44644 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

privacy. Additionally, revealing this 

information could enable individuals to 

evade detection and apprehension by 

security and law enforcement 

personnel; destroy, conceal, or tamper 

with evidence or fabricate testimony; or 

harass, intimidate, harm, coerce, or 

retaliate against witnesses, 

complainants, investigators, security 

personnel, law enforcement personnel, 

or their family members, their 

employees, or other individuals. With 

respect to investigatory material 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, 

the exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2) from access requirements in 

subsection (d) of the Act is statutorily 

limited. If any individual is denied a 

right, privilege, or benefit to which the 

individual would otherwise be entitled 

by Federal law or for which the 

individual would otherwise be eligible, 

access will be granted, except to the 

extent that the disclosure would reveal 

the identity of a source who furnished 

the information to the Government 

under an express promise of 

confidentiality. 

• 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) (the requirement 

to maintain only relevant and necessary 

information authorized by statute or 

Executive Order). It will not always be 

possible to determine at the time 

information is received or compiled in 

these systems of records whether the 

information is or will be relevant and 

necessary to a law enforcement 

investigation. For example, a tip or lead 

that does not initially appear relevant or 

necessary may prove useful when 

combined with other information that 

reveals a pattern or that comes to light 

later. 

• 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H) (the 

requirements to describe procedures by 

which subjects may be notified of 

whether the system of records contains 

records about them and seek access or 

amendment of a record). These 

requirements concern individual access 

to records, and the records are exempt 

under subsections (c) and (d) of the Act, 

as described above. To the extent that 

subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) are 

interpreted to require the Agency to 

promulgate more detailed procedures 

regarding record notification, access, or 

amendment than have been published 

in the Federal Register, exemption from 

those provisions is necessary for the 

same rationale as applies to subsections 

(c) and (d). 

• 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) (the 

requirement to describe the categories of 

record sources). To the extent that this 

subsection is interpreted to require a 

more detailed description regarding the 

record sources in this system than has 

been published in the Federal Register, 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the sources of law 

enforcement and intelligence 

information and to protect the privacy 

and safety of witnesses and informants 

and others who provide information to 

FRTIB or as part of the Thrift Savings 

Plan (TSP). Further, because records 

used to complete personnel 

investigations, investigate and prosecute 

allegations of fraud and forgery against 

participant accounts, pursue legal 

claims, pursue internal investigations of 

harassment or hostile work environment 

allegations, or investigate and prosecute 

allegations of insider threats could come 

from any source, it is not possible to 

know every category in advance in order 

to list them all in FRTIB’s 

accompanying SORN. Some record 

source categories may not be 

appropriate to make public in the SORN 

if, for example, revealing them could 

enable individuals to discover 

investigative techniques and devise 

ways to bypass them to evade detection 

and apprehension. 

• 5 U.S.C. 552a(f) (the requirement to 

promulgate rules to implement 

provisions of the Privacy Act). To the 

extent that this subsection is interpreted 

to require agency rules addressing the 

aforementioned exempted requirements, 

exemption from this provision is also 

necessary to protect the sources of law 

enforcement and intelligence 

information and to protect the privacy 

and safety of witnesses and informants 

and others who provide information to 

FRTIB or as part of the TSP. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

FRTIB certifies that this proposed 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq.). This rulemaking does not 

impose a requirement for small 

businesses to report or keep records on 

any of the requirements contained in 

this proposed rule. The exemptions to 

the Privacy Act apply to individuals, 

and individuals are not covered entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

I certify that these proposed 

regulations do not require additional 

reporting under the criteria of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 

653, 1501 1571, the effects of this 

proposed regulation on state, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector have been assessed. This 

proposed regulation will not compel the 

expenditure in any one year of $100 

million or more by state, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector. Therefore, a 

statement under § 1532 is not required. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1630 

Privacy. 

Ravindra Deo, 

Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift 

Investment Board. 

Accordingly, FRTIB proposes to 

amend 5 CFR part 1630 as follows: 

PART 1630—PRIVACY ACT 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1630 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

■ 2. Amend § 1630.15 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1630.15 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Those designated systems of 

records which are exempt from the 

requirements of subsections (c)(3); (d); 

(e)(1); (e)(4)(G), (H), (I); and (f) of the 

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, include 

FRTIB–2, Personnel Security 

Investigation Files; FRTIB–13, Fraud 

and Forgery Records; FRTIB–14, FRTIB 

Legal Case Files; FRTIB–15, Internal 

Investigations of Harassment and 

Hostile Work Environment Allegations; 

and FRTIB–23, Insider Threat Program 

Records. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–16435 Filed 8–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6760–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 925 

[Doc. No.: AMS–SC–21–0049; SC21–925–2 

PR] 

Amendments to the Marketing Order of 

Grapes Grown in a Southeastern 

California 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on proposed amendments to Marketing 

Order No. 925, which regulates the 

handling of grapes grown in a 

designated area of southeastern 

California. Proposed amendments 

would change the California Desert 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44645 

Grape Administrative Committee’s 

(Committee) size, and its quorum and 

voting requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposed rule. 

Comments must be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; or submitted to 

internet: https://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: 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. 

Please be advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pushpa Kathir, Marketing Specialist, or 

Matthew Pavone, Chief, Rulemaking 

Services Branch, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, 

MarketOrderComment@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Richard Lower, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, or Email: Richard.Lower@

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

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

proposes amendments to regulations 

issued to carry out a marketing order as 

defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposal 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), 

regulating the handling of grapes grown 

in a designated area of southeastern 

California. Part 925 (referred to as the 

‘‘Order’’) is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

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

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

Committee locally administers the 

Order and is comprised of grape 

producers and handlers operating 

within the area of production, and a 

public member. 

Section 8c(17) of the Act (7 U.S.C 

608c(17)) and the applicable rules of 

practice and procedure governing the 

formulation of marketing agreements 

and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorize 

amendment of the Order through this 

informal rulemaking action. The 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

will consider comments received in 

response to this proposed rule and, 

based on all the information available, 

will determine if the Order amendment 

is warranted. If AMS determines 

amendment of the Order is warranted, a 

subsequent proposed rule and notice of 

referendum would be issued and 

producers would be allowed to vote for 

or against the proposed amendments. 

AMS would then issue a final rule 

effectuating any amendments approved 

by producers in the referendum. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in 

conformance with Executive Orders 

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. 

In addition, 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. 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 proposal has also been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This rule shall 

not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or 

supersede any State program covering 

grapes grown in a designated area of 

Southeastern California. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 

608(15)(A)), any handler subject to an 

order may file with USDA a petition 

stating that the order, any provision of 

the order, or any obligation imposed in 

connection with the order is not in 

accordance with law and request a 

modification of the order or to be 

exempted therefrom. A handler is 

afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

no later than 20 days after the date of 

entry of the ruling. 

Section 1504 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110–246) 

amended section 8c(17) of the Act, 

which in turn required the addition of 

supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR 

part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 

2008). The amendment of section 8c(17) 

of the Act and supplemental rules of 

practice authorize the use of informal 

rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend 

Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut 

marketing agreements and orders. USDA 

may use informal rulemaking to amend 

marketing orders depending upon the 

nature and complexity of proposed 

amendments, potential regulatory and 

economic impacts on affected entities, 

and any other relevant matters. 

AMS has considered these factors and 

has determined that amendments 

proposed herein are not unduly 

complex and the nature of proposed 

amendments is appropriate for utilizing 

the informal rulemaking process to 

amend the Order. A discussion of the 

potential regulatory and economic 

impacts on affected entities is discussed 

later in the ‘‘Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis’’ section of this 

proposed rule. 

The Committee unanimously 

recommended amendments following 

deliberations at the public meeting held 

on April 13, 2021. Proposals would 

amend the Order by changing the 

Committee’s size, as well as its quorum 

and voting requirements. 

Proposal 1—Reduce Committee Size 

§ 925.20 provides that the Committee 

consists of 12 members and, for each 

member of the Committee, there must be 

an alternate who has the same 

qualifications as the member. This 

proposal would amend § 925.20 by 

reducing the size of the Committee from 

12 to 10 members. The requirement that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
44646 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

each member has an alternate with the 

same qualifications as the member 

would remain unchanged. Four 

members and their alternates would be 

producers, officers, or employees of 

producers (producer members). Four 

members and their alternates would be 

handlers, officers, or employees of 

handlers (handler members). One 

member and alternate would be either a 

producer, handler, or officer or 

employee thereof. One member and 

alternate would represent the public. 

Since promulgation of the Order in 

1980, the California table grape industry 

has seen reductions of about 55% of its 

producers and 58% of registered 

handlers. Natural industry 

consolidation and land development 

pressure have also contributed to this 

decline. Decreasing the Committee’s 

size from 12 members to 10 members 

would make Committee membership 

more reflective of today’s industry and 

enable the Committee to fill all its 

member positions without difficulty. 

Proposal 2—Revise Quorum and Voting 

Requirements 

Currently, § 925.30 states that eight 

members of the Committee shall 

constitute a quorum, and any action of 

the committee shall require at least eight 

concurring votes. 

The proposed change would modify 

§ 925.30 to allow six members to 

constitute a quorum including at a 

minimum one producer member and 

one handler member, with six 

concurring votes required to pass any 

motion or approve any Committee 

action. The Committee is experiencing 

difficulties filling all seats and obtaining 

a quorum at meetings to conduct 

business activities. Adjusting current 

requirements would enable the 

Committee to operate fully mitigating 

the risk of not establishing a quorum 

during scheduled meetings and not 

having the required votes to pass any 

action. These changes would help to 

streamline the Committee’s operations 

and increase its effectiveness. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), AMS has considered 

the economic impact of this proposed 

rule 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. 

Small agricultural producers have 

been defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of no 

more than $1,000,000. Small 

agricultural service firms (handlers) are 

defined as those with annual receipts of 

no more than $30,000,000. 

Proposed amendments to the 

California desert grape marketing order 

would reduce the number of member 

and alternate seats on the California 

Desert Grape Administrative Committee 

from 12 to 10 and reduce quorum and 

voting requirements from 8 to 6 

members. These amendments are 

necessary to reflect the industry’s 

consolidation. Since the promulgation 

of the marketing order in 1980, the 

California desert grape industry has lost 

roughly 55 percent of its producers and 

58 percent of the registered handlers. 

The Committee reports that there are 

21 producers and 10 handlers of table 

grapes in the marketing order 

production region. The Committee 

packout reports show that average 

annual packout for 2018 through 2020 

was 3.2127 million 18-pound 

containers, equivalent to 28,914 tons. 

The 3-year average of California fresh 

table grape prices was $1,267 per ton. 

Multiplying quantity times price yields 

an annual average crop value estimate of 

$36.634 million. Dividing the average 

crop value estimate by the number of 

producers (21) yields an average crop 

value per producer of $1.744 million, 

moderately larger than the SBA small 

farm size threshold of $1,000,000. 

Therefore, using the estimated prices, 

packout volume, and number of 

producers, and assuming a normal bellcurve distribution of receipts among 

producers, AMS estimates the majority 

of producers would qualify as large 

businesses under the SBA definition. 

Dividing the average crop value of 

$36.634 million by the number of 

handers (10) yields a per-handler 

estimate of $3.663 million, well below 

the SBA small business threshold of 

$30,000,000 in annual receipts. 

However, that computation measures 

handler annual receipts using producerlevel crop value data, since AMS is 

unable to locate an estimate of a hander 

margin. A range of handler margin 

estimates would be 30 to 40 percent 

above the grower price. Applying those 

two percentages, a range of handler 

annual receipts estimates would be $4.8 

to $5.1 million, still well below 

$30,000,000. Therefore, using these 

estimated prices, utilization volume, 

handler margin estimates and number of 

handlers, and assuming a normal bellcurve distribution of receipts among 

handlers, AMS estimates that the 

majority of handlers would meet the 

SBA definition of small businesses. 

AMS has determined that these 

proposed amendments would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. Rather, 

large and small entities alike would be 

expected to benefit from the 

Committee’s improved ability to address 

important issues of interest to all on a 

timely basis. The proposed reduction in 

the number of seats on the Committee, 

and the reduced quorum and voting 

requirements, would not require any 

significant changes in producer or 

handler business operations, and no 

significant industry educational effort 

would be needed. Producers and 

handlers, large and small alike, would 

incur no additional costs. No small 

businesses would be unduly or 

disproportionately burdened. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Fruit 

Crops. No changes in those 

requirements are necessary because of 

this action. Should any changes become 

necessary, they would be submitted to 

OMB for approval. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

California table grape handlers. As with 

all Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public-sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this action. 

The Committee’s meetings are widely 

publicized throughout the southeastern 

California table grape production area. 

All interested persons are invited to 

attend the meeting and encouraged to 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, the April 13, 2021 meeting 

was public, and all entities, both large 

and small, were encouraged to express 

their views on the proposals. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on the proposed 

amendments to the Order, including 

comments on the regulatory and 

information collection impacts of this 

action on small businesses. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 154 / Friday, August 13, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44647 

Following analysis of any comments 

received on the amendments in this 

proposed rule, AMS will evaluate all 

available information and determine 

whether to proceed. If appropriate, a 

proposed rule and notice of referendum 

would be issued, and producers would 

be provided the opportunity to vote for 

or against the proposed amendments. 

Information about the referendum, 

including dates and voter eligibility 

requirements, would be published in a 

future issue of the Federal Register. A 

final rule would then be issued to 

effectuate any amendments favored by 

producers participating in the 

referendum. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: 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. 

General Findings 

Findings hereinafter set forth are 

supplementary to findings and 

determinations that were previously 

made in connection with the issuance of 

Marketing Order 925; and all said 

previous findings and determinations 

are hereby ratified and affirmed, except 

insofar as such findings and 

determinations may be in conflict with 

the findings and determinations set 

forth herein. 

1. Marketing Order 925, as hereby 

proposed to be amended, and all terms 

and conditions thereof, would tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

2. Marketing Order 925, as hereby 

proposed to be amended, regulates the 

handling of grapes grown in 

southeastern California and is 

applicable only to persons in respective 

classes of commercial and industrial 

activity specified in the Order; 

3. Marketing Order 925, as hereby 

proposed to be amended, is limited in 

application to the smallest regional 

production area which is practicable, 

consistent with carrying out the 

declared policy of the Act, and the 

issuance of several marketing orders 

applicable to subdivisions of the 

production area would not effectively 

carry out the declared policy of the Act; 

4. Marketing Order 925, as hereby 

proposed to be amended, prescribes, 

insofar as practicable, such different 

terms applicable to different parts of the 

production area as are necessary to give 

due recognition to the differences in the 

production and marketing of grapes 

produced or packed in the production 

area; and 

5. All handling of grapes produced or 

packed in the production area, as 

defined in Marketing Order 925, is in 

the current of interstate or foreign 

commerce or directly burdens, 

obstructs, or affects such commerce. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to these proposals. Any comments 

received on amendments proposed in 

this rule will be analyzed, and if AMS 

determines to proceed based on all the 

information presented, a producer 

referendum would be conducted to 

determine producer support for the 

proposed amendments. If appropriate, a 

final rule would then be issued to 

effectuate the amendments favored by 

producers participating in the 

referendum. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

7 CFR part 925 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A 

DESIGNATED AREA OF 

SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA. 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 925 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 925.20, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 925.20 Establishment and membership. 

(a) There is hereby established a 

California Desert Grape Committee 

consisting of 10 members, each of whom 

shall have an alternate who shall have 

the same qualifications as the member. 

Four members and their alternates shall 

be producers, officers or employees of 

producers (producer members). Four 

members and their alternates shall be 

handlers, or officers or employees of 

handlers (handler members). One 

member and alternate shall be either a 

producer or handler, or an officer or 

employee thereof. One member and 

alternate shall represent the public. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 925.30, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 925.30 Procedure. 

(a) Six members of the committee 

shall constitute a quorum, including at 

a minimum one producer representative 

and one handler representative, and any 

action of the committee shall require at 

least six concurring votes; 

* * * * * 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17233 Filed 8–12–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 930 

[Doc. No. AMS–SC21–0026; SC21–930–1 

PR] 

Tart Cherries Grown in the States of 

Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wisconsin; Changes to Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement a recommendation from the 

Cherry Industry Administrative Board to 

revise reporting requirements prescribed 

under the Federal marketing order 

regulating the handling of tart cherries. 

This action would modify reporting 

requirements to include information 

necessary to determine the portion of 

total inventory that is greater than five 

years old. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 13, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be submitted via the internet at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register. All comments submitted in 

response to this proposed rule will be 

included in the record and the identity 

of the individuals or entities submitting 

the comments will be made public on 

the internet at the address provided 

above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas F. Nalepa, Marketing Specialist, 

or Christian D. Nissen, Regional 

Director, Southeast Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Specialty Crops Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 291–8614, or email: 

Thomas.Nalepa@usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS