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

61122

Vol. 65, No. 200

Monday, October 16, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1210

[FV–00–703 PR]

Watermelon Research and Promotion

Plan; Redistricting and Adding Two

Importer Members to the National

Watermelon Promotion Board

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule invites

comments on changing the boundaries

of all seven districts under the

Watermelon Research and Promotion

Plan (Plan) to apportion producer and

handler membership on the National

Watermelon Promotion Board (Board).

This would make all districts equal

according to the assessments collected

in each district. Pursuant to the

provisions of the Plan and regulations,

we would also add two importer

members to the Board to ensure that

representation of importers is

proportionate to the percentage of

assessments importers pay to the Board.

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.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this proposed rule to the

Docket Clerk, Research and Promotion

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs

(FV), Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS), USDA, Stop 0244, Room 2535–

S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–0244.

Comments should be submitted in

triplicate and will be made available for

public inspection at the above address

during regular business hours.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically to:

malinda.farmer@usda.gov. All

comments should reference the docket

number and the date and page number

of this issue of the Federal Register. A

copy of this rule may be found at

www.ams.usda.gov/fv/rpdocketlist.htm.

Also, pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), you may send

comments regarding the merits of the

burden estimate, ways to minimize the

burden, including the use of automated

collection techniques of other forms of

information technology, or any other

aspect of the collection of information

contained in this proposed rule to the

above address. Comments concerning

the information collection under the

PRA should also be sent to the Desk

Officer for Agriculture, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathie Birdsell, Research and Promotion

Branch, FV, AMS, USDA, Room 2535–

S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250–

0244; telephone (202) 720–6930 or (888)

720–9917 (toll free); e-mail to

kathie.birdsell@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposed rule is issued under the

Watermelon Research and Promotion

Plan (Plan) [7 CFR Part 1210]. The Plan

is authorized under the Watermelon

Research and Promotion Act (Act) [7

U.S.C. 4901–4916].

Question and Answer Overview

Why Does the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA or the Department)

Want To Take This Action?

Section 1210.320(d) of the Plan

requires the National Watermelon

Promotion Board (Board) to review the

alignment of the seven districts and

importer representation every five years.

The Board conducted a review in 1999.

Therefore, USDA is publishing this

proposed rule which is based upon the

Board’s recommendations to obtain

public input before finalizing any

changes.

What Is the Size and Composition of the

Board?

The Plan divides the United States

into seven districts of comparable

watermelon production. Each district is

allocated two producer members and

two handler members. The Plan also

requires the number of importer

members on the Board to be

proportionate to the percentage of

assessments paid by importers. In

addition, one public member should

serve on the Board. The Board currently

has 33 members: 14 producers, 14

handlers, 4 importers, and 1 public

member. However, two importer

positions and the public member

position are currently vacant.

What Data Is Used by the Board To

Conduct the Review?

The Board is required to base its

recommendations on the most recent

three years of USDA production reports

or Board assessment reports. In this

instance, the Board used assessment

reports for 1996, 1997, and 1998

because USDA production reports were

available for only 16 of the 35 states in

which watermelons are produced.

What Was the Outcome of the 1999

Redistricting Review?

The 1999 review indicated that the

boundaries of the districts needed to be

adjusted in order for there to be an equal

amount of assessments paid by the

producers and handlers in the districts

and that two additional importers

needed to be added to the Board.

How Would the Size and Composition of

the Board Change if This Action Is

Approved?

The number of producer and handler

members would not be changed.

However, the number of importer

positions on the Board would be

increased from four to six.

How Would This Action Affect the

Current Assessment Rates Paid by

Importers? By Producers and Handlers?

This action will not have any impact

on the assessment rates paid by

producers, handlers, and importers.

Why Is the USDA Inviting Comments on

This Proposed Rule Before Taking

Further Action?

The USDA is required to provide to

all interested parties a 60-day comment

period before USDA makes a final

decision on this proposed rule. The

comment period gives an opportunity to

all producers, handlers, and importers

that are subject to the Plan to convey

their opinions and concerns on the

proposed changes. Your participation is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61123

greatly appreciated and significant to

the outcome of this action.

Executive Orders 12886 and 12988

This rule has been determined ‘‘not

significant’’ for purposes of Executive

Order (E.O.) 2866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

In addition, this rule has been

reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. The rule is not intended to have

retroactive effect and will not affect or

preempt any other State or Federal law

authorizing promotion or research

relating to an agricultural commodity.

The Act allows producers, producerpackers, handlers, and importers (if

covered by the program) 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Paperwork Reduction Act

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.],

AMS has examined the economic

impact of 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

$500,000 and small agricultural service

firms (handlers and importers) as those

having annual receipts of no more than

$5 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.

According to the Board, there are

approximately 2,219 non-exempt

producers, 619 handlers, and 278

importers who are eligible to serve on

the Board.

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 proposed rule,

at least one producer member vacancy

in Districts 1, 6, and 7 and one handler

member vacancy in District 6 would be

created if this rule is adopted.

Nomination meetings would have to be

held in the new districts to fill these

vacancies.

The overall impact would be

favorable for producers and handlers

because the proposed district

boundaries would provide more

equitable representation for the

producers and handlers who pay

assessments in the various districts. For

importers, too, the overall impact would

be favorable because they would be

provided two additional seats on the

Board and more equitable

representation on the Board.

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

will provide proportional representation

on the Board of producers, handlers,

and importers.

The addition of two importer seats on

the Board would mean four additional

nominees. This is because two

nominees must be submitted for each

position. The estimated additional

annual cost of providing nomination

information by four persons eligible to

be nominated to serve as importer

members on the Board would be $6.00

or $1.50 per importer. The increase of

.06 hours has been added to the burden

previously approved under OMB No.

0505–0001.

There are no federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule would increase the

information collection burden

previously approved by OMB for the

Board nominee background information

form under OMB Number 0505–0001.

This is because there would be two

additional importers on the Board.

Since two nominees must be submitted

to the Secretary for each position, there

is the potential for four additional

background forms to be submitted under

this proposed rule. As required by OMB

regulations [5 CFR part 1320], the

revised burden, as described below, has

been submitted to OMB.

Title: National Research, Promotion,

and Consumer Information Programs.

OMB Number: 0505–0001.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31,

2001.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved information

collection for research and promotion

programs.

Abstract: The information collection

requirements in this request are

essential to carry out the intent of the

Act. The increase in burden associated

with the background form is as follows:

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 0.50 hours per

response.

Respondents: Importers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1 every 3 years (0.3).

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 0.6 hours.

The estimated additional annual cost

of providing nomination information by

four persons eligible to be nominated to

serve as importer members on the Board

would be $6.00 or $1.50 per importer.

The increase of .06 hours has been

added to the burden previously

approved under OMB No. 0505–0001.

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.

Domestic membership on the Board is

determined on the basis of two

producers and two handlers for each of

the seven districts established by the

Plan. The Board should also include at

least one representative of importers

and one public member. There are

currently four importer positions on the

Board.

61124 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The current U.S. districts were

established in 1994. They are:

District 1—South Florida, including

all south areas of State Highway 50.

District 2—North Florida, including

all north areas of State Highway 50.

District 3—Alabama, Georgia, and

Mississippi.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

District 5—Alaska, Arkansas,

Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee,

and Wisconsin.

District 6—Arkansas, Louisiana, and

Texas.

District 7—Arizona, California, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming.

The Plan provides that two years after

its effective date (June 8, 1989), and at

least every five years thereafter, the

Board should review the districts 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. In reviewing importer

representation, the Board should review

a three-year average of watermelon

import assessments.

The Plan further specifies that, as a

result of a review, the Board may

recommend realignment of the districts

and a change in the number of importer

members subject to the approval of the

Secretary. 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.

On November 8, 1999, 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 1996 through

1998, which provide figures for the top

16 watermelon producing states, and the

Board’s assessment collection records

for 1996 through 1998, including

assessments collected at the county

level for California and Florida.

The subcommittee recommended to

the Board that the boundaries of

Districts 3 through 7 be changed and

that Districts 1 and 2 be defined by

Florida counties, rather than using

Route 50 as the boundary line.

The subcommittee also determined

that assessments on imports represented

20 percent of the Board’s assessment

income during 1996–1998. The Plan

requires that importers have

proportionate representation on the

Board. Therefore, importers should have

20 percent of the seats on the Board.

Currently, the four importer positions

represent only 12.5 percent of the 32

industry seats on the Board. Adding two

more importer member positions would

give importers approximately 20 percent

of the seats on the Board. Because the

Plan and regulations are self-executing

in this regard, no change to the

regulations is needed.

Subsequently, the realignment was

approved by Board at its February 15–

16, 2000, meeting, with slight

modification. Under the proposed

realignment, each district would

represent, on average, 14 percent of total

U.S. production.

Therefore, this proposal would realign

the districts as follows:

District 1—The Florida counties of

Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade, Glades,

Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian

River, Lee, Martin, Monroe,

Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk,

and St. Lucie.

District 2—The Florida counties of

Alachula, Baker, Bay, Bradford,

Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,

Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval,

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,

Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson,

Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Levy,

Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion,

Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Pasco,

Pinnellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota,

Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,

Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla,

Walton, and Washington.

District 3—Alabama, Arkansas,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South

Carolina, and Tennessee.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, D.C., West

Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District 5—Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, Wyoming and the

California counties of Alameda, Alpine,

Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa,

Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado,

Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern,

Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin,

Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc,

Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer,

Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San

Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra,

Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus,

Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare,

Toulumne, Venture, Yolo, and Yuba.

District 6—Texas.

District 7—Arizona, New Mexico, and

the California counties of Imperial, Los

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego.

Under this proposed realignment: (1)

South Carolina and Tennessee would be

moved from District 4 to District 3; (2)

Arkansas and Louisiana would be

moved from District 6 to District 3; (3)

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Dakota, and

Wisconsin would be moved from

District 5 to District 4; (4) four California

counties would be moved from District

7 to District 5; and (5) only Texas would

remain in District 6.

This would create one producer

vacancy in Districts 1, 6, and 7 and one

handler in District 6. Current Board

members would be affected because

their states or counties would be moved

to other districts. Nomination meetings

would have to be held in the new

districts to fill the vacancies.

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.

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, Collier, Dade, Glades,

Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61125

River, Lee, Martin, Monroe,

Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk,

and St. Lucie.

District 2—The Florida counties of

Alachula, Baker, Bay, Bradford,

Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,

Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval,

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,

Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson,

Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Levy,

Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion,

Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Pasco,

Pinnellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota,

Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,

Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla,

Walton, and Washington.

District 3—Alabama, Arkansas,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South

Carolina, and Tennessee.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, D.C., West

Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District 5—Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, Wyoming, and the

California counties of Alameda, Alpine,

Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa,

Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado,

Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern,

Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin,

Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc,

Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer,

Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San

Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra,

Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus,

Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare,

Toulumne, Venture, Yolo, and Yuba.

District 6—Texas.

District 7—Arizona, New Mexico, and

the California counties of Imperial, Los

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino and San Diego.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–26488 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 36

[Docket No. FAA–2000–7958; Notice No. 00–

12]

RIN 2120–AH10

Noise Certification Regulations for

Helicopters; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM); correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the notice of proposed

rulemaking, published in the Federal

Register on October 5, 2000 (65 FR

59634). That NPRM proposed changes

to the noise certification regulations for

helicopters. Those proposed changes are

based on a joint effort by the FAA, the

European Joint Aviation Authorities

(JAA), and Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC), to

harmonize the U.S. noise certification

regulations and the European Joint

Aviation Requirements (JAR) for

helicopter. The harmonization of the

noise certification standards would

simplify airworthiness approvals for

import and export purposes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Liu, (202) 493–4864.

Correction of Publication

In NPRM FR Doc. 00–24634,

beginning on page 59634 in the Federal

Register issue of October 5, 2000, make

the following corrections:

1. On page 59634, in column 1, in the

heading section, beginning on line 4,

correct ‘‘Notice No. 00–11’’ to read

‘‘Notice No. 00–12’’.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 10,

2000.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations

Division.

[FR Doc. 00–26513 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ANM–14]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace, Prineville, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

establish Class E airspace at Prineville,

OR. New Area Navigation (RNAV)

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedures (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 10,

RNAV RWY 28, and Non-Directional

Beacon (NDB) RWY 10 SIAP at

Prineville Airport has made this

proposal necessary. Class E 700 foot,

and 1,200 foot controlled airspace,

above the surface of the earth is required

to contain aircraft executing the NDB

RWY 10, RNAV RWY 10, and RNAV

RWY 28 SIAPs to Prineville Airport.

The intended effect of this proposal is

to provide adequate controlled airspace

for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)

operations at Prineville Airport,

Prineville, OR.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Airspace Branch, ANM–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ANM–14, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel for

the Northwest Mountain Region at the

same address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Airspace Branch, at the

address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ANM–14, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056:

telephone number: (425) 227–2527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments, as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this action must submit,

with those comments, a self-addressed