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, 13777-13781 [2013-04787]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 13, 2011, the National
Organic Program (NOP) published in the
Federal Register a notice of availability
with request for public comment on four
draft guidance documents (76 FR
34180). The topics covered in the draft
documents addressed recommendations
issued by the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) and the USDA
Office of Inspector General (OIG) in a
March 2010 audit report of the NOP.
The four documents presented policies
on the use of kelp in livestock feed
products, procedures for certifying
agents in response to results from
pesticide residue testing, requirements
for procurement and use of seed,
seedlings and planting stock, and
evaluation criteria for allowed
ingredients and sources of vitamins and
minerals in livestock feed. The four
draft guidances can be viewed on the
NOP Web site at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/NopDraftGuidance.
The 60-day comment period closed on
August 12, 2011.
The NOP received approximately 50
individual comments on the four draft
guidance documents. Based upon the
comments received, the NOP revised
and is publishing the three draft
guidance documents as final: ‘‘NOP
5027—The Use of Kelp in Organic
Livestock Feed; ‘‘NOP 5029—Seeds,
Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in
Organic Crop Production’’; and ‘‘NOP
5030—Evaluating Allowed Ingredients
and Sources of Vitamins and Minerals
for Organic Livestock Feed’’. Each
guidance document includes an
appendix where the NOP provides a
complete discussion of the comments
received and the rationale behind any
changes made to the guidance
documents as well as any changes
proposed, but not made to the guidance
documents.
The fourth draft guidance document,
‘‘NOP 5028—Responding to Results
from Pesticide Residue Testing,’’ has
been revised and reissued under the
same title as an instruction document,
NOP 2613. Instruction documents set
forth or clarify existing NOP procedures
and provide information to certifying
agents about conducting business
related to certification and enforcement.
In contrast, guidance documents
provide or explain options and
alternatives to satisfy regulatory
requirements, set forth changes in
interpretation of policy, or address
unusually complex or highly
controversial issues. Upon
consideration of the objectives of the
content in the final document, the NOP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Feb 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
has issued NOP 2613 as an instruction
document, rather than guidance, since
the purpose is to explain to certifying
agents how to respond to results from
pesticide residue testing. Because this
was issued as a draft guidance with
request for comment, this instruction
includes an appendix where the NOP
provides a discussion of the comments
received on the draft guidance and the
rationale behind any changes made in
the instruction as well as any changes
proposed, but not made to the
instruction.
The three final guidance documents
and one instruction document are now
available from the NOP through ‘‘The
Program Handbook: Guidance and
Instructions for Certifying Agents and
Certified Operations’’. This Handbook
provides those who own, manage, or
certify organic operations with guidance
and instructions that can assist them in
complying with the NOP regulations.
The current edition of the Program
Handbook is available online at https://
www.ams.usda.gov/
NopProgramHandbook.
II. Significance of Guidance
These final guidance documents are
being issued in accordance with the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Bulletin on Agency Good
Guidance Practices (GGPs) (January 25,
2007, 72 FR 3432–3440). The purpose of
GGPs is to ensure that program guidance
documents are developed with adequate
public participation, are readily
available to the public, and are not
applied as binding requirements. Final
guidance represents the NOP’s current
thinking on these topics. It does not
create or confer any rights for, or on, any
person and does not operate to bind the
NOP or the public. Guidance documents
are intended to provide a uniform
method for operations to comply that
can reduce the burden of developing
their own methods and simplify audits
and inspections. Alternative approaches
that can demonstrate compliance with
the Organic Foods Production Act
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501–
6522), and its implementing regulations
are also acceptable. As with any
alternative compliance approach, the
NOP strongly encourages industry to
discuss alternative approaches with the
NOP before implementing them to avoid
unnecessary or wasteful expenditures of
resources and to ensure the proposed
alternative approach complies with the
Act and its implementing regulations.
III. Electronic Access
Persons with access to Internet may
obtain the final guidance at the NOP’s
Web site at https://www.ams.usda.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13777
nop. Requests for hard copies of the
guidance or instruction documents can
be obtained by submitting a written
request to the person listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this Notice.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522.
Dated: February 26, 2013.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–04823 Filed 2–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 905
[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0076; FV11–905–1
FR]
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule redefines
districts, reapportions representation,
and modifies 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 final rule reduces the number of
districts, reapportions representation
among the districts, and allows up to
four growers who are shippers or
employees of a shipper to serve as
grower members on the Committee.
These changes 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: Effective March 4, 2013.
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
13778
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny,
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:
Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov.
This final
rule 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 final rule 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 final rule redefines districts,
reapportions representation, and
modifies the qualifications for
membership on the Committee. This
rule reduces the number of districts,
reapportions grower representation
among the districts, and allows up to
four growers who are shippers or
employees of a shipper to serve as
grower members on the Committee.
These changes 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.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Feb 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
addition, this section provides the
authority for the Committee, with the
approval of the Secretary, to establish
alternative qualifications for grower
members. The qualifications in this
section specify that grower members
cannot be shippers or employees of
shippers.
Prior to this change, § 905.114 of the
order’s administrative rules and
regulations listed and defined four
grower districts within the production
area. District One included 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 included the counties of
Polk and Osceola. District Three
included 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
included 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. Previously, District
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
One was represented by one grower
member and alternate; District Two was
represented by two grower members and
alternates; Districts Three and Four
were represented by three grower
members and alternates.
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
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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
becomes District Two, and District Four
becomes 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 nine growers serving on the
Committee, each member represents
approximately 11 percent of fresh
production. Under the subcommittee
recommendation, District One, with 22
percent of the fresh production, is
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, is
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, is
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Feb 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 changes.
Accordingly, District One includes
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 is
represented by two grower members and
alternates.
District Two includes 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
not included in Regulation Area II.
District Two is represented by three
grower members and alternates.
District Three includes 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 has 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13779
further reducing the number of growers
solely engaged in production.
Prior to this change, a grower who
was affiliated with or was an employee
of a shipper did 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 determined 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
change 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
change provides 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
makes 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 helps bring additional
perspectives and ideas to the
Committee, allows another segment of
growers to serve on the Committee, and
creates an increased opportunity for
participation by small citrus operations.
Further, retaining five of the nine
grower seats as seats for only pure
growers helps 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 will better reflect the current
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
13780
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
industry structure. Widening the pool of
growers from which members are
nominated also creates 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 will be held in May 2013.
In order to give the industry ample
notice of these changes, and because
Section 905.14 requires that this
announcement occur on or before March
1 of the then current fiscal year, the
modifications need to be in effect prior
to March 1, 2013, to be utilized in the
May 2013 elections.
Final 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 final 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Feb 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 final rule reduces the number of
districts from four to three, reapportions
grower representation among the
districts, and allows up to four growers
who are shippers or employees of
shippers to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes 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 revises § 905.114
of the regulations regarding grower
districts and the allotment of members
amongst those districts, and adds 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 changes were
unanimously recommended by the
Committee at a meeting on July 14,
2011.
It is not anticipated that this action
will impose any additional costs on the
industry. This action will 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 also creates 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 changes are intended to
make the Committee more
representative of the current industry.
The effects of this rule will 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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, 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 creates 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
are necessary. Should any changes
become necessary, they would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
This final rule requires textual
changes to the form FV–163,
Confidential Background Statement.
However, the changes are purely
cosmetic and do not affect the burden.
In light of the redistricting, District Four
is removed as a check-off option. A
statement on the form is also reworded
to accommodate the revision in grower
member qualifications. With this
change, the OMB currently approved
total burden for completing FV–163
remains the same. A Justification for
Change for this change has been
submitted to OMB for approval.
As noted in the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, this final rule will
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 final 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
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
A proposed rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on December 12, 2012 (77 FR
73961). Copies of the rule were mailed
or sent via facsimile to all Committee
members and Florida citrus handlers.
Finally, the rule was made available
through the Internet by USDA and the
Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day
comment period ending January 11,
2013, was provided to allow interested
persons to respond to the proposal. No
comments were received.
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 Jeffrey Smutny
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
After consideration of all relevant
matter presented, including the
information and recommendation
submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found
that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act.
It is further found that good cause
exists for not postponing the effective
date of this rule until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register (5
U.S.C. 553) because Committee
nominations are scheduled to be held in
the spring, and these changes 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. Also, a 30day comment period was provided for
in the proposed rule.
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 amended as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
§ 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts
and reapportionment of grower members.
29 CFR Part 2520
Pursuant to § 905.14, the citrus
districts and membership allotted each
district shall be as follows:
(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,
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. In § 905.120, add paragraph (g) 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.
Dated: February 25, 2013.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–04787 Filed 2–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 905 continues to read as follows:
■
14:12 Feb 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
2. Section 905.114 is revised to read
as follows:
■
PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT,
TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS
GROWN IN FLORIDA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13781
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1210–AB51
Filings Required of Multiple Employer
Welfare Arrangements and Certain
Other Related Entities
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Final rules.
AGENCY:
This document contains final
rules under Title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
that implement reporting requirements
for multiple employer welfare
arrangements (MEWAs) and certain
other entities that offer or provide
benefits that consist of medical care
(within the meaning of section 733(a)(2)
of ERISA and 29 CFR 2590.701–2) for
employees of two or more employers.
These final rules amend the existing
Form M–1 reporting rules by
incorporating new provisions enacted as
part of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (the ‘‘Affordable
Care Act’’). They also amend existing
Form 5500 annual reporting rules for
ERISA-covered plans subject to Form
M–1 reporting rules. Elsewhere in this
edition of the Federal Register, the
Employee Benefits Security
Administration is publishing final rules
related to the Secretary of Labor’s new
enforcement authority with respect to
MEWAs, a notice adopting final
revisions to the Form 5500 Annual
Return/Report and its instructions to
add new Form M–1 compliance
questions, as well as an additional
notice announcing the finalized
revisions to the Form M–1 and its
instructions. These improvements in
reporting, together with stronger
enforcement tools authorized by the
Affordable Care Act, are designed to
reduce MEWA fraud and abuse,
protecting consumers from unpaid
medical bills.
DATES: Effective date. These final rules
are effective on April 1, 2013.
Applicability dates: These final rules
pertaining to Form M–1 filings generally
apply for all filing events beginning on
or after July 1, 2013, except that in the
case of the 2012 Form M–1 annual
report, the deadline is now May 1, 2013
with an extension until July 1, 2013
available. The rules pertaining to Form
5500 annual reporting will be applicable
for all Form 5500 Annual Return/Report
filings beginning with the 2013 Form
5500.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01MRR1.SGM
01MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13777-13781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04787]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 905
[Doc. No. AMS-FV-11-0076; FV11-905-1 FR]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule redefines districts, reapportions
representation, and modifies 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 final rule reduces the number of districts, reapportions
representation among the districts, and allows up to four growers who
are shippers or employees of a shipper to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes 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: Effective March 4, 2013.
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
[[Page 13778]]
regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 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: Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule 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 final rule 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 final rule redefines districts, reapportions representation,
and modifies the qualifications for membership on the Committee. This
rule reduces the number of districts, reapportions grower
representation among the districts, and allows up to four growers who
are shippers or employees of a shipper to serve as grower members on
the Committee. These changes 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 addition, this section
provides the authority for the Committee, with the approval of the
Secretary, to establish alternative qualifications for grower members.
The qualifications in this section specify that grower members cannot
be shippers or employees of shippers.
Prior to this change, Sec. 905.114 of the order's administrative
rules and regulations listed and defined four grower districts within
the production area. District One included 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 included the counties of
Polk and Osceola. District Three included 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 included 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. Previously, District One was represented
by one grower member and alternate; District Two was represented by two
grower members and alternates; Districts Three and Four were
represented by three grower members and alternates.
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
[[Page 13779]]
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 becomes District Two,
and District Four becomes 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 nine growers serving on the Committee, each member represents
approximately 11 percent of fresh production. Under the subcommittee
recommendation, District One, with 22 percent of the fresh production,
is 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, is 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, is 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 changes.
Accordingly, District One includes 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 is represented
by two grower members and alternates.
District Two includes 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 not included in Regulation Area II. District Two is represented
by three grower members and alternates.
District Three includes 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 has 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.
Prior to this change, a grower who was affiliated with or was an
employee of a shipper did 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 determined 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 change 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
change provides 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 makes 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 helps bring additional perspectives and ideas to the
Committee, allows another segment of growers to serve on the Committee,
and creates an increased opportunity for participation by small citrus
operations. Further, retaining five of the nine grower seats as seats
for only pure growers helps 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 will better
reflect the current
[[Page 13780]]
industry structure. Widening the pool of growers from which members are
nominated also creates 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 will be held in May 2013. In
order to give the industry ample notice of these changes, and because
Section 905.14 requires that this announcement occur on or before March
1 of the then current fiscal year, the modifications need to be in
effect prior to March 1, 2013, to be utilized in the May 2013
elections.
Final 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 final 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 final rule reduces the number of districts from four to three,
reapportions grower representation among the districts, and allows up
to four growers who are shippers or employees of shippers to serve as
grower members on the Committee. These changes 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 revises Sec.
905.114 of the regulations regarding grower districts and the allotment
of members amongst those districts, and adds 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 changes
were unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on July 14,
2011.
It is not anticipated that this action will impose any additional
costs on the industry. This action will 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 also creates 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 changes are intended to make
the Committee more representative of the current industry. The effects
of this rule will 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, 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 creates 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 are necessary. Should any
changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This final rule requires textual changes to the form FV-163,
Confidential Background Statement. However, the changes are purely
cosmetic and do not affect the burden. In light of the redistricting,
District Four is removed as a check-off option. A statement on the form
is also reworded to accommodate the revision in grower member
qualifications. With this change, the OMB currently approved total
burden for completing FV-163 remains the same. A Justification for
Change for this change has been submitted to OMB for approval.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, this final
rule will 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 final
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
[[Page 13781]]
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.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal
Register on December 12, 2012 (77 FR 73961). Copies of the rule were
mailed or sent via facsimile to all Committee members and Florida
citrus handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the
Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day
comment period ending January 11, 2013, was provided to allow
interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were
received.
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 Jeffrey Smutny at the previously
mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the
information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the
effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because Committee nominations are
scheduled to be held in the spring, and these changes 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. Also, a 30-day comment
period was provided for in the proposed rule.
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
amended as follows:
PART 905--ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS GROWN IN
FLORIDA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 905 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
0
2. Section 905.114 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts and reapportionment of
grower members.
Pursuant to Sec. 905.14, the citrus districts and membership
allotted each district shall be as follows:
(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, 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.
0
3. In Sec. 905.120, add paragraph (g) 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: February 25, 2013.
David R. Shipman,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-04787 Filed 2-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
