Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25619 

20,000 pounds of raspberries for 

processing and importers must have 

imported 20,000 pounds of processed 

raspberries during the representative 

period from January 1, 2010 through 

December 31, 2010, to be eligible to 

vote. The referendum shall be 

conducted by mail ballot from June 8 

through June 24, 2011. Ballots must be 

received by the referendum agent no 

later than the close of business 4:30 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) on June 24, 2011, to be 

counted. 

Section 518 of the 1996 Act 

authorizes the Department to conduct a 

referendum prior to the Order’s effective 

date. The Order shall become effective 

only if it is determined that the Order 

has been approved by a majority of 

those eligible persons voting for 

approval. 

Kimberly Coy, of the USDA, AMS, 

Research and Promotion Branch, is 

designated as the referendum agent to 

conduct this referendum. The 

referendum procedures [7 CFR 1208.100 

through 1212.108], which were issued 

pursuant to the 1996 Act, shall be used 

to conduct the referendum. 

The referendum agent will mail 

registration instructions to all known 

eligible producers and importers in 

advance of the referendum. Any 

producer or importer who does not 

receive registration instructions should 

contact the referendum agent cited 

under the ‘‘For Further Information’’ 

section no later than one week before 

the end of the registration period. Prior 

to the first day of the voting period, the 

referendum agent will mail the ballots 

to be cast in the referendum and voting 

instructions to all eligible voters. 

Persons who are producers and 

importers during the representative 

period are eligible to vote. Any producer 

or importer who does not receive a 

ballot should contact the referendum 

agent cited under the ‘‘For Further 

Information’’ section no later than one 

week before the end of the registration 

period. Ballots must be received by the 

referendum agent by the close of 

business on or before [insert last day of 

referendum], to be counted. 

In accordance with the OMB 

regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which 

implements the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 35], the 

referendum ballot, which represents the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements that may be 

imposed by this rule, was submitted to 

OMB for approval and approved under 

OMB Number 0581–0257. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1208 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Raspberry promotion, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425; 7 U.S.C. 

7401. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11050 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1210 

[Document Number AMS–FV–10–0093] 

Watermelon Research and Promotion 

Plan; Redistricting and Importer 

Representation 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites 

comments on changing the boundaries 

of all seven districts under the 

Watermelon Research and Promotion 

Plan (Plan) to reapportion the producer, 

handler, and importer memberships on 

the National Watermelon Promotion 

Board (Board). In addition, the Board is 

adding two importer seats based on the 

quantity of watermelon imports in the 

past three years. These changes are 

based on a review of the production and 

assessments paid in each district and 

the amount of watermelon import 

assessments, which the Plan requires at 

least every five years. As a result of 

these changes, the importer seats would 

increase from six to eight. Therefore, the 

total Board membership would increase 

from 35 to 37 members. In addition, a 

new CFR section is added to reflect the 

importer representation on the Board. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments on 

the Internet at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov or to the Research 

and Promotion Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, (USDA) 

Room 0632–S, Stop 0244, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0244; facsimile: 

(202) 205–2800. All comments should 

reference the docket number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register and will be made 

available for public inspection in the 

above office during regular business 

hours or it can be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

received will be posted without change, 

including any personal information 

provided. Please be advised that the 

identity of the individuals or entities 

submitting comments will be made 

public on the Internet at the address 

provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, 

Research and Promotion Branch, Fruit 

and Vegetable Programs, AMS, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Stop 0244, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

0632–S, Washington, DC 20250–0244; 

telephone: (888) 720–9917; facsimile: 

(202) 205–2800; or electronic mail: 

Jeanette.Palmer@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under the Watermelon 

Research and Promotion Plan [7 CFR 

part 1210]. The Plan is authorized under 

the Watermelon Research and 

Promotion Act (Act) [7 U.S.C. 4901– 

4916]. 

Executive Orders 12886 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has waived the review process required 

by Executive Order 12866 for this 

action. 

Executive Order 12988 

In addition, this rule has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. 

The Act allows producers, producerpackers, handlers, and importers to file 

a written petition with the Secretary of 

Agriculture (Secretary) if they believe 

that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, 

or any obligation imposed in connection 

with the Plan, is not established in 

accordance with 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 the Secretary. 

If the petitioner disagrees with the 

Secretary’s ruling, the petitioner may 

file, within 20 days, an appeal in the 

U.S. District Court for the district where 

the petitioner resides or conducts 

business. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601–612], AMS 

has examined the economic impact of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25620 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

this rule on the small producers, 

handlers, and importers that would be 

affected by this rule. 

The Small Business Administration 

defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small 

agricultural producers as those having 

annual receipts of no more than 

$750,000 and small agricultural service 

firms (handlers and importers) as those 

having annual receipts of no more than 

$7 million. Under these definitions, the 

majority of the producers, handlers, and 

importers that would be affected by this 

rule would be considered small entities. 

Producers of less than 10 acres of 

watermelons are exempt from this 

program. Importers of less than 150,000 

pounds of watermelons per year are also 

exempt. 

USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) data for the 

2010 crop year was about 310 

hundredweight (cwt.) of watermelons 

were produced per acre. The 2010 

grower price published by NASS was 

$12.00 per hundredweight. Thus, the 

value of watermelon production per 

acre in 2010 averaged about $3,720 (310 

cwt. × $12.00). At that average price, a 

producer would have to farm over 202 

acres to receive an annual income from 

watermelons of $750,000 ($750,000 

divided by $3,720 per acre equals 202). 

Accordingly, as previously noted, a 

majority of the watermelon producers 

would be classified as small businesses. 

Based on the Board’s data, using an 

average of freight on board (f.o.b.) price 

of $.0164 per pound and the number of 

pounds handled in 2010, none of the 

watermelon handlers had receipts over 

the $7.5 million threshold. Therefore, 

the watermelon handlers would all be 

considered small businesses. A handler 

would have to ship over 457 million 

pounds of watermelons to be considered 

large (457,317,073 times $.0164 f.o.b. 

equals $7,500,000). 

According to the Board, there are 

approximately 950 producers, 230 

handlers, and 137 importers who are 

required to pay assessments under the 

program. 

Based on the watermelon import 

assessments received for the year 2010, 

the United States imported watermelons 

worth over $260 million dollars. The 

largest imports of watermelon came 

from Mexico which accounted for 93 

percent of the total in 2010. Other 

suppliers of imported watermelon are 

Guatemala at 3 percent and Honduras at 

1 percent. The remaining 3 percent of 

imported watermelon came from 

Canada, Netherlands, Nicaragua, 

Nigeria, and Panama. 

The Board’s assessment records show 

imports for the years 2007, 2008, and 

2009 at $681,565, $783,249, and 

$742,363 respectively. Based on this 

data, the three-year average annual 

imports for watermelon total $735,725 

(2,207,177 divided by 3). This 

represents approximately 29 percent of 

the total assessments paid to the Board. 

Currently there are 6 importers on the 

Board representing 17 percent of the 

total members. Accordingly, two 

importer seats should be added to the 

Board. The new Board membership 

distribution would be 14 producers, 14 

handlers, 8 importers, and 1 public 

member which would bring the 

percentage of seats for importers to 22 

percent of the total seats on the Board. 

Nominations and appointments to the 

Board are conducted pursuant to 

sections 1210.321 of the Plan. The Plan 

requires producers to be nominated by 

producers, handlers to be nominated by 

handlers, and importers to be 

nominated by importers. This would not 

change. Because some current members 

are in States or counties which would 

be moved to other districts under this 

rule, one producer member vacancy in 

the new District 2, one handler member 

vacancy in the new Districts 3, and one 

producer member vacancy in the new 

District 7 would result with this change. 

Nomination meetings will be held in the 

new districts to fill these vacancies. 

Appointments to the Board are made 

by the Secretary from a slate of 

nominated candidates. The nominees 

for the two producer, one handler and 

two importer positions will be 

submitted to the Secretary for 

appointment to the Board. 

The overall impact is favorable 

because the new district boundaries 

provide more equitable representation 

for the producers, handlers, and 

importers who pay assessments in the 

various districts. 

The Board chose the realignment 

scenario that kept the States together. 

For instance, California is currently 

divided into two districts and the Board 

has realigned California so that all the 

counties in California are located in one 

district. The new realignment would 

also give Georgia and Texas their own 

respective districts. The other States 

will be divided up to reflect their 

watermelon production levels and 

grouped together for the four remaining 

districts. 

The Board considered several 

alignments of the districts in an effort to 

provide balanced representation for 

each district. The Board selected the 

alignment described in this rule as it 

provides proportional representation on 

the Board of producers, handlers, and 

importers. The addition of two 

importers would allow for more 

importers representation on the Board’s 

decision making and also potentially 

provide an opportunity to increase 

diversity on the Board. 

In accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which 

implements the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], the 

background form, which represents the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements that are 

imposed by the Plan have been 

approved previously under OMB 

number 0505–0001. 

The Plan requires that two nominees 

be submitted for each vacant position. 

With regard to information collection 

requirements, adding two importers to 

the Board means that four additional 

importers will be required to submit 

background forms to USDA in order to 

be considered for appointment to the 

Board. However, serving on the Board is 

optional, and the burden of submitting 

the background form would be offset by 

the benefits of serving on the Board. The 

estimated annual cost of providing the 

information by four importers would be 

$33 or $8.25 per importer. The 

additional minimal burden will be 

included in the existing information 

collection package under OMB number 

0505–0001. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

We have performed this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

regarding the impact of this amendment 

to the Plan on small entities, and we 

invite comments concerning potential 

effects of this amendment. 

Background 

Under the Plan, the Board administers 

a nationally coordinated program of 

research, development, advertising, and 

promotion designed to strengthen the 

watermelon’s position in the market 

place and to establish, maintain, and 

expand markets for watermelons. This 

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 the U.S. Customs Service 

and Border Protection. This action will 

not have any impact on the assessment 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25621 

rates paid by producers, handlers, and 

importers. 

Membership on the Board consists of 

two producers and two handlers for 

each of the seven districts established 

by the Plan, at least one importer, and 

one public member. The Board 

currently consists of 35 members: 14 

producers, 14 handlers, 6 importers, and 

1 public member. 

The seven current districts were 

established in 2006. They are: 

District 1—The Florida counties of 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, 

Collier, Dade, DeSoto, Flagler, Glades, 

Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, 

Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Lee, 

Manatee, Martin, Marion, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, 

Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, 

Sumter, and Volusia. 

District 2—The Florida counties of 

Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, 

Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, 

Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Gulf, 

Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, 

Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, 

Nassau, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, 

Suwannee, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, 

Walton, Washington, and the Georgia 

counties Early, Baker, Miller, Mitchell, 

Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, 

Seminole, and the States of Alabama, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and 

Virginia. 

District 3—The Georgia counties not 

included in District two and the State of 

South Carolina. 

District 4—The States of North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, 

Missouri, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, 

Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, 

New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, 

New York, Pennsylvania, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, 

Vermont, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and 

Washington, DC. 

District 5—The States of Alaska, 

Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Washington and all of the counties in 

the state of California except for those 

California counties included in District 

Seven. 

District 6—The counties in the state of 

Texas, except for those counties in 

Texas included in District Seven. 

District 7—The counties in the state of 

Texas; Dallam, Sherman, Hanaford, 

Ochiltree, Lipscomb, Hartely, Moore, 

Hutchinson, Roberts, Hemphill, 

Oldham, Potter, Carson, Gray, Wheeler, 

Deaf Smith, Randall, Armstrong, 

Donley, Collingsworth, Parmer, Castro, 

Swisher, Briscoe, Hall, Childress, 

Bailey, Lamb, Hale, Floyd, Motley, 

Cottle, Cochran, Hockely, Lubbock, 

Crosby, Dickens, King, Yoakum, Terry, 

Lynn, Garza, Kent, Stonewall, the States 

of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming, and the following counties in 

California; San Bernardino, Riverside, 

San Diego, and Imperial. 

Pursuant to section 1210.320(c) of the 

Plan, the Board shall review the seven 

districts every five years to determine 

whether realignment of the districts is 

necessary. When making a review, the 

Plan specifies that the Board should 

consider factors such as the most recent 

three years of USDA production reports 

or Board assessment reports if USDA 

production reports are unavailable, 

shifts and trends in quantities of 

watermelons produced, and any other 

relevant factors. Any realignment 

should be recommended by the Board at 

least six months prior to the date of the 

call for nominations and should become 

effective at least 30 days prior to this 

date. 

Pursuant to section 1210.320 (e) of the 

Plan, the Secretary shall review 

importer representation every five years. 

According to the Plan, the Secretary 

shall review a three-year average of 

watermelon import assessments and 

adjust, to the extent practicable, the 

number of importers on the Board. 

The Board appointed a subcommittee 

to begin reviewing the U.S. districts and 

to determine whether realignment was 

necessary based on production and 

assessment collections in the current 

districts. During the review, as 

prescribed by the Plan, the 

subcommittee reviewed USDA’s Annual 

Crop Summary reports for 2007 through 

2009, which provided figures for the top 

17 watermelon producing states, and the 

Board’s assessment collection records 

for 2007 through 2009. Both sets of data 

showed similar trends in production 

among the various States. However, the 

Board used the assessment reports 

because USDA’s Annual Crop Summary 

reports were available for only 17 of the 

34 states in which watermelons are 

produced. 

The subcommittee recommended to 

the Board that the boundaries of all 

seven districts be changed in order to 

provide for a better distribution of 

production among producers and 

handlers in the districts. 

The subcommittee also considered the 

assessments of watermelon imports paid 

to the Board. The Board’s assessment 

records show imports for the years 2007, 

2008, and 2009 at $681,565, $783,249, 

and $742,363 respectively. Based on 

this data, the three-year average annual 

imports for watermelon total $735,725 

(2,207,177 divided by 3). The average 

annual percentage of assessments paid 

by importers represents almost 29 

percent of the Board’s assessment 

income. In contrast to the 2006 

realignment, the importer’s assessment 

collection represented 20 percent of the 

Board’s assessment income. Because 

there was a 9 percent increase in the 

assessments on imports, the Board 

recommended an increase in the 

number of importers on the Board. 

USDA has evaluated information 

concerning importer assessments and 

has determined that the number of 

importer representatives on the Board 

should be increased by two members. 

Therefore, the number of importer 

Board members would increase from six 

to eight. 

Section 1647 (3)(A) of the Act 

authorizes the Board to have at least one 

or more importer representative to serve 

on the Board. However, there is no 

section in the Plan that identifies the 

number of importers on the Board. 

Section 1210.502 is currently reserved 

and will be used to reflect importer 

representation on the Board. 

The realignment was approved by the 

Board at its November 13, 2010, 

meeting. Under the realignment, each 

district would represent, on average, 16 

percent of total U.S. production. The 

composition of the Board would 

increase to a total of 37 members: 14 

producers, 14 handlers, 8 importers, and 

1 public member. 

Therefore, this rule realigns the 

districts as follows: 

District 1—The Florida counties of 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, 

Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, 

Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, 

Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, 

Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia. 

District 2—The Florida counties of 

Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, 

Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, 

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, 

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, 

Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, 

Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, 

Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, 

St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, 

Union, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington, and the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina. 

District 3—The State of Georgia. 

District 4—The States of Alabama, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, West Virginia, and 

Washington, DC. 

District 5—The State of California. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

District 6—The State of Texas. 

District 7—The States of Alaska, 

Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

Under this realignment: (1) The 

Florida counties of Citrus, Flagler, 

Hernando, Marion, Putnam, St. Johns 

and Sumter are moved from District 1 to 

District 2; (2) Alabama, Tennessee, and 

Virginia are moved from District 2 to 

District 4; (3) Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Oklahoma are moved 

from District 2 to District 7; (4) Georgia 

counties Early, Baker, Miller, Mitchell, 

Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, and 

Seminole are moved from District 2 to 

District 3, (5) South Carolina moved 

from District 3 to District 2; (6) Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota are 

moved from District 4 to District 7; (7) 

Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Washington are moved from District 5 to 

District 7; (8) The following counties in 

the State of Texas: Armstrong, Bailey, 

Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, 

Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, 

Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, 

Floyd, Garza, Gray, Hale, Hall, 

Hanaford, Hartely, Hemphill, Hockely, 

Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lamb, 

Lipscomb, Lubbock, Lynn, Moore, 

Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, 

Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, 

Stonewall, Swisher, Terry, Wheeler, and 

Yoakum are moved from District 7 to 

District 6; (9) the following counties in 

California: San Bernardino, Riverside, 

San Diego, and Imperial are moved from 

District 7 to District 5. 

Due to the re-alignment of districts, 

the following vacancies are created: one 

producer vacancy in District 2; one 

handler vacancy in District 3, one 

producer vacancy in District 7; and two 

importer vacancies. Current Board 

members would be affected because 

their States or counties would be moved 

to other districts. Nomination meetings 

will be held as soon as possible in the 

new districts to fill the vacancies. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

amendments, if adopted, may be 

implemented to allow for the calendar 

year 2012 nomination meetings to take 

place before the appointments for new 

Board members are due. All written 

comments received in response to this 

rule by the date specified would be 

considered prior to finalizing this 

action. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Watermelon promotion. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Part 1210, Chapter XI of Title 

7 is proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1210—WATERMELON 

RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 1210 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

Subpart C—Rules and Regulations 

2. Section 1210.501 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1210.501 Realignment of districts. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan, 

the districts shall be as follows: 

District 1—The Florida counties of 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, 

Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, 

Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, 

Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, 

Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia. 

District 2—The Florida counties of 

Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, 

Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, 

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, 

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, 

Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, 

Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, 

Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, 

St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, 

Union, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington, and the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina. 

District 3—The State of Georgia. 

District 4—The States of Alabama, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, West Virginia, and 

Washington, DC. 

District 5—The State of California. 

District 6—The State of Texas. 

District 7—The States of Alaska, 

Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

3. Section 1210.502 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 1210.502 Importer members. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan, 

there are eight importer representatives 

on the Board based on the proportionate 

percentage of assessments paid by 

importers to the Board. 

Dated: April 28, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11043 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029] 

RIN 1904–AC47 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, 

and Water-Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, directs the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) to establish energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

products. Of particular relevance here, 

the statute also requires that each time 

the corresponding consensus standard— 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Standard 90.1—is amended by 

the industry, DOE must assess whether 

there is a need to update the uniform 

national energy conservation standards 

for the same equipment covered under 

EPCA. ASHRAE officially released an 

amended version of this industry 

standard (ASHRAE 90.1–2010) on 

October 29, 2010, thereby triggering 

DOE’s related obligations under EPCA. 

In addition, the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

amended EPCA to require DOE to 

review the most recently published 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with 

respect to single-package vertical air 

conditioners and single-package vertical 

heat pumps in accordance with the 

procedures established for reviewing the 

energy conservation standards for other 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS