Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan; Realignment

 
CONTENT
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
Rules and Regulations Federal Register
56471
Vol. 85, No. 178
Monday, September 14, 2020
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1210
[Document Number AMS–SC–19–0109]
Watermelon Research and Promotion
Plan; Realignment
AGENCY
: Agricultural Marketing Service.
ACTION
: Final rule.
SUMMARY
: This rule realigns the
representation 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
reduces the number of production
districts and the number of importers on
the Board, accordingly. This rule also
makes administrative changes to other
provisions of the Watermelon Research
and Promotion Plan (Plan).
DATES
: Effective October 14, 2020.
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@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
13771
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
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. It is not intended to have
retroactive effect.
Under section 1650 of the Act (7
U.S.C. 4909), a person subject to an
order may file a written petition with
USDA stating that the plan, any
provision of the plan, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the plan, is
not established in accordance with the
law, and request a modification thereof
or an exemption therefrom. The
petitioner will have the opportunity for
a hearing on the petition. Thereafter,
USDA will issue a ruling on the
petition. 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 is an inhabitant or in which
the person’s principal place of business
is located.
Background
This rule realigns the Board’s
representation and procedures under
the Plan. The realignment reduces the
number of production districts under
the Plan for producer and handler
representation on the Board, and
proportionally reduces the number of
importer seats from twelve to nine. The
Board administers the Plan with
oversight by USDA. Under the Plan,
assessments are collected from
watermelon producers, handlers and
importers. The assessments are used to
strengthen watermelon’s position in the
marketplace and to establish, maintain,
and expand markets for watermelons.
Board Membership
Currently, § 1210.320(a) specifies that
the Board shall be comprised of
producers, handlers, importers and one
public representative appointed by the
Secretary. Pursuant to § 1210.320(b), the
Plan originally divided the United
States 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 comprised of 41
members—14 producers (two from each
district), 14 handlers (two from each
district), 12 importers, and one public
member.
Review of U.S. Production
Section 1210.320(c) requires the
Board, at least every five years, to
review the districts to determine
whether realignment is necessary. In
conducting the review, the Board must
consider: (1) The most recent three years
of USDA production reports or Board
assessment reports if USDA production
reports are unavailable; (2) shifts and
trends in quantities of watermelon
produced, and (3) other relevant factors.
As a result of the review, the Board may
recommend to USDA that the districts
be realigned.
Pursuant to section 1210.501, the
seven current districts are 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;
District 4—The States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
56472
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
1
Table values were rounded to the nearest
percent.
2
National Watermelon Promotion Board,
Financial Statements and Supplementary
Information, Years Ending March 31, 2016, 2017,
and 2018, BDO USA, LLP.
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC;
District 5—The State of California;
District 6—The State of Texas;
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.
The districts listed above were
recommended by the Board in 2016 and
established through rulemaking by
USDA in 2017 (82 FR 44966).
In 2019, the Board’s Executive
Committee conducted a review of the
U.S. watermelon production districts to
determine whether realignment was
necessary. The committee held
teleconferences on August 14 and
September 11, 2019, and reviewed
production data for 2016, 2017 and 2018
from USDA’s National Agricultural
Statistics Service’s (NASS) Vegetables
Annual Summary for 2018 and Market
News Reports. Due to changes in the
geographical coverage of USDA’s data
collection on watermelon production,
Board assessment data was used for the
states for which USDA data was not
available. To protect personally
identifiable information (PII) of
watermelon producers and handlers, the
average of 2016–2018 assessment data
was converted to a percentage of
production. The combined data is
shown in Table 1 below.
T
ABLE
1—S
TATE
P
RODUCTION
B
ASED
ON
USDA
AND
B
OARD
A
SSESSMENT
D
ATA
2016–2018
State
Percent
of 3-year
average of U.S.
production
Alabama .............................. 0.2
Arizona ................................ 2.9
Arkansas ............................. 0.8
California ............................. 13.8
Colorado ............................. 0.4
Delaware ............................. 2.8
Florida ................................. 17.9
Georgia ............................... 18.0
Hawaii ................................. 0.1
Illinois .................................. 1.8
Indiana ................................ 10.6
Kentucky ............................. 0.2
Louisiana ............................ 0.1
Maryland ............................. 1.9
Michigan ............................. 2.3
Mississippi .......................... 0.2
Missouri .............................. 4.3
Nebraska ............................ 0.2
New Mexico ........................ 0.6
New York ............................ 0.6
North Carolina .................... 4.0
Ohio .................................... 0.1
Oklahoma ........................... 0.2
Oregon ................................ 1.0
South Carolina .................... 1.8
Texas .................................. 11.8
Virginia ................................ 0.3
Washington ......................... 1.1
Upon review, the Board, at its October
26, 2019 meeting, recommended a
reduction in the number of U.S.
production districts from seven to five,
resulting in a total of ten producer
members and ten handler members. The
proposed action recommended
eliminating two districts, retaining two
districts as drawn, and creating three
new production districts as follows:
District 1—The State of Florida (no
change);
District 2—The State of Georgia
(formerly District 3).
District 3—The States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas.
District 4—The States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine,
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC.
District 5—The States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
As shown in Table 2, each district
will represent close to 20 percent of the
total U.S. production, with a range of
approximately 18 to 24.5 percent. USDA
has reviewed NASS, Market News, and
Board assessment data, and as shown in
Table 2, determined that the production
estimates are consistent with the
Board’s recommendation.
T
ABLE
2—P
ERCENT OF
U.S. P
RODUCTION BY
D
ISTRICT
1
District Board data
(%) USDA analysis
(%) Difference
(%)
1 ................................................................................................................................................... 17.8 18.2 +0.4
2 ................................................................................................................................................... 18.0 18.0 None
3 ................................................................................................................................................... 19.0 19.2 +0.2
4 ................................................................................................................................................... 20.6 20.7 +0.1
5 ................................................................................................................................................... 24.5 23.9 ¥0.6
Section 1210.501 will be revised
accordingly.
Review of Imports
Section 1210.320(e) requires USDA to
evaluate the average annual percentage
of assessments paid by importers during
the three-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 2016, 2017 and 2018. The
data is from the Board’s financial audits
for 2016, 2017
2
and 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
56473
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
3
Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
p. 10.; https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/
usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/
vegean19.pdf.
4
2017 Census of Agriculture, April 11, 2019,
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, p.
39; https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/
AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_
US/usv1.pdf.
5
Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
esmis/files/02870v86p/gm80j322z/5138jn50j/
vegean19.pdf.
6
National Watermelon Promotion Board
assessment records, 2016–2018.
7
Vegetables, 2018 Summary, March 2019, USDA,
p. 10.
T
ABLE
4—U.S.
AND
I
MPORT
A
SSESSMENT
D
ATA FOR
2016–2018
Year Domestic
(U.S.)
assessments
Import
assessments Total
2016 ............................................................................................................................................. $2,319,704 $1,172,834 $3,492,538
2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,347,522 1,049,875 3,397,397
2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,311,116 1,041,244 3,352,360
3-Year Average ............................................................................................................................ 2,326,114 1,087,984 3,414,098
Percent of Total ........................................................................................................................... 68 percent 32 percent
Based on this data, the three-year
average annual import assessments for
watermelons for 2016–2018 was
$1,087,984, approximately 32 percent of
the Board’s assessment income. To
make the number of importers on the
Board proportionate to the assessments
paid as well as to the percentages of
U.S. watermelon produced by the
reduced number of production districts,
the number of importers should
decrease from twelve to nine members.
With this amendment, the new
composition of board membership will
be reflected in section 1210.502.
According to the Board, this action will
accurately reflect the distribution of the
production and handling of
watermelons, and the resulting reduced
number of producer, handler, and
importer seats will contribute to the
effective administration of the program.
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 $1,000,000 and
small agricultural service firms
(handlers and importers) as those
having annual receipts of no more than
$30 million.
According to the Board, there are 505
producers, 140 handlers, and 252
importers who were required to pay
assessments under the Plan in 2018.
NASS data for the 2018 crop year
estimated about 350.5 hundredweight
(cwt.) of watermelons were produced
per acre in the United States, and the
2018 grower price was $16.90 per cwt.
3
Thus, the value of watermelon
production per acre in 2018 averaged
about $5,923 (350.5 cwt. × $16.90). At
that average valuation, a producer
would have to farm over 169 acres to
receive an annual income from
watermelons of $1,000,000 ($1,000,000
divided by $5,923 per acre equals
approximately 169 acres). Using 2017
USDA Census of Agriculture data, a
maximum of 373 farms had watermelon
acreage greater than or equal to 100
acres, and 13,147 out of a total of 13,520
farms producing watermelons reported
less than 100 acres of watermelon on
their farms.
4
Therefore, assuming
watermelon producers operate no more
than one farm, a majority of all U.S.
watermelon farms would be classified as
small businesses.
Also based on the Board’s data, using
a price of $0.169 per pound and the
number of pounds handled annually,
none of the watermelon handlers have
receipts over the $30 million
threshold.
56
Therefore, all watermelon
handlers will be considered small
businesses. A handler would have to
ship over 177 million pounds of
watermelons to be considered large
(177,514,793 × $0.169 f.o.b. equals
approximately $30,000,000).
Based on 2018 Customs data, over 99
percent of watermelon importers
shipped less than $30 million worth of
watermelons that year. Based on the
above-mentioned data the majority of
watermelon producers, handlers and
importers that will be affected by this
rule will be classified as small entities.
Regarding the value of the
commodity, based on 2018 NASS data,
the value of the U.S. watermelon crop
was about $656.6 million.
7
According to
Customs data, the value of 2018 imports
was about $312.4 million.
The rule revises sections 1210.321,
1210.403, 1210.501 and 1210.502 of the
Plan to reduce the number of U.S.
production districts from seven to five,
thus eliminating two districts, retaining
two districts as drawn, and creating
three new districts. Accordingly, section
1210.320 requires the number of
importer members to also decrease
proportionately from 12 to 9 members,
for a total of 30 Board members. The
revisions are administrative in nature;
therefore, there should be no economic
impact on producers, handlers, or
importers.
Under the program, the United States
is currently 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.
Regarding the economic impact of the
proposed rule on affected entities,
neither the reduction in the number of
production districts nor the reduction in
Board membership imposes any
additional costs on industry members.
The recommended changes are
necessary to improve the Board’s ability
to ensure both a quorum at Board
meetings and a sufficient number of
potential nominees. Further, the
accompanying reduction of importer
seats from twelve to nine provides for
the equitable representation of
producers, handlers and importers on
the Board.
Regarding alternatives, the Board
considered another scenario in
realigning the districts. This scenario
(Scenario 1) would have divided the
U.S. into four production districts as
follows:
District 1 would be comprised of the
States of Florida, North Carolina, and
South Carolina;
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
56474
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
District 2 would be comprised of the
States of Connecticut, Delaware,
Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Washington, DC;
District 3 would be comprised of the
States of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, and Texas.
District 4 would be comprised of the
States of Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
In accordance with the Plan, both
scenarios preserve the composition of 2
producers and 2 handlers per district.
Ultimately the Board recommended
Scenario 2 at their October 26, 2019,
retaining the State of Florida as District
1, changing the district designation for
Georgia from District 3 to District 2, and
creating new Districts 3, 4, and 5.
The changes to the size of the Board,
number of production districts, and
number of importer members are
administrative in nature and have no
economic impact on entities covered
under the program. As some producers
and handlers operate in multiple
districts, they would be able to seek
nomination for a district of their choice.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Plan’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB under
OMB control number 0581–0093. This
rule does not result in a change to the
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements previously
approved and does not impose
additional reporting requirements or
recordkeeping burden on domestic
producers, handlers, or importers of
watermelon.
As with all Federal research and
promotion 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. 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.
The Board met on October 26, 2019,
and recommended realignment of the
Board by reducing the number of
production districts and proportionally
reducing the number of importer seats
on the Board from twelve to nine.
A proposed rule concerning this
action was published in the Federal
Register on April 27, 2020 (85 FR
23248). A 30-day comment period
ending May 27, 2020, was provided to
allow interested persons to submit
comments.
Analysis of Comments
Eleven comments were received in
response to the proposed rule. Of those
eleven comments, ten supported the
proposed realignment and reduction in
production districts and the reduction
of three importer seats. One comment
expressed concerns with the proposal.
The comments that supported the
proposed changes concur that the
proposal accurately reflects changes in
the volume of imports and the
geographical distribution of watermelon
production in the United States.
Further, the consolidation of some
districts also reflects consolidations
throughout the watermelon industry
and will make it easier for the Board to
find qualified candidates to fill
vacancies. Several commenters
mentioned that as an added benefit, the
reduction in Board membership will
also reduce costs for Board meetings,
thereby leaving more funds available for
watermelon research and promotion
activities.
One comment expressed concerns
with the proposed rule. The commenter
expressed concern that the justification
for the Board’s recommendation was
ambiguous because the ‘‘other relevant
factors’’ considered as part of the
§ 1210.320(c) review were not formally
defined or explained in the proposal. At
its October 26, 2019 Board meeting,
which was open to the public, the Board
discussed three relevant factors in
addition to the production and import
data presented in the proposal. First,
Board members shared their
observations that consolidation in the
watermelon industry over the past
decade had substantially reduced the
number of eligible producers and
handlers in the production districts as
they are currently drawn. A related
issue also discussed was the fact that
despite concerted outreach efforts,
obtaining enough candidates and
nominees to be considered for
appointment to the Board had become
extremely difficult in recent years.
Finally, several members observed that
attendance at Board meetings has
declined to the point where it is
consistently difficult to ensure a
quorum.
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,
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—Rules and Regulations
2. In § 1210.321, revise paragraph
(f)(1) to read as follows:
§ 1210.321 Realignment of districts.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) No State in a multi-State district
shall have more than three producer and
handler representatives concurrently on
the Board.
* * * * *
3. In § 1210.403, revise paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§ 1210.403 Voting Procedures.
* * * * *
(c) In multi-State districts, the
convention chairperson will direct the
eligible producer voters and handler
voters from each State to caucus
separately for the purpose of electing a
State spokesperson for each group.
Election of each State spokesperson
shall be by simple majority of all
individual voters in attendance. In lieu
of written ballots, a State spokesperson
may be elected by voice vote or a show
of hands. The role of the State
spokesperson is to coordinate State
voting and to cast all State votes.
* * * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
56475
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
4. Revise § 1210.501 to read as
follows:
§ 1210.501 Realignment of districts.
In accordance with § 1210.320(c) of
the Plan, the districts shall be as
follows:
(a) District 1—The State of Florida.
(b) District 2—The State of Georgia.
(c) District 3—The States of Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas.
(d) District 4—The States of
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington,
DC.
(g) District 5—The States of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
5. Revise § 1210.502 to read as
follows:
§ 1210.502 Board members.
The Board consists of 10 producers,
10 handlers, nine importers, and one
public member appointed by the
Secretary.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–17581 Filed 9–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0005]
RIN 1904–AD67
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts
AGENCY
: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION
: Final rule.
SUMMARY
: On March 18, 2019, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to amend the test
procedure for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
That proposed rulemaking serves as the
basis for the final rule. Specifically, in
this final rule, DOE updates references
to industry standards; clarifies the
selection of reference lamps; removes
extraneous requirements in the
stabilization procedure; provides a
second stabilization option for
measuring ballast luminous efficiency;
and revises the test procedure for
measuring standby mode energy
consumption.
DATES
: The effective date of this rule is
October 14, 2020. The final rule changes
will be mandatory for product testing
starting March 15, 2021. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this rulemaking is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 14, 2020. The
incorporation by reference of certain
other publications listed in this
rulemaking was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on June
3, 2011.
ADDRESSES
: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, comments,
and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at
http://www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0005. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket contact the Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: Ms.
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1604. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–1777. Email:
Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: DOE
maintains previously approved
incorporation by references and
incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI C78.81, (‘‘ANSI C78.81–2016’’),
American National Standard for Electric
Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent
Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical
Characteristics, approved June 29, 2016.
ANSI C78.375A–2014, (‘‘ANSI
C78.375A’’), American National
Standard for Electric Lamps—
Fluorescent Lamps—Guide for Electrical
Measures, approved August 28, 2014.
ANSI/NEMA C78.901–2016, (‘‘ANSI
C78.901–2016’’), American National
Standard for Electric Lamps—Single-
Based Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional
and Electrical Characteristics, ANSI
approved August 23, 2016.
ANSI C82.1–2004 (R2008, R2015),
(‘‘ANSI C82.1’’), American National
Standard for Lamp Ballasts—Line
Frequency Fluorescent Lamp Ballast,
approved November, 20, 2015.
ANSI C82.2–2002 (R2007, R2016),
(‘‘ANSI C82.2’’), American National
Standard for Lamp Ballasts—Method of
Measurement of Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts, approved July 12, 2016.
ANSI C82.3–2016, (‘‘ANSI C82.3’’),
American National Standard for Lamp
Ballasts—Reference Ballasts for
Fluorescent Lamps, approved April 8,
2016.
ANSI/NEMA C82.11–2017, (‘‘ANSI
C82.11’’), American National Standard
for Lamp Ballasts—High-frequency
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, approved
January 23, 2017.
ANSI C82.13–2002, (‘‘ANSI C82.13’’),
American National Standard for Lamp
Ballasts—Definitions for Fluorescent
Lamps and Ballasts, approved July 23,
2002.
ANSI C82.77–2002, (‘‘ANSI C82.77’’),
Harmonic Emission Limits—Related
Power Quality Requirements for
Lighting Equipment, approved January
17, 2002.
Copies of ANSI C78.81–2016, ANSI
C78.375A, ANSI C78.901–2016, ANSI
C82.1, ANSI C82.2, ANSI C82.3, ANSI
C82.11, ANSI C82.13, and ANSI C82.77,
are available at http://www.ansi.org or
http://www.nema.org.
International Electrotechnical
Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 60081,
(‘‘IEC 60081’’), Double-capped
fluorescent lamps—Performance
specifications (Amendment 6, Edition
5.0, August 2017).
IEC 62301:2011, (‘‘IEC 62301’’),
Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power,
(Edition 2.0, 2011–01).
Copies of IEC 60081 and IEC 62301
are available on IEC’s website at https://
webstore.iec.ch/home.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section IV.O.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM 14SER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES