Egg Research and Promotion; Reapportionment, 27163-27167 [2020-09010]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Proposed Rules
adequate facilities to meet the
requirements for preparing citrus for
market, obtains inspection on citrus
handled, agrees to handle citrus in
compliance with the Order’s grade, size
and container requirements, pays
applicable assessments on a timely
basis, submits reports required by the
Committee, and agrees to comply with
other regulatory requirements on the
handling of citrus grown in the
production area.
(a) Eligibility. Based on the criteria
specified in this section, the Committee
shall determine eligibility for
certification as a registered handler. The
Committee or its authorized agent shall
inspect a handler’s facilities to
determine if the facilities are adequate
for preparing citrus for market. To be
adequate for such purposes, the
facilities must be permanent,
nonportable buildings located in the
production area with equipment that is
nonportable for the proper washing,
grading, sizing and packing of citrus
grown in the production area.
(b) Application for certification.
Application for certification shall be
executed by the handler by August 1st
of fiscal period and filed with the
Committee on a form, prescribed by and
available at the principal office of the
Committee, containing the following
information:
(1) Business name,
(2) Address of handling facilities
(including telephone, email and
facsimile number),
(3) Mailing address (if different from
handling facility address),
(4) Number of years in the citrus
business in Florida,
(5) Type of business entity, and
(6) Names of senior officers, partners,
or principal owners with financial
interest in the business.
(c) Determination of certification. If
the Committee determines from
available information that an applicant
meets the criteria specified in this
section, the applicant shall be certified
as a registered handler and informed by
written notice from the Committee.
Certification is effective for a fiscal
period unless the Committee
determines, based on criteria herein,
that cancellation is warranted. If
certification is denied, the handler shall
be informed by the Committee in
writing, stating the reasons for denial.
(d) Cancellation of certification. A
registered handler’s certification shall
be cancelled by the Committee, with the
approval of the Secretary, if the handler
fails to pay assessments within 90 days
of the invoice date, fails to provide
reports to the Committee, or no longer
has adequate facilities as described in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
this section. Cancellation of a handler’s
certification shall be made in writing to
the handler and shall specify the
reason(s) for and effective date of the
cancellation. Cancellation shall be for a
minimum two-week period if a handler
is found to be shipping without proper
inspection. The Committee shall
recertify the handler’s registration at
such time as the handler corrects the
deficiencies which resulted in the
cancellation and the Committee or its
agent verifies compliance. The
Committee shall notify the handler in
writing of its recertification.
(e) Inspection certification. During
any period in which the handling of
citrus is regulated pursuant to this part,
no handler shall obtain an inspection
certifying that the handler’s citrus meets
the requirements of the Order unless the
handler has been certified as a
registered handler by the Committee.
Any person who is not certified as a
registered handler may receive
inspection from the Federal-State
Inspection Service, however, the
inspection certificate shall state ‘‘Fails
to meet the requirements of Marketing
Order No. 905 because the handler is
not a registered handler.’’
(f) Contrary shipping. The Committee
may cancel or deny a handler’s
registration if the handler has shipped
citrus contrary to the provisions of this
part. The cancellation or denial of a
handler’s registration shall be effective
for a minimum of two weeks and not
exceed the applicable shipping season
as determined by the Committee.
(g) Appeals. Any handler who has
been denied a handler’s registration or
who has had a handler’s registration
cancelled, may appeal to the Secretary,
supported by any arguments and
evidence the handler may wish to offer
as to why the application for
certification or recertification should
have been approved. The appeal shall
be in writing and received at the
Specialty Crops Program office in
Washington, DC within 90 days of the
date of notification of denial or
cancellation.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–09346 Filed 5–6–20; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1250
[Document No. AMS–LP–19–0113]
Egg Research and Promotion;
Reapportionment
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
adjust representation on the American
Egg Board (Board), established under
the Egg Research and Consumer
Information Act of 1974 (Act), and
outlines changes to geographic areas
based on sustained changes in egg
production in several States. The Egg
Research and Promotion Order (Order)
establishes a Board composed of 18
members. Currently, the 48 contiguous
States are divided into 6 areas with 3
members representing each area. This
proposed rule would reduce the number
of geographic areas from six to three.
The number of Board members
representing each geographic area
would change to six. The total Board
membership would remain at 18.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
June 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted
online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted
without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments
should reference the docket number
AMS–LP–19–0113, the date of
submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments
may also be sent to Craig Shackelford,
Agricultural Marketing Specialist;
Research and Promotion Division;
Livestock and Poultry Program, AMS,
USDA; Room 2608–S, STOP 0251, 1400
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250–0251; or via fax to (202) 720–
1125. Comments will be made available
for public inspection at the above
address during regular business hours or
via the internet at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Shackelford, Research and
Promotion Division, at (470) 315–4246;
fax (202) 720–1125; or by email at
Craig.shackelford@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background and Proposed Action
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
27163
The Act authorizes the Secretary to
establish an Egg Board composed of egg
producers or representatives of egg
producers appointed by the Secretary so
that the representation of egg producers
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
27164
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Proposed Rules
on the Board reflects, to the extent
practicable, the proportion of eggs
produced in each geographic area of the
United States. 7 U.S.C. § 2707(b). This
proposal invites comments on changing
the Board’s membership under the
Order. The Board administers the Order
with oversight by the U.S Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
The Order outlines the geographic
representation of the current 18-member
board, composed of members from six
distinct geographical areas. To ensure
that representation on the Board
remains representative of the industry,
§ 1250.328 of the Order provides for
reapportionment of Board membership
based on the Board’s periodic review of
production by geographic area. This
periodic review can occur at any time
based on changes in egg production in
various geographical areas; however, the
Order requires that the area distribution
be reviewed at least every 5 years.
Sections 1250.328(d) and (e) of the
Order provide that any changes in the
delineation of the geographical areas
and the area distribution of the Board be
determined by the percentage of total
U.S. egg production.
Reapportionment
The Board and the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) reviewed
production data to determine what, if
any, changes are needed in the
distribution of Board membership. The
Board and AMS verified certain shifts in
production trends. Section 8 of the Act
(7 U.S.C. 2707) provides for a Board of
not more than 20 members. Section
1250.328 of the Order provides for an
18-member Board and contemplates
changes to the Board by determining the
percentage of United States egg
production in each area times 18 (total
Board membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number. Using the
calculation for the North Atlantic region
results in 2 members while the
calculation for the other 5 regions result
in 3 members each, for a total 17
members, one less than the number
stated in the Order. Therefore, regions
must be changed so that the 18-member
Board can be established. Table 1 shows
that reducing regions from six to three
will expand the number of States
included in each region and suggests
that the grouping of more States into
fewer regions would improve
consistency in the proportion of small
versus large farms represented on the
Board.
TABLE 1—REGIONAL POULTRY FARM DISTRIBUTION—CURRENT AND PROPOSED
Region
Small firms
<$1,000,000
Large
$1,000,000+
Total
States
7%
24%
5%
4%
4%
3%
9%
29,415
38,119
29,349
25,754
7,604
33,858
164,099
13
9
5
10
3
10
50
13%
8%
3%
9%
73,404
52,781
37,914
164,099
21
10
19
50
Current Geographical Area
I ................................................................
II ...............................................................
III ..............................................................
IV ..............................................................
V ...............................................................
VI ..............................................................
..............................................................
27,243
29,077
27,774
24,652
7,292
32,750
148,788
93%
76%
95%
96%
96%
97%
91%
2,172
9,042
1,575
1,102
312
1,108
15,311
Proposed Geographical Area
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I ................................................................
II ...............................................................
III ..............................................................
..............................................................
63,513
48,482
36,793
148,788
This table also shows the distribution
of farms represented by size, and the
proportion of farms that are small versus
large. With the inclusion of more states
into fewer regions, the proportion of
small versus large farms becomes less
variable. For example, in Regions I and
II in the current structure, 93 percent
and 76 percent, respectively, of the
firms in these regions are classified as
small. When the structure is changed, as
proposed, the two regions are more or
less combined, and the new Region I is
composed of 87 percent small firms.
The table shows less variation in size
between the three proposed new regions
than there is in the current structure.
Section 1250.326 of the Order
establishes a Board, composed of 18 egg
producers or representatives of egg
producers, and 18 specific alternates,
appointed by the Secretary from
nominations submitted by eligible
organizations, associations, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
87%
92%
97%
91%
9,891
4,299
1,121
15,311
cooperatives, or by other producers
pursuant to § 1250.328. The current 18member Board is composed of 3
members representing each of the 6
regions. No changes to the total number
of members (18 members with 18
alternates) is proposed. However,
regions would be reduced to three from
six and each region would include more
States.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Order, the Board began its most recent
review of Board member apportionment
in 2019. Production data from the 2018
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) report was used to establish the
percentage of U.S. egg production in
each area. The goal of this
reapportionment of Board members is to
ensure representation on the Board
remains consistent with the Act and
Order by recognizing production shifts
over time. If finalized, these changes
would become effective with the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Secretary’s appointments for terms
beginning in the year 2021.
The Board and AMS recognize that
shifts in production have resulted in the
Northeast region no longer being
proportionately represented on the
Board. The Board and AMS also found
that industry consolidation has also
contributed to a more limited number of
egg producing entities in each region.
The Board and AMS desire a structure
that allows the full representation of the
egg producing entities. The Board and
AMS have found that it is increasingly
difficult for State nominating
organizations to present an appropriate
number of candidates each year. By
reducing the number of regions and
increasing the geographic size of
regions, the Board and AMS believe that
more egg producing entities may be
represented on the Board.
This proposed rule would result in
the proportionate representation of each
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
27165
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Proposed Rules
enable eligible nominating organizations
to more easily identify potential
nominees.
In accordance with § 1250.328(e) of
the Order, the Board has recommended
changes to the number and composition
geographic area and increase the
number of egg producing entities
represented in each geographic area.
The Board and AMS have determined
that these changes will better represent
the distribution of egg production and
of geographic regions represented on the
Board.
The current and proposed
representation are indicated in the
following two tables:
TABLE 2—CURRENT GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD
Geographic area
Current
number of
members
Represented States
I—North Atlantic .......................
3
II—South Atlantic ......................
3
III—East North Central .............
IV—West North Central ............
3
3
V—South Central ......................
VI—Western .............................
3
3
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and District of Columbia.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina.
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD
Proposed geographic area
Proposed
number of
members
Proposed States represented
I—East ......................................
6
II—Central .................................
6
III—West ...................................
6
Membership changes are based on
production in the proposed geographic
areas, noting that changes to Board
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Texas.
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
distribution will be accomplished by
determining the percentage of reported
cases of eggs produced in each area
times 18 (total Board membership) and
rounding to the nearest whole number,
as follows:
TABLE 4—PROJECTED BOARD MEMBERSHIP
USDA reported
cases of eggs
produced
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed geographical areas
Percent of total
production
Percent of total
production
multiplied by
18 board
members
Projected board
membership
I—East .............................................................................................
II—Central ........................................................................................
III—West ..........................................................................................
35,724,500,000
36,942,400,000
36,525,200,000
32.72
33.83
33.45
5.89
6.09
6.02
6
6
6
Total U.S. Production ...............................................................
109,192,100,000
100
100
18
This proposed rule would apply to
the nomination process in 2020 and
affect the board members appointed by
the Secretary to serve on the Board
beginning in 2021.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
received in response to this rule by the
date specified will be considered prior
to finalizing this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. This rule does not
meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and
therefore, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has waived review of this
action. Additionally, because this rule
does not meet the definition of a
significant regulatory action, it does not
trigger the requirements contained in
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
27166
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect.
There are no administrative
proceedings that must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
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 or significant Tribal
implications.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations
(5 CFR part 1320) that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. part 35), the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements contained in the Order
and accompanying Rules and
Regulations have previously been
approved by OMB and were assigned
OMB control number 0581–0093. This
proposal would not increase or impose
any new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601–622), AMS considered the
economic effect of this action on small
entities and determined that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory
actions to the scale of businesses subject
to such actions in order that small
businesses will not be unduly burdened.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) published an interim final rule
that became effective on August 19,
2019, (84 FR 34261) that adjusts the
monetary-based size standards for
inflation. As a result of this rule, the
size classification for small eggproducing firms changed from sales of
$750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000
or less.
According to USDA’s NASS, USDA
collects data for the Agriculture Census
(Ag Census) using the North American
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The NAICS classifies economic
activities and was developed to provide
a consistent framework for the
collection, analysis, and dissemination
of industrial statistics used by
government policy analysts, academia
and the business community. It is the
first industry classification system
developed in accordance with a single
principle of aggregation that production
units using similar production processes
should be grouped together.
In the 2017 Ag Census, the poultry
and egg production classification
(classification category 1123) comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
breeding, hatching, and raising poultry
for meat or egg production. The 2017Ag
Census shows there were 164,099
reported poultry farms in the United
States and 36,012 egg producers. Ag
Census data includes sales category
ranges for the poultry sector as a whole
but does not include separate sales
categories for egg producers. Instead,
NASS provides data for the broader
category of ‘‘Poultry and Eggs.’’
Therefore, AMS is not able to obtain
stand-alone sales data for egg-producing
farms. As a result, for this RFA, AMS
used the broader category of poultry
producers as the closest possible
substitute as the basis for determining
the size of egg producers.
Of the 164,099 poultry producers
identified in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, 148,788 (91 percent)
reported sales of less than $1,000,000
and would therefore fall under the SBA
definition of small business. Therefore,
the remaining 15,311 (9 percent)
producers would be considered large. If
the egg producer segment has the same
proportional distribution across firm
sizes, 91 percent, or 32,771 egg
producers would be classified as small
businesses, and 9 percent, or 3,241 egg
producers would be considered large.
Sales data are also available at the
state level for the overall poultry
segment. Using this data, and the
assumption that the proportion of large
and small poultry farms similarly
applies to egg producers, Table 1 shows
how the proposed changes in
geographical areas will shift producer
representation on the Board.
The proposed rule imposes no new
burden on the industry, as it only
adjusts representation on the Board to
reflect changes in egg production. The
adjustments are required by the Order
and would not result in a change in the
overall number of Board members. Even
if most egg producers are small entities,
this action does not change their ability
to qualify for representation on the
Board or add any new burden. In
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
conclusion, AMS believes that reducing
the regions from six to three and
increasing the number of States within
each region will contribute to greater
representation of egg producing firms on
the Board.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
AMS has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Eggs and Egg products,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1250 as follows:
PART 1250—EGG PROMOTION AND
RESEARCH
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1250 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701–2718 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
2. Amend § 1250.510 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 1250.510 Determination of Board
Membership.
(a) Pursuant to § 1250.328 (d) and (e),
the 48 contiguous States of the United
States shall be grouped into three
geographic areas, as follows: Area I
(East)—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina and Texas; Area II
(Central)—Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; Area
III (West)—Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
(b) Board representation among the
three geographic areas is apportioned to
reflect the percentages of United States
egg production in each area times 18
(total Board membership). The
distribution of members of the Board is:
Area I–6, Area II–6, and Area III–6. Each
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Proposed Rules
member will have an alternate
appointed from the same area.
*
*
*
*
*
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–09010 Filed 5–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0449; Product
Identifier 2020–NM–038–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
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017–19–24, which applies to certain
Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319–111, –112, –113,
–114, –115, –131, –132, and –133
airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214,
–231, –232, and –233 airplanes; and
Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211,
–212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
The FAA also proposes to supersede AD
2018–16–04, which applies to Airbus
SAS Model A320–216, –251N, and
–271N airplanes; and Model A321–
251N, –253N, and –271N airplanes; as
well as the models in AD 2017–19–24.
Those ADs require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive maintenance requirements
and airworthiness limitations. Since AD
2018–16–04 was issued, the FAA has
determined that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary.
This proposed AD would require
revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified
in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which will be
incorporated by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by June 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For the EASA material identified in
this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49
221 89990 1000; email ADs@
easa.europa.eu; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
IBR material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
For the Airbus SAS material
identified in this proposed AD that will
continue to be incorporated by reference
(IBR), contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office—EIAS, RondPoint Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5
61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
account.airworth-eas@airbus.com;
internet https://www.airbus.com.
You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
It is also available in the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–
0449.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–
0449; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27167
telephone and fax 206–231–3223; email
sanjay.ralhan@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include
‘‘Docket No. FAA–2020–0449; Product
Identifier 2020–NM–038–AD’’ at the
beginning of your comments. The FAA
specifically invites comments on the
overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of
this NPRM. The FAA will consider all
comments received by the closing date
and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
The FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
FAA will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.
Discussion
The FAA issued AD 2018–16–04,
Amendment 39–19344 (83 FR 39581,
August 10, 2018) (‘‘AD 2018–16–04’’)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A318
series airplanes; Model A319–111, –112,
–113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133
airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214,
–216, –231, –232, –233, –251N, and
–271N airplanes; and Model A321–111,
–112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231,
–232, –251N, –253N, and –271N
airplanes. AD 2018–16–04 requires
revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. The FAA
issued AD 2018–16–04 to address the
risks associated with the effects of aging
on airplane systems. Such effects could
change system characteristics, leading to
an increased potential for failure of
certain life-limited parts, and reduced
structural integrity or controllability of
the airplane. AD 2018–16–04 specifies
that accomplishing the revision required
by paragraph (g) of that AD terminates
all requirements of AD 2017–19–24
Amendment 39–19054 (82 FR 44900,
September 27, 2017) (‘‘AD 2017–19–
24’’).
Actions Since AD 2018–16–04 Was
Issued
Since AD 2018–16–04 was issued, the
FAA has determined that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are
necessary.
The EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27163-27167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09010]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1250
[Document No. AMS-LP-19-0113]
Egg Research and Promotion; Reapportionment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust representation on the American
Egg Board (Board), established under the Egg Research and Consumer
Information Act of 1974 (Act), and outlines changes to geographic areas
based on sustained changes in egg production in several States. The Egg
Research and Promotion Order (Order) establishes a Board composed of 18
members. Currently, the 48 contiguous States are divided into 6 areas
with 3 members representing each area. This proposed rule would reduce
the number of geographic areas from six to three. The number of Board
members representing each geographic area would change to six. The
total Board membership would remain at 18.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments should reference the docket number
AMS-LP-19-0113, the date of submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments may also be sent to Craig
Shackelford, Agricultural Marketing Specialist; Research and Promotion
Division; Livestock and Poultry Program, AMS, USDA; Room 2608-S, STOP
0251, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0251; or via
fax to (202) 720-1125. Comments will be made available for public
inspection at the above address during regular business hours or via
the internet at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Shackelford, Research and
Promotion Division, at (470) 315-4246; fax (202) 720-1125; or by email
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Proposed Action
The Act authorizes the Secretary to establish an Egg Board composed
of egg producers or representatives of egg producers appointed by the
Secretary so that the representation of egg producers
[[Page 27164]]
on the Board reflects, to the extent practicable, the proportion of
eggs produced in each geographic area of the United States. 7 U.S.C.
Sec. 2707(b). This proposal invites comments on changing the Board's
membership under the Order. The Board administers the Order with
oversight by the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Order outlines the geographic representation of the current 18-
member board, composed of members from six distinct geographical areas.
To ensure that representation on the Board remains representative of
the industry, Sec. 1250.328 of the Order provides for reapportionment
of Board membership based on the Board's periodic review of production
by geographic area. This periodic review can occur at any time based on
changes in egg production in various geographical areas; however, the
Order requires that the area distribution be reviewed at least every 5
years. Sections 1250.328(d) and (e) of the Order provide that any
changes in the delineation of the geographical areas and the area
distribution of the Board be determined by the percentage of total U.S.
egg production.
Reapportionment
The Board and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reviewed
production data to determine what, if any, changes are needed in the
distribution of Board membership. The Board and AMS verified certain
shifts in production trends. Section 8 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2707)
provides for a Board of not more than 20 members. Section 1250.328 of
the Order provides for an 18-member Board and contemplates changes to
the Board by determining the percentage of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number. Using the calculation for the North Atlantic
region results in 2 members while the calculation for the other 5
regions result in 3 members each, for a total 17 members, one less than
the number stated in the Order. Therefore, regions must be changed so
that the 18-member Board can be established. Table 1 shows that
reducing regions from six to three will expand the number of States
included in each region and suggests that the grouping of more States
into fewer regions would improve consistency in the proportion of small
versus large farms represented on the Board.
Table 1--Regional Poultry Farm Distribution--Current and Proposed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Small firms
Large Total States
<$1,000,000
$1,000,000+ .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 27,243 93% 2,172 7% 29,415 13
II...................................................... 29,077 76% 9,042 24% 38,119 9
III..................................................... 27,774 95% 1,575 5% 29,349 5
IV...................................................... 24,652 96% 1,102 4% 25,754 10
V....................................................... 7,292 96% 312 4% 7,604 3
VI...................................................... 32,750 97% 1,108 3% 33,858 10
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 63,513 87% 9,891 13% 73,404 21
II...................................................... 48,482 92% 4,299 8% 52,781 10
III..................................................... 36,793 97% 1,121 3% 37,914 19
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table also shows the distribution of farms represented by
size, and the proportion of farms that are small versus large. With the
inclusion of more states into fewer regions, the proportion of small
versus large farms becomes less variable. For example, in Regions I and
II in the current structure, 93 percent and 76 percent, respectively,
of the firms in these regions are classified as small. When the
structure is changed, as proposed, the two regions are more or less
combined, and the new Region I is composed of 87 percent small firms.
The table shows less variation in size between the three proposed new
regions than there is in the current structure.
Section 1250.326 of the Order establishes a Board, composed of 18
egg producers or representatives of egg producers, and 18 specific
alternates, appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by
eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives, or by other
producers pursuant to Sec. 1250.328. The current 18-member Board is
composed of 3 members representing each of the 6 regions. No changes to
the total number of members (18 members with 18 alternates) is
proposed. However, regions would be reduced to three from six and each
region would include more States.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Order, the Board began its most
recent review of Board member apportionment in 2019. Production data
from the 2018 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) report
was used to establish the percentage of U.S. egg production in each
area. The goal of this reapportionment of Board members is to ensure
representation on the Board remains consistent with the Act and Order
by recognizing production shifts over time. If finalized, these changes
would become effective with the Secretary's appointments for terms
beginning in the year 2021.
The Board and AMS recognize that shifts in production have resulted
in the Northeast region no longer being proportionately represented on
the Board. The Board and AMS also found that industry consolidation has
also contributed to a more limited number of egg producing entities in
each region. The Board and AMS desire a structure that allows the full
representation of the egg producing entities. The Board and AMS have
found that it is increasingly difficult for State nominating
organizations to present an appropriate number of candidates each year.
By reducing the number of regions and increasing the geographic size of
regions, the Board and AMS believe that more egg producing entities may
be represented on the Board.
This proposed rule would result in the proportionate representation
of each
[[Page 27165]]
geographic area and increase the number of egg producing entities
represented in each geographic area. The Board and AMS have determined
that these changes will better represent the distribution of egg
production and enable eligible nominating organizations to more easily
identify potential nominees.
In accordance with Sec. 1250.328(e) of the Order, the Board has
recommended changes to the number and composition of geographic regions
represented on the Board.
The current and proposed representation are indicated in the
following two tables:
Table 2--Current Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current number
Geographic area of members Represented States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--North Atlantic............................. 3 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and District of
Columbia.
II--South Atlantic............................ 3 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina.
III--East North Central....................... 3 Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and
Tennessee.
IV--West North Central........................ 3 Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
V--South Central.............................. 3 Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
VI--Western................................... 3 Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Proposed Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Proposed geographic area number of Proposed States represented
members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--East....................................... 6 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Texas.
II--Central................................... 6 Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.
III--West..................................... 6 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Membership changes are based on production in the proposed
geographic areas, noting that changes to Board distribution will be
accomplished by determining the percentage of reported cases of eggs
produced in each area times 18 (total Board membership) and rounding to
the nearest whole number, as follows:
Table 4--Projected Board Membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of total
USDA reported Percent of total production Projected board
Proposed geographical areas cases of eggs production multiplied by 18 membership
produced board members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--East................................. 35,724,500,000 32.72 5.89 6
II--Central............................. 36,942,400,000 33.83 6.09 6
III--West............................... 36,525,200,000 33.45 6.02 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Production............... 109,192,100,000 100 100 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would apply to the nomination process in 2020
and affect the board members appointed by the Secretary to serve on the
Board beginning in 2021.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments received in response to
this rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing
this action.
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 rule does not meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived
review of this action. Additionally, because this rule does not meet
the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger
the requirements contained in
[[Page 27166]]
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 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect.
There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
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 or
significant Tribal implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. part 35), the
information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the
Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been
approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093. This
proposal would not increase or impose any new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-622), AMS considered the economic
effect of this action on small entities and determined that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions
in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) published an interim final rule that
became effective on August 19, 2019, (84 FR 34261) that adjusts the
monetary-based size standards for inflation. As a result of this rule,
the size classification for small egg-producing firms changed from
sales of $750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000 or less.
According to USDA's NASS, USDA collects data for the Agriculture
Census (Ag Census) using the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The NAICS classifies economic activities and was
developed to provide a consistent framework for the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of industrial statistics used by government
policy analysts, academia and the business community. It is the first
industry classification system developed in accordance with a single
principle of aggregation that production units using similar production
processes should be grouped together.
In the 2017 Ag Census, the poultry and egg production
classification (classification category 1123) comprises establishments
primarily engaged in breeding, hatching, and raising poultry for meat
or egg production. The 2017Ag Census shows there were 164,099 reported
poultry farms in the United States and 36,012 egg producers. Ag Census
data includes sales category ranges for the poultry sector as a whole
but does not include separate sales categories for egg producers.
Instead, NASS provides data for the broader category of ``Poultry and
Eggs.'' Therefore, AMS is not able to obtain stand-alone sales data for
egg-producing farms. As a result, for this RFA, AMS used the broader
category of poultry producers as the closest possible substitute as the
basis for determining the size of egg producers.
Of the 164,099 poultry producers identified in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, 148,788 (91 percent) reported sales of less than
$1,000,000 and would therefore fall under the SBA definition of small
business. Therefore, the remaining 15,311 (9 percent) producers would
be considered large. If the egg producer segment has the same
proportional distribution across firm sizes, 91 percent, or 32,771 egg
producers would be classified as small businesses, and 9 percent, or
3,241 egg producers would be considered large.
Sales data are also available at the state level for the overall
poultry segment. Using this data, and the assumption that the
proportion of large and small poultry farms similarly applies to egg
producers, Table 1 shows how the proposed changes in geographical areas
will shift producer representation on the Board.
The proposed rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only
adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in egg
production. The adjustments are required by the Order and would not
result in a change in the overall number of Board members. Even if most
egg producers are small entities, this action does not change their
ability to qualify for representation on the Board or add any new
burden. In conclusion, AMS believes that reducing the regions from six
to three and increasing the number of States within each region will
contribute to greater representation of egg producing firms on the
Board.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1250
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Eggs and Egg products, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1250 as follows:
PART 1250--EGG PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701-2718 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1250.510 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1250.510 Determination of Board Membership.
(a) Pursuant to Sec. 1250.328 (d) and (e), the 48 contiguous
States of the United States shall be grouped into three geographic
areas, as follows: Area I (East)--Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, the
District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas; Area II
(Central)--Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; Area III (West)--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
(b) Board representation among the three geographic areas is
apportioned to reflect the percentages of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership). The distribution of
members of the Board is: Area I-6, Area II-6, and Area III-6. Each
[[Page 27167]]
member will have an alternate appointed from the same area.
* * * * *
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09010 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
