Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Realignment, 23248-23252 [2020-08395]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23248
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 81 / Monday, April 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2101–2119, 2611–2627,
2701–2718, 2901–2911, 4501–4514, 4801–
4819, 4901–4916, 6101–6112, 6301–6311,
6401–6417, 7411–7425, 7481–7491, and
7801–7813.
2. In part 1200, add subpart D,
consisting of §§ 1200.200 through
1200.206, to read as follows:
■
Subpart D—Administrative Procedures
Governing Formulation of a Research
and Promotion Order
Sec.
1200.200 General.
1200.201 Definitions.
1200.202 Proposals.
1200.203 Initial referendum.
1200.204 Reimbursement of Secretary’s
expenses.
1200.205 Termination of proceedings.
1200.206 Execution of the order.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425.
Subpart D—Administrative Procedures
Governing Formulation of a Research
and Promotion Order
§ 1200.200
General.
The terms defined/specified in this
subpart shall apply to all research and
promotion programs authorized under
the Act.
§ 1200.201
Definitions.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Act means the Commodity Research,
Promotion, and Information Act of 1996
(7 U.S.C. 7411–7425).
Administrator means the
Administrator of the Agricultural
Marketing Service or any officer or
employee of the United States
Department of Agriculture to whom
authority has been delegated or may
hereafter be delegated to act for the
Administrator.
Cost of the Referendum means all
USDA expenditures related to
development of an order proposal,
including, but not limited to, salaries,
travel, supplies, printing, mailing, and
shipping, and any costs related to an
initial referendum.
Order means any order which may be
issued pursuant to the Act.
Secretary means the United States
Secretary of Agriculture or any officer or
employee of the United States
Department of Agriculture to whom
authority has been delegated or may
hereafter be delegated to act for the
Secretary.
§ 1200.202
Proposals.
(a) An order may be proposed by any
association of producers of an
agricultural commodity, by any person
that may be affected by the issuance of
an order with respect to an agricultural
commodity, or by the Secretary. Any
person or organization other than the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Apr 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Secretary proposing an order shall file
with the Administrator a written
proposal.
(b) Upon receipt of a proposal, the
Administrator shall investigate and
evaluate the proposal.
(c) If the proposal is submitted by an
association of producers of the
agricultural commodity or by any
person that may be affected by the
issuance of an order, and the
investigation and consideration lead the
Administrator to conclude that the
proposed order will not tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act,
the Administrator shall deny the
proposal. The Administrator will
promptly notify the proponent(s) of
such denial, which will be accompanied
by a brief statement of the grounds for
the denial.
(d) If the proposal was submitted by
an association of producers of the
agricultural commodity or by any
person that may be affected by the
issuance of an order and the
investigation and consideration lead the
Administrator to conclude that an order
will tend to effectuate the declared
policy of the Act, the Administrator will
promptly notify the proponent(s) of
such conclusion, and the proponent(s)
will be required to post a bond or other
collateral in accordance with
§ 1200.204.
(e) If the Administrator concludes that
an order will tend to effectuate the
declared policy of the Act, the
Administrator shall publish the
proposed order in the Federal Register
and give due notice and opportunity for
public comment on the proposed order.
§ 1200.203
Initial referendum.
For the purpose of ascertaining
whether the persons to be covered by an
order favor the order going into effect,
the Administrator may conduct an
initial referendum among persons to be
subject to an assessment under the order
who, during a representative period
determined by the Administrator,
engaged in the production or handling
of the agricultural commodity or the
importation of the agricultural
commodity.
§ 1200.204
expenses.
Reimbursement of Secretary’s
The Administrator may require any
person or organization proposing an
order to post a bond or other collateral
to cover the cost of the referendum as
defined in § 1200.201.
§ 1200.205
Termination of proceedings.
If at any time during development of
a new program the Administrator
concludes, based on public comments,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
referendum votes, or other available
information, that an order will not tend
to effectuate the declared policy of the
Act, the Administrator shall terminate
the proceedings and collect
reimbursements from the bond or other
collateral posted pursuant to § 1200.204
for any expenses incurred in
development of the proposed program.
§ 1200.206
Execution of the order.
(a) Issuance of the order. The
Administrator shall, if the
Administrator finds that it will tend to
effectuate the purposes of the Act, issue
the final order.
(b) Effective date of order. No order
shall become effective in less than 30
days after its publication in the Federal
Register, unless the Administrator,
upon good cause found and published
with the order, fixes an earlier effective
date.
(c) Notice of issuance. After the
Administrator issues the order, AMS
will publish notice of the order’s
issuance in the Federal Register.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–08410 Filed 4–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1210
[Document Number AMS–SC–19–0109]
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Plan; Realignment
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposal invites
comments on realigning the
representation on the National
Watermelon Promotion Board (Board)
prescribed in the Watermelon Research
and Promotion Plan (Plan) by reducing
the number of production districts and
reducing the number importers on the
Board, accordingly. This action would
contribute to effective administration of
the program.
DATES: Comments must be received by
May 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposed rule. All
comments must be submitted through
the Federal e-rulemaking portal at
https://www.regulations.gov and should
reference the document number and the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 81 / Monday, April 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
date and page number of this issue of
the Federal Register. All comments
submitted in response to this proposed
rule will be included in the rulemaking
record and will be made available to the
public. Please be advised that the
identity of the individuals or entities
submitting comments will be made
public on the internet 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@usda.gov.
This
proposal affecting 7 CFR part 1210 is
authorized under the Watermelon
Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7
U.S.C. 4901–4916).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
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 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).
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Apr 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Executive Order 12988
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 in which the petitioner resides
or conducts business.
Background
This proposal invites comments on
realigning the Board’s representation
and procedures under the Plan. The
Board administers the Plan with
oversight by USDA. The Plan is a
nationally coordinated program of
research, development, advertising, and
promotion designed to strengthen the
watermelon’s position in the
marketplace 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
realignment of the Board by reducing
the number of production districts
under the Plan for producer and handler
representation on the Board, and
proportionally reducing the number of
importer seats on the Board from twelve
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23249
to nine. The Board administers the Plan
with oversight by USDA. These changes
were recommended by the Board after a
review of the production volume and
assessments paid in each production
district as well as the assessments paid
by importers. The Plan requires that
such a review be conducted at least
every 5 years. These changes would
help facilitate program operations and
the Board voted to forward this
recommendation to the Secretary at
their October 26, 2019 meeting.
Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan
specifies that the Board shall be
comprised of producers, handlers,
importers, and one public representative
appointed by the Secretary. Pursuant to
§ 1210.320(b), the Plan originally
divided the United States into seven
districts of comparable production
volumes of watermelons, and each
district was 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 comprised of 41
members—14 producers (two from each
district), 14 handlers (two from each
district), 12 importers, and one public
member.
Review of U.S. Districts
Section 1210.320(c) requires the
Board, at least every five years, to
review the districts to determine
whether realignment is necessary. In
conducting the review, the Board must
consider: (1) The most recent three years
of USDA production reports or Board
assessment reports if USDA production
reports are unavailable; (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 § 1210.501 of the Plan, the
seven current districts are 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;
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;
District 6—The State of Texas;
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
23250
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 81 / Monday, April 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
The districts listed above were
recommended by the Board in 2016 and
established through rulemaking by
USDA in 2017 (82 FR 44966).
In 2019, the Board’s Executive
Committee conducted a review of the
U.S. watermelon production districts to
determine whether realignment was
necessary. The committee held
teleconferences on August 14 and
September 11, 2019, and reviewed
production data for 2016, 2017 and 2018
from USDA’s National Agricultural
Statistics Service’s (NASS) Vegetables
Annual Summary for 2018 and Market
News Reports. Due to changes in the
geographical coverage of USDA’s data
collection on watermelon production,
Board assessment data was used for the
states for which USDA data was not
available. To protect personally
identifiable information (PII) of
watermelon producers and handlers, the
average of 2016–2018 assessment data
was converted to a percentage of
production. The combined data is
shown in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—STATE PRODUCTION BASED three new districts. The proposed
ON USDA AND BOARD ASSESSMENT districts would be as follows:
DATA 2016–2018
District 1—The State of Florida (no
% of 3-year
average of U.S.
production
State
Alabama ..........................
Arizona ............................
Arkansas .........................
California .........................
Colorado .........................
Delaware .........................
Florida .............................
Georgia ...........................
Hawaii .............................
Illinois ..............................
Indiana ............................
Kentucky .........................
Louisiana ........................
Maryland .........................
Michigan .........................
Mississippi ......................
Missouri ..........................
Nebraska ........................
New Mexico ....................
New York ........................
North Carolina ................
Ohio ................................
Oklahoma .......................
Oregon ............................
South Carolina ................
Texas ..............................
Virginia ............................
Washington .....................
0.2
2.9
0.8
13.8
0.4
2.8
17.9
18.0
0.1
1.8
10.6
0.2
0.1
1.9
2.3
0.2
4.3
0.2
0.6
0.6
4.0
0.1
0.2
1.0
1.8
11.8
0.3
1.1
Upon review, the Board
recommended at their October 26, 2019
meeting to reduce the number of U.S.
production districts from seven to five,
thus eliminating two districts, retaining
two districts as drawn, and creating
change);
District 2—The State of Georgia
(formerly District 3).
District 3—The States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas.
District 4—The States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC.
District 5—The States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
As shown in Table 2, each district
would represent, on average, 20 percent
of the total U.S. production, with a
range of approximately 18 to 24.5
percent. USDA has reviewed NASS,
Market News, and Board assessment
data, and as shown in Table 2,
determined that the production
estimates are consistent with the
Board’s recommendation.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED PERCENT OF U.S. PRODUCTION BY DISTRICT 1
Board data
(%)
District
1
2
3
4
5
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
Section 1210.501 of the Plan 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 three-year
period preceding the date of the
evaluation and adjust, to the extent
practicable, the number of importer
representatives on the Board.
USDA analysis
(%)
17.8
18.0
19.0
20.6
24.5
18.2
18.0
19.2
20.7
23.9
Difference
(%)
+0.4
None.
+0.2
+0.1
¥0.6
Table 4 below shows domestic and
import assessment data for watermelons
for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The
data is from the Board’s financial audits
for 2016, 2017 2 and 2018.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—U.S. AND IMPORT ASSESSMENT DATA FOR 2016–2018
Year
Domestic (U.S.)
assessments
Import
assessments
2016 ..........................................................................................
2017 ..........................................................................................
2018 ..........................................................................................
$2,319,704 ..............................
2,347,522 ................................
2,311,116 ................................
$1,172,834 ..............................
1,049,875 ................................
1,041,244 ................................
1 Table values were rounded to the nearest
percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Apr 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
2 National Watermelon Promotion Board,
Financial Statements and Supplementary
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Total
$3,492,538
3,397,397
3,352,360
Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, 2017,
and 2018, BDO USA, LLP.
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 81 / Monday, April 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
23251
TABLE 4—U.S. AND IMPORT ASSESSMENT DATA FOR 2016–2018—Continued
Year
Domestic (U.S.)
assessments
Import
assessments
3-Year Average .........................................................................
2,326,114 ................................
1,087,984 ................................
3,414,098
Percent of Total .................................................................
68 percent ...............................
32 percent ...............................
........................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Based on this data, the three-year
average annual import assessments for
watermelons for 2016–2018 was
$1,087,984, approximately 32 percent of
the Board’s assessment income. To
make the number of importers on the
Board proportionate to the assessments
paid as well as to the percentages of
U.S. watermelon produced by the
reduced number of production districts,
the number of importers should
decrease from twelve to nine members.
In order to clearly summarize the
change in board membership for
producers, handlers, and importers,
§ 1210.502 of the Plan would be revised
to reflect the new composition of the
Board.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), AMS is required to examine the
economic impact of the 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 $1,000,000 and
small agricultural service firms
(handlers and importers) as those
having annual receipts of no more than
$30 million.
According to the Board, there are 505
producers, 140 handlers, and 252
importers who were required to pay
assessments under the Plan in 2018.
NASS data for the 2018 crop year
estimated about 350.5 hundredweight
(cwt.) of watermelons were produced
per acre in the United States, and the
2018 grower price was $16.90 per cwt.3
Thus, the value of watermelon
production per acre in 2018 averaged
about $5,923 (350.5 cwt. × $16.90). At
that average price, a producer would
have to farm over 169 acres to receive
3 Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
p. 10.; https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/
usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/
vegean19.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Apr 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
an annual income from watermelons of
$1,000,000 ($1,000,000 divided by
$5,923 per acre equals approximately
169 acres). Using 2017 USDA Census of
Agriculture data, a maximum of 119
farms had watermelon acreage greater
than or equal to 250 acres, and 13,401
out of a total of 13,520 farms producing
watermelons reported less than 250
acres of watermelon on their farms.4
Therefore, assuming watermelon
producers operate no more than one
farm, a majority (99 percent) of all U.S.
watermelon farms would be classified as
small businesses.
Also based on the Board’s data, using
a price of $0.169 per pound and the
number of pounds handled annually,
none of the watermelon handlers have
receipts over the $30 million
threshold.5 6 Therefore, all watermelon
handlers would be considered small
businesses. A handler would have to
ship over 177 million pounds of
watermelons to be considered large
(177,514,793 × $0.169 f.o.b. equals
approximately $30,000,000).
Based on 2018 Customs data, over 99
percent of watermelon importers
shipped less than $30 million worth of
watermelons that year. Based on the
foregoing, the majority of watermelon
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 2018 NASS data,
the value of the U.S. watermelon crop
was about $656.6 million.7 According to
Customs data, the value of 2018 imports
was about $312.4 million.
This proposal invites comments on
revising §§ 1210.321, 1210.423,
1210.501 and 1210.502 of the Plan to
reduce the number of U.S. production
districts from seven to five, thus
eliminating two districts, retaining two
4 2017 Census of Agriculture, April 11, 2019,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
39; https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/
AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_
US/usv1.pdf.
5 Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usdaesmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/
vegean19.pdf.
6 National Watermelon Promotion Board
assessment records, 2016–2018.
7 Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
p. 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Total
districts as drawn, and creating three
new districts. Accordingly, § 1210.320
requires the number of importer
members to also decrease
proportionately from 12 to 9 members,
for a total of 30 Board members.
The Plan currently divides the United
States 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.
At least every five years, the Board is
required to evaluate, based on the
preceding three-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 2019
and recommended reducing the number
of districts from seven to five. Authority
for these changes is provided in
§ 1210.320 of the Plan.
Regarding the economic impact of the
proposed rule on affected entities,
neither the reduction in the number of
production districts nor the reduction in
Board membership imposes any
additional costs on industry members.
The recommended changes are
necessary to improve the Board’s ability
to ensure both a quorum at Board
meetings and a sufficient number of
potential nominees. Further, the
accompanying reduction of importer
seats from twelve to nine provides for
the equitable representation of
producers, handlers and importers on
the Board.
Regarding alternatives, the Board
considered two scenarios in realigning
the districts. Scenario 1 would divide
the U.S. into four production districts,
and Scenario 2 would divide the U.S.
into five production districts. In
accordance with the Plan, both
scenarios preserve the composition of 2
producers and 2 handlers per district.
Ultimately the Board recommended
Scenario 2, retaining the State of Florida
as District 1, changing the district
designation for Georgia from District 3
to District 2, and creating new Districts
3, 4, and 5 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
23252
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 81 / Monday, April 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) District 3 would be comprised of
the States of Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Texas;
(b) District 4 would be comprised of
the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Washington, DC; and
(c) District 5 would be comprised of
the States of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
In accordance with § 1210.320, 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
increase the pool of candidates to be
considered for appointment to the Board
by the Secretary.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Plan’s information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements have been approved
previously under OMB number 0581–
0093. This proposed rule would not
result in a change to the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements previously approved and
would impose no additional reporting
requirements or recordkeeping burden
on domestic producers, handlers, or
importers of watermelon.
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’s Executive Committee held
teleconferences on August 14 and
September 11, 2019 to review the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Apr 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
production data to assess whether
changes to the number of districts and
district boundaries were warranted. All
Board and committee meetings,
including meetings held via
teleconference, are open to the public
and interested persons are invited to
participate and express their views.
AMS has performed this initial RFA
analysis regarding the impact of these
changes to the Plan on small entities
and invites 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. All written comments
received in response to this proposed
rule by the date specified will 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:
individual voters in attendance. In lieu
of written ballots, a State spokesperson
may be elected by voice vote or a show
of hands. The role of the State
spokesperson is to coordinate State
voting and to cast all State votes.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 1210.501 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1210.501
Realignment of districts.
In accordance with § 1210.320(c) of
the Plan, the districts shall be as
follows:
(a) District 1—The State of Florida.
(b) District 2—The State of Georgia.
(c) District 3—The States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas.
(d) District 4—The States of
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC.
(e) District 5—The States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
■ 5. Section 1210.502 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 1210.502
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
The Board consists of 10 producers,
10 handlers, nine importers, and one
public member appointed by the
Secretary.
Subpart C—Rules and Regulations
2. Amend § 1210.321 by revising the
section heading and paragraph (f)(1) to
read as follows:
■
§ 1210.321
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) No State in a multi-State district
shall have more than three producer and
handler representatives concurrently on
the Board.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 1210.403 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Voting procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) In multi-State districts, the
convention chairperson will direct the
eligible producer voters and handler
voters from each State to caucus
separately for the purpose of electing a
State spokesperson for each group.
Election of each State spokesperson
shall be by simple majority of all
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Bruce Summers,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–08395 Filed 4–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Realignment of districts.
*
§ 1210.403
Board members.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0339; Product
Identifier 2020–NM–046–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23248-23252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08395]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1210
[Document Number AMS-SC-19-0109]
Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Realignment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal invites comments on realigning the
representation on the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board)
prescribed in the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) by
reducing the number of production districts and reducing the number
importers on the Board, accordingly. This action would contribute to
effective administration of the program.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposed rule. All comments must be submitted through
the Federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and
should reference the document number and the
[[Page 23249]]
date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All
comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included
in the rulemaking record and will be made available to the public.
Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities
submitting comments will be made public on the internet 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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal affecting 7 CFR part 1210 is
authorized under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7
U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
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 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
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 in which the petitioner resides or conducts
business.
Background
This proposal invites comments on realigning the Board's
representation and procedures under the Plan. The Board administers the
Plan with oversight by USDA. The Plan is a nationally coordinated
program of research, development, advertising, and promotion designed
to strengthen the watermelon's position in the marketplace 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 realignment of the Board by
reducing the number of production districts under the Plan for producer
and handler representation on the Board, and proportionally reducing
the number of importer seats on the Board from twelve to nine. The
Board administers the Plan with oversight by USDA. These changes were
recommended by the Board after a review of the production volume and
assessments paid in each production district as well as the assessments
paid by importers. The Plan requires that such a review be conducted at
least every 5 years. These changes would help facilitate program
operations and the Board voted to forward this recommendation to the
Secretary at their October 26, 2019 meeting.
Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan specifies that the Board shall be
comprised of producers, handlers, importers, and one public
representative appointed by the Secretary. Pursuant to Sec.
1210.320(b), the Plan originally divided the United States into seven
districts of comparable production volumes of watermelons, and each
district was 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 comprised of 41 members--14 producers (two
from each district), 14 handlers (two from each district), 12
importers, and one public member.
Review of U.S. Districts
Section 1210.320(c) requires the Board, at least every five years,
to review the districts to determine whether realignment is necessary.
In conducting the review, the Board must consider: (1) The most recent
three years of USDA production reports or Board assessment reports if
USDA production reports are unavailable; (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 Sec. 1210.501 of the Plan, the seven current districts
are 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;
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;
District 6--The State of Texas;
[[Page 23250]]
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.
The districts listed above were recommended by the Board in 2016
and established through rulemaking by USDA in 2017 (82 FR 44966).
In 2019, the Board's Executive Committee conducted a review of the
U.S. watermelon production districts to determine whether realignment
was necessary. The committee held teleconferences on August 14 and
September 11, 2019, and reviewed production data for 2016, 2017 and
2018 from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's (NASS)
Vegetables Annual Summary for 2018 and Market News Reports. Due to
changes in the geographical coverage of USDA's data collection on
watermelon production, Board assessment data was used for the states
for which USDA data was not available. To protect personally
identifiable information (PII) of watermelon producers and handlers,
the average of 2016-2018 assessment data was converted to a percentage
of production. The combined data is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1--State Production Based on USDA and Board Assessment Data 2016-
2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of 3-year
State average of U.S.
production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................. 0.2
Arizona.............................................. 2.9
Arkansas............................................. 0.8
California........................................... 13.8
Colorado............................................. 0.4
Delaware............................................. 2.8
Florida.............................................. 17.9
Georgia.............................................. 18.0
Hawaii............................................... 0.1
Illinois............................................. 1.8
Indiana.............................................. 10.6
Kentucky............................................. 0.2
Louisiana............................................ 0.1
Maryland............................................. 1.9
Michigan............................................. 2.3
Mississippi.......................................... 0.2
Missouri............................................. 4.3
Nebraska............................................. 0.2
New Mexico........................................... 0.6
New York............................................. 0.6
North Carolina....................................... 4.0
Ohio................................................. 0.1
Oklahoma............................................. 0.2
Oregon............................................... 1.0
South Carolina....................................... 1.8
Texas................................................ 11.8
Virginia............................................. 0.3
Washington........................................... 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon review, the Board recommended at their October 26, 2019
meeting to reduce the number of U.S. production districts from seven to
five, thus eliminating two districts, retaining two districts as drawn,
and creating three new districts. The proposed districts would be as
follows:
District 1--The State of Florida (no change);
District 2--The State of Georgia (formerly District 3).
District 3--The States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Texas.
District 4--The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC.
District 5--The States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
As shown in Table 2, each district would represent, on average, 20
percent of the total U.S. production, with a range of approximately 18
to 24.5 percent. USDA has reviewed NASS, Market News, and Board
assessment data, and as shown in Table 2, determined that the
production estimates are consistent with the Board's recommendation.
Table 2--Proposed Percent of U.S. Production by District \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA analysis
District Board data (%) (%) Difference (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 17.8 18.2 +0.4
2........................................... 18.0 18.0 None.
3........................................... 19.0 19.2 +0.2
4........................................... 20.6 20.7 +0.1
5........................................... 24.5 23.9 -0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1210.501 of the Plan would be revised accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table values were rounded to the nearest percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
three-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 2016, 2017 and 2018. The data is from the
Board's financial audits for 2016, 2017 \2\ and 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, 2017,
and 2018, BDO USA, LLP.
Table 4--U.S. and Import Assessment Data for 2016-2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic (U.S.)
Year assessments Import assessments Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.................................... $2,319,704................ $1,172,834................ $3,492,538
2017.................................... 2,347,522................. 1,049,875................. 3,397,397
2018.................................... 2,311,116................. 1,041,244................. 3,352,360
[[Page 23251]]
3-Year Average.......................... 2,326,114................. 1,087,984................. 3,414,098
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total.................... 68 percent................ 32 percent................ ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this data, the three-year average annual import
assessments for watermelons for 2016-2018 was $1,087,984, approximately
32 percent of the Board's assessment income. To make the number of
importers on the Board proportionate to the assessments paid as well as
to the percentages of U.S. watermelon produced by the reduced number of
production districts, the number of importers should decrease from
twelve to nine members.
In order to clearly summarize the change in board membership for
producers, handlers, and importers, Sec. 1210.502 of the Plan would be
revised to reflect the new composition of the Board.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601-612), AMS is required to examine the economic impact of the
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 $1,000,000 and small agricultural service
firms (handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no
more than $30 million.
According to the Board, there are 505 producers, 140 handlers, and
252 importers who were required to pay assessments under the Plan in
2018. NASS data for the 2018 crop year estimated about 350.5
hundredweight (cwt.) of watermelons were produced per acre in the
United States, and the 2018 grower price was $16.90 per cwt.\3\ Thus,
the value of watermelon production per acre in 2018 averaged about
$5,923 (350.5 cwt. x $16.90). At that average price, a producer would
have to farm over 169 acres to receive an annual income from
watermelons of $1,000,000 ($1,000,000 divided by $5,923 per acre equals
approximately 169 acres). Using 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture data, a
maximum of 119 farms had watermelon acreage greater than or equal to
250 acres, and 13,401 out of a total of 13,520 farms producing
watermelons reported less than 250 acres of watermelon on their
farms.\4\ Therefore, assuming watermelon producers operate no more than
one farm, a majority (99 percent) of all U.S. watermelon farms would be
classified as small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA, p. 10.; https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/vegean19.pdf.
\4\ 2017 Census of Agriculture, April 11, 2019, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 39; https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also based on the Board's data, using a price of $0.169 per pound
and the number of pounds handled annually, none of the watermelon
handlers have receipts over the $30 million threshold.5 6
Therefore, all watermelon handlers would be considered small
businesses. A handler would have to ship over 177 million pounds of
watermelons to be considered large (177,514,793 x $0.169 f.o.b. equals
approximately $30,000,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA, https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/vegean19.pdf.
\6\ National Watermelon Promotion Board assessment records,
2016-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on 2018 Customs data, over 99 percent of watermelon importers
shipped less than $30 million worth of watermelons that year. Based on
the foregoing, the majority of watermelon 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 2018 NASS data, the
value of the U.S. watermelon crop was about $656.6 million.\7\
According to Customs data, the value of 2018 imports was about $312.4
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal invites comments on revising Sec. Sec. 1210.321,
1210.423, 1210.501 and 1210.502 of the Plan to reduce the number of
U.S. production districts from seven to five, thus eliminating two
districts, retaining two districts as drawn, and creating three new
districts. Accordingly, Sec. 1210.320 requires the number of importer
members to also decrease proportionately from 12 to 9 members, for a
total of 30 Board members.
The Plan currently divides the United States 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.
At least every five years, the Board is required to evaluate, based
on the preceding three-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 2019 and
recommended reducing the number of districts from seven to five.
Authority for these changes is provided in Sec. 1210.320 of the Plan.
Regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule on affected
entities, neither the reduction in the number of production districts
nor the reduction in Board membership imposes any additional costs on
industry members. The recommended changes are necessary to improve the
Board's ability to ensure both a quorum at Board meetings and a
sufficient number of potential nominees. Further, the accompanying
reduction of importer seats from twelve to nine provides for the
equitable representation of producers, handlers and importers on the
Board.
Regarding alternatives, the Board considered two scenarios in
realigning the districts. Scenario 1 would divide the U.S. into four
production districts, and Scenario 2 would divide the U.S. into five
production districts. In accordance with the Plan, both scenarios
preserve the composition of 2 producers and 2 handlers per district.
Ultimately the Board recommended Scenario 2, retaining the State of
Florida as District 1, changing the district designation for Georgia
from District 3 to District 2, and creating new Districts 3, 4, and 5
as follows:
[[Page 23252]]
(a) District 3 would be comprised of the States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas;
(b) District 4 would be comprised of the States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Washington, DC; and
(c) District 5 would be comprised of the States of Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
In accordance with Sec. 1210.320, 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 increase the pool of
candidates to be considered for appointment to the Board by the
Secretary.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Plan's information collection and recordkeeping
requirements have been approved previously under OMB number 0581-0093.
This proposed rule would not result in a change to the information
collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and would
impose no additional reporting requirements or recordkeeping burden on
domestic producers, handlers, or importers of watermelon.
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's Executive Committee held
teleconferences on August 14 and September 11, 2019 to review the
production data to assess whether changes to the number of districts
and district boundaries were warranted. All Board and committee
meetings, including meetings held via teleconference, are open to the
public and interested persons are invited to participate and express
their views.
AMS has performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of
these changes to the Plan on small entities and invites 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. All written comments received in response to
this proposed rule by the date specified will 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. Amend Sec. 1210.321 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.321 Realignment of districts.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) No State in a multi-State district shall have more than three
producer and handler representatives concurrently on the Board.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1210.403 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.403 Voting procedures.
* * * * *
(c) In multi-State districts, the convention chairperson will
direct the eligible producer voters and handler voters from each State
to caucus separately for the purpose of electing a State spokesperson
for each group. Election of each State spokesperson shall be by simple
majority of all individual voters in attendance. In lieu of written
ballots, a State spokesperson may be elected by voice vote or a show of
hands. The role of the State spokesperson is to coordinate State voting
and to cast all State votes.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1210.501 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.501 Realignment of districts.
In accordance with Sec. 1210.320(c) of the Plan, the districts
shall be as follows:
(a) District 1--The State of Florida.
(b) District 2--The State of Georgia.
(c) District 3--The States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Texas.
(d) District 4--The States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC.
(e) District 5--The States of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
0
5. Section 1210.502 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.502 Board members.
The Board consists of 10 producers, 10 handlers, nine importers,
and one public member appointed by the Secretary.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-08395 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
