16798 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

This issue-focused meeting will be 

open to the public. The proceedings will 

be transcribed, and the transcripts will 

be made part of the rulemaking record. 

The meeting is intended to provide a 

forum for all interested parties to attend 

and participate in all the discussions to 

foster focused, substantive dialogue on 

the key issues. 

Those wishing to attend the April 29 

and 30, 2009, meeting may register on 

the Internet at http:// 

web01.aphis.usda.gov/ 

BRS_PublicMeeting.nsf/. If you require a 

sign language interpreter or other 

special accommodations, you may 

provide this information when you 

register or by contacting the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Parking and Security Procedures 

Please note that a fee of $3.00 in exact 

change is required to enter the parking 

lot at the USDA Center at Riverside. The 

machine accepts $1 bills or quarters. 

Upon entering the building, visitors 

should inform security personnel that 

they are attending the 340 Proposed 

Rule public meeting. State-issued photo 

identification is required and all bags 

will be screened. Security personnel 

will direct visitors to the registration 

tables located outside of Conference 

Room B on the first floor. Registration 

upon arrival is required for all 

participants. 

Extension of Comment Period 

In the March 2009 notice that 

announced the scoping meeting 

described above, we also announced 

that the comment period for the 

proposed rule will be extended for 60 

days following the April meeting, and 

that the new date for the close of the 

comment period would be provided in 

the notice announcing the date and 

other details for the April 2009 meeting. 

The new date for the close of the 

comment period will be June 29, 2009, 

which is 60 days after April 30, 2009, 

the second day of our public meeting. 

Persons wishing to submit written 

comments on the proposed rule may 

continue to do so until June 29, 2009, 

using either of the methods described 

under ADDRESSES above. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

April 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–8352 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Docket No. AO–85–A10; AMS–FV–07–0132; 

FV08–905–1] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Secretary’s 

Decision and Referendum Order on 

Proposed Amendments to Marketing 

Agreement 84 and Order No. 905 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and referendum 

order. 

SUMMARY: This decision proposes 

amendments to Marketing Agreement 

No. 84 and Order No. 905 (order), which 

regulate the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

(citrus) grown in Florida; and provides 

growers with the opportunity to vote in 

a referendum to determine if they favor 

the changes. The amendments are based 

on proposals by the Citrus 

Administrative Committee (committee), 

which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. These 

amendments would: (1) Modify 

committee representation by 

cooperative entities; (2) allow substitute 

alternates to temporarily represent 

absent members at committee meetings; 

(3) authorize the committee to conduct 

meetings by telephone or other means of 

communication; and (4) authorize the 

committee to conduct research and 

promotion programs, including paid 

advertising, for fresh Florida citrus. The 

amendments are intended to improve 

the operation and administration of the 

order and provide the industry with 

additional tools for the marketing of 

fresh citrus. 

DATES: The referendum will be 

conducted from May 4 through May 18, 

2009. The representative period for the 

purpose of the referendum is August 1, 

2007, through July 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 

SW. Third Avenue, Room 385, Portland, 

OR 97204. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 

SW. Third Avenue, Room 385, Portland, 

Oregon 97204; Telephone: (503) 326– 

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or e-mail: 

Melissa.Schmaedick@ams.usda.gov; or 

Laurel May, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, fax: (202) 

720–8938, or e-mail: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding by 

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, fax: (202) 

720–8938, e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior 

documents in this proceeding: Notice of 

Hearing issued on January 24, 2008, and 

published in the January 29, 2008, issue 

of the Federal Register (73 FR 5130), 

and a Recommended Decision issued on 

December 19, 2008, and published in 

the December 24, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 79028). 

This action is governed by the 

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of 

title 5 of the United States Code and is 

therefore excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Preliminary Statement 

The proposed amendments are based 

on the record of a public hearing held 

February 12, 2008, in Winter Haven, 

Florida, to consider such amendments 

to the order. The hearing was held 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act,’’ and 

the applicable rules of practice and 

procedure governing the formulation of 

marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR 

part 900). The Notice of Hearing was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5130), and 

contained amendment proposals 

submitted by the committee. 

The amendments included in this 

decision would: 

1. Modify committee representation 

by cooperative entities; 

2. Allow substitute alternates to 

temporarily represent absent members 

at committee meetings; 

3. Authorize the committee to 

conduct meetings by telephone or other 

means of communication; and 

4. Add authority for research and 

promotion programs, including paid 

advertising, for fresh Florida citrus. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) also proposed to make such 

changes to the order as may be 

necessary, if any of the proposed 

changes are adopted, so that all of the 

order’s provisions conform to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16799 

effectuated amendments. AMS proposed 

replacing the word ‘‘he’’ in the second 

sentence of § 905.22(a)(2) with ‘‘he and 

she’’, and replacing the word ‘‘his’’ in 

the last sentence of § 905.22(b)(2) with 

the words ‘‘his or her’’ to conform to 

other proposed changes to that section. 

Upon the basis of evidence 

introduced at the hearing and the record 

thereof, the Administrator of AMS on 

December 19, 2008, filed with the 

Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), a Recommended 

Decision and Opportunity to File 

Written Exceptions thereto by January 

23, 2009. None were filed. 

Small Business Considerations 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA), 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 so that 

small businesses will not be unduly or 

disproportionately burdened. Marketing 

orders and amendments thereto are 

unique in that they are normally 

brought about through group action of 

essentially small entities for their own 

benefit. 

Small agricultural service firms, 

which include handlers regulated under 

the order, have been defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts of less than $7,000,000. Small 

agricultural producers have been 

defined as those with annual receipts of 

less than $750,000. 

There are approximately 48 handlers 

of fresh citrus subject to regulation 

under the order and approximately 

7,700 producers of fresh citrus in the 

regulated area. Information provided at 

the hearing indicates that over 90 

percent of the handlers would be 

considered small agricultural service 

firms. Hearing testimony also suggests 

that the majority of producers would 

also be considered small entities 

according to the SBA’s definition. 

The order regulates the handling of 

fresh citrus grown in the state of 

Florida. Total bearing citrus acreage has 

declined from a peak of approximately 

800,000 acres in 1996–97 to about 

550,000 acres in 2006–07, largely due to 

hurricane damage and the removal of 

diseased citrus trees. Approximately 

7.236 million tons of citrus were 

produced in Florida during the 2006–07 

season—a decline of approximately 6 

million tons compared to the 1996–97 

season. According to evidence provided 

at the hearing, approximately 10 percent 

of Florida citrus is used in the fresh 

market, while the remainder is used in 

the production of processed juice 

products. Generally, 40 percent of 

Florida’s fresh citrus is shipped to 

export markets, including the Pacific 

Rim countries, Europe, and Canada. 

Under the order, outgoing quality 

regulations are established for fresh 

citrus shipments, and statistical 

information is collected. Program 

activities administered by the 

committee are designed to support large 

and small citrus producers and 

handlers. The 18-member committee is 

comprised of both producer and handler 

representatives from the production 

area, as well as a public member. 

Committee meetings where regulatory 

recommendations and other decisions 

are made are open to the public. All 

members are able to participate in 

committee deliberations, and each 

committee member has an equal vote. 

Others in attendance at meetings are 

also allowed to express their views. 

After discussions within the citrus 

industry, the committee considered 

developing its own research and 

marketing promotion programs focusing 

on fresh Florida citrus. An amendment 

study subcommittee was formed to 

explore this idea and other possible 

order revisions. The subcommittee 

developed a list of proposed 

amendments to the order, which was 

then presented to the committee and 

shared with other industry 

organizations. The proposed 

amendments were also posted on the 

committee’s Web site for review by the 

Florida citrus industry at large. 

The committee met to review and 

discuss the subcommittee’s proposals at 

its meeting on May 29, 2007. At that 

time, the committee voted unanimously 

to support the four proposed 

amendments that were forwarded to 

AMS. 

The proposed amendments are 

intended to provide the committee and 

the industry with additional flexibility 

in administering the order and 

producing and marketing fresh Florida 

citrus. Record evidence indicates that 

the proposals are intended to benefit all 

producers and handlers under the order, 

regardless of size. 

All producer and handler witnesses 

supported the proposed amendments at 

the hearing. Some witnesses commented 

on the implications of implementing 

specific marketing, research, and 

development programs. In that context, 

witnesses stated that they expected the 

benefits to producers and handlers to 

outweigh any potential costs. 

A description of the proposed 

amendments and their anticipated 

economic impact on small and large 

entities is discussed below. 

Proposal 1—Cooperative 

Representation 

Proposal 1 would amend the order by 

reducing the required number of 

cooperative producer and cooperative 

handler seats on the committee from 

three each to two each. 

At the time the order was 

promulgated, there were numerous 

cooperative entities in the industry. The 

committee’s original structure was 

designed to afford proportional 

representation for cooperative producers 

and handlers on the committee. The 

shrinking number of cooperatives 

entities, especially cooperative 

marketing entities, over time has 

prompted the committee to evaluate the 

appropriateness of the current 

committee structure. The committee 

believes that reducing the number of 

required cooperative seats on the 

committee would better reflect the 

current composition of the industry. 

The reduction would ensure that the 

interests of all large and small producers 

and handlers, whether independent or 

members of cooperatives, are 

represented appropriately during 

committee deliberations. Adoption of 

the proposed amendment would have 

no economic impact on producers or 

handlers of any size. 

Proposal 2—Substitute Alternates 

Proposal 2 would amend the order by 

allowing members who are unable to 

attend committee meetings to designate 

available alternates to represent them if 

their own alternates are also unavailable 

in order to achieve a quorum. If 

members are unable to designate 

substitute alternates, the committee 

could designate substitutes at the 

meeting if necessary to secure a quorum. 

Substitute alternates would be required 

to represent the same group affiliation 

(producer or handler) as the absent 

members and alternates. Under current 

order provisions, only a member’s 

respective alternate may represent the 

member if the member is unable to 

attend a meeting. There is no provision 

for a situation in which both the 

member and his or her alternate are 

unavailable for a meeting. In the past, 

meetings have been cancelled at the last 

minute because attendance was 

insufficient to meet quorum 

requirements. 

If implemented, the proposed 

amendment would allow alternates not 

otherwise representing absent members 

to represent other members at 

16800 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

committee meetings in order to secure a 

quorum. This would help ensure that 

quorum requirements could be met and 

that committee business could be 

addressed in a timely manner. This 

amendment would have no adverse 

economic impact on producers or 

handlers of any size. 

Proposal Number 3—Telephone 

Meetings 

Proposal 3 would amend the order by 

adding authority to conduct committee 

meetings by telephone or other means of 

communication. Currently, the 

committee is limited to meeting in 

person, with provision for emergency 

voting by telephone. This amendment 

would give the committee greater 

flexibility in scheduling meetings and 

would be consistent with current 

practices in other citrus industry 

settings. 

Witnesses stated that using modern 

communication technology would allow 

the committee to respond more quickly 

to urgent industry needs and would 

provide greater access to meetings by 

members and other industry 

participants. Greater meeting flexibility 

would make it easier for the committee 

to hold additional meetings where there 

is a need for lengthier discussion and 

consensus building. The quorum and 

voting requirements specified for 

assembled meetings would also apply to 

meetings held via telephone or 

teleconference. The votes of members 

participating by telephone or other 

means of communication would be 

confirmed in writing. Faxes and e-mails 

would be considered acceptable forms 

of written vote confirmation by the 

committee. 

This amendment is expected to 

benefit producers and handlers of all 

sizes by improving committee 

efficiencies, encouraging greater 

participation in industry deliberations 

and is not expected to result in any 

significant increased costs to producers 

or handlers. 

Proposal Number 4—Research and 

Promotion 

Proposal 4 would amend the order by 

adding authority to establish research 

and promotion programs. If this 

authority was implemented, the 

committee would be able to address the 

specific needs of the Florida fresh citrus 

industry by recommending, conducting, 

and funding research projects and 

promotional programs, including paid 

advertising, that focus on the 

production, handling, and marketing of 

fresh citrus. 

Witnesses testified that the 

committee’s assessment rate would 

increase to cover the costs of any newly 

authorized research and promotion 

projects, and that there may be an offset 

by decreases in payments by the 

industry to fund projects through other 

entities. Any increased assessment costs 

would be based on the volume of fresh 

citrus shipped by each handler. 

Therefore, any increased costs would be 

applied proportionately to all handlers. 

Witnesses testified that the benefits 

expected to accrue to producers and 

handlers following implementation of 

this amendment would outweigh the 

costs. Witnesses advocated the 

establishment of production research 

programs that would assist with the 

development of new varieties and postharvest handling methods to improve 

the marketability of fresh Florida citrus. 

Witnesses expect that marketing 

programs specific to fresh citrus would 

increase consumer demand and sales, 

which would in turn increase returns to 

producers and handlers. There was 

unanimous support for this proposal 

from witnesses at the hearing. 

Interested persons were invited to 

present evidence at the hearing on the 

probable regulatory and informational 

impact of the proposed amendments to 

the order on small entities. The record 

evidence is that implementation of the 

proposals to reallocate membership 

seats, authorize the use of substitute 

alternates, and authorize use of modern 

communication technology at meetings 

would have little or no impact on 

producers and handlers. Adding 

authority to conduct research and 

promotion programs would result in 

additional costs being imposed on 

handlers once implemented. Evidence 

provided at the hearing shows that 

committee expenses, and therefore 

handler assessments, would increase 

with the implementation of the proposal 

to authorize research and promotion 

programs. However, the record indicates 

that there may be an offset by decreases 

in payments to other industry entities 

now conducting research. Improved 

production and marketing strategies 

developed under the authorized 

programs would be expected to 

outweigh any additional costs to the 

Florida fresh citrus industry. In 

addition, any increased costs would be 

proportional to a handler’s size and 

would not unduly or disproportionately 

impact small entities. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. These 

amendments are intended to improve 

the operation and administration of the 

order and to assist in the marketing of 

fresh Florida citrus. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information collection requirements 

for Part 905 are currently approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), under OMB Number 0581– 

0189—‘‘Generic OMB Fruit Crops.’’ No 

changes in these requirements are 

anticipated as a result of this 

proceeding. Should any such changes 

become necessary, they would be 

submitted to OMB for approval. 

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. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act (GPEA), which requires Government 

agencies in general to provide the public 

the option of submitting information or 

transacting business electronically to 

the maximum extent possible. 

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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The amendments to Marketing 

Agreement No. 84 and Marketing Order 

No. 905 proposed herein have been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. They are not 

intended to have retroactive effect. If 

adopted, the proposed amendments 

would not preempt any State or local 

laws, regulations, or policies, unless 

they present an irreconcilable conflict 

with this proposal. 

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 

no later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16801 

1This order shall not become effective unless and 

until the requirements of § 900.14 of the rules of 

practice and procedure governing proceedings to 

formulate marketing agreements and marketing 

orders have been met. 

Findings and Conclusions 

The findings and conclusions, rulings, 

and general findings and determinations 

included in the Recommended Decision 

set forth in the December 24, 2008, issue 

of the Federal Register are hereby 

approved and adopted. 

Marketing Agreement and Order 

Annexed hereto and made a part 

hereof is the document entitled ‘‘Order 

Amending the Order Regulating the 

Handling of Oranges, Grapefruit, 

Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in 

Florida.’’ This document has been 

decided upon as the detailed and 

appropriate means of effectuating the 

foregoing findings and conclusions. 

It is hereby ordered, that this entire 

decision be published in the Federal 

Register. 

Referendum Order 

It is hereby directed that a referendum 

be conducted in accordance with the 

procedure for the conduct of referenda 

(7 CFR part 900.400–407) to determine 

whether the annexed order amending 

the order regulating the handling of 

oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and 

tangelos grown in Florida is approved or 

favored by producers, as defined under 

the terms of the order, who during the 

representative period where engaged in 

the production of citrus in the 

production area. 

The representative period for the 

conduct of such referendum is hereby 

determined to be August 1, 2007, 

though July 31, 2008. 

The agents of the Secretary to conduct 

such referendum are hereby designated 

to be Christian Nissen and Doris 

Jamieson, Southeast Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or E-mail: 

Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov or 

Doris.Jamieson@ams.usda.gov, 

respectively. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905 

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Robert C. Keeney, 

Acting Associate Administrator. 

Order Amending the Order Regulating 

the Handling of Oranges, Grapefruit, 

Tangerines, and Tangelos Grown in 

Florida 1

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth are supplementary 

to the findings and determinations that 

were previously made in connection 

with the issuance of the marketing 

order; and all said previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

affirmed, except insofar as such findings 

and determinations may be in conflict 

with the findings and determinations set 

forth herein. 

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon 

the Basis of the Hearing Record. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–612), 

and the applicable rules of practice and 

procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR 

part 900), a public hearing was held 

upon proposed further amendment of 

Marketing Agreement No. 84 and 

Marketing Order No. 905, regulating the 

handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in 

Florida. 

Upon the basis of the record, it is 

found that: 

(1) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, and all 

of the terms and conditions thereof, 

would tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act; 

(2) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, 

regulate the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in the production area in the 

same manner as, and are applicable only 

to, persons in the respective classes of 

commercial and industrial activity 

specified in the marketing agreement 

and order upon which a hearing has 

been held; 

(3) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, are 

limited in their application to the 

smallest regional production area that is 

practicable, consistent with carrying out 

the declared policy of the Act, and the 

issuance of several orders applicable to 

subdivisions of the production area 

would not effectively carry out the 

declared policy of the Act; 

(4) The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and as hereby 

proposed to be further amended, 

prescribe, insofar as practicable, such 

different terms applicable to different 

parts of the production area as are 

necessary to give due recognition to the 

differences in the production and 

marketing of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in the 

production area; and 

(5) All handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in the 

production area as defined in the 

marketing agreement and order is in the 

current of interstate or foreign 

commerce or directly burdens, 

obstructs, or affects such commerce. 

Order Relative to Handling 

It is therefore ordered, That on and 

after the effective date hereof, all 

handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in 

Florida shall be in conformity to, and in 

compliance with, the terms and 

conditions of the said order as hereby 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

The provisions of the proposed 

marketing agreement and order 

amending the order contained in the 

Recommended Decision issued by the 

Administrator on December 19, 2008, 

and published in the Federal Register 

on December 24, 2008, will be and are 

the terms and provisions of this order 

amending the order and are set forth in 

full herein. 

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. Amend § 905.22 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 905.22 Nominations. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) Each nominee shall be a producer 

in the district from which he or she is 

nominated. In voting for nominees, each 

producer shall be entitled to cast one 

vote for each nominee in each of the 

districts in which he or she is a 

producer. At least two of the nominees 

and their alternates so nominated shall 

be affiliated with a bona fide 

cooperative marketing organization. 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) Nomination of at least two 

members and their alternates shall be 

16802 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

made by bona fide cooperative 

marketing organizations which are 

handlers. Nominations for not more 

than six members and their alternates 

shall be made by handlers who are not 

so affiliated. In voting for nominees, 

each handler or his or her authorized 

representative shall be entitled to cast 

one vote, which shall be weighted by 

the volume of fruit by such handler 

during the then current fiscal period. 

3. Revise § 905.23 to read as follows: 

§ 905.23 Selection. 

(a) From the nominations made 

pursuant to § 905.22(a) or from other 

qualified persons, the Secretary shall 

select one member and one alternate 

member to represent District 2 and two 

members and two alternate members 

each to represent Districts 1, 3, 4, and 

5 or such other number of members and 

alternate members from each district as 

may be prescribed pursuant to § 905.14. 

At least two such members and their 

alternates shall be affiliated with bona 

fide cooperative marketing 

organizations. 

(b) From the nominations made 

pursuant to § 905.22 (b) or from other 

qualified persons, the Secretary shall 

select at least two members and their 

alternates to represent bona fide 

cooperative marketing organizations 

which are handlers, and the remaining 

members and their alternates to 

represent handlers who are not so 

affiliated. 

4. In § 905.29, redesignate paragraph 

(b) as paragraph (c), and add a new 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 905.29 Inability of members to serve. 

* * * * * 

(b) If both a member and his or her 

respective alternate are unable to attend 

a committee meeting, such member may 

designate another alternate to act in his 

or her place in order to obtain a quorum: 

Provided, That such alternate member 

represents the same group affiliation as 

the absent member. If the member is 

unable to designate such an alternate, 

the committee members present may 

designate such alternate. 

* * * * * 

5. Revise paragraph (c) of § 905.34 to 

read as follows: 

§ 905.34 Procedure of committees. 

* * * * * 

(c) The committee may provide for 

meeting by telephone, telegraph, or 

other means of communication, and any 

vote cast at such a meeting shall be 

promptly confirmed in writing: 

Provided, That if any assembled meeting 

is held, all votes shall be cast in person. 

* * * * * 

6. Add a new § 905.54 to read as 

follows: 

§ 905.54 Marketing, research and 

development. 

The committee may, with the 

approval of the Secretary, establish, or 

provide for the establishment of, 

projects including production research, 

marketing research and development 

projects, and marketing promotion 

including paid advertising, designed to 

assist, improve, or promote the 

marketing, distribution, and 

consumption or efficient production of 

fruit. The expenses of such projects 

shall be paid by funds collected 

pursuant to § 905.41. Upon conclusion 

of each project, but at least annually, the 

committee shall summarize the program 

status and accomplishments to its 

members and the Secretary. A similar 

report to the committee shall be 

required of any contracting party on any 

project carried out under this section. 

Also, for each project, the contracting 

party shall be required to maintain 

records of money received and 

expenditures, and such shall be 

available to the committee and the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–8171 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–77; NRC–2002–0020] 

Bob Christie; Consideration of Petition 

in Rulemaking Process 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Closure of petition for 

rulemaking docket. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) will consider the 

issues raised in a petition for 

rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Bob 

Christie (petitioner) in the NRC’s 

rulemaking process. The petition was 

dated May 2, 2002, and was docketed as 

PRM–50–77. The petitioner requested 

that the NRC amend its regulations at 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix A, to eliminate 

the requirement for assuming a loss-ofoffsite power (LOOP) coincident with 

postulated accidents. The petitioner 

believes this requirement is detrimental 

to safety because it results in fast start 

time requirements for emergency diesel 

generators (EDG) and because it requires 

operator training to focus on unrealistic 

events. 

DATES: The docket for the petition for 

rulemaking PRM–50–77 is closed on 

April 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

petition for rulemaking using the 

following methods: 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Further 

NRC action on the issues raised by this 

petition will be considered in the 

rulemaking activity directed at 

decoupling an assumed LOOP from a 

coincident loss-of-coolant accident 

(LOCA) as currently required by 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 35. This 

rulemaking activity is entitled, 

‘‘Decoupling of Assumed Loss of Offsite 

Power from Loss-of-Coolant Accident,’’ 

in NUREG–0936, ‘‘NRC Regulatory 

Agenda: Semiannual Report,’’ and is 

designated with rulemaking 

identification number RIN 3150–AH43. 

Information on this rulemaking activity 

can be monitored at the Federal 

rulemaking portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching on 

rulemaking docket ID NRC–2008–0602. 

The regulatory history regarding PRM– 

50–77, including the public comment 

received, can be found by searching on 

docket ID NRC–2002–0020. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher 301–415–5905; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area Room O1–F21, One White 

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

NRC/reading-rm/adams.html. From this 

page, the public can gain entry into 

ADAMS, which provides text and image 

files of NRC’s public documents. If you 

do not have access to ADAMS or if there 

are any problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800– 

397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail 

at PDR.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry Miller, Mail Stop O–9E3, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, United 

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone 

(301) 415–4117, or e-mail 

Barry.Miller@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: