Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer Representation, 44966-44971 [2017-20610]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44966
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 186
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
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 1210
[Document Number AMS–SC–16–0097]
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Plan; Redistricting and Importer
Representation
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This proposal invites
comments on realigning the production
districts under the Watermelon
Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) for
producer and handler membership on
the National Watermelon Promotion
Board (Board), and adding four importer
seats to the Board. The Board
administers the Plan with oversight by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). These changes were
recommended by the Board after a
review of the production volume in
each district as well as assessments paid
by importers. This action is necessary to
provide for the equitable representation
of producers, handlers and importers on
the Board. The Plan requires that such
a review be conducted every 5 years.
This action would increase the number
of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby
increasing the number of Board
members from 37 to a total of 41: 14
producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers,
and one public member.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
may be submitted on the internet at:
https://www.regulations.gov or to the
Promotion and Economics Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room
1406–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC
20250–0244; facsimile: (202) 205–2800.
All comments should reference the
document number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Register and will be made available for
public inspection, including name and
address, if provided, in the above office
during regular business hours or it can
be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stacy Jones King, Agricultural
Marketing Specialist, Promotion and
Economics Division, Specialty Crops
Program, AMS, USDA, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Room
1406–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC
20250–0244; telephone: (202) 731–2117;
facsimile: (202) 205–2800; or electronic
mail: Stacy.JonesKing@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposed rule is issued under the Plan
(7 CFR part 1210). The Plan is
authorized under the Watermelon
Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7
U.S.C. 4901–4916).
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules and promoting
flexibility. This action falls within a
category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because
this proposed rule does not meet the
definition of a significant regulatory
action it does not trigger the
requirements contained in Executive
Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum
titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing
Section 2 of the Executive Order of
January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017).
Executive Order 13175
This action has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this regulation would not have
substantial and direct effects on Tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
governments and would not have
significant Tribal implications.
Executive Order 12988
In addition, this proposal has been
reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended
to have retroactive effect. The Act
provides that it shall not affect or
preempt any other State or Federal law
authorizing promotion or research
relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 1650 of the Act (7
U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a written
petition with USDA if they believe that
the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or
any obligation imposed in connection
with the Plan, is not in accordance with
the law. In any petition, the person may
request a modification of the Plan or an
exemption from the Plan. The petitioner
will have the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. Afterwards, an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will
issue a decision. If the petitioner
disagrees with the ALJ’s ruling, the
petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the
Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling
on behalf of USDA. If the petitioner
disagrees with USDA’s ruling, the
petitioner may file, within 20 days, an
appeal in the U.S. District Court for the
district where the petitioner resides or
conducts business.
Background
Under the Plan, the Board administers
a nationally coordinated program of
research, development, advertising and
promotion designed to strengthen the
watermelon’s position in the market
place and to establish, maintain, and
expand markets for watermelons. The
program is financed by assessments on
producers growing 10 acres or more of
watermelons, handlers of watermelons,
and importers of 150,000 pounds of
watermelons or more per year. The Plan
specifies that handlers are responsible
for collecting and submitting both the
producer and handler assessments to
the Board, reporting their handling of
watermelons, and maintaining records
necessary to verify their reporting(s).
Importers are responsible for payment of
assessments to the Board on
watermelons imported into the United
States through U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (Customs).
This proposal invites comments on
realigning the production districts
under the Plan for producer and handler
membership on the Board, and adding
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
four importer seats to the Board. The
Board administers the Plan with
oversight by USDA. These changes were
recommended by the Board after a
review of the production volume in
each district as well as the assessments
paid by importers. The Plan requires
that such a review be conducted every
5 years. This action is necessary to
provide for the equitable representation
of producers, handlers and importers on
the Board.
Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan
specifies that the Board shall be
composed of producers, handlers,
importers and one public representative
appointed by the Secretary. Under the
Plan, pursuant to section 1210.320(b),
the United States is divided into seven
districts of comparable production
volumes of watermelons, and each
district is allocated two producer
members and two handler members.
Section 1210.320(d) specifies that
importer representation on the Board
shall be proportionate to the percentage
of assessments paid by importers to the
Board, except that at least one
representative of importers shall serve
on the Board.
The current Board is composed of 37
members—14 producers (one from each
district), 14 handlers (one from each
district), 8 importers and one public
member.
Review of U.S. Districts
Section 1210.320(c) requires the
Board, at least every 5 years, to review
the districts to determine whether
realignment is necessary. In conducting
the review, the Board must consider: (1)
The most recent 3 years of USDA
production reports or Board assessment
reports if USDA production reports are
not available; (2) shifts and trends in
quantities of watermelon produced, and
(3) other relevant factors. As a result of
the review, the Board may recommend
to USDA that the districts be realigned.
Pursuant to section 1210.501 of the
Plan’s rules and regulations, the seven
current districts are as follows:
District 1—The Florida counties of
Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier,
Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry,
Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River,
Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe,
Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm
Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota,
Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia;
District 2—The Florida counties of
Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun,
Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval,
Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,
Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,
Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette,
Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion,
Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa,
St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor,
Union, Wakulla, Walton, and
Washington, and the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina;
44967
District 3—The State of Georgia;
District 4—The States of Alabama,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and
Washington, DC;
District 5—The State of California;
District 6—The State of Texas; and
District 7—The States of Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
The districts listed above were
recommended by the Board in 2010 and
established through rulemaking by
USDA in 2011 (76 FR 42009; July 18,
2011).
The Board appointed a subcommittee
in 2016 to conduct a review of the seven
U.S. watermelon production districts to
determine whether realignment was
necessary. The subcommittee held a
teleconference on July 27, 2016, and
reviewed production data for 2013, 2014
and 2015 from USDA’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS)
Vegetables Annual Summary for 2015.1
The data is shown in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—U.S. WATERMELON PRODUCTION FIGURES FROM 2013–2015
Hundredweight
2013
2014
2015
3-Year
average
A
B
C
D
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
State
Alabama ...............................................................................
Arizona .................................................................................
Arkansas ..............................................................................
California ..............................................................................
Delaware ..............................................................................
Florida ..................................................................................
Georgia ................................................................................
Indiana .................................................................................
Maryland ..............................................................................
Mississippi ............................................................................
Missouri ................................................................................
North Carolina ......................................................................
Oklahoma .............................................................................
South Carolina .....................................................................
Texas ...................................................................................
Virginia .................................................................................
United States .......................................................................
377,000
1,800,000
336,000
5,800,000
864,000
6,262,000
5,580,000
2,414,000
1,056,000
400,000
843,000
1,710,000
242,000
2,734,000
5,520,000
164,000
36,102,000
456,000
1,334,000
320,000
6,384,000
833,000
4,827,000
5,130,000
2,964,000
1,089,000
378,000
837,000
1,155,000
364,000
1,862,000
5,200,000
130,000
33,263,000
420,000
1,584,000
338,000
5,512,000
761,000
5,880,000
5,510,000
2,415,000
1,040,000
315,000
572,000
1,798,000
540,000
2,736,000
5,520,000
163,000
35,104,000
417,667
1,572,667
331,333
5,898,667
819,333
5,656,333
5,406,667
2,597,667
1,061,667
364,333
750,667
1,554,333
382,000
2,444,000
5,413,333
152,333
34,823,000
% of U.S.
3-year
average
E
1.2
4.5
1.0
16.9
2.4
16.2
15.5
7.5
3.0
1.0
2.2
4.5
1.1
7.0
15.5
0.4
........................
Column D equals the sum of (Columns A, B and C), divided by 3.
Column E equals Column D divided by 34,823,000 pounds (the total for the U.S.), multiplied by 100.
1 Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
44. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/
VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-040-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16
producing States.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
44968
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The subcommittee considered three
scenarios in realigning the districts. All
three scenarios would consolidate the
State of Florida into District 1 and
would make no changes to Districts 3
(Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas).
Two of the scenarios would have moved
the States of North and South Carolina
into one district—District 2. Ultimately
the subcommittee proposed the
following changes: (1) Consolidating the
State of Florida into one district by
moving the Florida counties of Alachua,
Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus,
Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia,
Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist,
Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes,
Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy,
Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau,
Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St.
Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor,
Union, Wakulla, Walton, and
Washington from District 2 to District 1;
(2) moving the States of Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
from District 4 to District 2; and (3)
moving the State of Alabama from
District 4 to District 7. As shown in
Table 2, under the realignment, each
district would represent, on average, 14
percent of the total U.S. production
based on NASS data, with a range of 11
to 17 percent.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED PERCENT OF
U.S. PRODUCTION BY DISTRICT 2
% of U.S.
production
Districts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
16
12
16
13
17
16
11
Upon review, the Board subsequently
recommended through a mail ballot vote
in late July 2016 that four of the seven
production districts be realigned. The
proposed districts would be as follows:
District 1—The State of Florida;
District 2—The States of Kentucky,
North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia;
District 3—The State of Georgia (no
change);
District 4—The States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC;
District 5—The State of California (no
change);
District 6—The State of Texas (no
change); and
District 7—The States of Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
Additionally, USDA has reviewed the
NASS report that was issued in
February 2017.3 The data is shown in
Table 3 below. While the data is in a
slightly different format (consolidating
some of the smaller producing states),
the data is consistent with the Board’s
recommendation.
TABLE 3—U.S. WATERMELON PRODUCTION FIGURES 2016
State
Hundredweight
Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................................
Arizona .....................................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas ..................................................................................................................................................................
California ..................................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ..................................................................................................................................................................
Florida ......................................................................................................................................................................
Georgia ....................................................................................................................................................................
Indiana .....................................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ..................................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................
Missouri ....................................................................................................................................................................
North Carolina ..........................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina .........................................................................................................................................................
Texas .......................................................................................................................................................................
Virginia .....................................................................................................................................................................
Other States .............................................................................................................................................................
United States ...........................................................................................................................................................
* N/A
2,448,000
N/A
6,750,000
838,000
7,659,000
6,076,000
3,010,000
1,070,000
N/A
** D
D
N/A
2,592,000
7,250,000
N/A
2,432,000
40,125,000
% of total
U.S.
........................
6
........................
17
2
19
15
8
3
........................
........................
........................
........................
6
18
........................
7
........................
* N/A means not available; the estimates were discontinued in 2016.
** D means that the data is withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 1210.501 of the Plan’s rules
and regulations would be revised
accordingly.
Review of Imports
Section 1210.320(e) of the Plan
requires USDA to evaluate the average
2 Table values were rounded to the nearest
percent.
3 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
103–104; https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
annual percentage of assessments paid
by importers during the 3-year period
preceding the date of the evaluation and
adjust, to the extent practicable, the
number of importer representatives on
the Board.
Table 4 below shows domestic and
import assessment data for watermelons
for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The
data is from the Board’s financial audits
for 2013, 2014 4 and 2015.5
current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_
revision.pdf.
4 National Watermelon Promotion Board,
Financial Statements and Supplementary
Information, Years Ending March 31, 2015, and
2014, Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP, Accountants
and Consultants, July 7, 2014, p. 6.
5 National Watermelon Promotion Board,
Financial Statements and Supplementary
Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and
2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
44969
TABLE 4—U.S. AND IMPORT ASSESSMENT DATA FOR 2013–2015
Domestic
(U.S.)
assessments
Year
2013 .............................................................................................................................................
2014 .............................................................................................................................................
2015 .............................................................................................................................................
3-Year Average ............................................................................................................................
Percent of Total ...........................................................................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Based on this data, the three-year
average annual import assessments for
watermelons for 2013–2015 totaled
$1,029,030, approximately 34 percent of
the Board’s assessment income. Thus,
increasing the number of importers on
the Board from 8 to 14 members would
reflect that almost 34 percent of the
assessments were paid by importers
over the 3-year period. However, due to
the difficulty the Board has had in
finding individuals that are both eligible
and willing to serve in the current eight
importer seats, it will likely be very
challenging to fill six additional
importer seats. Furthermore, under the
nomination rules of the Plan, the Board
would need to recommend to the
Secretary at least two importers for each
open seat, which would mean that 12
eligible and willing importers would
have to be secured. For these reasons,
the Board recommended only adding
four importer seats (representing 30
percent of the total industry members)
to ensure that it would have a sufficient
number of potential nominees. The
Board subsequently recommended
through the July 2016 mail vote
increasing the number of importer seats
from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the
number of Board members from 37 to a
total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers,
12 importers, and one public member.
Importers would represent 30 percent of
the Board’s 40 industry members.
(Importers (8) represent about 22
percent of the current Board’s 36
industry members.)
Section 1210.502 of the Plan’s rules
and regulations would be revised
accordingly.
If this proposed rule becomes final,
nominations would be held as soon as
possible to fill the four new importer
seats.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), AMS
is required to examine the economic
impact of this proposed rule on the
small entities. Accordingly, AMS has
considered the economic impact of this
action on such entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions so
that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened. The Small
Business Administration defines, in 13
CFR part 121, small agricultural
producers as those having annual
receipts of no more than $750,000 and
small agricultural service firms
(handlers and importers) as those
having annual receipts of no more than
$7.5 million.
According to the Board, there are
1,251 producers, 147 handlers, and 365
importers who are required to pay
assessments under the program. NASS
data for the 2016 crop year estimated
about 354 hundredweight (cwt.) of
watermelons were produced per acre in
the United States, and the 2016 grower
price was $14.40 per cwt.6 Thus, the
value of watermelon production per
acre in 2016 averaged about $5,098 (354
cwt. × $14.40). At that average price, a
producer would have to farm over 147
acres to receive an annual income from
watermelons of $750,000 ($750,000
divided by $5,098 per acre equals
approximately 147 acres). Using 2012
USDA Census of Agriculture data, a
maximum of 321 farms had watermelon
acreage greater than or equal to 100
acres, and 12,675 out of a total of 12,996
farms producing watermelons reported
less than 100 acres of watermelon on
their farms.7 Therefore, assuming
watermelon producers operate no more
than one farm, a majority (97.5 percent)
of all U.S. watermelon farms would be
classified as small businesses. Using
Board assessment data, 930 of the 1,251
(roughly 74 percent) of U.S. watermelon
producers currently paying assessments
to the Board would be classified as
small businesses.
Also based on the Board’s data, using
an average freight on board (f.o.b.) price
6 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
102–104. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_
revision.pdf.
7 2012 Census of Agriculture, May 2014, USDA,
National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 36;
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/
Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$1,829,446
2,009,528
2,133,552
1,990,842
66
Import
assessments
$952,484
1,033,797
1,100,810
1,029,030
34
Total
$2,781,930
3,043,325
3,234,362
3,019,872
........................
of $0.186 per pound and the number of
pounds handled annually, none of the
watermelon handlers have receipts over
the $7.5 million threshold.8 Therefore,
the watermelon handlers would all be
considered small businesses. A handler
would have to ship over 40 million
pounds of watermelons to be considered
large (40,322,580 × $.0186 f.o.b. equals
approximately $7,500,000).
Based on 2016 Customs data, over 90
percent of watermelon importers
shipped under $7.5 million worth of
watermelons. Based on the foregoing,
the majority of the producers, handlers
and importers that would be affected by
this proposed rule would be classified
as small entities.
Regarding the value of the
commodity, based on 2016 NASS data,
the value of the U.S. watermelon crop
was about $578 million.9 According to
Customs data, the value of 2016 imports
was about $356 million.
This proposal invites comments on
revising sections 1210.501 and 1210.502
of the Plan’s rules and regulations,
respectively, to change the boundaries
of four of the seven U.S. production
districts and to add four importers to the
Board, increasing the size of the Board
from 37 to 41 members. The Board
administers the Plan with oversight by
USDA.
Under the Plan, the United States is
divided into seven districts of
comparable production volumes of
watermelons, and each district is
allocated two producer members and
two handler members. Further, importer
representation on the Board must be, to
the extent practicable, proportionate to
the percentage of assessments paid by
importers, except there must be at least
one importer on the Board.
Every 5 years, the Board is required to
evaluate, based on the preceding 3-year
period, the average production in each
production district and the average
annual percentage of assessments paid
by importers. The Board conducted this
review in 2016 and recommended
8 National Watermelon Promotion Board
assessment records, 2013–2015.
9 Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, p. 104.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44970
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
changing the boundaries of four of the
seven districts and increasing the
importer membership by four members.
Authority for these changes is provided
in section 1210.320 of the Plan.
Regarding the economic impact of the
proposed rule on affected entities,
neither the realignment of production
districts nor the expansion of Board
membership imposes additional costs
on industry members. Eligible importers
interested in serving on the Board
would have to complete a background
questionnaire. Those requirements are
addressed in the section titled Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements. The
recommended changes are necessary to
provide for the equitable representation
of producers, handlers and importers.
Regarding alternatives, the Board
considered three scenarios in realigning
the districts. All three scenarios would
consolidate the State of Florida in
District 1 and would make no changes
to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California),
and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios
would have moved the States of North
and South Carolina into one district—
District 2. Ultimately the Board
recommended consolidating the State of
Florida into one district (District 1),
moving the States of Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
from District 4 to District 2; and moving
the State of Alabama from District 4 to
District 7. The Board recommended the
alignment scenario described in this
proposed rule because it: (1) Would
provide for a proportional geographical
representation on the Board for
producers and handlers; (2) would not
create any producer or handler
vacancies on the Board; and (3) would
streamline the nomination process for
District 1 by condensing all the Florida
counties into a single district. The
Board’s recommendation is consistent
with the 2011 realignment that kept
States (except Florida) together.
Regarding alternatives for importer
representation, as stated previously, the
three-year average annual imports for
watermelon totals $1,029,030. This
represents almost 34 percent of the total
assessments paid to the Board. One
alternative would be to add five or six
importer seats (representing 33 and 35
percent, respectively, of the Board’s 40
industry members), so that importer
representation would be proportionate
to the percentage of importer
assessments paid. However, due to the
difficulty the Board has had in finding
individuals that are both eligible and
willing to serve in the current eight
importer seats, it will likely be very
challenging to fill six additional
importer seats. Furthermore, under the
nomination rules of the Plan, the Board
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
would need to recommend to the
Secretary at least two importers for each
open seat, which would mean that 12
eligible and willing importers would
have to be secured. For these reasons,
the Board recommended only adding
four importer seats (representing 30
percent of the total industry members)
to ensure that it would have a sufficient
number of potential nominees. This is
consistent with section 1210.320(e) of
the Plan which prescribes that the
number of importer seats should be
adjusted, to the extent practicable. The
addition of four importers would allow
for more importer representation in the
Board’s decision making and also
potentially provide an opportunity to
increase diversity on the Board.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the background form,
which represents the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements that are imposed by the
Plan, have been approved previously
under OMB number 0581–0093. The
Plan requires that two nominees be
submitted for each vacant position.
With regard to information collection
requirements, adding four importers to
the Board means that eight additional
importers would be required to submit
background forms (Form AD–755) to
USDA in order to verify their eligibility
for appointment to the Board. However,
serving on the Board is optional, and the
burden of submitting the background
form would be offset by the benefits of
serving on the Board. The estimated
annual cost of the eight importers
providing the required information
would be $66 or $8.25 per importer. The
additional minimal burden would be
included in the existing information
collection package under OMB number
0581–0093.
As with all Federal promotion
programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies. Finally, 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.
Regarding outreach efforts, the Board
formed a subcommittee to review the
production, assessment and import data
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to assess whether changes to the district
boundaries and number of importers on
the Board was warranted. The
subcommittee held a teleconference on
July 27, 2016. All Board and
subcommittee meetings, including
meetings held via teleconference, are
open to the public and interested
persons are invited to participate and
express their views.
We have performed this initial RFA
analysis regarding the impact of these
changes to the Plan on small entities
and we invite comments concerning
potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with and
would effectuate the purposes of the
Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate so that the proposed
changes, if adopted, may be
implemented as soon as possible to
allow for nominations to be conducted
to fill the four new importer seats. All
written comments received in response
to this proposed rule by the date
specified would be considered prior to
finalizing this action.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 1210—WATERMELON
RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1210 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
Subpart C—Rules and Regulations
2. In § 1210.501, revise the
introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b),
(d) and (g) to read as follows:
■
§ 1210.501
Realignment of districts.
Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan,
the districts shall be as follows:
(a) District 1—The State of Florida.
(b) District 2—The States of Kentucky,
North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) District 4—The States of
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Washington, DC.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) District 7—The States of Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
■ 3. Section 1210.502 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1210.502
Importer members.
Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan,
there are twelve importer
representatives on the Board based on
the proportionate percentage of
assessments paid by importers to the
Board.
Dated: September 21, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–20610 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[NRC–2017–0138]
RIN 3150–AK05
List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage
Casks: TN Americas LLC,
Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal
Modular Storage System, Certificate of
Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of
Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos.
1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend its spent fuel storage regulations
by revising the Standardized
NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage
System (NUHOMS® System) listing
within the ‘‘List of approved spent fuel
storage casks’’ to renew, for an
additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of
the initial certificate and Amendment
Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and
Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of
Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These
changes require, among other things,
that all future amendments and
revisions to this CoC include
evaluations of the impacts to aging
management activities (i.e., time-limited
aging analyses and aging management
programs (AMPs)) to ensure that they
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Sep 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
remain adequate for any changes to
spent fuel storage cask systems,
structures, and components (SSCs)
within the scope of the renewal. Each
general licensee using a NUHOMS®
System at a reactor site must have a
program to establish, implement, and
maintain written procedures for each
AMP described in the AREVA Inc.
(AREVA) Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). In addition, the
renewals reflect the change in the name
of the CoC holder from AREVA to TN
Americas LLC, and make several other
changes as described in Section IV,
‘‘Discussion of Changes,’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of a
companion direct final rule published
in the Rules and Regulations section of
this issue of the Federal Register.
DATES: Submit comments by October 27,
2017. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0138. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, 301–
415–6825; email: Christian.Jacobs@
nrc.gov, or Robert D. MacDougall, Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, 301–415–5175; email:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44971
Robert.MacDougall@nrc.gov. Both are
staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments
II. Rulemaking Procedure
III. Background
IV. Plain Writing
V. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–
0138 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0138.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the
convenience of the reader, instructions
about obtaining materials referenced in
this document are provided in the
‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–
0138 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
E:\FR\FM\27SEP1.SGM
27SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44966-44971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20610]
========================================================================
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. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 44966]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1210
[Document Number AMS-SC-16-0097]
Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and
Importer Representation
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal invites comments on realigning the production
districts under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) for
producer and handler membership on the National Watermelon Promotion
Board (Board), and adding four importer seats to the Board. The Board
administers the Plan with oversight by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). These changes were recommended by the Board after a
review of the production volume in each district as well as assessments
paid by importers. This action is necessary to provide for the
equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the
Board. The Plan requires that such a review be conducted every 5 years.
This action would increase the number of importer seats from 8 to 12,
thereby increasing the number of Board members from 37 to a total of
41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, and one public member.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the internet at:
https://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room
1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-
2800. 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, including name and address, if
provided, in the above office during regular business hours or it can
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy Jones King, Agricultural
Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops
Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406-S, Stop
0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 731-2117; facsimile:
(202) 205-2800; or electronic mail: Stacy.JonesKing@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued under the Plan
(7 CFR part 1210). The Plan is authorized under the Watermelon Research
and Promotion Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility.
This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet
the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger
the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's
Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the
Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
Executive Order 13175
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not
have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not
have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Order 12988
In addition, this proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The Act provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other
State or Federal law authorizing promotion or research relating to an
agricultural commodity.
Under section 1650 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a
written petition with USDA if they believe that the Plan, any provision
of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is
not in accordance with the law. In any petition, the person may request
a modification of the Plan or an exemption from the Plan. The
petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition.
Afterwards, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision. If
the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ's ruling, the petitioner has 30
days to appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling on
behalf of USDA. If the petitioner disagrees with USDA's ruling, the
petitioner may file, within 20 days, an appeal in the U.S. District
Court for the district where the petitioner resides or conducts
business.
Background
Under the Plan, the Board administers a nationally coordinated
program of research, development, advertising and promotion designed to
strengthen the watermelon's position in the market place and to
establish, maintain, and expand markets for watermelons. The program is
financed by assessments on producers growing 10 acres or more of
watermelons, handlers of watermelons, and importers of 150,000 pounds
of watermelons or more per year. The Plan specifies that handlers are
responsible for collecting and submitting both the producer and handler
assessments to the Board, reporting their handling of watermelons, and
maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers
are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on watermelons
imported into the United States through U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (Customs).
This proposal invites comments on realigning the production
districts under the Plan for producer and handler membership on the
Board, and adding
[[Page 44967]]
four importer seats to the Board. The Board administers the Plan with
oversight by USDA. These changes were recommended by the Board after a
review of the production volume in each district as well as the
assessments paid by importers. The Plan requires that such a review be
conducted every 5 years. This action is necessary to provide for the
equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the
Board.
Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan specifies that the Board shall be
composed of producers, handlers, importers and one public
representative appointed by the Secretary. Under the Plan, pursuant to
section 1210.320(b), the United States is divided into seven districts
of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is
allocated two producer members and two handler members. Section
1210.320(d) specifies that importer representation on the Board shall
be proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by importers to
the Board, except that at least one representative of importers shall
serve on the Board.
The current Board is composed of 37 members--14 producers (one from
each district), 14 handlers (one from each district), 8 importers and
one public member.
Review of U.S. Districts
Section 1210.320(c) requires the Board, at least every 5 years, to
review the districts to determine whether realignment is necessary. In
conducting the review, the Board must consider: (1) The most recent 3
years of USDA production reports or Board assessment reports if USDA
production reports are not available; (2) shifts and trends in
quantities of watermelon produced, and (3) other relevant factors. As a
result of the review, the Board may recommend to USDA that the
districts be realigned.
Pursuant to section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations,
the seven current districts are as follows:
District 1--The Florida counties of Brevard, Broward, Charlotte,
Collier, Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Hillsborough,
Indian River, Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Okeechobee, Orange,
Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Seminole, St.
Lucie, and Volusia;
District 2--The Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford,
Calhoun, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler,
Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes,
Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion,
Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,
Taylor, Union, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington, and the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina;
District 3--The State of Georgia;
District 4--The States of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Washington,
DC;
District 5--The State of California;
District 6--The State of Texas; and
District 7--The States of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The districts listed above were recommended by the Board in 2010
and established through rulemaking by USDA in 2011 (76 FR 42009; July
18, 2011).
The Board appointed a subcommittee in 2016 to conduct a review of
the seven U.S. watermelon production districts to determine whether
realignment was necessary. The subcommittee held a teleconference on
July 27, 2016, and reviewed production data for 2013, 2014 and 2015
from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS)
Vegetables Annual Summary for 2015.\1\ The data is shown in Table 1
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 44. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-040-2016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16 producing States.
Table 1--U.S. Watermelon Production Figures From 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundredweight
State ------------------------------------------------ 3-Year average % of U.S. 3-
2013 2014 2015 year average
A B C D E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 377,000 456,000 420,000 417,667 1.2
Arizona......................... 1,800,000 1,334,000 1,584,000 1,572,667 4.5
Arkansas........................ 336,000 320,000 338,000 331,333 1.0
California...................... 5,800,000 6,384,000 5,512,000 5,898,667 16.9
Delaware........................ 864,000 833,000 761,000 819,333 2.4
Florida......................... 6,262,000 4,827,000 5,880,000 5,656,333 16.2
Georgia......................... 5,580,000 5,130,000 5,510,000 5,406,667 15.5
Indiana......................... 2,414,000 2,964,000 2,415,000 2,597,667 7.5
Maryland........................ 1,056,000 1,089,000 1,040,000 1,061,667 3.0
Mississippi..................... 400,000 378,000 315,000 364,333 1.0
Missouri........................ 843,000 837,000 572,000 750,667 2.2
North Carolina.................. 1,710,000 1,155,000 1,798,000 1,554,333 4.5
Oklahoma........................ 242,000 364,000 540,000 382,000 1.1
South Carolina.................. 2,734,000 1,862,000 2,736,000 2,444,000 7.0
Texas........................... 5,520,000 5,200,000 5,520,000 5,413,333 15.5
Virginia........................ 164,000 130,000 163,000 152,333 0.4
United States................... 36,102,000 33,263,000 35,104,000 34,823,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column D equals the sum of (Columns A, B and C), divided by 3.
Column E equals Column D divided by 34,823,000 pounds (the total for the U.S.), multiplied by 100.
[[Page 44968]]
The subcommittee considered three scenarios in realigning the
districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the State of Florida
into District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5
(California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would have moved the
States of North and South Carolina into one district--District 2.
Ultimately the subcommittee proposed the following changes: (1)
Consolidating the State of Florida into one district by moving the
Florida counties of Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus,
Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,
Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, Okaloosa,
Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, Union,
Wakulla, Walton, and Washington from District 2 to District 1; (2)
moving the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
from District 4 to District 2; and (3) moving the State of Alabama from
District 4 to District 7. As shown in Table 2, under the realignment,
each district would represent, on average, 14 percent of the total U.S.
production based on NASS data, with a range of 11 to 17 percent.
Table 2--Proposed Percent of U.S. Production by District \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of U.S.
Districts production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 16
2....................................................... 12
3....................................................... 16
4....................................................... 13
5....................................................... 17
6....................................................... 16
7....................................................... 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review, the Board subsequently recommended through a mail
ballot vote in late July 2016 that four of the seven production
districts be realigned. The proposed districts would be as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Table values were rounded to the nearest percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District 1--The State of Florida;
District 2--The States of Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia;
District 3--The State of Georgia (no change);
District 4--The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Washington, DC;
District 5--The State of California (no change);
District 6--The State of Texas (no change); and
District 7--The States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Additionally, USDA has reviewed the NASS report that was issued in
February 2017.\3\ The data is shown in Table 3 below. While the data is
in a slightly different format (consolidating some of the smaller
producing states), the data is consistent with the Board's
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 103-104; https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf.
Table 3--U.S. Watermelon Production Figures 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of total
State Hundredweight U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. * N/A ..............
Arizona................................. 2,448,000 6
Arkansas................................ N/A ..............
California.............................. 6,750,000 17
Delaware................................ 838,000 2
Florida................................. 7,659,000 19
Georgia................................. 6,076,000 15
Indiana................................. 3,010,000 8
Maryland................................ 1,070,000 3
Mississippi............................. N/A ..............
Missouri................................ ** D ..............
North Carolina.......................... D ..............
Oklahoma................................ N/A ..............
South Carolina.......................... 2,592,000 6
Texas................................... 7,250,000 18
Virginia................................ N/A ..............
Other States............................ 2,432,000 7
United States........................... 40,125,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* N/A means not available; the estimates were discontinued in 2016.
** D means that the data is withheld to avoid disclosing data for
individual operations.
Section 1210.501 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be
revised accordingly.
Review of Imports
Section 1210.320(e) of the Plan requires USDA to evaluate the
average annual percentage of assessments paid by importers during the
3-year period preceding the date of the evaluation and adjust, to the
extent practicable, the number of importer representatives on the
Board.
Table 4 below shows domestic and import assessment data for
watermelons for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The data is from the
Board's financial audits for 2013, 2014 \4\ and 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2015, and
2014, Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP, Accountants and Consultants,
July 7, 2014, p. 6.
\5\ National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and
2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8.
[[Page 44969]]
Table 4--U.S. and Import Assessment Data for 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic
Year (U.S.) Import Total
assessments assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................................ $1,829,446 $952,484 $2,781,930
2014............................................................ 2,009,528 1,033,797 3,043,325
2015............................................................ 2,133,552 1,100,810 3,234,362
3-Year Average.................................................. 1,990,842 1,029,030 3,019,872
Percent of Total................................................ 66 34 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this data, the three-year average annual import
assessments for watermelons for 2013-2015 totaled $1,029,030,
approximately 34 percent of the Board's assessment income. Thus,
increasing the number of importers on the Board from 8 to 14 members
would reflect that almost 34 percent of the assessments were paid by
importers over the 3-year period. However, due to the difficulty the
Board has had in finding individuals that are both eligible and willing
to serve in the current eight importer seats, it will likely be very
challenging to fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under
the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board would need to recommend to
the Secretary at least two importers for each open seat, which would
mean that 12 eligible and willing importers would have to be secured.
For these reasons, the Board recommended only adding four importer
seats (representing 30 percent of the total industry members) to ensure
that it would have a sufficient number of potential nominees. The Board
subsequently recommended through the July 2016 mail vote increasing the
number of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the number of
Board members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 12
importers, and one public member. Importers would represent 30 percent
of the Board's 40 industry members. (Importers (8) represent about 22
percent of the current Board's 36 industry members.)
Section 1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations would be
revised accordingly.
If this proposed rule becomes final, nominations would be held as
soon as possible to fill the four new importer seats.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), AMS is required to examine the economic impact of this proposed
rule on the small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the
economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration defines,
in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual
receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms
(handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more
than $7.5 million.
According to the Board, there are 1,251 producers, 147 handlers,
and 365 importers who are required to pay assessments under the
program. NASS data for the 2016 crop year estimated about 354
hundredweight (cwt.) of watermelons were produced per acre in the
United States, and the 2016 grower price was $14.40 per cwt.\6\ Thus,
the value of watermelon production per acre in 2016 averaged about
$5,098 (354 cwt. x $14.40). At that average price, a producer would
have to farm over 147 acres to receive an annual income from
watermelons of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by $5,098 per acre equals
approximately 147 acres). Using 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture data, a
maximum of 321 farms had watermelon acreage greater than or equal to
100 acres, and 12,675 out of a total of 12,996 farms producing
watermelons reported less than 100 acres of watermelon on their
farms.\7\ Therefore, assuming watermelon producers operate no more than
one farm, a majority (97.5 percent) of all U.S. watermelon farms would
be classified as small businesses. Using Board assessment data, 930 of
the 1,251 (roughly 74 percent) of U.S. watermelon producers currently
paying assessments to the Board would be classified as small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 102-104. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf.
\7\ 2012 Census of Agriculture, May 2014, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 36; https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also based on the Board's data, using an average freight on board
(f.o.b.) price of $0.186 per pound and the number of pounds handled
annually, none of the watermelon handlers have receipts over the $7.5
million threshold.\8\ Therefore, the watermelon handlers would all be
considered small businesses. A handler would have to ship over 40
million pounds of watermelons to be considered large (40,322,580 x
$.0186 f.o.b. equals approximately $7,500,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Watermelon Promotion Board assessment records,
2013-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on 2016 Customs data, over 90 percent of watermelon importers
shipped under $7.5 million worth of watermelons. Based on the
foregoing, the majority of the producers, handlers and importers that
would be affected by this proposed rule would be classified as small
entities.
Regarding the value of the commodity, based on 2016 NASS data, the
value of the U.S. watermelon crop was about $578 million.\9\ According
to Customs data, the value of 2016 imports was about $356 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, p. 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal invites comments on revising sections 1210.501 and
1210.502 of the Plan's rules and regulations, respectively, to change
the boundaries of four of the seven U.S. production districts and to
add four importers to the Board, increasing the size of the Board from
37 to 41 members. The Board administers the Plan with oversight by
USDA.
Under the Plan, the United States is divided into seven districts
of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each district is
allocated two producer members and two handler members. Further,
importer representation on the Board must be, to the extent
practicable, proportionate to the percentage of assessments paid by
importers, except there must be at least one importer on the Board.
Every 5 years, the Board is required to evaluate, based on the
preceding 3-year period, the average production in each production
district and the average annual percentage of assessments paid by
importers. The Board conducted this review in 2016 and recommended
[[Page 44970]]
changing the boundaries of four of the seven districts and increasing
the importer membership by four members. Authority for these changes is
provided in section 1210.320 of the Plan.
Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected
entities, neither the realignment of production districts nor the
expansion of Board membership imposes additional costs on industry
members. Eligible importers interested in serving on the Board would
have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are
addressed in the section titled Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements. The recommended changes are necessary to provide for the
equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers.
Regarding alternatives, the Board considered three scenarios in
realigning the districts. All three scenarios would consolidate the
State of Florida in District 1 and would make no changes to Districts 3
(Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios would
have moved the States of North and South Carolina into one district--
District 2. Ultimately the Board recommended consolidating the State of
Florida into one district (District 1), moving the States of Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia from District 4 to District 2;
and moving the State of Alabama from District 4 to District 7. The
Board recommended the alignment scenario described in this proposed
rule because it: (1) Would provide for a proportional geographical
representation on the Board for producers and handlers; (2) would not
create any producer or handler vacancies on the Board; and (3) would
streamline the nomination process for District 1 by condensing all the
Florida counties into a single district. The Board's recommendation is
consistent with the 2011 realignment that kept States (except Florida)
together.
Regarding alternatives for importer representation, as stated
previously, the three-year average annual imports for watermelon totals
$1,029,030. This represents almost 34 percent of the total assessments
paid to the Board. One alternative would be to add five or six importer
seats (representing 33 and 35 percent, respectively, of the Board's 40
industry members), so that importer representation would be
proportionate to the percentage of importer assessments paid. However,
due to the difficulty the Board has had in finding individuals that are
both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats,
it will likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer
seats. Furthermore, under the nomination rules of the Plan, the Board
would need to recommend to the Secretary at least two importers for
each open seat, which would mean that 12 eligible and willing importers
would have to be secured. For these reasons, the Board recommended only
adding four importer seats (representing 30 percent of the total
industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient number of
potential nominees. This is consistent with section 1210.320(e) of the
Plan which prescribes that the number of importer seats should be
adjusted, to the extent practicable. The addition of four importers
would allow for more importer representation in the Board's decision
making and also potentially provide an opportunity to increase
diversity on the Board.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the background form, which represents the information
collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Plan,
have been approved previously under OMB number 0581-0093. The Plan
requires that two nominees be submitted for each vacant position. With
regard to information collection requirements, adding four importers to
the Board means that eight additional importers would be required to
submit background forms (Form AD-755) to USDA in order to verify their
eligibility for appointment to the Board. However, serving on the Board
is optional, and the burden of submitting the background form would be
offset by the benefits of serving on the Board. The estimated annual
cost of the eight importers providing the required information would be
$66 or $8.25 per importer. The additional minimal burden would be
included in the existing information collection package under OMB
number 0581-0093.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, 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.
Regarding outreach efforts, the Board formed a subcommittee to
review the production, assessment and import data to assess whether
changes to the district boundaries and number of importers on the Board
was warranted. The subcommittee held a teleconference on July 27, 2016.
All Board and subcommittee meetings, including meetings held via
teleconference, are open to the public and interested persons are
invited to participate and express their views.
We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of
these changes to the Plan on small entities and we invite comments
concerning potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and
would effectuate the purposes of the Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed appropriate so that the
proposed changes, if adopted, may be implemented as soon as possible to
allow for nominations to be conducted to fill the four new importer
seats. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule
by the date specified would be considered prior to finalizing this
action.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1210--WATERMELON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1210 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901-4916 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Subpart C--Rules and Regulations
0
2. In Sec. 1210.501, revise the introductory text and paragraphs (a),
(b), (d) and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.501 Realignment of districts.
Pursuant to Sec. 1210.320(c) of the Plan, the districts shall be
as follows:
(a) District 1--The State of Florida.
(b) District 2--The States of Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
* * * * *
(d) District 4--The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
[[Page 44971]]
Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC.
* * * * *
(g) District 7--The States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
0
3. Section 1210.502 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.502 Importer members.
Pursuant to Sec. 1210.320(d) of the Plan, there are twelve
importer representatives on the Board based on the proportionate
percentage of assessments paid by importers to the Board.
Dated: September 21, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-20610 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
