llGib

Recommendations

Info

DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date of filing for public inspection by the Federal Register]. The requirements of this rule do not apply to covered muscle cut commodities produced or packaged before [insert date of filing for public inspection by the Federal Register]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Morris, Deputy Associate Administrator, AMS, USDA, by telephone on 202/690-4024, or via e-mail at: erin.morris@ams.usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill)(Pub. L. 107-171), the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (2002 Appropriations)(Pub. L. 107-206), and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill)(Pub. L. 110-234) amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Act)(7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities. Covered commodities include muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; wild and farm- raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities; macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts. AMS published a final rule for all covered commodities on January 15, 2009 (74 2
FR 2658), which took effect on March 16, 2009. On March 12, 2013, AMS published a proposed rule to amend the country of origin labeling provisions for muscle cut covered commodities (78 FR 15645). Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action In June 2012, in a WTO case brought by Mexico and Canada, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) affirmed a previous WTO Panel’s finding that the COOL requirements for muscle cut meat commodities were inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). In particular, the AB affirmed the Panel’s determination that the COOL requirements were inconsistent with the TBT Agreement’s national treatment obligation to accord imported products treatment no less favorable than that accorded to domestic products. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted its recommendations and rulings on July 23, 2012. The United States has until May 23, 2013, to comply with the WTO ruling. As a result of this action, the Agency reviewed the overall regulatory program and is issuing this rule, under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), to make changes to the labeling provisions for muscle cut covered commodities and certain other modifications to the program. The Agency expects that these changes will improve the overall 3
Page 1: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultu
Page 5 and 6: The estimated number of firms that
Page 7 and 8: end. Given that the Agency believes
Page 9 and 10: designations for chicken muscle cut
Page 11 and 12: Commingling This final rule elimina
Page 13 and 14: “The United Kingdom of Great Brit
Page 15 and 16: support or opposition to the rule w
Page 17 and 18: to require labeling of specific pro
Page 19 and 20: must identify the origin of categor
Page 21 and 22: signage to convey origin informatio
Page 23 and 24: With regard to chicken products, th
Page 25 and 26: spent in another country, i.e., cou
Page 27 and 28: that it is as broad as possible. Th
Page 29 and 30: necessitated by the proposed rule w
Page 31 and 32: to the new labels. The Agency furth
Page 33 and 34: Several commenters stated their bel
Page 35 and 36: With respect to additional operatio
Page 37 and 38: would cause the processing industry
Page 39 and 40: Another commenter that supplies ind
Page 41 and 42: the country(ies) of origin of the c
Page 43 and 44: does not have concerns that this ru
Page 45 and 46: supports the creation of jobs in th
Page 47 and 48: derived from animals born, raised a
Page 49 and 50: the existing limited demand for suc
Page 51 and 52: consumers with information upon whi
Page 53 and 54:
One beef packer commented that 2009
Page 55 and 56:
costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
Page 57 and 58:
conclusion that the final rule’s
Page 59 and 60:
COOL regulations. The revised cost
Page 61 and 62:
Commenters to the notice of propose
Page 63 and 64:
could potentially be commingled, wh
Page 65 and 66:
impact analysis (hereafter, 2009 RI
Page 67 and 68:
Assuming an 800 pound average carca
Page 69 and 70:
steaks and roasts). While a small a
Page 71 and 72:
multiplying by the per-head cost es
Page 73 and 74:
are applied to arrive at the lower,
Page 75 and 76:
information to currently required C
Page 77 and 78:
that is unlikely, because it requir
Page 79 and 80:
objective of this rulemaking is to
Page 81 and 82:
clubs, and superstore firms operate
Page 84 and 85:
The 2007 Economic Census data provi
Page 86 and 87:
The 2007 Economic Census 16 provide
Page 88 and 89:
cattle or hogs. The number of small
Page 90 and 91:
steps occurred, by using signs or p
Page 92 and 93:
AMS considered the potential civil
Page 94 and 95:
States to comply with the DSB recom
Page 96 and 97:
§65.240 Retailer. Retailer means a
Page 98:
location information related to pro
show all

llGib

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?