Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida; Redistricting and Reapportionment of Grower Members, and Changing the Qualifications for Grower Membership on the Citrus Administrative Committee, 73961-73965 [2012-29244]
Download as PDF
73961
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 77, No. 239
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 905
[Docket No. AMS–FV–11–0076; FV11–905–
1 PR]
Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and
Tangelos Grown in Florida;
Redistricting and Reapportionment of
Grower Members, and Changing the
Qualifications for Grower Membership
on the Citrus Administrative
Committee
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
redefine districts, reapportion
representation, and modify the
qualifications for membership on the
Citrus Administrative Committee
(Committee). The Committee is
responsible for local administration of
the Federal marketing order for oranges,
grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos
grown in Florida (order). This rule
would reduce the number of districts,
reapportion representation among the
districts, and allow up to four growers
who are shippers or employees of a
shipper to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes would
adjust grower representation to reflect
the composition of the industry, provide
equitable representation from each
district, and create the opportunity for
more growers to serve on the
Committee.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
January 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov. All
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 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:
Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or
Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director,
Southeast Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program,
AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–
3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email:
Corey.Elliott@ams.usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Laurel May,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202)720–8938, or Email:
Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 905, 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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 redefine
districts, reapportion representation,
and modify the qualifications for
membership on the Committee. This
rule would reduce the number of
districts, reapportion grower
representation among the districts, and
allow up to four growers who are
shippers or employees of a shipper to
serve as grower members on the
Committee. These changes would adjust
grower representation to reflect the
composition of the industry, provide
equitable representation from each
district, and create the opportunity for
more growers to serve on the
Committee. These changes were
unanimously recommended by the
Committee at a meeting on July 14,
2011.
Section 905.14 of the order provides
the authority to redefine the districts
into which the production area is
divided and to reapportion or otherwise
change the grower membership of the
districts to assure equitable grower
representation on the Committee. This
section also provides that such changes
are to be based, so far as practicable, on
the averages for the immediately
preceding five fiscal periods of: (1) The
volume of fruit shipped from each
district; (2) the volume of fruit produced
in each district; and, (3) the total
number of acres of citrus in each
district. It also requires that the
Committee consider such redistricting
and reapportionment during the 1980–
81 fiscal period and only in each fifth
fiscal period thereafter. The
recommendation of July 14, 2011, is
consistent with the time requirements of
this section.
Section 905.19 provides for the
establishment of and membership on
the Committee, including the number of
grower and handler members and their
corresponding qualifications to serve. In
E:\FR\FM\12DEP1.SGM
12DEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
73962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
addition, this section provides the
authority for the Committee, with the
approval of the Secretary, to establish
alternative qualifications for grower
members. Current qualifications specify
that grower members cannot be shippers
or employees of shippers.
Currently, § 905.114 of the order’s
administrative rules and regulations
lists and defines four grower districts
within the production area. District One
includes the counties of Hillsborough,
Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Citrus,
Sumter, Lake, Orange, Seminole,
Alachua, Putnam, St. Johns, Flagler,
Marion, Levy, Duval, Nassau, Baker,
Union, Bradford, Columbia, Clay,
Gilchrist, and Suwannee and County
Commissioner’s Districts One, Two, and
Three of Volusia County, and that part
of the counties of Indian River and
Brevard not included in Regulation Area
II. District Two includes the counties of
Polk and Osceola. District Three
includes the counties of Manatee,
Sarasota, Hardee, Highlands,
Okeechobee, Glades, De Soto, Charlotte,
Lee, Hendry, Collier, Monroe, Dade,
Broward, and that part of the counties
of Palm Beach and Martin not included
in Regulation Area II. District Four
includes St. Lucie County and that part
of the counties of Brevard, Indian River,
Martin, and Palm Beach described as
lying within Regulation Area II, and
County Commissioner’s Districts Four
and Five of Volusia County.
Section 905.114 also specifies the
grower representation on the Committee
from each district. Currently, District
One is represented by one grower
member and alternate; District Two is
represented by two grower members and
alternates; Districts Three and Four are
represented by three grower members
and alternates each.
Since the last redistricting and
reapportionment in 1991, total citrus
acreage has fallen by 24 percent,
production has fallen by 23 percent, and
fresh shipments have fallen by 60
percent. Citrus production and growing
acreage have gradually shifted from the
north and central parts of the state to the
eastern and southwestern growing
regions following damaging freezes. The
industry has also seen an overall
decrease in acreage and production due
to real estate development and the
impact of several hurricanes. Increased
production costs associated with
replanting, cultivating, and battling
citrus diseases, such as canker and
greening, have also contributed to
changes in production.
Considering the numerous changes to
the industry, the Committee discussed
the need to redistrict the production
area and reapportion grower
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
membership at its meeting on July 14,
2011. During the discussion, Committee
members agreed that industry
conditions have been stabilizing,
making this an appropriate time to
consider redistricting and
reapportionment. Trees planted to
replace acreage lost to disease and
hurricane damage are now producing,
new production practices are helping to
mitigate the effects of disease, and a
weakened housing market has reduced
development. These factors have all
contributed to greater stability within
the industry.
In considering redistricting and
reapportionment, the Committee
reviewed the information and
recommendations provided by the
subcommittee tasked with examining
this issue. The subcommittee reviewed
the numbers for acreage, production,
and shipments from all counties in the
production area as required in the order.
While this information was beneficial in
showing how the industry had changed
since the last time the production area
was redistricted, there were concerns
about how representative these numbers
were of the fresh citrus industry.
The majority of Florida citrus
production goes to processing for juice,
and the available numbers for acreage
and production by county do not
delineate between fresh and juice
production, making it difficult to
determine if those numbers reflect fresh
production. Further, reviewing the
available data for fresh shipments also
presented problems in that the numbers
were more reflective of handler activity
rather than grower activity, as fruit from
many counties is handled in counties
other than where the fruit is grown, and
often in separate districts from where
the fruit is grown.
In an effort to provide numbers
reflective of grower production utilized
for fresh shipments, the subcommittee
used the available information on trees
by variety in each county combined
with the percentage of fresh production
by variety to calculate a fresh
production estimate for each county.
Currently, 3 percent of orange, 44
percent of grapefruit, and 58 percent of
specialty citrus production are shipped
to the fresh market. Using these
estimates, District One currently
accounts for 9 percent of fresh
production, District Two 13 percent,
District Three 31 percent and District
Four 47 percent of fresh production.
Based on the fresh production
estimates and other information
available, the subcommittee
recommended reducing the number of
districts from four to three by combining
current Districts One and Two, into a
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
new District One. Current District Three
would become District Two, and District
Four would become District Three. The
subcommittee also recommended that
the nine grower members be
reapportioned, as follows, based on the
estimates for fresh production: two
grower members and alternates for
District One, three grower members and
alternates for District Two, and four
grower members and alternates for
District Three.
With 9 growers serving on the
Committee, each member would
represent approximately 11 percent of
fresh production. Under the
subcommittee recommendation, District
One, with 22 percent of the fresh
production, would be represented by 22
percent of the grower members and
alternates on the Committee, with two
grower members and alternates. District
Two, with 31 percent of fresh
production, would be represented by 33
percent of the grower members and
alternates on the Committee, with three
grower members and alternates. District
Three, with 47 percent of fresh
production, would be represented by 44
percent of the grower members and
alternates on the Committee, with four
grower members and alternates.
In discussing the recommendations of
the subcommittee, Committee members
found that the estimated fresh
production numbers were a good
indicator of fresh production and were
beneficial when considering how the
production area should be redistricted
and grower membership distributed.
Based on the new districts, and the
estimated fresh production, the
Committee agreed that the
subcommittee’s recommendations
evenly allocated grower membership.
Consequently, the Committee voted
unanimously in support of the proposed
changes.
Accordingly, District One would
include the counties of Alachua, Baker,
Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval,
Flagler, Gilchrist, Hernando,
Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion,
Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco,
Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St.
Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, and Union
and County Commissioner’s Districts
One, Two, and Three of Volusia County,
and that part of the counties of Indian
River and Brevard not included in
Regulation Area II. District One would
be represented by two grower members
and alternates.
District Two would include the
counties of Broward, Charlotte, Collier,
Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry,
Highlands, Lee, Manatee, Monroe,
Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that part of
the counties of Palm Beach and Martin
E:\FR\FM\12DEP1.SGM
12DEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
not included in Regulation Area II.
District Two would be represented by
three grower members and alternates.
District Three would include the
County of St. Lucie and that part of the
counties of Brevard, Indian River,
Martin, and Palm Beach described as
lying within Regulation Area II, and
County Commissioner’s Districts Four
and Five of Volusia County. This
district would have four grower
members and alternates.
In addition to discussing redistricting
and reapportionment of grower
representation on the Committee, the
Committee also considered changes to
the grower membership qualifications
established under the order. When the
qualifications for grower membership
were established, the line between
growers and shippers was clearer, with
more growers in the business of just
producing fresh fruit for the fresh
market and not involved in the shipping
aspect of the industry. However, over
the years, the industry has seen more
growers partnering to form shipping
interests or vertically integrating with
shippers.
This trend began in the 1990s, when
the industry was in an oversupply
situation, and growers were looking for
ways to assure their fruit was
purchased. This consolidation between
growers and shippers continued as the
industry adjusted to changes in
production and reacted to the pressures
of disease, rising land values, hurricanes
and freezes. Also, the same pressures
that have encouraged consolidation and
vertical integration have prompted
many growers to leave the industry,
further reducing the number of growers
solely engaged in production.
Currently, a grower who is affiliated
with or is an employee of a shipper does
not qualify to serve as a grower member
on the Committee. In discussing this
issue, the Committee recognized the
changes in the makeup of the industry,
and the need to revise the qualifications
for grower membership to reflect these
changes. Committee members agreed
that with growers who are affiliated
with shippers playing an increasing role
in the industry, a change should be
made to facilitate their participation on
the Committee. Several Committee
members stated that they thought such
a change was important, but that the
majority of grower seats on the
Committee should be maintained for
pure growers, those not affiliated with a
shipper.
To create an opportunity for shipperaffiliated growers to serve on the
Committee, while maintaining the
majority of positions for pure growers,
it was proposed that the grower
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
qualifications for membership on the
Committee be modified so that up to
four grower members may be growers
affiliated with or employed by shippers,
with the remaining five seats open only
to pure growers who are not affiliated
with or employed by shippers.
Committee members supported this
proposal because it does not mandate
that the four positions be filled by
growers affiliated with shippers, but
does create the opportunity for these
types of growers to serve on the
Committee. This proposed change
would provide the flexibility to expand
grower membership to include growers
who are affiliated with shippers without
limiting the opportunity for pure
growers to serve.
The Committee believes this change
would make the Committee more
reflective of the fresh segment of the
Florida citrus industry. Providing the
opportunity for growers affiliated with
shippers to serve on the Committee
would help bring additional
perspectives and ideas to the
Committee, would allow another
segment of growers to serve on the
Committee, and may create an increased
opportunity for participation by small
citrus operations. Further, retaining five
of the nine grower seats as seats for only
pure growers would help maintain a
balance between grower and shipper
representation on the Committee.
With growers who are affiliated with
the shipping segment of the industry
playing an increasing role in the
industry and the expectation that this
segment of growers will continue to
increase, the Committee believes
facilitating their inclusion on the
Committee would better reflect the
current industry structure. Widening the
pool of growers from which members
are nominated would also create
additional opportunities for growers
with different backgrounds and
perspectives to serve on the Committee.
Therefore, the Committee unanimously
recommended revising grower member
qualifications to allow up to four
growers who are affiliated with or
employed by shippers to serve as grower
members on the Committee.
The next round of grower
nominations should be held in May
2013. In order to give the industry
ample notice of these proposed changes,
and because Section 905.14 requires
that this announcement occur on or
before March 1 of the then current fiscal
year, the modifications would need to
be in effect prior to March 1, 2013, to
be utilized in the May 2013 elections.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73963
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
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
of Florida citrus who are subject to
regulation under the marketing order
and approximately 8,000 producers of
oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and
tangelos in the regulated area. Small
agricultural service firms are defined by
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) as those having annual receipts of
less than $7,000,000, and small
agricultural producers are defined as
those having annual receipts of less than
$750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee
data, the average annual f.o.b. price for
fresh Florida citrus during the 2010–11
season was approximately $12.16 per 4⁄5
bushel carton, and total fresh shipments
were approximately 30.4 million
cartons. Using the average f.o.b. price
and shipment data, and assuming a
normal distribution, 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 reduce the number of
districts from four to three, reapportion
grower representation among the
districts, and allow up to four growers
who are shippers or employees of
shippers to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes would
adjust grower representation to reflect
the composition of the industry, provide
equitable representation from each
district, and create the opportunity for
more growers to serve on the
Committee. This rule would revise
§ 905.114 of the regulations regarding
grower districts and the allotment of
E:\FR\FM\12DEP1.SGM
12DEP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
73964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
members amongst those districts, and
would add a new paragraph to § 905.120
of the rules and regulations to revise
grower membership qualifications. The
authority for these actions is provided
in §§ 905.14 and 905.19 of the order,
respectively. These proposed changes
were unanimously recommended by the
Committee at a meeting on July 14,
2011.
It is not anticipated that this action
would impose any additional costs on
the industry. This action would have a
beneficial impact as it more accurately
aligns grower districts and reapportions
grower membership in accordance with
the production of fresh Florida citrus.
This action would also create an
opportunity for growers that are
affiliated with or employees of shippers
to serve on the Committee as grower
members. These changes should provide
equitable representation to growers on
the Committee and increase diversity by
allowing more growers the opportunity
to serve. These proposed changes are
intended to make the Committee more
representative of the current industry.
The effects of this rule would not be
disproportionately greater or less for
small entities than for larger entities.
The Committee discussed alternatives
to these changes including making no
changes to the districts or the
apportionment of grower membership.
The Committee recognized that there
had been some significant changes to
the industry since the last time the
production area was redistricted and
members reapportioned in 1991. The
Committee determined that some
changes were needed to make the
districts and the apportionment of
members reflective of the current
industry structure. In discussing
alternatives to changing grower member
qualifications, the Committee explored
making no changes to the qualifications
or setting more restrictive limits on the
alternate qualifications for growers
affiliated with shippers. However, the
Committee agreed that changes to the
structure of the industry, including
increasing vertical integration, would
support making a change to grower
membership qualifications. Further, the
Committee believes allowing up to four
growers affiliated with or employed by
shippers to serve on the Committee
would create an opportunity for these
growers, but maintain a majority of seats
for pure growers who are not affiliated
with shippers. Therefore, for the reasons
above, these alternatives were rejected.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
Management and Budget (OMB) and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 Generic
Fruit Crops. No changes in those
requirements as a result of this action
would be necessary. Should any
changes become necessary, they would
be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed action would require
textual changes to the form FV–163,
Confidential Background Statement.
However, the changes would be purely
cosmetic and would not affect the
burden. In light of the redistricting,
District 4 would be removed as a checkoff option. A statement on the form
would also be reworded to
accommodate the revision in grower
member qualifications. With this
change, the OMB currently approved
total burden for completing FV–163
would remain the same. A Justification
for Change for these changes would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose
any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
In 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 July 14, 2011,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express views on this issue. Finally,
interested persons are invited to submit
comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/
MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Laurel May at
the previously mentioned address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate because this rule would
need to be in place prior to March 1,
2013, for the Committee to use these
proposed changes in the 2013–14
grower nomination cycle. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. Thirty days is
deemed appropriate because Committee
nominations are scheduled to be held in
the spring. These changes would need
to be in effect in advance so that
industry stakeholders are familiar with
the new grower districts,
reapportionment, and qualifications
prior to the nomination process.
Further, to be effective for the next
nomination cycle, the order requires
that the redistricting and
reapportionment actions be announced
on or before March 1, 2013. 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, 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.
2. Section 905.114 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
§ 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts
and reapportionment of grower members.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Citrus District One shall include
the counties of Alachua, Baker,
Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval,
Flagler, Gilchrist, Hernando,
Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion,
Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco,
Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St.
Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, and Union
and County Commissioner’s Districts
One, Two, and Three of Volusia County,
and that part of the counties of Indian
River and Brevard not included in
Regulation Area II. This district shall
have two grower members and
alternates.
(b) Citrus District Two shall include
the counties of Broward, Charlotte,
Collier, Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee,
E:\FR\FM\12DEP1.SGM
12DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Manatee,
Monroe, Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that
part of the counties of Palm Beach and
Martin not included in Regulation Area
II. This district shall have three grower
members and alternates.
(c) Citrus District Three shall include
the County of St. Lucie and that part of
the counties of Brevard, Indian River,
Martin, and Palm Beach described as
lying within Regulation Area II, and
County Commissioner’s Districts Four
and Five of Volusia County. This
district shall have four grower members
and alternates.
3. A new paragraph (g) is added to
§ 905.120 to read as follows:
§ 905.120
Nomination procedure.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Up to four grower members may be
growers who are also shippers, or
growers who are also employees of
shippers.
[FR Doc. 2012–29244 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–126770–06]
RIN 1545–BG07
Allocation of Costs Under the
Simplified Methods; Hearing
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on
notice proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This document provides
notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations that provide guidance on
allocating costs to certain property
produced by the taxpayer or acquired by
the taxpayer for resale.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Monday, January 7, 2013, at 10:00
a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of
the topics to be discussed at the public
hearing by Wednesday, December 19,
2012.
SUMMARY:
The public hearing is being
held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal
Revenue Service Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20224. Due to building security
procedures, visitors must enter at the
Constitution Avenue entrance. In
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:25 Dec 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the regulations, Christopher
Call at (202) 622–4940; concerning
submissions of comments, the hearing
and/or to be placed on the building
access list to attend the hearing
Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 622–
7180 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: November 28, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
ADDRESSES:
addition, all visitors must present photo
identification to enter the building.
Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–126770–06), room 5205, Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–126770–06),
Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC or sent electronically
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (REG–126770–06).
The subject of the public hearing is
the notice of proposed rulemaking
(REG–126770–06) that was published in
the Federal Register on Wednesday,
September 5, 2012 (77 FR 54482).
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish
to present oral comments at the hearing
that submitted written comments by
December 4, 2012, must submit an
outline of the topics to be addressed and
the amount of time to be denoted to
each topic.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
comments. After the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed, the IRS
will prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR)
(Room 1621) which is located at the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
LaNita VanDyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2012–29932 Filed 12–7–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
73965
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 926
[SATS No: MT–033–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–
2011–0012]
Montana Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are announcing the withdrawal
of a proposed rule pertaining to an
amendment to the Montana regulatory
program (the Montana program) and its
coal rules and regulations. Montana
submitted the amendment at their own
initiative to modify coal prospecting
procedures and allow for a new type of
coal prospecting permit.
DATES: The proposed rule published
October 17, 2011, at 76 FR 64047, is
withdrawn December 12, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Director, Casper
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Dick
Cheney Federal Building, POB 11018,
150 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming
82601–1018; Telephone: 307–261–6550,
email address: jfleischman@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background on the Montana Program
II. Submission of the Withdrawal
I. Background on the Montana Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Montana
program on April 1, 1980. You can find
background information on the Montana
program, including the Secretary’s
findings, the disposition of comments,
and conditions of approval of the
Montana program in the April 1, 1980,
Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can
also find later actions concerning
Montana’s program and program
E:\FR\FM\12DEP1.SGM
12DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73961-73965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29244]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 73961]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 905
[Docket No. AMS-FV-11-0076; FV11-905-1 PR]
Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in Florida;
Redistricting and Reapportionment of Grower Members, and Changing the
Qualifications for Grower Membership on the Citrus Administrative
Committee
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would redefine districts, reapportion
representation, and modify the qualifications for membership on the
Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee). The Committee is
responsible for local administration of the Federal marketing order for
oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida (order).
This rule would reduce the number of districts, reapportion
representation among the districts, and allow up to four growers who
are shippers or employees of a shipper to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes would adjust grower representation to
reflect the composition of the industry, provide equitable
representation from each district, and create the opportunity for more
growers to serve on the Committee.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC
20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: 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 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: Corey E. Elliott, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast
Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit
and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863)
325-8793, or Email: Corey.Elliott@ams.usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-
2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email: Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 905, 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.
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 redefine districts, reapportion
representation, and modify the qualifications for membership on the
Committee. This rule would reduce the number of districts, reapportion
grower representation among the districts, and allow up to four growers
who are shippers or employees of a shipper to serve as grower members
on the Committee. These changes would adjust grower representation to
reflect the composition of the industry, provide equitable
representation from each district, and create the opportunity for more
growers to serve on the Committee. These changes were unanimously
recommended by the Committee at a meeting on July 14, 2011.
Section 905.14 of the order provides the authority to redefine the
districts into which the production area is divided and to reapportion
or otherwise change the grower membership of the districts to assure
equitable grower representation on the Committee. This section also
provides that such changes are to be based, so far as practicable, on
the averages for the immediately preceding five fiscal periods of: (1)
The volume of fruit shipped from each district; (2) the volume of fruit
produced in each district; and, (3) the total number of acres of citrus
in each district. It also requires that the Committee consider such
redistricting and reapportionment during the 1980-81 fiscal period and
only in each fifth fiscal period thereafter. The recommendation of July
14, 2011, is consistent with the time requirements of this section.
Section 905.19 provides for the establishment of and membership on
the Committee, including the number of grower and handler members and
their corresponding qualifications to serve. In
[[Page 73962]]
addition, this section provides the authority for the Committee, with
the approval of the Secretary, to establish alternative qualifications
for grower members. Current qualifications specify that grower members
cannot be shippers or employees of shippers.
Currently, Sec. 905.114 of the order's administrative rules and
regulations lists and defines four grower districts within the
production area. District One includes the counties of Hillsborough,
Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Sumter, Lake, Orange, Seminole,
Alachua, Putnam, St. Johns, Flagler, Marion, Levy, Duval, Nassau,
Baker, Union, Bradford, Columbia, Clay, Gilchrist, and Suwannee and
County Commissioner's Districts One, Two, and Three of Volusia County,
and that part of the counties of Indian River and Brevard not included
in Regulation Area II. District Two includes the counties of Polk and
Osceola. District Three includes the counties of Manatee, Sarasota,
Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, Glades, De Soto, Charlotte, Lee, Hendry,
Collier, Monroe, Dade, Broward, and that part of the counties of Palm
Beach and Martin not included in Regulation Area II. District Four
includes St. Lucie County and that part of the counties of Brevard,
Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach described as lying within
Regulation Area II, and County Commissioner's Districts Four and Five
of Volusia County.
Section 905.114 also specifies the grower representation on the
Committee from each district. Currently, District One is represented by
one grower member and alternate; District Two is represented by two
grower members and alternates; Districts Three and Four are represented
by three grower members and alternates each.
Since the last redistricting and reapportionment in 1991, total
citrus acreage has fallen by 24 percent, production has fallen by 23
percent, and fresh shipments have fallen by 60 percent. Citrus
production and growing acreage have gradually shifted from the north
and central parts of the state to the eastern and southwestern growing
regions following damaging freezes. The industry has also seen an
overall decrease in acreage and production due to real estate
development and the impact of several hurricanes. Increased production
costs associated with replanting, cultivating, and battling citrus
diseases, such as canker and greening, have also contributed to changes
in production.
Considering the numerous changes to the industry, the Committee
discussed the need to redistrict the production area and reapportion
grower membership at its meeting on July 14, 2011. During the
discussion, Committee members agreed that industry conditions have been
stabilizing, making this an appropriate time to consider redistricting
and reapportionment. Trees planted to replace acreage lost to disease
and hurricane damage are now producing, new production practices are
helping to mitigate the effects of disease, and a weakened housing
market has reduced development. These factors have all contributed to
greater stability within the industry.
In considering redistricting and reapportionment, the Committee
reviewed the information and recommendations provided by the
subcommittee tasked with examining this issue. The subcommittee
reviewed the numbers for acreage, production, and shipments from all
counties in the production area as required in the order. While this
information was beneficial in showing how the industry had changed
since the last time the production area was redistricted, there were
concerns about how representative these numbers were of the fresh
citrus industry.
The majority of Florida citrus production goes to processing for
juice, and the available numbers for acreage and production by county
do not delineate between fresh and juice production, making it
difficult to determine if those numbers reflect fresh production.
Further, reviewing the available data for fresh shipments also
presented problems in that the numbers were more reflective of handler
activity rather than grower activity, as fruit from many counties is
handled in counties other than where the fruit is grown, and often in
separate districts from where the fruit is grown.
In an effort to provide numbers reflective of grower production
utilized for fresh shipments, the subcommittee used the available
information on trees by variety in each county combined with the
percentage of fresh production by variety to calculate a fresh
production estimate for each county. Currently, 3 percent of orange, 44
percent of grapefruit, and 58 percent of specialty citrus production
are shipped to the fresh market. Using these estimates, District One
currently accounts for 9 percent of fresh production, District Two 13
percent, District Three 31 percent and District Four 47 percent of
fresh production.
Based on the fresh production estimates and other information
available, the subcommittee recommended reducing the number of
districts from four to three by combining current Districts One and
Two, into a new District One. Current District Three would become
District Two, and District Four would become District Three. The
subcommittee also recommended that the nine grower members be
reapportioned, as follows, based on the estimates for fresh production:
two grower members and alternates for District One, three grower
members and alternates for District Two, and four grower members and
alternates for District Three.
With 9 growers serving on the Committee, each member would
represent approximately 11 percent of fresh production. Under the
subcommittee recommendation, District One, with 22 percent of the fresh
production, would be represented by 22 percent of the grower members
and alternates on the Committee, with two grower members and
alternates. District Two, with 31 percent of fresh production, would be
represented by 33 percent of the grower members and alternates on the
Committee, with three grower members and alternates. District Three,
with 47 percent of fresh production, would be represented by 44 percent
of the grower members and alternates on the Committee, with four grower
members and alternates.
In discussing the recommendations of the subcommittee, Committee
members found that the estimated fresh production numbers were a good
indicator of fresh production and were beneficial when considering how
the production area should be redistricted and grower membership
distributed. Based on the new districts, and the estimated fresh
production, the Committee agreed that the subcommittee's
recommendations evenly allocated grower membership. Consequently, the
Committee voted unanimously in support of the proposed changes.
Accordingly, District One would include the counties of Alachua,
Baker, Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist,
Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion, Nassau, Orange, Osceola,
Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,
and Union and County Commissioner's Districts One, Two, and Three of
Volusia County, and that part of the counties of Indian River and
Brevard not included in Regulation Area II. District One would be
represented by two grower members and alternates.
District Two would include the counties of Broward, Charlotte,
Collier, Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee,
Manatee, Monroe, Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that part of the counties of
Palm Beach and Martin
[[Page 73963]]
not included in Regulation Area II. District Two would be represented
by three grower members and alternates.
District Three would include the County of St. Lucie and that part
of the counties of Brevard, Indian River, Martin, and Palm Beach
described as lying within Regulation Area II, and County Commissioner's
Districts Four and Five of Volusia County. This district would have
four grower members and alternates.
In addition to discussing redistricting and reapportionment of
grower representation on the Committee, the Committee also considered
changes to the grower membership qualifications established under the
order. When the qualifications for grower membership were established,
the line between growers and shippers was clearer, with more growers in
the business of just producing fresh fruit for the fresh market and not
involved in the shipping aspect of the industry. However, over the
years, the industry has seen more growers partnering to form shipping
interests or vertically integrating with shippers.
This trend began in the 1990s, when the industry was in an
oversupply situation, and growers were looking for ways to assure their
fruit was purchased. This consolidation between growers and shippers
continued as the industry adjusted to changes in production and reacted
to the pressures of disease, rising land values, hurricanes and
freezes. Also, the same pressures that have encouraged consolidation
and vertical integration have prompted many growers to leave the
industry, further reducing the number of growers solely engaged in
production.
Currently, a grower who is affiliated with or is an employee of a
shipper does not qualify to serve as a grower member on the Committee.
In discussing this issue, the Committee recognized the changes in the
makeup of the industry, and the need to revise the qualifications for
grower membership to reflect these changes. Committee members agreed
that with growers who are affiliated with shippers playing an
increasing role in the industry, a change should be made to facilitate
their participation on the Committee. Several Committee members stated
that they thought such a change was important, but that the majority of
grower seats on the Committee should be maintained for pure growers,
those not affiliated with a shipper.
To create an opportunity for shipper-affiliated growers to serve on
the Committee, while maintaining the majority of positions for pure
growers, it was proposed that the grower qualifications for membership
on the Committee be modified so that up to four grower members may be
growers affiliated with or employed by shippers, with the remaining
five seats open only to pure growers who are not affiliated with or
employed by shippers. Committee members supported this proposal because
it does not mandate that the four positions be filled by growers
affiliated with shippers, but does create the opportunity for these
types of growers to serve on the Committee. This proposed change would
provide the flexibility to expand grower membership to include growers
who are affiliated with shippers without limiting the opportunity for
pure growers to serve.
The Committee believes this change would make the Committee more
reflective of the fresh segment of the Florida citrus industry.
Providing the opportunity for growers affiliated with shippers to serve
on the Committee would help bring additional perspectives and ideas to
the Committee, would allow another segment of growers to serve on the
Committee, and may create an increased opportunity for participation by
small citrus operations. Further, retaining five of the nine grower
seats as seats for only pure growers would help maintain a balance
between grower and shipper representation on the Committee.
With growers who are affiliated with the shipping segment of the
industry playing an increasing role in the industry and the expectation
that this segment of growers will continue to increase, the Committee
believes facilitating their inclusion on the Committee would better
reflect the current industry structure. Widening the pool of growers
from which members are nominated would also create additional
opportunities for growers with different backgrounds and perspectives
to serve on the Committee. Therefore, the Committee unanimously
recommended revising grower member qualifications to allow up to four
growers who are affiliated with or employed by shippers to serve as
grower members on the Committee.
The next round of grower nominations should be held in May 2013. In
order to give the industry ample notice of these proposed changes, and
because Section 905.14 requires that this announcement occur on or
before March 1 of the then current fiscal year, the modifications would
need to be in effect prior to March 1, 2013, to be utilized in the May
2013 elections.
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
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 of Florida citrus who are
subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 8,000
producers of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos in the
regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the
Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of
less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as
those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual f.o.b.
price for fresh Florida citrus during the 2010-11 season was
approximately $12.16 per \4/5\ bushel carton, and total fresh shipments
were approximately 30.4 million cartons. Using the average f.o.b. price
and shipment data, and assuming a normal distribution, 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 reduce the number of districts from four to three,
reapportion grower representation among the districts, and allow up to
four growers who are shippers or employees of shippers to serve as
grower members on the Committee. These changes would adjust grower
representation to reflect the composition of the industry, provide
equitable representation from each district, and create the opportunity
for more growers to serve on the Committee. This rule would revise
Sec. 905.114 of the regulations regarding grower districts and the
allotment of
[[Page 73964]]
members amongst those districts, and would add a new paragraph to Sec.
905.120 of the rules and regulations to revise grower membership
qualifications. The authority for these actions is provided in
Sec. Sec. 905.14 and 905.19 of the order, respectively. These proposed
changes were unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on
July 14, 2011.
It is not anticipated that this action would impose any additional
costs on the industry. This action would have a beneficial impact as it
more accurately aligns grower districts and reapportions grower
membership in accordance with the production of fresh Florida citrus.
This action would also create an opportunity for growers that are
affiliated with or employees of shippers to serve on the Committee as
grower members. These changes should provide equitable representation
to growers on the Committee and increase diversity by allowing more
growers the opportunity to serve. These proposed changes are intended
to make the Committee more representative of the current industry. The
effects of this rule would not be disproportionately greater or less
for small entities than for larger entities.
The Committee discussed alternatives to these changes including
making no changes to the districts or the apportionment of grower
membership. The Committee recognized that there had been some
significant changes to the industry since the last time the production
area was redistricted and members reapportioned in 1991. The Committee
determined that some changes were needed to make the districts and the
apportionment of members reflective of the current industry structure.
In discussing alternatives to changing grower member qualifications,
the Committee explored making no changes to the qualifications or
setting more restrictive limits on the alternate qualifications for
growers affiliated with shippers. However, the Committee agreed that
changes to the structure of the industry, including increasing vertical
integration, would support making a change to grower membership
qualifications. Further, the Committee believes allowing up to four
growers affiliated with or employed by shippers to serve on the
Committee would create an opportunity for these growers, but maintain a
majority of seats for pure growers who are not affiliated with
shippers. Therefore, for the reasons above, these alternatives were
rejected.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those
requirements as a result of this action would be necessary. Should any
changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed action would require textual changes to the form FV-
163, Confidential Background Statement. However, the changes would be
purely cosmetic and would not affect the burden. In light of the
redistricting, District 4 would be removed as a check-off option. A
statement on the form would also be reworded to accommodate the
revision in grower member qualifications. With this change, the OMB
currently approved total burden for completing FV-163 would remain the
same. A Justification for Change for these changes would be submitted
to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large 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. USDA has not
identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes.
In 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 July 14,
2011, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and
small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested
persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including
the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small
businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and
specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about
the compliance guide should be sent to Laurel May at the previously
mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because
this rule would need to be in place prior to March 1, 2013, for the
Committee to use these proposed changes in the 2013-14 grower
nomination cycle. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate
because Committee nominations are scheduled to be held in the spring.
These changes would need to be in effect in advance so that industry
stakeholders are familiar with the new grower districts,
reapportionment, and qualifications prior to the nomination process.
Further, to be effective for the next nomination cycle, the order
requires that the redistricting and reapportionment actions be
announced on or before March 1, 2013. 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, 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.
2. Section 905.114 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts and reapportionment of
grower members.
* * * * *
(a) Citrus District One shall include the counties of Alachua,
Baker, Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist,
Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion, Nassau, Orange, Osceola,
Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,
and Union and County Commissioner's Districts One, Two, and Three of
Volusia County, and that part of the counties of Indian River and
Brevard not included in Regulation Area II. This district shall have
two grower members and alternates.
(b) Citrus District Two shall include the counties of Broward,
Charlotte, Collier, Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee,
[[Page 73965]]
Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that
part of the counties of Palm Beach and Martin not included in
Regulation Area II. This district shall have three grower members and
alternates.
(c) Citrus District Three shall include the County of St. Lucie and
that part of the counties of Brevard, Indian River, Martin, and Palm
Beach described as lying within Regulation Area II, and County
Commissioner's Districts Four and Five of Volusia County. This district
shall have four grower members and alternates.
3. A new paragraph (g) is added to Sec. 905.120 to read as
follows:
Sec. 905.120 Nomination procedure.
* * * * *
(g) Up to four grower members may be growers who are also shippers,
or growers who are also employees of shippers.
Dated: November 28, 2012.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29244 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P