Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 13777 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

On June 13, 2011, the National 

Organic Program (NOP) published in the 

Federal Register a notice of availability 

with request for public comment on four 

draft guidance documents (76 FR 

34180). The topics covered in the draft 

documents addressed recommendations 

issued by the National Organic 

Standards Board (NOSB) and the USDA 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) in a 

March 2010 audit report of the NOP. 

The four documents presented policies 

on the use of kelp in livestock feed 

products, procedures for certifying 

agents in response to results from 

pesticide residue testing, requirements 

for procurement and use of seed, 

seedlings and planting stock, and 

evaluation criteria for allowed 

ingredients and sources of vitamins and 

minerals in livestock feed. The four 

draft guidances can be viewed on the 

NOP Web site at http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/NopDraftGuidance. 

The 60-day comment period closed on 

August 12, 2011. 

The NOP received approximately 50 

individual comments on the four draft 

guidance documents. Based upon the 

comments received, the NOP revised 

and is publishing the three draft 

guidance documents as final: ‘‘NOP 

5027—The Use of Kelp in Organic 

Livestock Feed; ‘‘NOP 5029—Seeds, 

Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in 

Organic Crop Production’’; and ‘‘NOP 

5030—Evaluating Allowed Ingredients 

and Sources of Vitamins and Minerals 

for Organic Livestock Feed’’. Each 

guidance document includes an 

appendix where the NOP provides a 

complete discussion of the comments 

received and the rationale behind any 

changes made to the guidance 

documents as well as any changes 

proposed, but not made to the guidance 

documents. 

The fourth draft guidance document, 

‘‘NOP 5028—Responding to Results 

from Pesticide Residue Testing,’’ has 

been revised and reissued under the 

same title as an instruction document, 

NOP 2613. Instruction documents set 

forth or clarify existing NOP procedures 

and provide information to certifying 

agents about conducting business 

related to certification and enforcement. 

In contrast, guidance documents 

provide or explain options and 

alternatives to satisfy regulatory 

requirements, set forth changes in 

interpretation of policy, or address 

unusually complex or highly 

controversial issues. Upon 

consideration of the objectives of the 

content in the final document, the NOP 

has issued NOP 2613 as an instruction 

document, rather than guidance, since 

the purpose is to explain to certifying 

agents how to respond to results from 

pesticide residue testing. Because this 

was issued as a draft guidance with 

request for comment, this instruction 

includes an appendix where the NOP 

provides a discussion of the comments 

received on the draft guidance and the 

rationale behind any changes made in 

the instruction as well as any changes 

proposed, but not made to the 

instruction. 

The three final guidance documents 

and one instruction document are now 

available from the NOP through ‘‘The 

Program Handbook: Guidance and 

Instructions for Certifying Agents and 

Certified Operations’’. This Handbook 

provides those who own, manage, or 

certify organic operations with guidance 

and instructions that can assist them in 

complying with the NOP regulations. 

The current edition of the Program 

Handbook is available online at http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/ 

NopProgramHandbook. 

II. Significance of Guidance 

These final guidance documents are 

being issued in accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Bulletin on Agency Good 

Guidance Practices (GGPs) (January 25, 

2007, 72 FR 3432–3440). The purpose of 

GGPs is to ensure that program guidance 

documents are developed with adequate 

public participation, are readily 

available to the public, and are not 

applied as binding requirements. Final 

guidance represents the NOP’s current 

thinking on these topics. It does not 

create or confer any rights for, or on, any 

person and does not operate to bind the 

NOP or the public. Guidance documents 

are intended to provide a uniform 

method for operations to comply that 

can reduce the burden of developing 

their own methods and simplify audits 

and inspections. Alternative approaches 

that can demonstrate compliance with 

the Organic Foods Production Act 

(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501– 

6522), and its implementing regulations 

are also acceptable. As with any 

alternative compliance approach, the 

NOP strongly encourages industry to 

discuss alternative approaches with the 

NOP before implementing them to avoid 

unnecessary or wasteful expenditures of 

resources and to ensure the proposed 

alternative approach complies with the 

Act and its implementing regulations. 

III. Electronic Access 

Persons with access to Internet may 

obtain the final guidance at the NOP’s 

Web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

nop. Requests for hard copies of the 

guidance or instruction documents can 

be obtained by submitting a written 

request to the person listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Notice. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501–6522. 

Dated: February 26, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04823 Filed 2–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0076; FV11–905–1 

FR] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule redefines 

districts, reapportions representation, 

and modifies 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 final rule reduces the number of 

districts, reapportions representation 

among the districts, and allows up to 

four growers who are shippers or 

employees of a shipper to serve as 

grower members on the Committee. 

These changes 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: Effective March 4, 2013. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
13778 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 

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: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule 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 final rule 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 final rule redefines districts, 

reapportions representation, and 

modifies the qualifications for 

membership on the Committee. This 

rule reduces the number of districts, 

reapportions grower representation 

among the districts, and allows up to 

four growers who are shippers or 

employees of a shipper to serve as 

grower members on the Committee. 

These changes 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 

addition, this section provides the 

authority for the Committee, with the 

approval of the Secretary, to establish 

alternative qualifications for grower 

members. The qualifications in this 

section specify that grower members 

cannot be shippers or employees of 

shippers. 

Prior to this change, § 905.114 of the 

order’s administrative rules and 

regulations listed and defined four 

grower districts within the production 

area. District One included 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 included the counties of 

Polk and Osceola. District Three 

included 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 

included 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. Previously, District 

One was represented by one grower 

member and alternate; District Two was 

represented by two grower members and 

alternates; Districts Three and Four 

were represented by three grower 

members and alternates. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 13779 

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 

becomes District Two, and District Four 

becomes 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 nine growers serving on the 

Committee, each member represents 

approximately 11 percent of fresh 

production. Under the subcommittee 

recommendation, District One, with 22 

percent of the fresh production, is 

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, is 

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, is 

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 changes. 

Accordingly, District One includes 

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 is 

represented by two grower members and 

alternates. 

District Two includes 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 

not included in Regulation Area II. 

District Two is represented by three 

grower members and alternates. 

District Three includes 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 has 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. 

Prior to this change, a grower who 

was affiliated with or was an employee 

of a shipper did 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 determined 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 

change 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 

change provides 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 

makes 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 helps bring additional 

perspectives and ideas to the 

Committee, allows another segment of 

growers to serve on the Committee, and 

creates an increased opportunity for 

participation by small citrus operations. 

Further, retaining five of the nine 

grower seats as seats for only pure 

growers helps 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 will better reflect the current 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
13780 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

industry structure. Widening the pool of 

growers from which members are 

nominated also creates 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 will be held in May 2013. 

In order to give the industry ample 

notice of these changes, and because 

Section 905.14 requires that this 

announcement occur on or before March 

1 of the then current fiscal year, the 

modifications need to be in effect prior 

to March 1, 2013, to be utilized in the 

May 2013 elections. 

Final 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 final 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 final rule reduces the number of 

districts from four to three, reapportions 

grower representation among the 

districts, and allows up to four growers 

who are shippers or employees of 

shippers to serve as grower members on 

the Committee. These changes 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 revises § 905.114 

of the regulations regarding grower 

districts and the allotment of members 

amongst those districts, and adds 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 changes were 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a meeting on July 14, 

2011. 

It is not anticipated that this action 

will impose any additional costs on the 

industry. This action will 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 also creates 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 changes are intended to 

make the Committee more 

representative of the current industry. 

The effects of this rule will 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, 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 creates 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 

are necessary. Should any changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

This final rule requires textual 

changes to the form FV–163, 

Confidential Background Statement. 

However, the changes are purely 

cosmetic and do not affect the burden. 

In light of the redistricting, District Four 

is removed as a check-off option. A 

statement on the form is also reworded 

to accommodate the revision in grower 

member qualifications. With this 

change, the OMB currently approved 

total burden for completing FV–163 

remains the same. A Justification for 

Change for this change has been 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, this final rule will 

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 final 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 41 / Friday, March 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 13781 

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. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on December 12, 2012 (77 FR 

73961). Copies of the rule were mailed 

or sent via facsimile to all Committee 

members and Florida citrus handlers. 

Finally, the rule was made available 

through the Internet by USDA and the 

Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day 

comment period ending January 11, 

2013, was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. No 

comments were received. 

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 Jeffrey Smutny 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because Committee 

nominations are scheduled to be held in 

the spring, and these changes 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. Also, a 30- 

day comment period was provided for 

in the proposed rule. 

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 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 revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 905.114 Redistricting of citrus districts 

and reapportionment of grower members. 

Pursuant to § 905.14, the citrus 

districts and membership allotted each 

district shall be as follows: 

(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, 

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. In § 905.120, add paragraph (g) 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: February 25, 2013. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04787 Filed 2–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 2520 

RIN 1210–AB51 

Filings Required of Multiple Employer 

Welfare Arrangements and Certain 

Other Related Entities 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: This document contains final 

rules under Title I of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 

that implement reporting requirements 

for multiple employer welfare 

arrangements (MEWAs) and certain 

other entities that offer or provide 

benefits that consist of medical care 

(within the meaning of section 733(a)(2) 

of ERISA and 29 CFR 2590.701–2) for 

employees of two or more employers. 

These final rules amend the existing 

Form M–1 reporting rules by 

incorporating new provisions enacted as 

part of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (the ‘‘Affordable 

Care Act’’). They also amend existing 

Form 5500 annual reporting rules for 

ERISA-covered plans subject to Form 

M–1 reporting rules. Elsewhere in this 

edition of the Federal Register, the 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration is publishing final rules 

related to the Secretary of Labor’s new 

enforcement authority with respect to 

MEWAs, a notice adopting final 

revisions to the Form 5500 Annual 

Return/Report and its instructions to 

add new Form M–1 compliance 

questions, as well as an additional 

notice announcing the finalized 

revisions to the Form M–1 and its 

instructions. These improvements in 

reporting, together with stronger 

enforcement tools authorized by the 

Affordable Care Act, are designed to 

reduce MEWA fraud and abuse, 

protecting consumers from unpaid 

medical bills. 

DATES: Effective date. These final rules 

are effective on April 1, 2013. 

Applicability dates: These final rules 

pertaining to Form M–1 filings generally 

apply for all filing events beginning on 

or after July 1, 2013, except that in the 

case of the 2012 Form M–1 annual 

report, the deadline is now May 1, 2013 

with an extension until July 1, 2013 

available. The rules pertaining to Form 

5500 annual reporting will be applicable 

for all Form 5500 Annual Return/Report 

filings beginning with the 2013 Form 

5500. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES