50582 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

NPPO of Chile will present a list of 

certified production sites to APHIS. 

(3) Post-harvest processing. After 

harvest, all damaged or diseased fruits 

must be culled at the packinghouse, and 

the remaining fruit must be packed into 

new, clean boxes, crates, or other 

APHIS-approved packing containers for 

fumigation with methyl bromide in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section, should such fumigation become 

necessary. 

(4) Phytosanitary inspection. The fruit 

must be inspected in Chile at an APHISapproved inspection site under the 

direction of APHIS inspectors in 

coordination with the NPPO of Chile 

after the post-harvest processing. A 

biometric sample must be drawn and 

examined from each consignment. 

Grapes in any consignment may be 

shipped to the continental United States 

only if the consignment passes 

inspection as follows: 

(i) Fruit presented for inspection must 

be identified in the shipping documents 

accompanying each lot of fruit to 

specify the production site(s) in which 

the fruit was produced and the packing 

shed(s) in which the fruit was 

processed. This identification must be 

maintained until the fruit is released for 

entry into the United States. 

(ii) A biometric sample of boxes, 

crates, or other APHIS-approved 

packing containers from each 

consignment will be selected and the 

fruit from these boxes, crates, or other 

APHIS-approved packing containers 

will be visually inspected for quarantine 

pests, and a portion of the fruit will be 

washed with soapy water and the 

collected filtrate will be microscopically 

examined for B. chilensis. If a single live 

B. chilensis mite is found, the fruit will 

be eligible for importation into the 

United States only if it has been 

fumigated in Chile in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section. The 

production site will be suspended from 

the low prevalence certification program 

and all subsequent lots of fruit from the 

production site of origin will be 

required to be fumigated in order to be 

eligible for entry into the United States 

for the remainder of the shipping 

season. 

(5) Phytosanitary certificates. Each 

consignment of grapes must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile 

that contains an additional declaration 

stating that the grapes in the 

consignment meet the conditions of 

§ 319.56–49. 

(e) Approved fumigation. Grapes that 

do not meet the conditions of paragraph 

(d) of this section may be imported into 

the United States if the fruit is 

fumigated either in Chile or at the port 

of first arrival to the United States with 

methyl bromide for B. chilensis in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. An APHIS inspector will 

monitor the fumigation of the fruit and 

will prescribe such safeguards as may be 

necessary for unloading, handling, and 

transportation prior to fumigation. The 

final release of the fruit for entry into 

the United States will be conditioned 

upon compliance with prescribed 

safeguards and required treatments. 

(f) Trust fund agreement. Grapes may 

be imported into the United States 

under this section only if the NPPO of 

Chile or a private export group has 

entered into a trust fund agreement with 

APHIS in accordance with § 319.56–6. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of 

August 2008. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19875 Filed 8–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0016; FV08–905–

2 PR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Temporary 

Suspension of Order Provisions 

Regarding Continuance Referenda 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on a temporary suspension of the order 

provision requiring periodic 

continuance referenda under the Florida 

citrus marketing order (order). This rule 

would suspend for the current cycle the 

order requirement that a continuance 

referendum be held every sixth year. 

The suspension is intended to minimize 

the confusion that could result from the 

overlap of the continuance referendum 

and another referendum associated with 

the amendatory process. It would also 

allow producers time to evaluate the 

results of the amendatory process before 

voting on the continuance of the order. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 26, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

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 docket 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian D. Nissen, Regional Manager, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or e-mail: 

Doris.Jamieson@usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 84 and Marketing Order 

No. 905, both as amended (7 CFR part 

905), regulating the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in 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.’’

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50583 

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 proposal invites comments on a 

temporary suspension of the order 

provision requiring periodic 

continuance referenda under the order. 

This rule would suspend for the current 

6-year cycle the order requirement that 

a continuance referendum be held every 

sixth year. The suspension is intended 

to minimize the confusion that could 

result from the overlap of the 

continuance referendum and another 

referendum associated with the 

amendatory process. It would also allow 

producers time to evaluate the results of 

the amendatory process before voting on 

the continuance of the order. The Citrus 

Administrative Committee (Committee) 

unanimously recommended this action 

at a meeting on January 22, 2008. 

Section 905.83(c) requires the 

Secretary to conduct a referendum every 

sixth year to ascertain whether 

continuance of the order is favored by 

producers. It has been six years since 

the last continuance referendum, and 

absent a temporary suspension of this 

provision, the periodic continuance 

referendum would need to be scheduled 

and conducted this year. Additionally, 

AMS is currently considering proposed 

amendments to the order. The 

amendment process potentially entails 

conducting a referendum to ascertain 

whether the proposed amendments are 

favored by producers. 

The Committee is concerned that the 

overlap of the two processes could 

confuse industry members and could 

diminish voter participation in one or 

both of the referenda. The Committee 

manager and Committee members have 

attended several industry meetings and 

discussions regarding the proposed 

amendments and the amendatory 

process, including making the industry 

aware of the potential producer 

referendum and the opportunity to vote 

on the proposed amendments. Without 

the suspension of the continuance 

referendum, growers could be receiving 

the continuance referendum ballot in 

the middle of the amendatory process. 

As such, the timing of the ballot’s 

receipt could cause some confusion 

among growers as to the scope and 

purpose of the ballot. Further, growers 

receiving the ballot for the amendatory 

process shortly after receiving the 

continuance referendum ballot might 

disregard the second ballot. This could 

negatively affect the voting process and 

voter participation. 

Consequently, the Committee 

recommended suspending the 

continuance referendum for the current 

cycle to avoid any potential confusion. 

This action would isolate the 

amendment process and its referendum 

from the periodic continuance 

referendum so that producers would be 

better informed regarding the issues 

each ballot represents and would be 

more likely to participate in both 

referenda. The Committee expects that 

the suspension of this cycle for the 

continuance referendum would 

minimize confusion and maximize 

producer participation. 

In addition, the temporary suspension 

of the continuance referendum would 

allow the industry time to operate under 

any order changes that may be made as 

a result of the current amendatory 

process. This would give the industry 

an opportunity to evaluate the effects of 

any amendatory changes prior to voting 

on the continuance of the order. 

However, USDA believes that a 

continuous referendum should be held 

in the interim, rather than waiting 

another full six year cycle. As such, 

with the amendatory process scheduled 

to be completed in 2009, USDA plans to 

conduct the next continuance 

referendum in 2010. The continuance 

referendum cycle would then resume as 

provided in § 905.83(c) in 2014. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 

business 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. 

There are approximately 55 handlers 

subject to regulation under the 

marketing order and approximately 

8,000 producers of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos in the 

production area. Small agricultural 

service firms are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) as those 

having annual receipts of less than 

$6,500,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000 

(13 CFR 121.201). 

Based on industry and Committee 

data, the average annual f.o.b. price for 

fresh Florida citrus during the 2006–07 

season was approximately $12.25 per 

4⁄5-bushel carton, and total fresh 

shipments were approximately 36.8 

million cartons. Using the average f.o.b. 

price and shipment data, at least 55 

percent of the Florida citrus handlers 

could be considered small businesses 

under SBA’s definition. In addition, 

based on production and producer 

prices reported by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, and the 

total number of Florida citrus 

producers, the average annual producer 

revenue is less than $750,000. 

Therefore, the majority of handlers and 

producers of Florida citrus may be 

classified as small entities. 

This rule would suspend for the 

current cycle the order requirement that 

a continuance referendum be held every 

sixth year. The suspension is intended 

to minimize the confusion that could 

result from the overlap of the 

continuance referendum and a 

referendum associated with the 

amendatory processes. It would also 

allow producers time to evaluate the 

results of the amendatory process before 

voting on continuance of the order. This 

rule would temporarily suspend the 

provisions of § 905.83(c) which specify 

the continuance referendum 

requirements. The Act authorizes 

suspension of order provisions. 

One alternative to this action would 

be to conduct the continuance 

referendum as scheduled. However, if 

the continuance referendum was 

conducted, the referendum period could 

overlap with an amendment 

referendum, which could cause some 

voter confusion. The Committee was 

concerned that the confusion would 

lead to decreased grower participation. 

Further, the Committee believes that 

growers need time to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the proposed 

amendments before voting on 

continuation of the order. Therefore, 

this alternative was rejected. 

This rule would temporarily suspend 

the provisions of § 905.83(c) which 

specify the continuance referendum 

requirements. Accordingly, this rule 

would not impose any additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large Florida citrus 

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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50584 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 rule. In addition, the 

Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the Florida citrus 

industry and all interested persons were 

invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, the January 22, 2008, meeting 

was a public meeting 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 

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/ 

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplate

Data.do?template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 30-day comment is provided to 

allow interested persons to respond to 

this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate because this rule should be 

implemented as soon as possible since 

the marketing order continuance 

referendum is scheduled for the current 

season. Further, the Committee 

discussed this issue at a public meeting 

and interested parties had an 

opportunity to provide input. All 

written comments timely received will 

be considered before a final 

determination is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905 

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, 

TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS 

GROWN IN FLORIDA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 905 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

§ 905.83 Termination. 

2. Amend paragraph (c) of § 905.83 

by: 

a. Designating the first sentence ‘‘The 

Secretary shall conduct a referendum 

six years after the effective date of this 

paragraph and every sixth year 

thereafter to ascertain whether 

continuance of this part is favored by 

producers’’ as paragraph (c)(1) and the 

next two sentences as paragraph (c)(2). 

b. Newly designated paragraph (c)(1) 

is temporarily suspended for 2008. 

Dated: August 20, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19749 Filed 8–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

New Automation Requirements for 

Detached Address Labels 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes 

revisions to the Mailing Standards of 

the United States Postal Service, 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) for 

detached address labels (DALs). To 

increase efficiency and reduce handling 

costs, we propose that DALs 

accompanying saturation mailings of 

Periodicals or Standard Mail flats must 

be automation-compatible and have a 

correct delivery point POSTNETTM

barcode or Intelligent Mail barcode 

with an 11-digit routing code. This 

proposal would not apply to DALs with 

simplified addresses. 

To be consistent with the current 

requirement for return addresses, we are 

proposing to add DALs to DMM 

602.1.5.3, Required Use of Return 

Address. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before September 26, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Mailing 

Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 3436, 

Washington, DC 20260–3436. You may 

inspect and photocopy all written 

comments, Monday through Friday 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., USPS 

Headquarters Library, 475 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, 

DC. Do not submit comments via fax or 

e-mail. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Monica Grein at 202–268–8411. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7, 

2007, at the request of many mailers, we 

revised our standards to allow 

advertising on the front of DALs 

provided that the DALs were barcoded 

and automation-compatible (see Postal 

Bulletin 22208 and DMM 602.4.2.5.b). 

This change provided mailers with the 

ability to offset the DAL surcharge, 

implemented in May 2007, with new 

opportunities for advertising revenue. 

Current mailing standards do not 

require DALs that accompany saturation 

mailings of Periodicals or Standard Mail 

flats to be automation-compatible and 

barcoded unless advertising appears on 

the front. Automation-compatible and 

barcoded DALs may be processed with 

letter mail in delivery point sequence 

(DPS) order, thereby eliminating the 

need for carriers to manually case the 

labels. 

Except for DALs prepared with 

simplified addresses, our proposal 

would require that all DALs 

accompanying saturation mailings of 

Periodicals or Standard Mail flats be 

automation-compatible and have a 

correct delivery point POSTNET 

barcode or Intelligent Mail barcode with 

an 11-digit routing code. 

We propose to allow mailers 90 days 

after the publication date of the Federal 

Register final rule to comply with the 

new standards for DALs, to afford 

mailers time to exhaust existing stock. 

We suggest that mailers work with their 

local mailpiece design analyst (MDA) to 

ensure that any new DALs 

accompanying saturation mailings of 

Periodicals or Standard Mail flats meet 

the new standards. 

Ninety days from the publication of 

the Federal Register final rule, 

saturation flats mailings presented with 

DALs that are not automationcompatible and barcoded will not 

qualify for saturation prices but may be 

entered at the basic carrier route price 

for Periodicals mailings or the basic 

Enhanced Carrier Route price for 

Standard Mail mailings. 

Although exempt from the notice and 

comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S. C. 

of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the 

Postal Service invites public comments 

on the following proposed revisions to 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), incorporated by reference in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 

CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS