This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

73961 

Vol. 77, No. 239 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–11–0076; FV11–905– 

1 PR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; 

Redistricting and Reapportionment of 

Grower Members, and Changing the 

Qualifications for Grower Membership 

on the Citrus Administrative 

Committee 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

redefine districts, reapportion 

representation, and modify the 

qualifications for membership on the 

Citrus Administrative Committee 

(Committee). The Committee is 

responsible for local administration of 

the Federal marketing order for oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in Florida (order). This rule 

would reduce the number of districts, 

reapportion representation among the 

districts, and allow up to four growers 

who are shippers or employees of a 

shipper to serve as grower members on 

the Committee. These changes would 

adjust grower representation to reflect 

the composition of the industry, provide 

equitable representation from each 

district, and create the opportunity for 

more growers to serve on the 

Committee. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this rule will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Corey E. Elliott, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email: 

Corey.Elliott@ams.usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202)720–8938, or Email: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 

905), regulating the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This proposed rule would redefine 

districts, reapportion representation, 

and modify the qualifications for 

membership on the Committee. This 

rule would reduce the number of 

districts, reapportion grower 

representation among the districts, and 

allow up to four growers who are 

shippers or employees of a shipper to 

serve as grower members on the 

Committee. These changes would adjust 

grower representation to reflect the 

composition of the industry, provide 

equitable representation from each 

district, and create the opportunity for 

more growers to serve on the 

Committee. These changes were 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a meeting on July 14, 

2011. 

Section 905.14 of the order provides 

the authority to redefine the districts 

into which the production area is 

divided and to reapportion or otherwise 

change the grower membership of the 

districts to assure equitable grower 

representation on the Committee. This 

section also provides that such changes 

are to be based, so far as practicable, on 

the averages for the immediately 

preceding five fiscal periods of: (1) The 

volume of fruit shipped from each 

district; (2) the volume of fruit produced 

in each district; and, (3) the total 

number of acres of citrus in each 

district. It also requires that the 

Committee consider such redistricting 

and reapportionment during the 1980– 

81 fiscal period and only in each fifth 

fiscal period thereafter. The 

recommendation of July 14, 2011, is 

consistent with the time requirements of 

this section. 

Section 905.19 provides for the 

establishment of and membership on 

the Committee, including the number of 

grower and handler members and their 

corresponding qualifications to serve. In 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

addition, this section provides the 

authority for the Committee, with the 

approval of the Secretary, to establish 

alternative qualifications for grower 

members. Current qualifications specify 

that grower members cannot be shippers 

or employees of shippers. 

Currently, § 905.114 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations 

lists and defines four grower districts 

within the production area. District One 

includes the counties of Hillsborough, 

Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, 

Sumter, Lake, Orange, Seminole, 

Alachua, Putnam, St. Johns, Flagler, 

Marion, Levy, Duval, Nassau, Baker, 

Union, Bradford, Columbia, Clay, 

Gilchrist, and Suwannee and County 

Commissioner’s Districts One, Two, and 

Three of Volusia County, and that part 

of the counties of Indian River and 

Brevard not included in Regulation Area 

II. District Two includes the counties of 

Polk and Osceola. District Three 

includes the counties of Manatee, 

Sarasota, Hardee, Highlands, 

Okeechobee, Glades, De Soto, Charlotte, 

Lee, Hendry, Collier, Monroe, Dade, 

Broward, and that part of the counties 

of Palm Beach and Martin not included 

in Regulation Area II. District Four 

includes St. Lucie County and that part 

of the counties of Brevard, Indian River, 

Martin, and Palm Beach described as 

lying within Regulation Area II, and 

County Commissioner’s Districts Four 

and Five of Volusia County. 

Section 905.114 also specifies the 

grower representation on the Committee 

from each district. Currently, District 

One is represented by one grower 

member and alternate; District Two is 

represented by two grower members and 

alternates; Districts Three and Four are 

represented by three grower members 

and alternates each. 

Since the last redistricting and 

reapportionment in 1991, total citrus 

acreage has fallen by 24 percent, 

production has fallen by 23 percent, and 

fresh shipments have fallen by 60 

percent. Citrus production and growing 

acreage have gradually shifted from the 

north and central parts of the state to the 

eastern and southwestern growing 

regions following damaging freezes. The 

industry has also seen an overall 

decrease in acreage and production due 

to real estate development and the 

impact of several hurricanes. Increased 

production costs associated with 

replanting, cultivating, and battling 

citrus diseases, such as canker and 

greening, have also contributed to 

changes in production. 

Considering the numerous changes to 

the industry, the Committee discussed 

the need to redistrict the production 

area and reapportion grower 

membership at its meeting on July 14, 

2011. During the discussion, Committee 

members agreed that industry 

conditions have been stabilizing, 

making this an appropriate time to 

consider redistricting and 

reapportionment. Trees planted to 

replace acreage lost to disease and 

hurricane damage are now producing, 

new production practices are helping to 

mitigate the effects of disease, and a 

weakened housing market has reduced 

development. These factors have all 

contributed to greater stability within 

the industry. 

In considering redistricting and 

reapportionment, the Committee 

reviewed the information and 

recommendations provided by the 

subcommittee tasked with examining 

this issue. The subcommittee reviewed 

the numbers for acreage, production, 

and shipments from all counties in the 

production area as required in the order. 

While this information was beneficial in 

showing how the industry had changed 

since the last time the production area 

was redistricted, there were concerns 

about how representative these numbers 

were of the fresh citrus industry. 

The majority of Florida citrus 

production goes to processing for juice, 

and the available numbers for acreage 

and production by county do not 

delineate between fresh and juice 

production, making it difficult to 

determine if those numbers reflect fresh 

production. Further, reviewing the 

available data for fresh shipments also 

presented problems in that the numbers 

were more reflective of handler activity 

rather than grower activity, as fruit from 

many counties is handled in counties 

other than where the fruit is grown, and 

often in separate districts from where 

the fruit is grown. 

In an effort to provide numbers 

reflective of grower production utilized 

for fresh shipments, the subcommittee 

used the available information on trees 

by variety in each county combined 

with the percentage of fresh production 

by variety to calculate a fresh 

production estimate for each county. 

Currently, 3 percent of orange, 44 

percent of grapefruit, and 58 percent of 

specialty citrus production are shipped 

to the fresh market. Using these 

estimates, District One currently 

accounts for 9 percent of fresh 

production, District Two 13 percent, 

District Three 31 percent and District 

Four 47 percent of fresh production. 

Based on the fresh production 

estimates and other information 

available, the subcommittee 

recommended reducing the number of 

districts from four to three by combining 

current Districts One and Two, into a 

new District One. Current District Three 

would become District Two, and District 

Four would become District Three. The 

subcommittee also recommended that 

the nine grower members be 

reapportioned, as follows, based on the 

estimates for fresh production: two 

grower members and alternates for 

District One, three grower members and 

alternates for District Two, and four 

grower members and alternates for 

District Three. 

With 9 growers serving on the 

Committee, each member would 

represent approximately 11 percent of 

fresh production. Under the 

subcommittee recommendation, District 

One, with 22 percent of the fresh 

production, would be represented by 22 

percent of the grower members and 

alternates on the Committee, with two 

grower members and alternates. District 

Two, with 31 percent of fresh 

production, would be represented by 33 

percent of the grower members and 

alternates on the Committee, with three 

grower members and alternates. District 

Three, with 47 percent of fresh 

production, would be represented by 44 

percent of the grower members and 

alternates on the Committee, with four 

grower members and alternates. 

In discussing the recommendations of 

the subcommittee, Committee members 

found that the estimated fresh 

production numbers were a good 

indicator of fresh production and were 

beneficial when considering how the 

production area should be redistricted 

and grower membership distributed. 

Based on the new districts, and the 

estimated fresh production, the 

Committee agreed that the 

subcommittee’s recommendations 

evenly allocated grower membership. 

Consequently, the Committee voted 

unanimously in support of the proposed 

changes. 

Accordingly, District One would 

include the counties of Alachua, Baker, 

Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval, 

Flagler, Gilchrist, Hernando, 

Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion, 

Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, 

Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. 

Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, and Union 

and County Commissioner’s Districts 

One, Two, and Three of Volusia County, 

and that part of the counties of Indian 

River and Brevard not included in 

Regulation Area II. District One would 

be represented by two grower members 

and alternates. 

District Two would include the 

counties of Broward, Charlotte, Collier, 

Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, 

Highlands, Lee, Manatee, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that part of 

the counties of Palm Beach and Martin 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 73963 

not included in Regulation Area II. 

District Two would be represented by 

three grower members and alternates. 

District Three would include the 

County of St. Lucie and that part of the 

counties of Brevard, Indian River, 

Martin, and Palm Beach described as 

lying within Regulation Area II, and 

County Commissioner’s Districts Four 

and Five of Volusia County. This 

district would have four grower 

members and alternates. 

In addition to discussing redistricting 

and reapportionment of grower 

representation on the Committee, the 

Committee also considered changes to 

the grower membership qualifications 

established under the order. When the 

qualifications for grower membership 

were established, the line between 

growers and shippers was clearer, with 

more growers in the business of just 

producing fresh fruit for the fresh 

market and not involved in the shipping 

aspect of the industry. However, over 

the years, the industry has seen more 

growers partnering to form shipping 

interests or vertically integrating with 

shippers. 

This trend began in the 1990s, when 

the industry was in an oversupply 

situation, and growers were looking for 

ways to assure their fruit was 

purchased. This consolidation between 

growers and shippers continued as the 

industry adjusted to changes in 

production and reacted to the pressures 

of disease, rising land values, hurricanes 

and freezes. Also, the same pressures 

that have encouraged consolidation and 

vertical integration have prompted 

many growers to leave the industry, 

further reducing the number of growers 

solely engaged in production. 

Currently, a grower who is affiliated 

with or is an employee of a shipper does 

not qualify to serve as a grower member 

on the Committee. In discussing this 

issue, the Committee recognized the 

changes in the makeup of the industry, 

and the need to revise the qualifications 

for grower membership to reflect these 

changes. Committee members agreed 

that with growers who are affiliated 

with shippers playing an increasing role 

in the industry, a change should be 

made to facilitate their participation on 

the Committee. Several Committee 

members stated that they thought such 

a change was important, but that the 

majority of grower seats on the 

Committee should be maintained for 

pure growers, those not affiliated with a 

shipper. 

To create an opportunity for shipperaffiliated growers to serve on the 

Committee, while maintaining the 

majority of positions for pure growers, 

it was proposed that the grower 

qualifications for membership on the 

Committee be modified so that up to 

four grower members may be growers 

affiliated with or employed by shippers, 

with the remaining five seats open only 

to pure growers who are not affiliated 

with or employed by shippers. 

Committee members supported this 

proposal because it does not mandate 

that the four positions be filled by 

growers affiliated with shippers, but 

does create the opportunity for these 

types of growers to serve on the 

Committee. This proposed change 

would provide the flexibility to expand 

grower membership to include growers 

who are affiliated with shippers without 

limiting the opportunity for pure 

growers to serve. 

The Committee believes this change 

would make the Committee more 

reflective of the fresh segment of the 

Florida citrus industry. Providing the 

opportunity for growers affiliated with 

shippers to serve on the Committee 

would help bring additional 

perspectives and ideas to the 

Committee, would allow another 

segment of growers to serve on the 

Committee, and may create an increased 

opportunity for participation by small 

citrus operations. Further, retaining five 

of the nine grower seats as seats for only 

pure growers would help maintain a 

balance between grower and shipper 

representation on the Committee. 

With growers who are affiliated with 

the shipping segment of the industry 

playing an increasing role in the 

industry and the expectation that this 

segment of growers will continue to 

increase, the Committee believes 

facilitating their inclusion on the 

Committee would better reflect the 

current industry structure. Widening the 

pool of growers from which members 

are nominated would also create 

additional opportunities for growers 

with different backgrounds and 

perspectives to serve on the Committee. 

Therefore, the Committee unanimously 

recommended revising grower member 

qualifications to allow up to four 

growers who are affiliated with or 

employed by shippers to serve as grower 

members on the Committee. 

The next round of grower 

nominations should be held in May 

2013. In order to give the industry 

ample notice of these proposed changes, 

and because Section 905.14 requires 

that this announcement occur on or 

before March 1 of the then current fiscal 

year, the modifications would need to 

be in effect prior to March 1, 2013, to 

be utilized in the May 2013 elections. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 55 handlers 

of Florida citrus who are subject to 

regulation under the marketing order 

and approximately 8,000 producers of 

oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and 

tangelos in the regulated area. Small 

agricultural service firms are defined by 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) as those having annual receipts of 

less than $7,000,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). 

Based on industry and Committee 

data, the average annual f.o.b. price for 

fresh Florida citrus during the 2010–11 

season was approximately $12.16 per 4⁄5

bushel carton, and total fresh shipments 

were approximately 30.4 million 

cartons. Using the average f.o.b. price 

and shipment data, and assuming a 

normal distribution, at least 55 percent 

of the Florida citrus handlers could be 

considered small businesses under 

SBA’s definition. In addition, based on 

production and producer prices 

reported by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service and the total number 

of Florida citrus producers, the average 

annual producer revenue is less than 

$750,000. Therefore, the majority of 

handlers and producers of Florida citrus 

may be classified as small entities. 

This rule would reduce the number of 

districts from four to three, reapportion 

grower representation among the 

districts, and allow up to four growers 

who are shippers or employees of 

shippers to serve as grower members on 

the Committee. These changes would 

adjust grower representation to reflect 

the composition of the industry, provide 

equitable representation from each 

district, and create the opportunity for 

more growers to serve on the 

Committee. This rule would revise 

§ 905.114 of the regulations regarding 

grower districts and the allotment of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

members amongst those districts, and 

would add a new paragraph to § 905.120 

of the rules and regulations to revise 

grower membership qualifications. The 

authority for these actions is provided 

in §§ 905.14 and 905.19 of the order, 

respectively. These proposed changes 

were unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a meeting on July 14, 

2011. 

It is not anticipated that this action 

would impose any additional costs on 

the industry. This action would have a 

beneficial impact as it more accurately 

aligns grower districts and reapportions 

grower membership in accordance with 

the production of fresh Florida citrus. 

This action would also create an 

opportunity for growers that are 

affiliated with or employees of shippers 

to serve on the Committee as grower 

members. These changes should provide 

equitable representation to growers on 

the Committee and increase diversity by 

allowing more growers the opportunity 

to serve. These proposed changes are 

intended to make the Committee more 

representative of the current industry. 

The effects of this rule would not be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small entities than for larger entities. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to these changes including making no 

changes to the districts or the 

apportionment of grower membership. 

The Committee recognized that there 

had been some significant changes to 

the industry since the last time the 

production area was redistricted and 

members reapportioned in 1991. The 

Committee determined that some 

changes were needed to make the 

districts and the apportionment of 

members reflective of the current 

industry structure. In discussing 

alternatives to changing grower member 

qualifications, the Committee explored 

making no changes to the qualifications 

or setting more restrictive limits on the 

alternate qualifications for growers 

affiliated with shippers. However, the 

Committee agreed that changes to the 

structure of the industry, including 

increasing vertical integration, would 

support making a change to grower 

membership qualifications. Further, the 

Committee believes allowing up to four 

growers affiliated with or employed by 

shippers to serve on the Committee 

would create an opportunity for these 

growers, but maintain a majority of seats 

for pure growers who are not affiliated 

with shippers. Therefore, for the reasons 

above, these alternatives were rejected. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 Generic 

Fruit Crops. No changes in those 

requirements as a result of this action 

would be necessary. Should any 

changes become necessary, they would 

be submitted to OMB for approval. 

This proposed action would require 

textual changes to the form FV–163, 

Confidential Background Statement. 

However, the changes would be purely 

cosmetic and would not affect the 

burden. In light of the redistricting, 

District 4 would be removed as a checkoff option. A statement on the form 

would also be reworded to 

accommodate the revision in grower 

member qualifications. With this 

change, the OMB currently approved 

total burden for completing FV–163 

would remain the same. A Justification 

for Change for these changes would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large citrus handlers. As with 

all Federal marketing order programs, 

reports, and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

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. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Florida citrus industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the July 14, 2011, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. Finally, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate because this rule would 

need to be in place prior to March 1, 

2013, for the Committee to use these 

proposed changes in the 2013–14 

grower nomination cycle. All written 

comments timely received will be 

considered before a final determination 

is made on this matter. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because Committee 

nominations are scheduled to be held in 

the spring. These changes would need 

to be in effect in advance so that 

industry stakeholders are familiar with 

the new grower districts, 

reapportionment, and qualifications 

prior to the nomination process. 

Further, to be effective for the next 

nomination cycle, the order requires 

that the redistricting and 

reapportionment actions be announced 

on or before March 1, 2013. All written 

comments timely received will be 

considered before a final determination 

is made on this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905 

Grapefruit, Oranges, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tangelos, 

Tangerines. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, 

TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS 

GROWN IN FLORIDA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 905 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 905.114 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts 

and reapportionment of grower members. 

* * * * * 

(a) Citrus District One shall include 

the counties of Alachua, Baker, 

Bradford, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Duval, 

Flagler, Gilchrist, Hernando, 

Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Marion, 

Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, 

Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, St. 

Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, and Union 

and County Commissioner’s Districts 

One, Two, and Three of Volusia County, 

and that part of the counties of Indian 

River and Brevard not included in 

Regulation Area II. This district shall 

have two grower members and 

alternates. 

(b) Citrus District Two shall include 

the counties of Broward, Charlotte, 

Collier, Dade, De Soto, Glades, Hardee, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 73965 

Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Manatee, 

Monroe, Okeechobee, Sarasota, and that 

part of the counties of Palm Beach and 

Martin not included in Regulation Area 

II. This district shall have three grower 

members and alternates. 

(c) Citrus District Three shall include 

the County of St. Lucie and that part of 

the counties of Brevard, Indian River, 

Martin, and Palm Beach described as 

lying within Regulation Area II, and 

County Commissioner’s Districts Four 

and Five of Volusia County. This 

district shall have four grower members 

and alternates. 

3. A new paragraph (g) is added to 

§ 905.120 to read as follows: 

§ 905.120 Nomination procedure. 

* * * * * 

(g) Up to four grower members may be 

growers who are also shippers, or 

growers who are also employees of 

shippers. 

Dated: November 28, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29244 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–126770–06] 

RIN 1545–BG07 

Allocation of Costs Under the 

Simplified Methods; Hearing 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing on 

notice proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice of public hearing on proposed 

regulations that provide guidance on 

allocating costs to certain property 

produced by the taxpayer or acquired by 

the taxpayer for resale. 

DATES: The public hearing is being held 

on Monday, January 7, 2013, at 10:00 

a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of 

the topics to be discussed at the public 

hearing by Wednesday, December 19, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being 

held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal 

Revenue Service Building, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20224. Due to building security 

procedures, visitors must enter at the 

Constitution Avenue entrance. In 

addition, all visitors must present photo 

identification to enter the building. 

Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR 

(REG–126770–06), room 5205, Internal 

Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben 

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 

20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–126770–06), 

Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC or sent electronically 

via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (REG–126770–06). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the regulations, Christopher 

Call at (202) 622–4940; concerning 

submissions of comments, the hearing 

and/or to be placed on the building 

access list to attend the hearing 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor at (202) 622– 

7180 (not toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The subject of the public hearing is 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(REG–126770–06) that was published in 

the Federal Register on Wednesday, 

September 5, 2012 (77 FR 54482). 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. Persons who wish 

to present oral comments at the hearing 

that submitted written comments by 

December 4, 2012, must submit an 

outline of the topics to be addressed and 

the amount of time to be denoted to 

each topic. 

A period of 10 minutes is allotted to 

each person for presenting oral 

comments. After the deadline for 

receiving outlines has passed, the IRS 

will prepare an agenda containing the 

schedule of speakers. Copies of the 

agenda will be made available, free of 

charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom 

of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) 

(Room 1621) which is located at the 

11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. 

Because of access restrictions, the IRS 

will not admit visitors beyond the 

immediate entrance area more than 30 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

LaNita VanDyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2012–29932 Filed 12–7–12; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 926 

[SATS No: MT–033–FOR; Docket ID: OSM– 

2011–0012] 

Montana Regulatory Program 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSM), are announcing the withdrawal 

of a proposed rule pertaining to an 

amendment to the Montana regulatory 

program (the Montana program) and its 

coal rules and regulations. Montana 

submitted the amendment at their own 

initiative to modify coal prospecting 

procedures and allow for a new type of 

coal prospecting permit. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

October 17, 2011, at 76 FR 64047, is 

withdrawn December 12, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Fleischman, Director, Casper 

Field Office, Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement, Dick 

Cheney Federal Building, POB 11018, 

150 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 

82601–1018; Telephone: 307–261–6550, 

email address: jfleischman@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on the Montana Program 

II. Submission of the Withdrawal 

I. Background on the Montana Program 

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a 

State to assume primacy for the 

regulation of surface coal mining and 

reclamation operations on non-Federal 

and non-Indian lands within its borders 

by demonstrating that its State program 

includes, among other things, ‘‘a State 

law which provides for the regulation of 

surface coal mining and reclamation 

operations in accordance with the 

requirements of this Act * * *; and 

rules and regulations consistent with 

regulations issued by the Secretary 

pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. 

1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 

criteria, the Secretary of the Interior 

conditionally approved the Montana 

program on April 1, 1980. You can find 

background information on the Montana 

program, including the Secretary’s 

findings, the disposition of comments, 

and conditions of approval of the 

Montana program in the April 1, 1980, 

Federal Register (45 FR 21560). You can 

also find later actions concerning 

Montana’s program and program 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with