13400 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1210

[FV–00–703 FR]

Watermelon Research and Promotion

Plan; Redistricting and Adding Two

Importer Members to the National

Watermelon Promotion Board

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule changes the

boundaries of all seven districts under

the Watermelon Research and

Promotion Plan (Plan) to apportion

producer and handler membership on

the National Watermelon Promotion

Board (Board). This will make all

districts equal according to the

assessments collected in each district.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Plan

and regulations, this rule will also add

two importer members to the Board to

ensure that representation of importers

is proportionate to the percentage of

assessments importers pay to the Board.

These changes are based on a review of

the production and assessments paid in

each district and the amount of

watermelon import assessments, which

the Plan requires at least every five

years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathie Birdsell, Research and Promotion

Branch, FV, AMS, USDA, Room 2535–

S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250–

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

720–9917 (toll free); e-mail to

kathie.birdsell@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule is issued under the Watermelon

Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) (7

CFR part 1210). The Plan is authorized

under the Watermelon Research and

Promotion Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901–

4916). Prior document in this

proceeding: A proposed rule published

in the October 16, 2000, issue of the

Federal Register (65 FR 61122).

Question and Answer Overview

Why is this action being taken?

Section 1210.320 (d) of the Plan

requires the National Watermelon

Promotion Board (Board) to review the

alignment of the seven districts and

importer representation every five years.

The Board conducted a review in 1999

and made recommendations to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA published those

recommendations as a proposed rule in

the October 16, 2000, issue of the

Federal Register. No comments were

received on the proposed rule.

Therefore, this rule implements the

Board’s recommendations.

What is the size and composition of the

Board?

The Plan divides the United States

into seven districts of comparable

watermelon production. Each district is

allocated two producer members and

two handler members. The Plan also

requires the number of importer

members on the Board to be

proportionate to the percentage of

assessments paid by importers. In

addition, one public member should

serve on the Board. The Board currently

has 33 members: 14 producers, 14

handlers, 4 importers, and 1 public

member. However, two importer

positions and the public member

position are currently vacant.

What data was used by the Board to

conduct the review?

The Board is required to base its

recommendations on the most recent

three years of USDA production reports

or Board assessment reports. In this

instance, the Board used assessment

reports for 1996, 1997, and 1998

because USDA production reports were

available for only 16 of the 35 states in

which watermelons are produced.

What was the outcome of the 1999

redistricting review?

The 1999 review indicated that the

boundaries of the districts needed to be

adjusted in order for there to be an equal

amount of assessments paid by the

producers and handlers in the districts

and that two additional importers

needed to be added to the Board.

How will this action change the size and

composition of the Board?

The number of producer and handler

members will not be changed. However,

the number of importer positions on the

Board will be increased from four to six.

Will this action affect the current

assessment rates paid by importers? By

producers and handlers?

This action will not have any impact

on the assessment rates paid by

producers, handlers, and importers.

Executive Orders 12886 and 12988

This rule has been determined ‘‘not

significant’’ for purposes of Executive

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

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

In addition, this rule has been

reviewed under Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform. The rule is not

intended to have retroactive effect and

will not affect or preempt any other

State or Federal law authorizing

promotion or research relating to an

agricultural commodity.

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

covered by the program) to file a written

petition with the Secretary of

Agriculture (Secretary) if they believe

that the Plan, any provision of the Plan,

or any obligation imposed in connection

with the Plan, is not established in

accordance with law. In any petition,

the person may request a modification

of the Plan or an exemption from the

Plan. The petitioner will have the

opportunity for a hearing on the

petition. Afterwards, an Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision.

If the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ’s

ruling, the petitioner has 30 days to

appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will

issue a ruling on behalf of the Secretary.

If the petitioner disagrees with the

Secretary’s ruling, the petitioner may

file, within 20 days, an appeal in the

U.S. District Court for the district where

the petitioner resides or conducts

business.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Paperwork Reduction Act

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),

AMS has examined the economic

impact of this rule on the small

producers, handlers, and importers that

will be affected by this rule.

The Small Business Administration

defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small

agricultural producers as those having

annual receipts of no more than

$500,000 and small agricultural service

firms (handlers and importers) as those

having annual receipts of no more than

$5 million. Under these definitions, the

majority of the producers, handlers, and

importers that would be affected by this

rule would be considered small entities.

Producers of less than 10 acres of

watermelons are exempt from this

program. Importers of less than 150,000

pounds of watermelons per year are also

exempt.

According to the Board, there are

approximately 2,219 non-exempt

producers, 619 handlers, and 278

importers who are eligible to serve on

the Board.

The Plan requires producers to be

nominated by producers, handlers to be

nominated by handlers, and importers

to be nominated by importers. This will

not change. Because some current

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 13401

members are in states or counties which

will be moved to other districts under

this rule, at least one producer member

vacancy in Districts 1, 6, and 7 and one

handler member vacancy in District 6

will be created. Nomination meetings

will need to be held in the new districts

to fill these vacancies.

The overall impact will be favorable

for producers and handlers because the

new district boundaries will provide

more equitable representation for the

producers and handlers who pay

assessments in the various districts. For

importers, too, the overall impact will

be favorable because they will be

provided two additional seats on the

Board and more equitable

representation on the Board.

The Board considered several

alignments of the districts in an effort to

provide balanced representation for

each district. The Board selected the

alignment described in this rule as it

will provide proportional representation

on the Board of producers, handlers,

and importers.

The addition of two importer seats on

the Board will mean four additional

nominees. This is because two

nominees must be submitted for each

position. The estimated additional

annual cost of providing nomination

information by four persons eligible to

be nominated to serve as importer

members on the Board will be $6.00 or

$1.50 per importer. The increase of .06

hours has been added to the burden

previously approved under OMB No.

0505–0001.

There are no federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this

rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule

will increase the information collection

burden previously approved by OMB for

the Board nominee background

information form under OMB Number

0505–0001. This is because there will be

two additional importers on the Board.

Since two nominees must be submitted

to the Secretary for each position, there

is the potential for four additional

background forms to be submitted under

this final rule. As required by OMB

regulations (5 CFR part 1320), the

revised burden, as described below, has

been submitted to OMB.

Title: National Research, Promotion,

and Consumer Information Programs.

OMB Number: 0505–0001.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31,

2001.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved information

collection for research and promotion

programs.

Abstract: The information collection

requirements in this request are

essential to carry out the intent of the

Act. The increase in burden associated

with the background form is as follows:

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 0.50 hours per

response.

Respondents: Importers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: 1 every 3 years (0.3).

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 0.6 hours.

The estimated additional annual cost

of providing nomination information by

four persons eligible to be nominated to

serve as importer members on the Board

is $6.00 or $1.50 per importer. The

increase of .06 hours has been added to

the burden previously approved under

OMB No. 0505–0001.

Background

Under the Plan, the Board administers

a nationally coordinated program of

research, development, advertising, and

promotion designed to strengthen the

watermelon’s position in the market

place and to establish, maintain, and

expand markets for watermelons. This

program is financed by assessments on

producers growing 10 acres or more of

watermelons, handlers of watermelons,

and importers of 150,000 pounds of

watermelons or more per year. The Plan

specifies that handlers are responsible

for collecting and submitting both the

producer and handler assessments to

the Board, reporting their handling of

watermelons, and maintaining records

necessary to verify their reporting(s).

Importers are responsible for payment of

assessments to the Board on

watermelons imported into the United

States through the U.S. Customs

Service.

Domestic membership on the Board is

determined on the basis of two

producers and two handlers for each of

the seven districts established by the

Plan. The Board should also include at

least one representative of importers

and one public member. There are

currently four importer positions on the

Board.

The current U.S. districts were

established in 1994. They are:

District 1—South Florida, including

all south areas of State Highway 50.

District 2—North Florida, including

all north areas of State Highway 50.

District 3—Alabama, Georgia, and

Mississippi.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,

Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

District 5—Alaska, Arkansas,

Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee,

and Wisconsin.

District 6—Arkansas, Louisiana, and

Texas.

District 7—Arizona, California, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming.

The Plan provides that two years after

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

least every five years thereafter, the

Board should review the districts to

determine whether realignment of the

districts is necessary.

When making a review, the Plan

specifies that the Board should consider

factors such as the most recent three

years of USDA production reports or

Board assessment reports if USDA

production reports are unavailable,

shifts and trends in quantities of

watermelons produced, and any other

relevant factors. In reviewing importer

representation, the Board should review

a three-year average of watermelon

import assessments.

The Plan further specifies that, as a

result of a review, the Board may

recommend realignment of the districts

and a change in the number of importer

members subject to the approval of the

Secretary. Any realignment should be

recommended by the Board at least six

months prior to the date of the call for

nominations and should become

effective at least 30 days prior to this

date.

On November 8, 1999, the Board

appointed a subcommittee to begin

reviewing the U.S. districts and to

determine whether realignment was

necessary based on production and

assessment collections in the current

districts. During the review, as

prescribed by the Plan, the

subcommittee reviewed USDA’s Annual

Crop Summary reports for 1996 through

1998, which provide figures for the top

16 watermelon producing states, and the

Board’s assessment collection records

for 1996 through 1998, including

assessments collected at the county

level for California and Florida.

The subcommittee recommended to

the Board that the boundaries of

Districts 3 through 7 be changed and

that Districts 1 and 2 be defined by

Florida counties, rather than using

Route 50 as the boundary line.

The subcommittee also determined

that assessments on imports represented

20 percent of the Board’s assessment

income during 1996–1998. The Plan

13402 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 6, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

requires that importers have

proportionate representation on the

Board. Therefore, importers should have

20 percent of the seats on the Board.

Currently, the four importer positions

represent only 12.5 percent of the 32

industry seats on the Board. Adding two

more importer member positions will

give importers approximately 20 percent

of the seats on the Board. Because the

Plan and regulations are self-executing

in this regard, no change to the

regulations is needed.

Subsequently, the realignment was

approved by Board at its February 15–

16, 2000, meeting, with slight

modification. Under the realignment,

each district will represent, on average,

14 percent of total U.S. production.

Therefore, this final rule will realign

the districts as follows:

District 1—The Florida counties of

Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade, Glades,

Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian

River, Lee, Martin, Monroe,

Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk,

and St. Lucie.

District 2—The Florida counties of

Alachula, Baker, Bay, Bradford,

Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,

Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval,

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,

Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson,

Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Levy,

Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion,

Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Pasco,

Pinnellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota,

Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,

Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla,

Walton, and Washington.

District 3—Alabama, Arkansas,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South

Carolina, and Tennessee.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, D.C., West

Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District 5—Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, Wyoming and the

California counties of Alameda, Alpine,

Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa,

Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado,

Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern,

Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin,

Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc,

Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer,

Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San

Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra,

Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus,

Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare,

Toulumne, Venture, Yolo, and Yuba.

District 6—Texas.

District 7—Arizona, New Mexico, and

the California counties of Imperial, Los

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, and San Diego.

With these district boundaries: (1)

South Carolina and Tennessee will be

moved from District 4 to District 3; (2)

Arkansas and Louisiana will be moved

from District 6 to District 3; (3) Illinois,

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, and Wisconsin will be

moved from District 5 to District 4; (4)

four California counties will be moved

from District 7 to District 5; and (5) only

Texas will remain in District 6.

This will create one producer vacancy

in Districts 1, 6, and 7 and one handler

in District 6. Current Board members

will be affected because their states or

counties will be moved to other

districts. Nomination meetings will be

held in the new districts to fill the

vacancies.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210

Administrative practice and

procedure, Advertising, Consumer

information, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Watermelon promotion.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, Part 1210, Chapter XI of Title

7 is amended as follows:

PART 1210—WATERMELON

RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1210 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916.

2. Section 1210.501 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1210.501 Realignment of districts.

Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan,

the districts shall be as follows:

District 1—The Florida counties of

Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade, Glades,

Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian

River, Lee, Martin, Monroe,

Okeechobee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Polk,

and St. Lucie.

District 2—The Florida counties of

Alachula, Baker, Bay, Bradford,

Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,

Columbia, Desoto, Dixie, Duval,

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden,

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando,

Hillsborough, Holmes, Jackson,

Jefferson, Lafayette, Lake, Leon, Levy,

Liberty, Madison, Manatee, Marion,

Nassau, Okaloosa, Orange, Pasco,

Pinnellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa, Sarasota,

Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee,

Taylor, Union, Volusia, Wakulla,

Walton, and Washington.

District 3—Alabama, Arkansas,

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South

Carolina, and Tennessee.

District 4—Connecticut, Delaware,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland,

Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont,

Virginia, Washington, D.C., West

Virginia, and Wisconsin.

District 5—Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, Wyoming, and the

California counties of Alameda, Alpine,

Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa,

Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado,

Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern,

Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Marin,

Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc,

Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer,

Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San

Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis

Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra,

Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus,

Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare,

Toulumne, Venture, Yolo, and Yuba.

District 6—Texas.

District 7—Arizona, New Mexico, and

the California counties of Imperial, Los

Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino and San Diego.

Dated: March 1, 2001.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5419 Filed 3–5–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1421

RIN 0560–AG22

Grazing Payments for 2001 Wheat,

Barley, or Oats

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation;

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule implements

provisions of the Agricultural Risk

Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) related to

grazing payments in lieu of loan

deficiency payments (LDP’s), for the

2001 crop year only, to include

producers who elect to use acreage

planted to wheat, barley, or oats for the

grazing by livestock and forgo any other

harvesting of such acreage.