Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Redistricting and Reapportionment of Producer Districts, 17091-17094 [2019-08173]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
may be passed on to producers.
However, these costs would be offset by
the benefits derived by the operation of
the Order. In addition, the Committee’s
meeting was widely publicized
throughout the production area. The
olive industry and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and
participate in Committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all Committee
meetings, the December 11, 2018,
meeting was a public meeting and all
entities, both large and small, were able
to express views on this issue.
Interested persons are invited to submit
comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
information collection impacts of this
action on small businesses.
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 OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 Vegetable
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 proposed rule would not impose
any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large California olive 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.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously-mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 932 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 932.230 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 932.230
Assessment rate.
On and after January 1, 2019, an
assessment rate of $44.00 per ton is
established for California olives.
Dated: April 18, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–08179 Filed 4–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 966
[Doc. No. AMS–SC–19–0011; SC19–966–2
PR]
Tomatoes Grown in Florida;
Redistricting and Reapportionment of
Producer Districts
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
implement a recommendation from the
Florida Tomato Committee (Committee)
to redistrict and reapportion producer
representation on the Committee
currently prescribed under the
marketing order for tomatoes grown in
Florida. This action would reduce the
number of districts from four to two and
reapportion producer membership on
the Committee to provide equitable
representation from both districts.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 24, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17091
internet: https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments should reference the
document number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal
Register and will be made available for
public inspection in the Office of the
Docket Clerk during regular business
hours, or can be viewed at: https://
www.regulations.gov. All comments
submitted in response to this proposal
will be included in the record and will
be made available to the public. Please
be advised that the identity of the
individuals or entities submitting the
comments will be made public on the
internet at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen,
Regional Director, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order and
Agreement Division, Specialty Crops
Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863)
324–3375, Fax: (863) 291–8614, or
Email: Steven.Kauffman@usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@usda.gov.
Small businesses may request
information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower,
Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington,
DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–
2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email:
Richard.Lower@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,
proposes an amendment to regulations
issued to carry out a marketing order as
defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed
rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966,
as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating
the handling of tomatoes grown in
Florida. Part 966 (referred to as 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
Committee locally administers the
Order and is comprised of producers
operating within the production area.
The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in
conformance with Executive Orders
13563 and 13175. 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
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
17092
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This proposed rule is
not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before
parties may file suit in court. Under
section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any
handler subject to an order may file
with USDA a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
the order is not in accordance with law
and request a modification of the order
or to be exempted therefrom. A handler
is afforded the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. After the hearing, USDA
would rule on the petition. The Act
provides that the district court of the
United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his
or her principal place of business, has
jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on
the petition, provided an action is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule invites comments
on redistricting and reapportionment of
membership on the Committee
prescribed under the Order for the
2020–21 and subsequent fiscal periods.
This proposal would reduce the number
of districts from four to two and
reapportion producer membership on
the Committee to provide equitable
representation from both districts.
Redistricting and reapportionment of
membership would make it easier for
committee staff to conduct producer
nominations and ensure the
appointment of a full Committee. When
the Committee is fully appointed, it is
easier to achieve a quorum for
assembled meetings. The Committee
unanimously recommended this change
at its November 1, 2018, meeting.
Section 966.22 provides for the
establishment of membership on the
Committee. The twelve members and
their alternates shall be producers, or
officers or employees of a corporate
producer, in the district for which
selected and a resident of the
production area. The Order provides
districts from which producers serve as
representatives on the Committee.
Section 966.25 provides the authority
for the Committee to recommend, with
the approval of the Secretary,
reapportionment of members among
districts, and the reestablishment of
districts within the production area.
This section also provides that, in
making such recommendations, the
Committee shall give consideration to:
a. Shifts in tomato acreage within
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
districts and within the production area
during recent years; b. the importance of
new production in its relation to
existing districts; c. the equitable
relationship of Committee membership
and districts; d. economies to result for
producers in promoting efficient
administration due to redistricting or
reapportionment of members within
districts; and e. other relevant factors.
Section 966.24 defined the four
districts within the production area by
county. Districts 1 and 2 have
previously been reestablished pursuant
to § 996.160. Section 966.161 apportions
Committee membership among the
districts pursuant to § 966.25. Currently,
Districts 1 and 2 are represented by two
committee members and alternates each
and Districts 3 and 4 are represented by
four committee members and alternates
each.
The Committee met on November 1,
2018, to discuss the changes in recent
years to production and the shift in
acreage location of Florida tomatoes.
Over the past two decades, the Florida
tomato industry has experienced
significant changes in production
volume and location. Decreasing
production and shifts in acreage are due
to increased production costs along with
competition from imports and other
growing regions. The increased costs
and competition has contributed to a
decrease in the number of producers
and handlers. With fewer producers to
represent the industry and the changes
to production and acreage, the
Committee discussed redistricting and
reapportionment of membership on the
Committee.
Tomato production has shifted from
the eastern part of the production area
in the state of Florida (Districts 1 and 2)
to the western part of the production
area (Districts 3 and 4). According to
Committee data, production during the
2017–18 season in District 4 accounted
for 56 percent of the production area’s
total production. The next largest
district by production volume was
District 3, accounting for 39 percent of
total production. In comparison, District
1 accounted for 4 percent of total
production and District 2 only 1 percent
of the total volume for the production
area.
According to Committee data,
Districts 1 and 2 accounted for 28
percent of total production during the
1998–99 season but production had
decreased to only 8 percent by the
2007–08 season. Industry production
has slowly moved into Districts 3 and 4
over the last 20 years and now these two
districts make-up 95 percent of total
production.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The shift in tomato production
between districts has created an
imbalance in Committee representation.
The members from Districts 1 and 2
combined represent one third of the
membership on the Committee while
these districts account for only 5
percent of the tomato production
volume. Consequently, Districts 3 and 4
are underrepresented with only two
thirds of the Committee membership.
During the discussion, Committee
members reviewed the data for acreage
and production from all districts in the
production area as required in the
Order. The gradual shift in acreage and
production from the eastern portion of
the production area in the State of
Florida to the western portion has made
it difficult to find enough qualified
producers to represent Districts 1 and 2
on the Committee. Committee members
from these two districts represent four
seats on the Committee. Committee
members also noted that with fewer
producers remaining in the Florida
tomato industry, particularly in Districts
1 and 2, it is difficult to get enough
members together to meet the Order’s
quorum requirements for a meeting.
As a result of the discussion and
analysis, the Committee recommended
combining the current Districts 1, 3, and
a portion of District 2 into one district,
and District 4 and the remaining portion
of District 2 into another district. This
would divide the production area into
two districts with each district
representing approximately half of the
total volume of tomatoes produced in
the production area. The Committee
also recommended reapportioning the
twelve Committee members and
alternates so that six Committee
members and alternates represent each
district.
The two new districts would
comprise the following Florida counties:
District 1 would include the counties of
Charlotte, Glades, Palm Beach, Lee,
Hendry, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and
Dade; and District 2 would include the
counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk,
Osceola, Brevard, Manatee, Hardee,
Highlands, Okeechobee, Indian River,
St. Lucie, Sarasota, De Soto, and Martin.
Accordingly, the Committee
unanimously voted to reduce the
number of districts from four to two and
reapportion producer membership on
the Committee so that each district
would have six members and alternates.
The Committee believes these proposed
changes would adjust producer
representation to reflect the composition
of the industry, and create the
opportunity for other producers to serve
on the Committee.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this
proposed rule on small entities.
Accordingly, AMS has prepared this
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in
order that small businesses will not be
unduly or disproportionately burdened.
Marketing orders issued pursuant to the
Act, and the 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 75 producers
of Florida tomatoes in the production
area and 37 handlers subject to
regulation under the Order. Small
agricultural producers are defined by
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) as those having annual receipts
less than $750,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual receipts are less
than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to industry and Committee
data, the average annual price for fresh
Florida tomatoes during the 2017–18
season was approximately $12.56 per
25-pound container, and total fresh
shipments were 25.9 million containers.
Using the average price and shipment
information, the number of handlers,
and assuming a normal distribution, the
majority of handlers have average
annual receipts of more than
$7,500,000, ($12.56 times 25.9 million
containers equals $325,304,000 divided
by 37 handlers equals $8,792,000 per
handler).
With an estimated producer price of
$6.00 per 25-pound container, the
number of Florida tomato producers,
and assuming a normal distribution, the
average annual producer revenue is
above $750,000, ($6.00 times 25.9
million containers equals $155,400,000
divided by 75 producers equals
$2,072,000 per producer). Thus, the
majority of handlers and producers of
Florida tomatoes may be classified as
large entities.
The gradual shift in acreage and
production from the eastern portion of
the production area in the State of
Florida to the western portion has made
it difficult to find enough qualified
producers to represent Districts 1 and 2
on the Committee. Committee members
from these two districts represent one
third of the seats on the Committee.
Redistricting and reapportionment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
membership would make it easier for
Committee staff to conduct producer
nominations, provide nominees for all
seats, and readily achieve a quorum
when meetings are assembled with a
full committee.
This proposed rule would reduce the
number of districts from four to two and
reapportion producer membership on
the Committee to provide six members
and alternates from both districts. The
Committee believes this change would
adjust producer representation to reflect
the composition of the industry, provide
equitable representation from each
district, and create the opportunity for
other producers to serve on the
Committee. This rulemaking would
revise §§ 966.160 and 966.161.
Authority for this action is provided in
§ 966.25 of the Order.
It is not anticipated that this action
would impose any additional costs on
the industry. This change would save
time and operating resources by making
it easier to find candidates to serve on
the Committee. Additionally, a full
committee would reduce the chance of
a failed quorum. Thus, this action
would help avoid the costs associated
with travel and assembly of a meeting
where a quorum is not achieved.
This action would have a beneficial
impact as it more accurately aligns
districts and reapportions Committee
membership in accordance with the
production of fresh Florida tomatoes.
These changes should provide equitable
representation to producers on the
Committee and make the Committee
more representative of the current
industry. The effects of this proposed
rule would not be disproportionately
greater or less for small entities than for
larger entities.
The Committee considered one
alternative to this proposal. The
Committee considered combining
Districts 1 and 2 into one district.
However, given the small volume of
production currently produced in each
of these districts, the Committee
determined the best course of action
was to divide the production area into
two new districts with balanced
production and representation.
Therefore, this alternative was 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 OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0178 Vegetable
and Specialty Crops. No changes are
necessary in those requirements as a
result of this action. Should any changes
become necessary, they would be
submitted to OMB for approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17093
This proposed rule would not impose
any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large Florida tomato 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.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or
conflict with this proposed rule.
The Committee’s meetings were
widely publicized throughout the
Florida tomato industry, and all
interested persons were invited to
attend the meetings and participate in
Committee deliberations on all issues.
Like all Committee meetings, the
November 1, 2018, meeting was a public
meeting, and all entities, both large and
small, were able to express their views
on this issue. Finally, interested persons
are invited to submit comments on this
proposed rule, including the regulatory
and information collection impacts of
this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
timely received will be considered
before a final determination is made on
this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966
Marketing agreements, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 966—TOMATOES GROWN IN
FLORIDA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 966 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Amend § 966.160 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
17094
§ 966.160
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Reestablishment of districts.
(a) District No. 1: The counties of
Charlotte, Glades, Palm Beach, Lee,
Hendry, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and
Dade in the State of Florida.
(b) District No. 2: The counties of
Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola,
Brevard, Manatee, Hardee, Highlands,
Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie,
Sarasota, De Soto, and Martin in the
State of Florida.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 966.161 to read as follows:
§ 966.161 Reapportionment of Committee
Membership.
Pursuant to § 966.25, industry
membership on the Florida Tomato
Committee shall be reapportioned as
follows:
(a) District 1—six members and their
alternates.
(b) District 2—six members and their
alternates.
Dated: April 18, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–08173 Filed 4–23–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
12 CFR Parts 3, 6, 34, 46, 160, 161, 163,
and 167
[Docket ID OCC–2019–0004]
RIN 1557–AE50
Other Real Estate Owned and
Technical Amendments
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
with request for public comment.
AGENCY:
The OCC is inviting comment
on a proposed rule that would clarify
and streamline its regulation on other
real estate owned (OREO) for national
banks and update the regulatory
framework for OREO activities at
Federal savings associations. The OCC
is also proposing to remove outdated
capital rules for national banks and
Federal savings associations, which
include provisions related to OREO, and
make conforming edits to other rules
that reference those capital rules.
DATES: Comments must be received by
June 24, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
to the OCC by any of the methods set
jbell on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Apr 23, 2019
Jkt 247001
forth below. Commenters are
encouraged to submit comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or email, if possible. Please use the title
‘‘Other Real Estate Owned and
Technical Amendments’’ to facilitate
the organization and distribution of the
comments. You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal—
‘‘Regulations.gov’’: Go to
www.regulations.gov. Enter ‘‘Docket ID
OCC–2019–0004’’ in the Search Box and
click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Comment
Now’’ to submit public comments.
• Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the
Regulations.gov home page to get
information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for submitting
public comments.
• Email: regs.comments@
occ.treas.gov.
• Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office,
Attention: Comment Processing, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400
7th Street SW, Suite 3E–218,
Washington, DC 20219.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th
Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington,
DC 20219.
Instructions: You must include
‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket
ID OCC–2019–0004’’ in your comment.
In general, the OCC will enter all
comments received into the docket and
publish the comments on the
Regulations.gov website without
change, including any business or
personal information that you provide
such as name and address information,
email addresses, or phone numbers.
Comments received, including
attachments and other supporting
materials, are part of the public record
and subject to public disclosure. Do not
include any information in your
comment or supporting materials that
you consider confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other
related materials that pertain to this
rulemaking action by any of the
following methods:
• Viewing Comments Electronically:
Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter
‘‘Docket ID OCC–2019–0004’’ in the
Search box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ on the right side
of the screen. Comments and supporting
materials can be viewed and filtered by
clicking on ‘‘View all documents and
comments in this docket’’ and then
using the filtering tools on the left side
of the screen.
• Click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the
Regulations.gov home page to get
information on using Regulations.gov.
The docket may be viewed after the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
close of the comment period in the same
manner as during the comment period.
• Viewing Comments Personally: You
may personally inspect comments at the
OCC, 400 7th Street SW, Washington,
DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC
requires that visitors make an
appointment to inspect comments. You
may do so by calling (202) 649–6700 or,
for persons who are deaf or hearing
impaired, TTY, (202) 649–5597. Upon
arrival, visitors will be required to
present valid government-issued photo
identification and submit to security
screening in order to inspect comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For revisions to Part 34, Subpart E
(OREO): Charlotte Bahin, Senior
Advisor for Thrift Supervision, (202)
649–6281; or, J. William Binkley,
Attorney, Chief Counsel’s Office, (202)
649–5500.
For all revisions: Kevin Korzeniewski,
Counsel, Chief Counsel’s Office, (202)
649–5490; or for persons who are deaf
or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649–
5597.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The OCC is proposing to update its
regulatory framework for other real
estate owned (OREO) by revising its
rules to clarify and streamline the
regulation for national banks and to
apply the regulatory framework to
OREO activities Federal savings
associations for the reasons discussed
below. The OCC’s last significant
revision to the national bank OREO
rules occurred over twenty years ago.1
Since that time, the OCC has gained
additional supervisory experience
related to OREO, which it can apply to
improve the OREO rules. In addition,
the OCC now supervises Federal savings
associations pursuant to the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).2
Federal savings associations, unlike
national banks, are not subject to
statutory provisions governing OREO.
However, capital regulations and
handbooks issued by the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) generally established
requirements and supervisory
expectations for OREO activities.
Following OCC and OTS integration, the
OCC rescinded or superseded many of
those documents, creating ambiguity
with respect to OREO standards for
Federal savings associations. The OCC
is proposing a framework for Federal
savings associations that generally is
consistent with the OTS framework
1 See
2 See
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
61 FR 11294 (March 20, 1996).
12 U.S.C. 5412.
24APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17091-17094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08173]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 966
[Doc. No. AMS-SC-19-0011; SC19-966-2 PR]
Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Redistricting and Reapportionment of
Producer Districts
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the
Florida Tomato Committee (Committee) to redistrict and reapportion
producer representation on the Committee currently prescribed under the
marketing order for tomatoes grown in Florida. This action would reduce
the number of districts from four to two and reapportion producer
membership on the Committee to provide equitable representation from
both districts.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 24, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk,
Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS,
USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-
0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet: https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments should reference the document number and the date and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available
for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours, or can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments submitted in response to this proposal will be included in the
record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that
the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments
will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven W. Kauffman, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast
Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax:
(863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or
[email protected].
Small businesses may request information on complying with this
regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement
Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491,
Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,
proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing
order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under
Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, as amended (7 CFR part
966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. Part 966
(referred to as 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 Committee locally
administers the Order and is comprised of producers operating within
the production area.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule
in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. 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
[[Page 17092]]
January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'[thinsp]'' (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition
stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and
request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A
handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition.
After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides
that the district court of the United States in any district in which
the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition,
provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule invites comments on redistricting and
reapportionment of membership on the Committee prescribed under the
Order for the 2020-21 and subsequent fiscal periods. This proposal
would reduce the number of districts from four to two and reapportion
producer membership on the Committee to provide equitable
representation from both districts. Redistricting and reapportionment
of membership would make it easier for committee staff to conduct
producer nominations and ensure the appointment of a full Committee.
When the Committee is fully appointed, it is easier to achieve a quorum
for assembled meetings. The Committee unanimously recommended this
change at its November 1, 2018, meeting.
Section 966.22 provides for the establishment of membership on the
Committee. The twelve members and their alternates shall be producers,
or officers or employees of a corporate producer, in the district for
which selected and a resident of the production area. The Order
provides districts from which producers serve as representatives on the
Committee.
Section 966.25 provides the authority for the Committee to
recommend, with the approval of the Secretary, reapportionment of
members among districts, and the reestablishment of districts within
the production area. This section also provides that, in making such
recommendations, the Committee shall give consideration to: a. Shifts
in tomato acreage within districts and within the production area
during recent years; b. the importance of new production in its
relation to existing districts; c. the equitable relationship of
Committee membership and districts; d. economies to result for
producers in promoting efficient administration due to redistricting or
reapportionment of members within districts; and e. other relevant
factors.
Section 966.24 defined the four districts within the production
area by county. Districts 1 and 2 have previously been reestablished
pursuant to Sec. 996.160. Section 966.161 apportions Committee
membership among the districts pursuant to Sec. 966.25. Currently,
Districts 1 and 2 are represented by two committee members and
alternates each and Districts 3 and 4 are represented by four committee
members and alternates each.
The Committee met on November 1, 2018, to discuss the changes in
recent years to production and the shift in acreage location of Florida
tomatoes. Over the past two decades, the Florida tomato industry has
experienced significant changes in production volume and location.
Decreasing production and shifts in acreage are due to increased
production costs along with competition from imports and other growing
regions. The increased costs and competition has contributed to a
decrease in the number of producers and handlers. With fewer producers
to represent the industry and the changes to production and acreage,
the Committee discussed redistricting and reapportionment of membership
on the Committee.
Tomato production has shifted from the eastern part of the
production area in the state of Florida (Districts 1 and 2) to the
western part of the production area (Districts 3 and 4). According to
Committee data, production during the 2017-18 season in District 4
accounted for 56 percent of the production area's total production. The
next largest district by production volume was District 3, accounting
for 39 percent of total production. In comparison, District 1 accounted
for 4 percent of total production and District 2 only 1 percent of the
total volume for the production area.
According to Committee data, Districts 1 and 2 accounted for 28
percent of total production during the 1998-99 season but production
had decreased to only 8 percent by the 2007-08 season. Industry
production has slowly moved into Districts 3 and 4 over the last 20
years and now these two districts make-up 95 percent of total
production.
The shift in tomato production between districts has created an
imbalance in Committee representation. The members from Districts 1 and
2 combined represent one third of the membership on the Committee while
these districts account for only 5 percent of the tomato production
volume. Consequently, Districts 3 and 4 are underrepresented with only
two thirds of the Committee membership. During the discussion,
Committee members reviewed the data for acreage and production from all
districts in the production area as required in the Order. The gradual
shift in acreage and production from the eastern portion of the
production area in the State of Florida to the western portion has made
it difficult to find enough qualified producers to represent Districts
1 and 2 on the Committee. Committee members from these two districts
represent four seats on the Committee. Committee members also noted
that with fewer producers remaining in the Florida tomato industry,
particularly in Districts 1 and 2, it is difficult to get enough
members together to meet the Order's quorum requirements for a meeting.
As a result of the discussion and analysis, the Committee
recommended combining the current Districts 1, 3, and a portion of
District 2 into one district, and District 4 and the remaining portion
of District 2 into another district. This would divide the production
area into two districts with each district representing approximately
half of the total volume of tomatoes produced in the production area.
The Committee also recommended reapportioning the twelve Committee
members and alternates so that six Committee members and alternates
represent each district.
The two new districts would comprise the following Florida
counties: District 1 would include the counties of Charlotte, Glades,
Palm Beach, Lee, Hendry, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and Dade; and
District 2 would include the counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk,
Osceola, Brevard, Manatee, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, Indian River,
St. Lucie, Sarasota, De Soto, and Martin.
Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted to reduce the number
of districts from four to two and reapportion producer membership on
the Committee so that each district would have six members and
alternates. The Committee believes these proposed changes would adjust
producer representation to reflect the composition of the industry, and
create the opportunity for other producers to serve on the Committee.
[[Page 17093]]
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small
entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the 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 75 producers of Florida tomatoes in the
production area and 37 handlers subject to regulation under the Order.
Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than
$750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those
whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to industry and Committee data, the average annual price
for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2017-18 season was approximately
$12.56 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments were 25.9
million containers. Using the average price and shipment information,
the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the
majority of handlers have average annual receipts of more than
$7,500,000, ($12.56 times 25.9 million containers equals $325,304,000
divided by 37 handlers equals $8,792,000 per handler).
With an estimated producer price of $6.00 per 25-pound container,
the number of Florida tomato producers, and assuming a normal
distribution, the average annual producer revenue is above $750,000,
($6.00 times 25.9 million containers equals $155,400,000 divided by 75
producers equals $2,072,000 per producer). Thus, the majority of
handlers and producers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as large
entities.
The gradual shift in acreage and production from the eastern
portion of the production area in the State of Florida to the western
portion has made it difficult to find enough qualified producers to
represent Districts 1 and 2 on the Committee. Committee members from
these two districts represent one third of the seats on the Committee.
Redistricting and reapportionment of membership would make it easier
for Committee staff to conduct producer nominations, provide nominees
for all seats, and readily achieve a quorum when meetings are assembled
with a full committee.
This proposed rule would reduce the number of districts from four
to two and reapportion producer membership on the Committee to provide
six members and alternates from both districts. The Committee believes
this change would adjust producer representation to reflect the
composition of the industry, provide equitable representation from each
district, and create the opportunity for other producers to serve on
the Committee. This rulemaking would revise Sec. Sec. 966.160 and
966.161. Authority for this action is provided in Sec. 966.25 of the
Order.
It is not anticipated that this action would impose any additional
costs on the industry. This change would save time and operating
resources by making it easier to find candidates to serve on the
Committee. Additionally, a full committee would reduce the chance of a
failed quorum. Thus, this action would help avoid the costs associated
with travel and assembly of a meeting where a quorum is not achieved.
This action would have a beneficial impact as it more accurately
aligns districts and reapportions Committee membership in accordance
with the production of fresh Florida tomatoes. These changes should
provide equitable representation to producers on the Committee and make
the Committee more representative of the current industry. The effects
of this proposed rule would not be disproportionately greater or less
for small entities than for larger entities.
The Committee considered one alternative to this proposal. The
Committee considered combining Districts 1 and 2 into one district.
However, given the small volume of production currently produced in
each of these districts, the Committee determined the best course of
action was to divide the production area into two new districts with
balanced production and representation. Therefore, this alternative was
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 OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and
Specialty Crops. No changes are necessary in those requirements as a
result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would
be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato
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.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap or conflict with this proposed rule.
The Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the
Florida tomato industry, and all interested persons were invited to
attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all
issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 1, 2018, meeting was
a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to
express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are
invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the
regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small
businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and
specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions
about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the
previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 966
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 966--TOMATOES GROWN IN FLORIDA
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 966 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
0
2. Amend Sec. 966.160 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
[[Page 17094]]
Sec. 966.160 Reestablishment of districts.
(a) District No. 1: The counties of Charlotte, Glades, Palm Beach,
Lee, Hendry, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and Dade in the State of
Florida.
(b) District No. 2: The counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk,
Osceola, Brevard, Manatee, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, Indian River,
St. Lucie, Sarasota, De Soto, and Martin in the State of Florida.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 966.161 to read as follows:
Sec. 966.161 Reapportionment of Committee Membership.
Pursuant to Sec. 966.25, industry membership on the Florida Tomato
Committee shall be reapportioned as follows:
(a) District 1--six members and their alternates.
(b) District 2--six members and their alternates.
Dated: April 18, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-08173 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
