Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Redistricting and Importer Representation, 4414-4420 [2018-01802]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
4414
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
2016–2017 fiscal period is estimated to
be approximately $7.3 million. Based on
these reports and the number of apricot
growers within the production area, it is
estimated that the average per grower
revenue from the sale of apricots in
2016 was approximately $73,000. In
view of the foregoing, it is concluded
that most of the handlers and growers of
Washington apricots may be classified
as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the
action that decreased the assessment
rate established for the Committee and
collected from handlers for the 2017–
2018 and subsequent fiscal periods from
$1.40 to $1.00 per ton of apricots. The
Committee unanimously recommended
2017–2018 expenditures of $8,225 and
an assessment rate of $1.00 per ton of
apricots. The assessment rate of $1.00
per ton is $0.40 lower than the
assessment rate previously in effect.
The quantity of assessable apricots for
the 2017–2018 fiscal period is estimated
at 6,000 tons. Thus, the $1.00 per ton
rate should provide $6,000 in
assessment income. Income derived
from handler assessments, along with
interest income and funds from the
Committee’s authorized reserve, will be
adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
This action will allow the Committee to
reduce its financial reserve while still
providing adequate funding to meet
program expenses.
This rule continues in effect the
action that decreased the assessment
obligation imposed on handlers.
Assessments are applied uniformly on
all handlers, and some of the costs may
be passed on to growers. However,
decreasing the assessment rate reduces
the burden on handlers and may reduce
the burden on growers.
In addition, the Committee’s meeting
was widely publicized throughout the
Washington apricot industry, and all
interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in
Committee deliberations on all issues.
Like all Committee meetings, the May 3,
2017, meeting was a public meeting,
and all entities, both large and small,
were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0189,
Marketing Orders for Fruit Crops. This
final interim rule corrects information
provided in the interim rule, which had
incorrectly cited OMB No. 0581–0178,
Vegetable and Specialty Crops, as the
previously approved information
collection. No changes are necessary in
those requirements as a result of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
action. Should any changes become
necessary, they would be submitted to
OMB for approval.
This action imposes no additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on either small or large Washington
apricot handlers. As with all Federal
marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically reviewed to
reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were
required to be received on or before
November 14, 2017. Two comments
were received in response to the interim
rule. One comment was a general
question about the administration of the
Order, and the other comment was a
statement of gratitude for a perceived
lower cost to consumers resulting from
the decreased assessment rate.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
interim rule, USDA is adopting the
interim rule as a final rule, without
change.
To view the interim rule, go to:
https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/09/15/2017-19553/
apricots-grown-in-designated-countiesin-washington-decreased-assessmentrate.
This action also affirms information
contained in the interim rule concerning
Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175,
13563, and 13771; the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35);
and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant
material presented, it is found that
finalizing the interim rule, without
change, as published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 43297, September 15,
2017) will tend to effectuate the
declared policy of the Act.
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart A]
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922
7 CFR Part 1210
Apricots, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[Document Number AMS–SC–16–0097]
Accordingly, AMS adopts the interim
rule published September 15, 2017, at
82 FR 43297, as final with the following
non-substantive amendments:
PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN
DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN
WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 922 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Redesignate the subpart labeled
‘‘Order Regulating Handling’’ as
‘‘Subpart A-Order Regulating
Handling’’.
■
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart B]
3. Redesignate the subpart labeled
‘‘Container Exemption; Waivers of
Inspection and Certification’’ as
‘‘Subpart B-Container Exemption;
Waivers of Inspection and
Certification’’.
■
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart C]
4. Redesignate the subpart labeled
‘‘Assessment Rate’’ as ‘‘Subpart CAssessment Rate’’.
■
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart D
and Amended]
5. Redesignate ‘‘Subpart-Container
Regulations’’ as subpart D and revise the
heading to read as follows:
■
Subpart D—Container Requirements
[Subpart Redesignated as Subpart E
and Amended]
6. Redesignate ‘‘Subpart ‘‘Grade and
Size Regulation’’ as subpart E and revise
the heading to read as follows:
■
Subpart E—Grade and Size
Requirements
Dated: January 25, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–01801 Filed 1–30–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Plan; Redistricting and Importer
Representation
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This rule realigns the
production districts for producer and
handler membership on the National
Watermelon Promotion Board (Board)
under the Agricultural Marketing
Service’s (AMS) regulations regarding a
national research and promotion
program for watermelons. This rule also
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
adds four importer seats to the Board.
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.
DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2018.
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 final rule affecting 7 CFR part
1210 is authorized under the
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901–4916). The
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Plan is codified at 7 CFR part 1210.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13715
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 final rule falls within a
category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because
this 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).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this rule will not have substantial and
direct effects on Tribal governments and
will not have significant Tribal
implications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
Executive Order 12988
In addition, this final rule 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
part 1210, any provision of the part, or
any obligation imposed in connection
with the part, is not in accordance with
the law. In any petition, the person may
request a modification of the part or an
exemption from the part. 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 Watermelon Research and
Promotion 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
regulations specify 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 final rule realigns the production
districts under part 1210 for producer
and handler membership on the Board,
and adds four importer seats to the
Board. The Board administers the
regulations 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4415
importers. The regulations require 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) specifies that the
Board shall be composed of producers,
handlers, importers and one public
representative appointed by the
Secretary. Pursuant to § 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 (two from each
district), 14 handlers (two 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 § 1210.501, 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,
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
4416
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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).
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,
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
Hundredweight
2013
2014
2015
3-year
average
A
B
C
D
State
Alabama ...............................................................................
Arizona .................................................................................
Arkansas ..............................................................................
California ..............................................................................
Delaware ..............................................................................
Florida ..................................................................................
Georgia ................................................................................
Indiana .................................................................................
Maryland ..............................................................................
Mississippi ............................................................................
Missouri ................................................................................
North Carolina ......................................................................
Oklahoma .............................................................................
South Carolina .....................................................................
Texas ...................................................................................
Virginia .................................................................................
United States .......................................................................
377,000
1,800,000
336,000
5,800,000
864,000
6,262,000
5,580,000
2,414,000
1,056,000
400,000
843,000
1,710,000
242,000
2,734,000
5,520,000
164,000
36,102,000
456,000
1,334,000
320,000
6,384,000
833,000
4,827,000
5,130,000
2,964,000
1,089,000
378,000
837,000
1,155,000
364,000
1,862,000
5,200,000
130,000
33,263,000
420,000
1,584,000
338,000
5,512,000
761,000
5,880,000
5,510,000
2,415,000
1,040,000
315,000
572,000
1,798,000
540,000
2,736,000
5,520,000
163,000
35,104,000
Percent of
U.S.
3-year
average
E
417,667
1,572,667
331,333
5,898,667
819,333
5,656,333
5,406,667
2,597,667
1,061,667
364,333
750,667
1,554,333
382,000
2,444,000
5,413,333
152,333
34,823,000
1.2
4.5
1.0
16.9
2.4
16.2
15.5
7.5
3.0
1.0
2.2
4.5
1.1
7.0
15.5
0.4
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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.
moving the State of Alabama from
District 4 to District 7. As shown in
Table 2, under the realignment, each
district will represent, on average, 14
percent of the total U.S. production
based on NASS data, with a range of 11
to 17 percent.
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)
Upon review, the Board subsequently
recommended through a mail ballot vote
in late July 2016 that four of the seven
1 Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
44. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/
VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-042016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16
producing States.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
TABLE 2—PERCENT OF U.S.
PRODUCTION BY DISTRICT 2
Percent
of U.S.
production
Districts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16
12
16
13
17
16
11
production districts be realigned. The
districts will 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,
2 Table values were rounded to the nearest
percent.
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
4417
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
Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................................
Arizona .....................................................................................................................................................................
Arkansas ..................................................................................................................................................................
California ..................................................................................................................................................................
Delaware ..................................................................................................................................................................
Florida ......................................................................................................................................................................
Georgia ....................................................................................................................................................................
Indiana .....................................................................................................................................................................
Maryland ..................................................................................................................................................................
Mississippi ................................................................................................................................................................
Missouri ....................................................................................................................................................................
North Carolina ..........................................................................................................................................................
Oklahoma .................................................................................................................................................................
South Carolina .........................................................................................................................................................
Texas .......................................................................................................................................................................
Virginia .....................................................................................................................................................................
Other States .............................................................................................................................................................
United States ...........................................................................................................................................................
* N/A
2,448,000
N/A
6,750,000
838,000
7,659,000
6,076,000
3,010,000
1,070,000
N/A
** D
D
N/A
2,592,000
7,250,000
N/A
2,432,000
40,125,000
Percent of
total U.S.
........................
6
........................
17
2
19
15
8
3
........................
........................
........................
........................
6
18
........................
7
........................
* 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 is revised
accordingly.
Review of Imports
Section 1210.320(e) 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
TABLE 4—U.S. AND IMPORT ASSESSMENT DATA FOR 2013–2015
Domestic
(U.S.)
assessments
Year
Import
assessments
Total
$1,829,446
2,009,528
2,133,552
1,990,842
$952,484
1,033,797
1,100,810
1,029,030
$2,781,930
3,043,325
3,234,362
3,019,872
Percent of Total ....................................................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2013 .............................................................................................................................................
2014 .............................................................................................................................................
2015 .............................................................................................................................................
3-Year Average ............................................................................................................................
66
34
........................
Based on this data, the 3-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 would likely be very
challenging to fill six additional
importer seats. Furthermore, under the
program’s nomination rules, 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 Board’s 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 is revised
accordingly.
3 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
103–104; https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_
revision.pdf.
4 National 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.
5 National Watermelon Promotion Board,
Financial Statements and Supplementary
Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and
2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
4418
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Nominations will be held as soon as
possible to fill the four new importer
seats.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), AMS is required to examine the
economic impact of this rule on 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) U.S. watermelon
producers currently paying assessments
to the Board would be classified as
small businesses.
6 Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
102–104. https://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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 will be affected by
this 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 rule revises §§ 1210.501 and
1210.502, respectively, to change the
boundaries of four of the seven U.S.
production districts and add four
importers to the Board, increasing the
size of the Board from 37 to 41
members. The Board administers the
program with oversight by USDA.
Under the program, 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
changing the boundaries of four of the
seven districts and increasing the
importer membership by four members.
Authority for these changes is provided
in § 1210.320.
Regarding the economic impact of this
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
8 National Watermelon Promotion Board
assessment records, 2013–2015.
9 Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017,
USDA, p. 104.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
complete a background questionnaire.
Those requirements are addressed in the
section titled Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements. The
changes are necessary to provide for the
equitable representation of producers,
handlers and importers on the Board.
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
rule because it: (1) Provides for a
proportional geographical
representation on the Board for
producers and handlers; (2) does not
create any producer or handler
vacancies on the Board; and (3)
streamlines 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
3-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 who are both eligible and
willing to serve in the current eight
importer seats, it would likely be very
challenging to fill six additional
importer seats. Furthermore, under the
program’s nomination rules, 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 Board’s total industry
members) to ensure that it would have
a sufficient number of potential
nominees. This is consistent with
§ 1210.320(e) which prescribes that the
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
number of importer seats should be
adjusted, to the extent practicable. The
addition of four importers will allow for
more importer representation in the
Board’s decision making and also
potentially provide an opportunity to
increase diversity on the Board.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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 under
the program, have been approved
previously under OMB number 0581–
0093. The watermelon regulations
require 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 will 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 is 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
A proposed rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on September 27, 2017 (82 FR
44966). A 30-day comment period
ending on October 27, 2017, was
provided to allow interested persons to
respond to the proposal. Board staff
distributed the proposal to Board
members via electronic mail. The
proposal was also made available
through the internet by USDA and the
Office of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments
Eleven comments were received in
response to the proposed rule. Of those
eleven comments, seven supported the
proposed district realignment and the
addition of four importer seats, three
expressed concerns with the proposal,
and one was outside the scope of the
rulemaking.
The comments that supported the
proposed changes focused on increasing
the positive impact that the research
and promotion program has already had
on the watermelon industry. Several
commenters opined that gradual
adjustments such as adding new
members and realigning the production
districts after completing an analysis of
the available data are a necessary
component of the program’s continued
success. Several commenters also
acknowledged that the Board
accomplished the very difficult task of
equitably distributing representation
despite the fact that there is a variance
in production levels across the country.
One commenter stated that the four
largest-producing states ‘‘. . . will be
fairly represented while other smaller
production areas will be grouped with
states that produce little or no
watermelons on a commercial scale.’’
Three comments expressed concerns
with the proposed rule. One commenter
opined that the district realignment
could weaken the representative power
of the larger producing states. The
commenter was concerned that the
realignment unfairly left large
production states like Florida, which
will now be in one district, with the
same number of Board seats as districts
that combined smaller producing states.
The watermelon regulations provide for
seven U.S. districts of comparable
production and do not prohibit one
district being composed of just one
state. The States of Georgia, California
and Texas are already in their own
respective district. The Board’s
recommendation, as adopted herein by
USDA, provides for a proportional
geographical representation of
producers and handlers (on average
each district accounts for 14 percent of
total production), creates no vacancies
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4419
within a district, and streamlines the
nomination process for District 1 by
consolidating all of the Florida counties.
Further, the Board is composed of
members representing both large and
small states, and all members voting
supported the district realignment.
The commenter also suggested that
the increase in the number of importer
seats be implemented gradually. The
watermelon regulations require importer
representation on the Board to be
proportionate to the percentage of
assessments paid by importers. Based
on the Board’s assessment records, more
than 34 percent of the assessments
collected from 2013–2015 came from
imports. This would correspond to
increasing the number of importers from
8 to 14 members. However, because the
Board had difficulty in finding eligible
importers willing to serve, it
recommended adding only four
importer seats to ensure that it would
have a sufficient number of nominees.
This will bring the total number of
importers on the Board to 12
(representing 30 percent of the Board’s
total industry members). This change
will ensure an equitable representation
of importers on the Board as required in
part 1210. Thus, delaying
implementation would not be
appropriate.
Another commenter expressed
concern that there is only one public
member on the Board. The commenter
suggested that the size of the Board be
increased to 50 members, adding 10
consumer members on top of its current
makeup. Section 1647(c)(1) of the Act
and § 1210.320 of part 1210 limit the
number of public members that can
serve on the Board to one.
One commenter asked why the
government was ‘‘. . . spending money
on this.’’ The national watermelon
promotion program is funded through
assessments paid by watermelon
producers, handlers and importers. It is
not funded by the government or
taxpayer funds.
No changes have been made to the
proposed rule based on the comments
received.
After consideration of all relevant
matters presented, including the
information and recommendation
submitted by the Board, the comments
received, and other relevant
information, it is hereby found that this
rule, as hereinafter set forth, is
consistent with and would effectuate
the purposes of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
4420
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 21 / Wednesday, January 31, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 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 and 7
U.S.C. 7401.
Subpart C—Administrative
Requirements
4. Section 1210.502 is revised to read
as follows:
■
2. The heading for subpart C is revised
to read as set forth above.
■ 3. In § 1210.501, paragraphs (a), (b),
(d), and (g) are revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 1210.501
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
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.
Realignment of districts.
*
*
*
*
*
(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,
§ 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: January 25, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No.: FAA–2013–0485; Amdt. No.
121–376B]
RIN 2120–AJ94
Revisions to Operational
Requirements for the Use of Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to
Pilot Compartment View Requirements
for Vision Systems; Correcting
Amendment
Correction
In rule document 2018–00225
appearing on pages 1186–1188 in the
issue of Wednesday, January 10, 2018,
make the following correction:
Appendix F to Part 121
On page 1187, beginning in the third
column, Appendix F to Part 121 should
read as follows:
[FR Doc. 2018–01802 Filed 1–30–18; 8:45 am]
Appendix F to Part 121—Proficiency
Check Requirements
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
*
*
Required
Maneuvers/Procedures
*
Simulated
Instrument
Conditions
*
*
*
*
Permitted
Visual
Simulator
Inflight
*
*
Nonvisual
Simulator
*
Training
Device
*
Waiver
Provisions
of
§ 121.441(d)
*
III. Instrument procedures:
(a) Area departure and area arrival.
During each of these maneuvers
the applicant must—
B
----
----
B
----
B*
(1) Adhere to actual or simulated
ATC clearances (including assigned radials); and
----
----
----
----
----
----
(2) Properly use available navigation
facilities.
----
----
----
----
----
----
B
----
----
B
----
B
B
----
B
----
----
----
Either area arrival or area departure,
but not both, may be waived under
§ 121.441(d).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
(b) Holding. This maneuver includes
entering, maintaining, and leaving
holding patterns. It may be performed in connection with either
area departure or area arrival.
(c) ILS and other instrument approaches. There must be the following:
(1) At least one normal ILS approach.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jan 30, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\31JAR1.SGM
31JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4414-4420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01802]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule realigns the production districts for producer and
handler membership on the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board)
under the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding
a national research and promotion program for watermelons. This rule
also
[[Page 4415]]
adds four importer seats to the Board. 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.
DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2018.
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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule affecting 7 CFR part 1210 is authorized under the
Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916). The
Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan is codified at 7 CFR part 1210.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13715
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 final rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because this 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 final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this rule will
not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will
not have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Order 12988
In addition, this final rule 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 part 1210, any
provision of the part, or any obligation imposed in connection with the
part, is not in accordance with the law. In any petition, the person
may request a modification of the part or an exemption from the part.
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 Watermelon Research and Promotion 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 regulations specify 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 final rule realigns the production districts under part 1210
for producer and handler membership on the Board, and adds four
importer seats to the Board. The Board administers the regulations 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 regulations require 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) specifies that the Board shall be composed of
producers, handlers, importers and one public representative appointed
by the Secretary. Pursuant to Sec. 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 (two from
each district), 14 handlers (two 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 Sec. 1210.501, 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,
[[Page 4416]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vegetables 2015 Summary, February 2016, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 44. https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-04-2016.pdf. NASS lists watermelon data for 16 producing States.
Table 1--U.S. Watermelon Production Figures From 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundredweight Percent of
State ------------------------------------------------ 3-year average 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.
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 will represent, on average, 14 percent of the total U.S.
production based on NASS data, with a range of 11 to 17 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Table values were rounded to the nearest percent.
Table 2--Percent of U.S. Production by District \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Districts 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 districts will 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,
[[Page 4417]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 103-104; https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf.
Table 3--U.S. Watermelon Production Figures 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
State Hundredweight 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 is revised accordingly.
Review of Imports
Section 1210.320(e) 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National 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.
\5\ National Watermelon Promotion Board, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, and
2015, BDO USA, LLP, July 25, 2016, p. 8.
Table 4--U.S. and Import Assessment Data for 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic
Year (U.S.) Import Total
assessments assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 3-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 would likely be very challenging to
fill six additional importer seats. Furthermore, under the program's
nomination rules, 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 Board's 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 is revised accordingly.
[[Page 4418]]
Nominations will be held as soon as possible to fill the four new
importer seats.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601-612), AMS is required to examine the economic impact of this rule
on 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. x $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) U.S. watermelon producers currently
paying assessments to the Board would be classified as small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Vegetables 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, p. 102-104. https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 x
$.0186 f.o.b. equals approximately $7,500,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Watermelon Promotion Board assessment records,
2013-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
will be affected by this 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Vegetables, 2016 Summary, February 2017, USDA, p. 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule revises Sec. Sec. 1210.501 and 1210.502, respectively,
to change the boundaries of four of the seven U.S. production districts
and add four importers to the Board, increasing the size of the Board
from 37 to 41 members. The Board administers the program with oversight
by USDA.
Under the program, 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
changing the boundaries of four of the seven districts and increasing
the importer membership by four members. Authority for these changes is
provided in Sec. 1210.320.
Regarding the economic impact of this 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 changes
are necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers,
handlers and importers on the Board.
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 rule because
it: (1) Provides for a proportional geographical representation on the
Board for producers and handlers; (2) does not create any producer or
handler vacancies on the Board; and (3) streamlines 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 3-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 who are
both eligible and willing to serve in the current eight importer seats,
it would likely be very challenging to fill six additional importer
seats. Furthermore, under the program's nomination rules, 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 Board's
total industry members) to ensure that it would have a sufficient
number of potential nominees. This is consistent with Sec. 1210.320(e)
which prescribes that the
[[Page 4419]]
number of importer seats should be adjusted, to the extent practicable.
The addition of four importers will 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 under the
program, have been approved previously under OMB number 0581-0093. The
watermelon regulations require 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 will 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 is 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 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.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal
Register on September 27, 2017 (82 FR 44966). A 30-day comment period
ending on October 27, 2017, was provided to allow interested persons to
respond to the proposal. Board staff distributed the proposal to Board
members via electronic mail. The proposal was also made available
through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments
Eleven comments were received in response to the proposed rule. Of
those eleven comments, seven supported the proposed district
realignment and the addition of four importer seats, three expressed
concerns with the proposal, and one was outside the scope of the
rulemaking.
The comments that supported the proposed changes focused on
increasing the positive impact that the research and promotion program
has already had on the watermelon industry. Several commenters opined
that gradual adjustments such as adding new members and realigning the
production districts after completing an analysis of the available data
are a necessary component of the program's continued success. Several
commenters also acknowledged that the Board accomplished the very
difficult task of equitably distributing representation despite the
fact that there is a variance in production levels across the country.
One commenter stated that the four largest-producing states ``. . .
will be fairly represented while other smaller production areas will be
grouped with states that produce little or no watermelons on a
commercial scale.''
Three comments expressed concerns with the proposed rule. One
commenter opined that the district realignment could weaken the
representative power of the larger producing states. The commenter was
concerned that the realignment unfairly left large production states
like Florida, which will now be in one district, with the same number
of Board seats as districts that combined smaller producing states. The
watermelon regulations provide for seven U.S. districts of comparable
production and do not prohibit one district being composed of just one
state. The States of Georgia, California and Texas are already in their
own respective district. The Board's recommendation, as adopted herein
by USDA, provides for a proportional geographical representation of
producers and handlers (on average each district accounts for 14
percent of total production), creates no vacancies within a district,
and streamlines the nomination process for District 1 by consolidating
all of the Florida counties. Further, the Board is composed of members
representing both large and small states, and all members voting
supported the district realignment.
The commenter also suggested that the increase in the number of
importer seats be implemented gradually. The watermelon regulations
require importer representation on the Board to be proportionate to the
percentage of assessments paid by importers. Based on the Board's
assessment records, more than 34 percent of the assessments collected
from 2013-2015 came from imports. This would correspond to increasing
the number of importers from 8 to 14 members. However, because the
Board had difficulty in finding eligible importers willing to serve, it
recommended adding only four importer seats to ensure that it would
have a sufficient number of nominees. This will bring the total number
of importers on the Board to 12 (representing 30 percent of the Board's
total industry members). This change will ensure an equitable
representation of importers on the Board as required in part 1210.
Thus, delaying implementation would not be appropriate.
Another commenter expressed concern that there is only one public
member on the Board. The commenter suggested that the size of the Board
be increased to 50 members, adding 10 consumer members on top of its
current makeup. Section 1647(c)(1) of the Act and Sec. 1210.320 of
part 1210 limit the number of public members that can serve on the
Board to one.
One commenter asked why the government was ``. . . spending money
on this.'' The national watermelon promotion program is funded through
assessments paid by watermelon producers, handlers and importers. It is
not funded by the government or taxpayer funds.
No changes have been made to the proposed rule based on the
comments received.
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Board, the comments
received, and other relevant information, it is hereby found that this
rule, as hereinafter set forth, is consistent with and would effectuate
the purposes of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
[[Page 4420]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Watermelon promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1210 is
amended as follows:
PART 1210--WATERMELON RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN
0
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--Administrative Requirements
0
2. The heading for subpart C is revised to read as set forth above.
0
3. In Sec. 1210.501, paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (g) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1210.501 Realignment of districts.
* * * * *
(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 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.
0
4. Section 1210.502 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1210.502 Importer members.
Pursuant to Sec. 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: January 25, 2018.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-01802 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
