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

44966 

Vol. 82, No. 186 

Wednesday, September 27, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1210 

[Document Number AMS–SC–16–0097] 

Watermelon Research and Promotion 

Plan; Redistricting and Importer 

Representation 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposal invites 

comments on realigning the production 

districts under the Watermelon 

Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) for 

producer and handler membership on 

the National Watermelon Promotion 

Board (Board), and adding four importer 

seats to the Board. The Board 

administers the Plan with oversight by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). These changes were 

recommended by the Board after a 

review of the production volume in 

each district as well as assessments paid 

by importers. This action is necessary to 

provide for the equitable representation 

of producers, handlers and importers on 

the Board. The Plan requires that such 

a review be conducted every 5 years. 

This action would increase the number 

of importer seats from 8 to 12, thereby 

increasing the number of Board 

members from 37 to a total of 41: 14 

producers, 14 handlers, 12 importers, 

and one public member. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 27, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

may be submitted on the internet at: 

http://www.regulations.gov or to the 

Promotion and Economics Division, 

Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 

1406–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 

20250–0244; facsimile: (202) 205–2800. 

All comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection, including name and 

address, if provided, in the above office 

during regular business hours or it can 

be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacy Jones King, Agricultural 

Marketing Specialist, Promotion and 

Economics Division, Specialty Crops 

Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 

1406–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 

20250–0244; telephone: (202) 731–2117; 

facsimile: (202) 205–2800; or electronic 

mail: Stacy.JonesKing@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is issued under the Plan 

(7 CFR part 1210). The Plan is 

authorized under the Watermelon 

Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7 

U.S.C. 4901–4916). 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, reducing costs, 

harmonizing rules and promoting 

flexibility. This action falls within a 

category of regulatory actions that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) exempted from Executive Order 

12866 review. Additionally, because 

this proposed rule does not meet the 

definition of a significant regulatory 

action it does not trigger the 

requirements contained in Executive 

Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum 

titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing 

Section 2 of the Executive Order of 

January 30, 2017, titled ‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). 

Executive Order 13175 

This action has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. The review reveals that 

this regulation would not have 

substantial and direct effects on Tribal 

governments and would not have 

significant Tribal implications. 

Executive Order 12988 

In addition, this proposal has been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. The Act 

provides that it shall not affect or 

preempt any other State or Federal law 

authorizing promotion or research 

relating to an agricultural commodity. 

Under section 1650 of the Act (7 

U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a written 

petition with USDA if they believe that 

the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or 

any obligation imposed in connection 

with the Plan, is not in accordance with 

the 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 USDA. If the petitioner 

disagrees with USDA’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. 

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. The 

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 U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (Customs). 

This proposal invites comments on 

realigning the production districts 

under the Plan for producer and handler 

membership on the Board, and adding 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44967 

1 Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016, 

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 

44. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/ 

VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-040- 

2016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16 

producing States. 

four importer seats to the Board. The 

Board administers the Plan with 

oversight by USDA. These changes were 

recommended by the Board after a 

review of the production volume in 

each district as well as the assessments 

paid by importers. The Plan requires 

that such a review be conducted every 

5 years. This action is necessary to 

provide for the equitable representation 

of producers, handlers and importers on 

the Board. 

Section 1210.320(a) of the Plan 

specifies that the Board shall be 

composed of producers, handlers, 

importers and one public representative 

appointed by the Secretary. Under the 

Plan, pursuant to section 1210.320(b), 

the United States is divided into seven 

districts of comparable production 

volumes of watermelons, and each 

district is allocated two producer 

members and two handler members. 

Section 1210.320(d) specifies that 

importer representation on the Board 

shall be proportionate to the percentage 

of assessments paid by importers to the 

Board, except that at least one 

representative of importers shall serve 

on the Board. 

The current Board is composed of 37 

members—14 producers (one from each 

district), 14 handlers (one from each 

district), 8 importers and one public 

member. 

Review of U.S. Districts 

Section 1210.320(c) requires the 

Board, at least every 5 years, to review 

the districts to determine whether 

realignment is necessary. In conducting 

the review, the Board must consider: (1) 

The most recent 3 years of USDA 

production reports or Board assessment 

reports if USDA production reports are 

not available; (2) shifts and trends in 

quantities of watermelon produced, and 

(3) other relevant factors. As a result of 

the review, the Board may recommend 

to USDA that the districts be realigned. 

Pursuant to section 1210.501 of the 

Plan’s rules and regulations, the seven 

current districts are as follows: 

District 1—The Florida counties of 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, 

Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, 

Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, 

Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, 

Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia; 

District 2—The Florida counties of 

Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, 

Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, 

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, 

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, 

Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, 

Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, 

Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, 

St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, 

Union, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington, and the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina; 

District 3—The State of Georgia; 

District 4—The States of Alabama, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, West Virginia, and 

Washington, DC; 

District 5—The State of California; 

District 6—The State of Texas; and 

District 7—The States of Alaska, 

Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

The districts listed above were 

recommended by the Board in 2010 and 

established through rulemaking by 

USDA in 2011 (76 FR 42009; July 18, 

2011). 

The Board appointed a subcommittee 

in 2016 to conduct a review of the seven 

U.S. watermelon production districts to 

determine whether realignment was 

necessary. The subcommittee held a 

teleconference on July 27, 2016, and 

reviewed production data for 2013, 2014 

and 2015 from USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) 

Vegetables Annual Summary for 2015.1

The data is shown in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—U.S. WATERMELON PRODUCTION FIGURES FROM 2013–2015 

State 

Hundredweight 3-Year 

average 

% of U.S. 

3-year 

2013 2014 2015 average 

A B C D E 

Alabama ............................................................................... 377,000 456,000 420,000 417,667 1.2 

Arizona ................................................................................. 1,800,000 1,334,000 1,584,000 1,572,667 4.5 

Arkansas .............................................................................. 336,000 320,000 338,000 331,333 1.0 

California .............................................................................. 5,800,000 6,384,000 5,512,000 5,898,667 16.9 

Delaware .............................................................................. 864,000 833,000 761,000 819,333 2.4 

Florida .................................................................................. 6,262,000 4,827,000 5,880,000 5,656,333 16.2 

Georgia ................................................................................ 5,580,000 5,130,000 5,510,000 5,406,667 15.5 

Indiana ................................................................................. 2,414,000 2,964,000 2,415,000 2,597,667 7.5 

Maryland .............................................................................. 1,056,000 1,089,000 1,040,000 1,061,667 3.0 

Mississippi ............................................................................ 400,000 378,000 315,000 364,333 1.0 

Missouri ................................................................................ 843,000 837,000 572,000 750,667 2.2 

North Carolina ...................................................................... 1,710,000 1,155,000 1,798,000 1,554,333 4.5

Oklahoma ............................................................................. 242,000 364,000 540,000 382,000 1.1 

South Carolina ..................................................................... 2,734,000 1,862,000 2,736,000 2,444,000 7.0 

Texas ................................................................................... 5,520,000 5,200,000 5,520,000 5,413,333 15.5 

Virginia ................................................................................. 164,000 130,000 163,000 152,333 0.4 

United States ....................................................................... 36,102,000 33,263,000 35,104,000 34,823,000 ........................

Column D equals the sum of (Columns A, B and C), divided by 3. 

Column E equals Column D divided by 34,823,000 pounds (the total for the U.S.), multiplied by 100. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44968 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

2Table values were rounded to the nearest 

percent. 

3 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, 

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 

103–104; http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ 

current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_

revision.pdf. 

4National Watermelon Promotion Board, 

Financial Statements and Supplementary 

Information, Years Ending March 31, 2015, and 

2014, Cross, Fernandez & Riley, LLP, Accountants 

and Consultants, July 7, 2014, p. 6. 

5National Watermelon Promotion Board, 

Financial Statements and Supplementary 

Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and 

2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8. 

The subcommittee considered three 

scenarios in realigning the districts. All 

three scenarios would consolidate the 

State of Florida into District 1 and 

would make no changes to Districts 3 

(Georgia), 5 (California), and 6 (Texas). 

Two of the scenarios would have moved 

the States of North and South Carolina 

into one district—District 2. Ultimately 

the subcommittee proposed the 

following changes: (1) Consolidating the 

State of Florida into one district by 

moving the Florida counties of Alachua, 

Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, Citrus, 

Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Escambia, 

Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, 

Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, Holmes, 

Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, 

Liberty, Madison, Marion, Nassau, 

Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, St. 

Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, 

Union, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington from District 2 to District 1; 

(2) moving the States of Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia 

from District 4 to District 2; and (3) 

moving the State of Alabama from 

District 4 to District 7. As shown in 

Table 2, under the realignment, each 

district would represent, on average, 14 

percent of the total U.S. production 

based on NASS data, with a range of 11 

to 17 percent. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED PERCENT OF

U.S. PRODUCTION BY DISTRICT 2

Districts % of U.S. 

production 

1 ............................................ 16 

2 ............................................ 12 

3 ............................................ 16 

4 ............................................ 13 

5 ............................................ 17 

6 ............................................ 16 

7 ............................................ 11 

Upon review, the Board subsequently 

recommended through a mail ballot vote 

in late July 2016 that four of the seven 

production districts be realigned. The 

proposed districts would be as follows: 

District 1—The State of Florida; 

District 2—The States of Kentucky, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia; 

District 3—The State of Georgia (no 

change); 

District 4—The States of Connecticut, 

Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, 

DC; 

District 5—The State of California (no 

change); 

District 6—The State of Texas (no 

change); and 

District 7—The States of Alabama, 

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

Additionally, USDA has reviewed the 

NASS report that was issued in 

February 2017.3 The data is shown in 

Table 3 below. While the data is in a 

slightly different format (consolidating 

some of the smaller producing states), 

the data is consistent with the Board’s 

recommendation. 

TABLE 3—U.S. WATERMELON PRODUCTION FIGURES 2016 

State Hundredweight % of total 

U.S. 

Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................... * N/A ........................

Arizona ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2,448,000 6 

Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................. N/A ........................

California .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,750,000 17 

Delaware .................................................................................................................................................................. 838,000 2 

Florida ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7,659,000 19 

Georgia .................................................................................................................................................................... 6,076,000 15 

Indiana ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,010,000 8 

Maryland .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,070,000 3 

Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................ N/A ........................

Missouri .................................................................................................................................................................... ** D ........................

North Carolina .......................................................................................................................................................... D ........................

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................................................. N/A ........................

South Carolina ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,592,000 6 

Texas ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7,250,000 18 

Virginia ..................................................................................................................................................................... N/A ........................

Other States ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,432,000 7 

United States ........................................................................................................................................................... 40,125,000 ........................

* N/A means not available; the estimates were discontinued in 2016. 

** D means that the data is withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations. 

Section 1210.501 of the Plan’s rules 

and regulations would be revised 

accordingly. 

Review of Imports 

Section 1210.320(e) of the Plan 

requires USDA to evaluate the average 

annual percentage of assessments paid 

by importers during the 3-year period 

preceding the date of the evaluation and 

adjust, to the extent practicable, the 

number of importer representatives on 

the Board. 

Table 4 below shows domestic and 

import assessment data for watermelons 

for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The 

data is from the Board’s financial audits 

for 2013, 2014 4 and 2015.5


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44969 

6 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, 

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 

102–104. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ 

current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_

revision.pdf. 

7 2012 Census of Agriculture, May 2014, USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 36; 

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ 

Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf. 

8National Watermelon Promotion Board 

assessment records, 2013–2015. 

9 Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017, 

USDA, p. 104. 

TABLE 4—U.S. AND IMPORT ASSESSMENT DATA FOR 2013–2015 

Year 

Domestic 

(U.S.) 

assessments 

Import 

assessments Total 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. $1,829,446 $952,484 $2,781,930 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,009,528 1,033,797 3,043,325 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,133,552 1,100,810 3,234,362 

3-Year Average ............................................................................................................................ 1,990,842 1,029,030 3,019,872 

Percent of Total ........................................................................................................................... 66 34 ........................

Based on this data, the three-year 

average annual import assessments for 

watermelons for 2013–2015 totaled 

$1,029,030, approximately 34 percent of 

the Board’s assessment income. Thus, 

increasing the number of importers on 

the Board from 8 to 14 members would 

reflect that almost 34 percent of the 

assessments were paid by importers 

over the 3-year period. However, due to 

the difficulty the Board has had in 

finding individuals that are both eligible 

and willing to serve in the current eight 

importer seats, it will likely be very 

challenging to fill six additional 

importer seats. Furthermore, under the 

nomination rules of the Plan, the Board 

would need to recommend to the 

Secretary at least two importers for each 

open seat, which would mean that 12 

eligible and willing importers would 

have to be secured. For these reasons, 

the Board recommended only adding 

four importer seats (representing 30 

percent of the total industry members) 

to ensure that it would have a sufficient 

number of potential nominees. The 

Board subsequently recommended 

through the July 2016 mail vote 

increasing the number of importer seats 

from 8 to 12, thereby increasing the 

number of Board members from 37 to a 

total of 41: 14 producers, 14 handlers, 

12 importers, and one public member. 

Importers would represent 30 percent of 

the Board’s 40 industry members. 

(Importers (8) represent about 22 

percent of the current Board’s 36 

industry members.) 

Section 1210.502 of the Plan’s rules 

and regulations would be revised 

accordingly. 

If this proposed rule becomes final, 

nominations would be held as soon as 

possible to fill the four new importer 

seats. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), AMS 

is required to examine the economic 

impact of this proposed rule on the 

small entities. Accordingly, AMS has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on such entities. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions so 

that small businesses will not be 

disproportionately burdened. The Small 

Business Administration defines, in 13 

CFR part 121, small agricultural 

producers as those having annual 

receipts of no more than $750,000 and 

small agricultural service firms 

(handlers and importers) as those 

having annual receipts of no more than 

$7.5 million. 

According to the Board, there are 

1,251 producers, 147 handlers, and 365 

importers who are required to pay 

assessments under the program. NASS 

data for the 2016 crop year estimated 

about 354 hundredweight (cwt.) of 

watermelons were produced per acre in 

the United States, and the 2016 grower 

price was $14.40 per cwt.6 Thus, the 

value of watermelon production per 

acre in 2016 averaged about $5,098 (354 

cwt. × $14.40). At that average price, a 

producer would have to farm over 147 

acres to receive an annual income from 

watermelons of $750,000 ($750,000 

divided by $5,098 per acre equals 

approximately 147 acres). Using 2012 

USDA Census of Agriculture data, a 

maximum of 321 farms had watermelon 

acreage greater than or equal to 100 

acres, and 12,675 out of a total of 12,996 

farms producing watermelons reported 

less than 100 acres of watermelon on 

their farms.7 Therefore, assuming 

watermelon producers operate no more 

than one farm, a majority (97.5 percent) 

of all U.S. watermelon farms would be 

classified as small businesses. Using 

Board assessment data, 930 of the 1,251 

(roughly 74 percent) of U.S. watermelon 

producers currently paying assessments 

to the Board would be classified as 

small businesses. 

Also based on the Board’s data, using 

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

of $0.186 per pound and the number of 

pounds handled annually, none of the 

watermelon handlers have receipts over 

the $7.5 million threshold.8 Therefore, 

the watermelon handlers would all be 

considered small businesses. A handler 

would have to ship over 40 million 

pounds of watermelons to be considered 

large (40,322,580 × $.0186 f.o.b. equals 

approximately $7,500,000). 

Based on 2016 Customs data, over 90 

percent of watermelon importers 

shipped under $7.5 million worth of 

watermelons. Based on the foregoing, 

the majority of the producers, handlers 

and importers that would be affected by 

this proposed rule would be classified 

as small entities. 

Regarding the value of the 

commodity, based on 2016 NASS data, 

the value of the U.S. watermelon crop 

was about $578 million.9 According to 

Customs data, the value of 2016 imports 

was about $356 million. 

This proposal invites comments on 

revising sections 1210.501 and 1210.502 

of the Plan’s rules and regulations, 

respectively, to change the boundaries 

of four of the seven U.S. production 

districts and to add four importers to the 

Board, increasing the size of the Board 

from 37 to 41 members. The Board 

administers the Plan with oversight by 

USDA. 

Under the Plan, the United States is 

divided into seven districts of 

comparable production volumes of 

watermelons, and each district is 

allocated two producer members and 

two handler members. Further, importer 

representation on the Board must be, to 

the extent practicable, proportionate to 

the percentage of assessments paid by 

importers, except there must be at least 

one importer on the Board. 

Every 5 years, the Board is required to 

evaluate, based on the preceding 3-year 

period, the average production in each 

production district and the average 

annual percentage of assessments paid 

by importers. The Board conducted this 

review in 2016 and recommended 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
44970 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

changing the boundaries of four of the 

seven districts and increasing the 

importer membership by four members. 

Authority for these changes is provided 

in section 1210.320 of the Plan. 

Regarding the economic impact of the 

proposed rule on affected entities, 

neither the realignment of production 

districts nor the expansion of Board 

membership imposes additional costs 

on industry members. Eligible importers 

interested in serving on the Board 

would have to complete a background 

questionnaire. Those requirements are 

addressed in the section titled Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements. The 

recommended changes are necessary to 

provide for the equitable representation 

of producers, handlers and importers. 

Regarding alternatives, the Board 

considered three scenarios in realigning 

the districts. All three scenarios would 

consolidate the State of Florida in 

District 1 and would make no changes 

to Districts 3 (Georgia), 5 (California), 

and 6 (Texas). Two of the scenarios 

would have moved the States of North 

and South Carolina into one district— 

District 2. Ultimately the Board 

recommended consolidating the State of 

Florida into one district (District 1), 

moving the States of Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia 

from District 4 to District 2; and moving 

the State of Alabama from District 4 to 

District 7. The Board recommended the 

alignment scenario described in this 

proposed rule because it: (1) Would 

provide for a proportional geographical 

representation on the Board for 

producers and handlers; (2) would not 

create any producer or handler 

vacancies on the Board; and (3) would 

streamline the nomination process for 

District 1 by condensing all the Florida 

counties into a single district. The 

Board’s recommendation is consistent 

with the 2011 realignment that kept 

States (except Florida) together. 

Regarding alternatives for importer 

representation, as stated previously, the 

three-year average annual imports for 

watermelon totals $1,029,030. This 

represents almost 34 percent of the total 

assessments paid to the Board. One 

alternative would be to add five or six 

importer seats (representing 33 and 35 

percent, respectively, of the Board’s 40 

industry members), so that importer 

representation would be proportionate 

to the percentage of importer 

assessments paid. However, due to the 

difficulty the Board has had in finding 

individuals that are both eligible and 

willing to serve in the current eight 

importer seats, it will likely be very 

challenging to fill six additional 

importer seats. Furthermore, under the 

nomination rules of the Plan, the Board 

would need to recommend to the 

Secretary at least two importers for each 

open seat, which would mean that 12 

eligible and willing importers would 

have to be secured. For these reasons, 

the Board recommended only adding 

four importer seats (representing 30 

percent of the total industry members) 

to ensure that it would have a sufficient 

number of potential nominees. This is 

consistent with section 1210.320(e) of 

the Plan which prescribes that the 

number of importer seats should be 

adjusted, to the extent practicable. The 

addition of four importers would allow 

for more importer representation in the 

Board’s decision making and also 

potentially provide an opportunity to 

increase diversity on the Board. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the background form, 

which represents the information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements that are imposed by the 

Plan, have been approved previously 

under OMB number 0581–0093. The 

Plan requires that two nominees be 

submitted for each vacant position. 

With regard to information collection 

requirements, adding four importers to 

the Board means that eight additional 

importers would be required to submit 

background forms (Form AD–755) to 

USDA in order to verify their eligibility 

for appointment to the Board. However, 

serving on the Board is optional, and the 

burden of submitting the background 

form would be offset by the benefits of 

serving on the Board. The estimated 

annual cost of the eight importers 

providing the required information 

would be $66 or $8.25 per importer. The 

additional minimal burden would be 

included in the existing information 

collection package under OMB number 

0581–0093. 

As with all Federal promotion 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this proposed rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

Regarding outreach efforts, the Board 

formed a subcommittee to review the 

production, assessment and import data 

to assess whether changes to the district 

boundaries and number of importers on 

the Board was warranted. The 

subcommittee held a teleconference on 

July 27, 2016. All Board and 

subcommittee meetings, including 

meetings held via teleconference, are 

open to the public and interested 

persons are invited to participate and 

express their views. 

We have performed this initial RFA 

analysis regarding the impact of these 

changes to the Plan on small entities 

and we invite comments concerning 

potential effects of this action. 

USDA has determined that this 

proposed rule is consistent with and 

would effectuate the purposes of the 

Act. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

changes, if adopted, may be 

implemented as soon as possible to 

allow for nominations to be conducted 

to fill the four new importer seats. All 

written comments received in response 

to this proposed rule by the date 

specified would be considered prior to 

finalizing this action. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Watermelon promotion. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1210—WATERMELON 

RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1210 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

Subpart C—Rules and Regulations 

■ 2. In § 1210.501, revise the 

introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), 

(d) and (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1210.501 Realignment of districts. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan, 

the districts shall be as follows: 

(a) District 1—The State of Florida. 

(b) District 2—The States of Kentucky, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. 

* * * * * 

(d) District 4—The States of 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44971 

Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and 

Washington, DC. 

* * * * * 

(g) District 7—The States of Alabama, 

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

■ 3. Section 1210.502 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1210.502 Importer members. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan, 

there are twelve importer 

representatives on the Board based on 

the proportionate percentage of 

assessments paid by importers to the 

Board. 

Dated: September 21, 2017. 

Bruce Summers, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20610 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[NRC–2017–0138] 

RIN 3150–AK05 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: TN Americas LLC, 

Standardized NUHOMS® Horizontal 

Modular Storage System, Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1004, Renewal of 

Initial Certificate and Amendment Nos. 

1 Through 11, 13, Revision 1, and 14 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its spent fuel storage regulations 

by revising the Standardized 

NUHOMS® Horizontal Modular Storage 

System (NUHOMS® System) listing 

within the ‘‘List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks’’ to renew, for an 

additional 40-year period, Revision 1 of 

the initial certificate and Amendment 

Nos. 1 through 11, and 13, and 

Amendment No. 14 of Certificate of 

Compliance (CoC) No. 1004. These 

changes require, among other things, 

that all future amendments and 

revisions to this CoC include 

evaluations of the impacts to aging 

management activities (i.e., time-limited 

aging analyses and aging management 

programs (AMPs)) to ensure that they 

remain adequate for any changes to 

spent fuel storage cask systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs) 

within the scope of the renewal. Each 

general licensee using a NUHOMS®

System at a reactor site must have a 

program to establish, implement, and 

maintain written procedures for each 

AMP described in the AREVA Inc. 

(AREVA) Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR). In addition, the 

renewals reflect the change in the name 

of the CoC holder from AREVA to TN 

Americas LLC, and make several other 

changes as described in Section IV, 

‘‘Discussion of Changes,’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of a 

companion direct final rule published 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

this issue of the Federal Register. 

DATES: Submit comments by October 27, 

2017. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0138. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, 301– 

415–6825; email: Christian.Jacobs@

nrc.gov, or Robert D. MacDougall, Office 

of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards, 301–415–5175; email: 

Robert.MacDougall@nrc.gov. Both are 

staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

II. Rulemaking Procedure 

III. Background 

IV. Plain Writing 

V. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0138 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0138. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0138 in your comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS