to accepted users 

equals the disposition obligation, but no 

later than September 30 succeeding the 

crop year in which the obligation was 

incurred. Almond meal can be used for 

meeting the non-inedible portion of the 

obligation. Meal content shall be 

determined in a manner acceptable to 

the Board. 

* * * * * 

(b) Outgoing. Pursuant to § 981.42(b), 

and except as provided in § 981.13 and 

in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, 

handlers shall subject their almonds to 

a treatment process or processes prior to 

shipment to reduce potential 

Salmonella bacteria contamination in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

section. Temporary transfer by a handler 

to an off-site cleaning facility is not 

considered a shipment under this 

section. Handlers may utilize off-site 

cleaning facilities within the production 

area, on record with the Board, to 

provide sorting services to separate 

inedible kernels, foreign material, and 

other defects from edible kernels. 

Product sent by a handler to an off-site 

cleaning facility is considered a 

temporary transfer, with ownership 

maintained by the handler, and 

accountability required for all product 

fractions and handler obligations 

pursuant to § 981.42. 

* * * * * 

(2) On-site versus off-site treatment. 

Handlers shall subject almonds to a 

treatment process or processes prior to 

shipment either at their handling 

facility (on-site) or a custom processor 

(defined as a Board-approved off-site 

treatment facility located within the 

production area subject to the 

provisions of paragraph (b)(4)(v) of this 

section). Transportation of almonds by a 

handler to a custom processor shall not 

be deemed a shipment. A handler with 

an on-site treatment process or 

processes may use such facility to act as 

a custom processor for other handlers. 

(3) * * * 

(i) Validation means that the 

treatment technology and equipment 

have been demonstrated to achieve in 

total a minimum 4-log reduction of 

Salmonella bacteria in almonds. 

Validation data prepared by a Boardapproved process authority must be 

submitted to the Board, and accepted by 

the TERP, for each piece of equipment 

used to treat almonds prior to its use 

under the program. 

* * * * * 

(v) The TERP, in coordination with 

the Board, may revoke any approval for 

cause. The Board shall notify the 

process authority in writing of the 

reasons for revoking the approval. 

Should the process authority disagree 

with the decision, they may appeal the 

decision in writing to the Board, and 

ultimately to USDA. A process authority 

whose approval has been revoked must 

submit a new application to the TERP 

and await approval. 

(4) * * * 

(i) By May 31, each handler shall 

submit to the Board a Handler 

Treatment Plan (Treatment Plan) for the 

upcoming crop year. A Treatment Plan 

shall describe how a handler plans to 

treat his or her almonds and must 

address specific parameters as outlined 

by the Board for the handler to ship 

almonds. Such plan shall be reviewed 

by the Board, in conjunction with the 

inspection agency, to ensure it is 

complete and can be verified, and be 

approved by the Board. Almonds sent 

by a handler for treatment at a custom 

processing facility affiliated with 

another handler shall be subject to the 

approved Treatment Plan utilized at that 

facility. Handlers shall follow their own 

approved Treatment Plans for almonds 

sent to custom processors that are not 

affiliated with another handler. 

* * * * * 

(v) Custom processors shall provide 

access to the inspection agency and 

Board staff for verification of treatment 

and review of treatment records. Custom 

processors shall utilize technologies that 

have been determined to achieve, in 

total, a minimum 4-log reduction of 

Salmonella bacteria in almonds, 

pursuant to a letter of recommendation 

issued by FDA or accepted by TERP. 

Custom processors must submit a 

Custom Processor Application, ABC 

Form XX, to the Board annually by July 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 9461 

31. A custom processor who submits a 

timely application, and utilizes a 

treatment process or processes that has 

been validated by a Board-approved 

process authority and approved by the 

Board in conjunction with the TERP, 

shall be approved by the Board for 

handler use. The Board may revoke any 

such approval for cause. The Board 

shall notify the custom processor of the 

reasons for revoking the approval. 

Should the custom processor disagree 

with the Board’s decision, it may appeal 

the decision in writing to USDA. 

Handlers may treat their almonds only 

at custom processor treatment facilities 

that have been approved by the Board. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) Handlers may ship untreated 

almonds for further processing directly 

to manufacturers located within the 

U.S., Canada, or Mexico. This program 

shall be termed the Direct Verifiable 

(DV) program. Handlers may only ship 

untreated almonds to manufacturers 

who have submitted ABC Form No. 52, 

‘‘Application for Direct Verifiable (DV) 

Program for Further Processing of 

Untreated Almonds,’’ and have been 

approved by the Board. Such almonds 

must be shipped directly to approved 

manufacturing locations, as specified on 

Form No. 52. Such manufacturers (DV 

Users) must submit an initial Form No. 

52 to the Board for review and approval 

in conjunction with the TERP. Should 

the applicant disagree with the Board’s 

decision concerning approval, it may 

appeal the decision in writing to the 

Board, and ultimately to USDA. For 

subsequent crop years, approved DV 

Users with no changes to their initial 

application must send the Board a letter, 

signed and dated, indicating that there 

are no changes to the application the 

Board has on file. Approved DV Users 

desiring to make changes to their 

approved application must resubmit 

Form No. 52 to the Board for approval. 

The TERP, in coordination with the 

Board, may revoke any approval for 

cause. The Board shall notify the DV 

User in writing of the reasons for 

revoking the approval. Should the DV 

User disagree with the decision, it may 

appeal the decision in writing to the 

Board, and ultimately to USDA. A DV 

User whose approval has been revoked 

must submit a new application to the 

Board and await approval. The Board 

shall issue a DV User code to an 

approved DV User. Handlers must 

reference such code in all 

documentation accompanying the lot 

and identify each container of such 

almonds with the term ‘‘unpasteurized.’’ 

Such lettering shall be on one outside 

principal display panel, at least 1⁄2 inch 

in height, clear and legible. If a third 

party is involved in the transaction, the 

handler must provide sufficient 

documentation to the Board to track the 

shipment from the handler’s facility to 

the approved DV user. While a third 

party may be involved in such 

transactions, shipments to a third party 

and then to a manufacturing location are 

not permitted under the DV program. 

Approved DV Users shall: 

(A) Subject such almonds to a 

treatment process or processes using 

technologies that achieve in total a 

minimum 4-log reduction of Salmonella 

bacteria as determined by the FDA or 

established by a process authority 

accepted by the TERP, in accordance 

with and subject to the provisions and 

procedures of paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. Establish means that the 

treatment process and protocol have 

been evaluated to ensure the 

technology’s ability to deliver a lethal 

treatment for Salmonella bacteria in 

almonds to achieve a minimum 4-log 

reduction; 

* * * * * 

(C) Have their treatment technology 

and equipment validated by a Boardapproved process authority, and 

accepted by the TERP. Documentation 

must be provided with their DV 

application to verify that their treatment 

technology and equipment have been 

validated by a Board-approved process 

authority. Such documentation shall be 

sufficient to demonstrate that the 

treatment processes and equipment 

achieve a 4-log reduction in Salmonella 

bacteria. Treatment technology and 

equipment that have been modified to a 

point where operating parameters such 

as time, temperature, or volume change, 

shall be revalidated; 

(D) Have their technology and 

procedures verified by a Boardapproved DV auditor to ensure they are 

being applied appropriately. A DV 

auditor may not be an employee of the 

manufacturer that they are auditing. A 

DV auditor may not be the same 

individual who conducted the process 

validation accepted by the TERP for the 

equipment being audited. DV auditors 

must submit a report to the Board after 

conducting each audit. DV auditors 

must submit an initial application to the 

Board on ABC Form No. 53, 

‘‘Application for Direct Verifiable (DV) 

Program Auditors,’’ and be approved by 

the Board in coordination with the 

TERP. Should the applicant disagree 

with the decision concerning approval, 

they may appeal the decision in writing 

to the Board, and ultimately to USDA. 

For subsequent crop years, approved DV 

auditors with no changes to their initial 

application must send the Board a letter, 

signed and dated, indicating that there 

are no changes to the application the 

Board has on file. Approved DV 

auditors whose status has changed must 

submit a new application. The Board, in 

coordination with the TERP, may revoke 

any approval for cause. The Board shall 

notify the DV auditor in writing of the 

reasons for revoking the approval. 

Should the DV auditor disagree with the 

decision to revoke, it may appeal the 

decision in writing to the Board, and 

ultimately to USDA. A DV auditor 

whose approval has been revoked must 

submit a new application to the Board 

and await approval; 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise § 981.450 to read as follows: 

§ 981.450 Exempt dispositions. 

As provided in § 981.50, any handler 

disposing of almonds for crushing into 

oil, or for animal feed, may have the 

kernel weight of these almonds 

excluded from their program 

obligations, so long as: 

(a) The handler qualifies as, or 

delivers such almonds to, a Boardapproved accepted user; 

(b) Each delivery is made directly to 

the accepted user by June 30 of each 

crop year; and 

(c) Each delivery is certified to the 

Board by the handler on ABC Form 8. 

§§ 981.466 and 981.467 [Stayed] 

■ 6. Sections 981.466 and 981.467 are 

stayed indefinitely. 

■ 7. Revise § 981.481 to read as follows: 

§ 981.481 Interest and late payment 

charges. 

(a) Pursuant to § 981.81(e), the Board 

shall impose an interest charge on any 

handler whose assessment payment has 

not been received in the Board’s office 

within 30 days of the invoice date 

shown on the handler’s statement, or 

the envelope containing the payment 

has not been legibly postmarked by the 

U.S. Postal Service or some other 

verifiable delivery tracking system, as 

having been remitted within 30 days of 

the invoice date. The interest charge 

shall be a rate of one- and one-half 

percent per month and shall be applied 

to the unpaid assessment balance for the 

number of days all or any part of the 

unpaid balance is delinquent beyond 

the 30-day payment period. 

(b) In addition to the interest charge 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the Board shall impose a late 

payment charge on any handler whose 

payment has not been received in the 

Board’s office, or the envelope 

containing the payment legibly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or 

some other verifiable delivery tracking 

system, within 60 days of the invoice 

date. The late payment charge shall be 

10 percent of the unpaid balance. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03460 Filed 2–18–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0054] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Presidential Security 

Zone, Palm Beach, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to disestablish the presedential security 

zone that encompasses certain waters of 

the Lake Worth Lagoon, Intracoastal 

Waterway (ICW), and Atlantic Ocean 

near the Mar-A-Lago Club, and the 

Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm 

Beach, Florida (FL). The security zone is 

no longer needed to protect official 

parties, public, or surrounding 

waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage 

or other subversive acts, accidents, or 

other events of a similar nature. This 

proposed action would remove existing 

regulations that restrict vessel 

movement through the area. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before March 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0054 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email LTJG Ben 

Adrien, Waterways Management 

Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone (305) 535–4307, email 

Benjamin.D.Adrien@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On May 21, 2018, the United States 

Coast Guard established a security zone 

to protect the President of the United 

States, members of the First Family, 

and/or other persons under the 

protection of the Secret Service when 

staying at the Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm 

Beach, FL. The security zone is 

described 33 CFR 165.785. With the 

inauguration of a new President of the 

United States on January 20, 2021, the 

Mar-A-Lago Club security zone is no 

longer needed. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

disestablish a security zone in certain 

waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon, 

Intercoastal Waterway (ICW), and 

Atlantic Ocean that are no longer need 

to protect official parties staying at the 

Mar-A-Lago Club. The Coast Guard is 

proposing this rulemaking under 

authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 

33 U.S.C. 1231). 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

disestablish the existing security zone 

published in 33 CFR 165.785. The 

regulation places unnecessary 

restrictions on vessel movement through 

the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and 

Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago 

Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge 

in Palm Beach. The regulatory text we 

are proposing appears at the end of this 

document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This NPRM has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the removal of regulatory 

requirements for vessel navigation in 

the Lake Worth Lagoon, ICW, and 

Atlantic Ocean near the Mar-A-Lago 

Club and the Southern Boulevard Bridge 

in Palm Beach. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the Lake 

Worth Lagoon, ICW, and Atlantic 

Ocean, near the Mar-A-Lago Club and 

the Southern Boulevard Bridge in Palm 

Beach, may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section IV.A above, 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1