[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 64149-64181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X09-41207]
[[Page 64149]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2010 will continue to focus on
implementing the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L.
110-246), known as the ``2008 Farm Bill,'' which covers major farm,
trade, conservation, rural development, energy, nutrition assistance
and other programs. In addition, USDA will implement regulations that
will improve program outcomes by achieving the Department's high
priority goals as well as reducing burden on stakeholders, program
participants, and small businesses. Important areas of activity include
the following:
Nutrition Assistance
As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs,
USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve
diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight
and obesity. In 2010, FNS will continue to promote
nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing
participant and vendor fraud.
Food Safety
In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop
science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, egg, and farm-raised catfish products in the least
burdensome and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will
be revised to address emerging food safety challenges,
streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive regulations,
and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and
critical control point principles. To assist small entities
to comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety
and Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with
other USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced
small business outreach program.
Conservation
USDA will continue to focus on implementing the conservation
programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Over the past
year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
promulgated 11 interim and proposed rules and has received
public comment on them. In 2010, NRCS will finalize these
rules which include the Conservation Stewardship Program
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Promoting Rural Development and Renewable Energy
USDA priority regulatory actions for the Rural Development
mission primarily relate to promulgating relations for
programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, including the
Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural Micro-
Entrepreneurship Program. USDA has utilized Notices of
Funding Availability implement many of these programs in
Fiscal Year 2009. Regulations are needed to maintain them.
In addition, USDA needs to finalize the reform of its on-
going broadband access program through an interim rule that
will combine provisions of a proposed rule published in
2007 and changes in the program that were authorized in the
2008 Farm Bill.
USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic
opportunities to revitalize rural communities through the
purchase and use of renewable, environmentally friendly
biobased products through its BioPreferred Program
(formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred
Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate
groups of biobased products to receive procurement
preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In
addition, USDA will finalize a rule establishing the
Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Trade Promotion, Market Development, Farm Loans, and Disaster
Assistance
USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system
through trade promotion, market development, farm income
support, disaster assistance, and farm loan programs. In
addition to the regulations already implemented, including
those pertaining to the eligibility for farm program
payments, the Farm Service Agency will issue new
regulations implementing disaster assistance programs to
compensate agricultural producers for production losses due
to natural disasters. Regulations will also be developed to
implement conservation loan programs intended to help
producers finance the construction of conservation
measures.
Other Regulatory Activities
USDA will work to facilitate a fair, competitive marketplace,
support the organic sector, and continue regulatory work to
protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and
natural resources. USDA will promulgate regulations to
enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA
will also finalize a rule specifying access to pasture
standards for organically raised ruminants. In addition,
USDA will amend regulations related to the importation of
nursery products and animals and animal products. Further,
USDA will propose specific standards for the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
under the Animal Welfare Act.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the E-Government Act, agencies
across USDA are providing electronic alternatives to their
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, producers
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and all other
documentation online. To facilitate the expansion of electronic
government, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all
USDA agencies. Supporting these efforts are ongoing analyses to
identify and eliminate redundant data collections and streamline
collection instructions. The end result of implementing these
initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to choose
when and where to conduct business with USDA.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary
of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2010:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership
with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income
people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a
manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public
confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's
2010 regulatory plan supports the goal to ensure that all of
[[Page 64150]]
America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals
and its three related objectives:
Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents
FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to
program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals,
commodities) and distributing State administrative funds to
support program operations. To advance this objective, FNS
plans to finalize rules implementing provisions of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to simplify
program administration, support work, and improve access to
benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program. FNS will continue
to improve SNAP administration by developing a rule to
implement provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 that address eligibility, certification,
employment, and training issues. An interim rule
implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 to establish automatic
eligibility for homeless children for school meals further
supports this objective.
Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective
represents FNS's efforts to improve the diets of its
clients through nutrition education, and to ensure that
program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively
improve nutrition for program participants. In support of
this objective, FNS plans to propose rules updating the
nutrition standards in the school meals programs; implement
the SNAP nutrition education provisions of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; and establish
permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
which currently operates in a select number of schools in
each State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer
Service. This objective represents FNS's ongoing commitment
to maximize the accuracy of benefits issued, maximize the
efficiency and effectiveness of program operations, and
minimize participant and vendor fraud. In support of this
objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children Program (WIC) to improve program management and
prevent vendor fraud. FNS will also finalize a rule to
improve the SNAP quality control process and propose a rule
to improve the SNAP retailer sanction process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible
for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish products in
interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and
properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish
products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS
continues to review its existing authorities and regulations to
streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove
regulations that are inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and
critical control point (HACCP) regulations, and to ensure that it can
address emerging food safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two
agencies' jurisdictions over various food products. Following are some
of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In March 2009, FSIS published a final
rule requiring that all cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled at
any time before slaughter, including those that become non-ambulatory
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and
properly disposed of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS inspection
personnel determined, on case by-case basis, the disposition of cattle
that became non-ambulatory disabled after they had passed ante-mortem
inspection. The final rule removed the provision for case-by-case
determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
Country of Origin Labeling. In March 2009, FSIS affirmed its August
2008 interim final rule requiring country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of
any meat or poultry product that is a ``covered commodity'' as defined
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the regulations set out
in AMS's January 2009 final rule on mandatory country-of-origin
labeling (COOL).
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. The 2008 Farm Bill, made several
amendments to statutes administered by FSIS and gave the Agency other
instructions. As a result, FSIS is developing new regulations to
implement: mandatory inspection for catfish; a program for interstate
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products; and recall
procedure and process control reassessment requirements for inspected
establishments.
Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to
implement 2008 Farm Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. L.
110-246, Sec. 11016) to make catfish amenable to the FMIA.
The regulations will define ``catfish'' and the scope of
coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments that
process catfish and catfish products. The regulations will
take into account the conditions under which the catfish
are raised and transported to a processing establishment.
Interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry
products. FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new
voluntary Federal-State cooperative inspection program
under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer
employees would be eligible to ship meat and poultry
products in interstate commerce. State-inspected
establishments selected to participate in this program
would be required to comply with all Federal standards
under the FMIA and the PPIA. These establishments would
receive inspection services from State inspection personnel
that have been trained and certified to assist with
enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products
produced under the program that have been inspected and
passed by selected State inspection personnel would bear a
Federal mark of inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 Farm
Bill provides for the interstate shipment of State-
inspected meat and poultry products from selected
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate
implementing regulations no later than 18 months from the
date of its enactment.
Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements
for Inspected Establishments. FSIS is proposing regulations
that will implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 Farm Bill on
notification, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements
for inspected establishments. This section amends the FMIA
and PPIA to require establishments that are subject to
inspection under these Acts to promptly notify the Agency
when an adulterated or misbranded product received by or
originating from the
[[Page 64151]]
establishment has entered into commerce. Section 11017 also
requires establishments subject to inspection under the
FMIA and PPIA to prepare and maintain current procedures
for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the
establishment and document each reassessment of the
establishment's process control plans.
Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS is
planning to propose requirements for federally inspected
egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems
and sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency
will be proposing pathogen reduction performance standards
for egg products. Further, the Agency will be proposing to
remove requirements for FSIS approval of egg-product plant
drawings, specifications, and equipment before their use,
and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of
labeling for egg products.
Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS Public Health Information
System. To support its food safety inspection activities,
FSIS is developing the Public Health Information System
(PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, will
replace many of the Agency's current systems and automate
many business processes. Among the many other services it
will provide, PHIS will automate and streamline the export
and import application and certification processes. To
facilitate the implementation of these PHIS applications,
FSIS will propose to amend the meat, poultry products, and
egg products inspection regulations to provide for
electronic export and import application and certification
processes as alternatives to the current paper-based
systems for these certifications. The new electronic system
will enable the Agency to process an establishment's
application for export certification, verify that the
establishment and product meet the application and
certification requirements, approve the application, and
process the export certificate. The Agency is proposing the
export application and certification service as a
reimbursable service under Agricultural Marketing Act
authority.
Rulemaking to support control of Escherichia coli O157:H7.
FSIS will propose to require that any business that grinds
or chops raw beef products, including products that are
ground or chopped at the request of an individual consumer,
keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all
transactions involved in the business that are subject to
the FMIA. These records, such as grinding logs, provide
critical information about how, when, and where ground
product was prepared, shipped, received, stored, and
handled, and are essential to illness outbreak
investigations, recalls, and other public health activities
that FSIS conducts. Businesses that will be required to
comply with this proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected
establishments and retail facilities that grind or chop raw
beef products, including beef manufacturing trimmings
derived from cattle not slaughtered on site at the official
establishment or retail store. An FSIS-inspected
establishment that grinds or chops raw beef products
derived from cattle slaughtered at that same establishment
will be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
Other Planned Initiatives:
Performance Standards for Ready-to-Eat Products. FSIS plans to finalize
a February 2001 proposed rule to establish food safety performance
standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry
products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that
are not ready-to-eat. The proposal also contained provisions addressing
post-lethality contamination of RTE products with Listeria
monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule
requiring establishments to prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of
RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the effectiveness of this
interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject of a regulatory
reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed its economic
analysis of the interim final rule in response to this recommendation
and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to reduce the
information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS is also
planning further action with respect to other elements of its 2001
proposal on performance standards for processed meat and poultry
products, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in
processed products.
FSIS plans to propose to amend the poultry products inspection
regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment sorts
the carcasses for defects, and the Agency verifies that the system is
under control and producing safe and wholesome product. The Agency
would propose to adopt performance standards, designed to ensure that
the establishments are carrying out slaughter, dressing, and chilling
operations in a manner that ensures no significant growth of pathogens.
The chilling performance standard would replace the requirement for
ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below
within certain time limits according to the weight of the dressed
carcasses. Poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering,
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no
significant growth of pathogens.
FSIS is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration in an
effort to rationalize the division of food protection responsibilities
between the two agencies and eliminate confusion over which agency has
jurisdiction over which kinds of products. The agencies are taking an
approach that involves considering how the meat or poultry ingredients
contribute to the characteristics and basic identity of food products.
Thus, FSIS plans to propose amending its regulations to exclude from
its jurisdiction cheese and cheese products prepared with less than 50
percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less
than 50 percent meat or poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases
and reaction/process flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad
dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry. FSIS also
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and closed-face meat
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the Agency's jurisdiction.
FSIS Small Business Implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small
businesses. Some of the regulations listed above substantially affect
small businesses. Some rulemakings can benefit small businesses. For
example, the rule on interstate shipment of State-inspected products
will open interstate markets to some small State-inspected
establishments that previously could only sell their products within
State boundaries.
FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical
training, access to food safety experts, and information resources
(such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various
topics) in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent.
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and
[[Page 64152]]
operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS
employees.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers,
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the
government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS priority items for the next year include a rulemaking
required as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm Bill and a final rule
for the National Organic Program.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import Assessments). The
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA
to create a national producer program for dairy product promotion,
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers
fund this self-help program through a mandatory assessment on all milk
produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially. Dairy
farmers administer the national program through the National Dairy
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).
The 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include producers in Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay an assessment of $0.15 per
hundredweight of milk production. Imported dairy products will be
assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of fluid milk equivalent. AMS
published proposed regulations establishing the program in the May 19,
2009, Federal Register. The proposal had a 30-day comment period.
Comments received for this rule are currently under review. AMS expects
to publish a final rule early next year.
Access to Pasture. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of the
public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on the
relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and grazing
land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on access to
pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an animal's
stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a uniform
requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and
livestock products that consumers expect. AMS published a proposed rule
with a request for comment on October 24, 2008. The comment period
ended December 23, 2008. AMS received over 80,000 comments. Due to the
high volume of comments received, final action on this rule is not
expected before December 2009.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to
prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the United
States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication
programs for pests and diseases in this country. These activities
enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to
the national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts
programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work to
revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its
regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for planting) to better
address plant health risks associated with propagative material. APHIS
also plans to propose standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal Welfare
Act.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals,
oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and
competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and
American agriculture.
Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work that will finalize its August,
2007 proposed rule regarding the records that live poultry dealers must
furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The requirements contained in
the final rule are intended to help both poultry growers and live
poultry dealers by providing the growers with more information about
the poultry growing arrangement at an earlier stage.
In addition, GIPSA intends to propose a rule that will define practices
or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive, and/
or that represent the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and growers can
fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise related to
livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being proposed in
accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by the Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of Sections 11005
and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) mission is to stabilize farm
income; to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve
and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources; to provide
credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources; and to help farm
operations recover from the effects of disaster, as prescribed by
various statutes.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 2009 will be to continue implementing
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18,
2008, governs Federal farm programs through the 2012. New regulatory
actions include:
Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of
standing disaster assistance programs, including a new
revenue based program for supplemental agricultural
disaster assistance. These programs require completely new
regulations and revision of existing program regulations.
Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In addition, the 2008 Farm
Bill adds a new biomass crop assistance program that
supports the Administration's energy initiative to
accelerate the investment in and production of biofuels.
The program will provide financial assistance to
agricultural and forest land owners and operators
[[Page 64153]]
to establish and produce eligible crops, including woody
biomass, for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection,
harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material
for use in a biomass conversion facility.
Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires changes
to farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency
loans, including expanding to include socially
disadvantaged farmers, increasing loan limits, loan size,
funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers
to commercial credit. In addition, it establishes a new
direct and guaranteed loan program to assist farmers in
implementing conservation practices. FSA will develop and
issue the regulations and make program funds available to
eligible clientele in as timely a manner as possible.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private
land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural
resources.
Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities for FY 2010 will be to finalize
the rules promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm
Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs USDA conservation
programs through 2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and proposed
rulemakings pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, and received public comment
for each of the regulations. In order to provide certainty and clarity
for NRCS program participants, NRCS will address the public comments in
final rulemaking and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments
in response to those comments.
Among the programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation
Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program
represent a significant public investment in environmental improvement
and stewardship. The 2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and expanded
several other financial assistance and conservation easement programs,
including the Agricultural Management Assistance program, the Farm and
Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the
Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Regional Equity provisions, the
State Technical Committee, the Technical Service Provider Assistance
Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program.
During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated an interim final rule to identify
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 to streamline delivery of projects funded by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans to finalize the Categorical
Exclusion rule in response to public comments. Finally, NRCS intends to
promulgate a program for its ACES program to provide consistency with
how ACES is used by other agencies.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is
the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial
resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private
credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served
areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals,
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit
corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies. The mission of
Cooperative Program of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
Priorities: RBS's priority for 2009 will be to fully implement the 2008
Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for Section 9003
(Biorefinery Assistance Program), Section 9004 (Repowering Assistance
Program) Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for Advanced Biofuels) and
Section 6022 (Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program). The Agency
has been administering Sections 9003 and 9004 through the use of
various Notices (Notices of Funds Availability and Contract Proposal),
rather than regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 (Rural Energy for
America Program) will be made to incorporate Energy Audits and
Renewable Energy Development Assistance and Feasibility Studies for
Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant purposes, as well as other Farm
Bill changes to the Section 9007 program. In addition, regulations for
the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be revised to
reflect Farm Bill provisions relating to locally or regionally produced
agricultural food products. These rules will be developed to minimize
program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing program
delivery and Agency oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: To improve the quality of life in rural America by providing
investment capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities
telecommunications, electric and water and waste disposal
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities;
municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies;
public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit,
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private
partnership which is forged between RUS and these industries results in
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' priority in 2010 is fulfilling the President's goal of
bringing affordable broadband to all rural Americans by continuing to
develop a final rule for the Broadband Loan Program, which was
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L.
107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) and subsequently amended by the 2008 Farm
Bill. In May 2007, RUS published a proposed rule to improve the focus
and strengthen the financial stability of the program that was being
administered under regulations developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before
this proposed rule could be finalized the 2008 Farm Bill became law,
significantly changing the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan
Program. Consequently, RUS now plans to publish an interim rule that
will combine the provisions of the proposed rule with the changes made
by the 2008 Farm Bill.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act
expanded RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new
authority to make grants to facilitate broadband deployment in rural
areas. RUS has been tasked with the time sensitive priority of
developing the regulation for this new authority. The Agency will,
however, also continue to develop a final rule for the Broadband
Program based upon change include in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management
leadership to ensure that
[[Page 64154]]
USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the
needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with laws and mandates;
and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Priorities: In July 2009, USDA's Departmental Administration published
the proposed rule to establish a program to label eligible products
made from biobased feedstocks. As part of this rulemaking, USDA will be
accepting public comments through September 2009 on how to implement a
program that promotes the purchase of products made from agricultural
and forestry feedstocks. Once the public comment period is closed, USDA
will finalize the labeling regulation to allow manufacturers and
vendors of biobased products to display the label on their packaging
and marketing materials. Once completed, this regulation will implement
a section of the 2008 Farm Bill and will promote alternative uses of
agriculture and forest materials.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed
costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts
of its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. In addition, aggregation
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious
foods; higher levels of food safety; and increased quality of life
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For
2010, the Department's focus on Farm Bill and other regulations will be
to implement the changes in such a way as to provide benefits while
minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program
participants.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ACCESS TO PASTURE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 6501 et seq
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 205
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS). Under the NOP, AMS established national
standards for the production and handling of organically produced
agricultural products. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of
the public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on
the relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and
grazing land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on
access to pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an
animal's stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a
uniform requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and
livestock products that consumers expect. Comments received as a result
of the proposed rule will assist in determining the Agency's next steps
in rulemaking on this issue.
Statement of Need:
AMS has determined that current regulations regarding access to pasture
and the contribution of grazing to the diet of organically raised
livestock lack sufficient specificity and clarity to enable AMS to
efficiently administer the Program. Organic System Plans (OSPs) dealing
with livestock management reflect different application of existing
regulations and interpretations of requirements across Accredited
Certifying Agents (ACAs). AMS has received 11 complaints requesting
enforcement actions for alleged violations of the pasture provisions of
the NOP livestock standards.
Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 2005, the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) made six recommendations regarding access to the
outdoors for livestock, pasture, and conditions for temporary
confinement of animals. The NOSB process for the development of
recommendations consists of: (1) identification of a need by members of
the public, the NOSB, or the NOP; (2) development of a draft NOSB
recommendation; (3) public meeting notice published by the NOP on its
website and in the Federal Register; (4) solicitation of public
comments on the recommendation through regulations.gov and at the
NOSB's public meetings; (5) finalization of the recommendation; (6)
NOSB approval of the recommendation; and (7) NOSB referral to the
Secretary for the Secretary's consideration and any appropriate action
(e.g., rulemaking, policy development, guidance).
In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP published an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 19131) seeking input on the role of
pasture in the NOP regulations and what parts of the NOP regulations
should be amended to address the role of pasture in organic livestock
management.
More than 80,500 comments were received on the ANPRM. Support for
strict standards and greater detail on the role of pasture in organic
livestock production was nearly unanimous with just 28 of the comments
opposing changes to the pasture requirements. Organic consumers have
clearly stated in comments that they expect organic ruminants to graze
pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their Dry Matter Intake
(DMI) needs from grazing. Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments were
received from consumers requesting regulations that would clearly
establish grazing as a primary source of nourishment. Approximately
80,250 of these comments were in a modified form letter. Many of these
consumers requested that grazing account for at least 30 percent of the
ruminant's DMI needs.
AMS published a proposed rule with a request for comment on October 24,
2008. The comment period ended December 23, 2008. AMS received more
than 80,000 comments. Due to the high volume of comments received,
final action on this rule is not expected before December 2009.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The NOP is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. seq.). The AMS
administers the NOP. Under the NOP, AMS oversees national standards for
the production and handling of organically produced agricultural
products. This action is being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP
livestock production regulations have sufficient specificity and
clarity to enable AMS and accredited certifying agents to efficiently
administer the NOP
[[Page 64155]]
and to facilitate and improve compliance and enforcement. This action
is also intended to satisfy consumer expectations that ruminant
livestock animals graze pastures during the growing season.
Alternatives:
Alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes to
the existing regulations; (2) adopt a reduced pasturing period, such as
the 120-day minimum period recommended by the NOSB and some commenters;
or (3) adopt a three ruminants per acre stocking rate measure as
suggested by some commenters.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
This action will increase the cost of production for producers who
currently do not pasture their animals and those producers who do not
manage their pastures at a sufficient level to provide at least 30
percent DMI. For organic slaughter stock producers, an increase in
costs might result in a greater volume of slaughter animals, at least
in the short term, entering the market driving down prices. Longer term
these increased costs could result in increased consumer prices unless
the increased costs are off set by reductions in other costs of
production. Other costs of production that could be expected to go down
are costs associated with producer harvest and purchase of feed and the
cost of herd health.
Benefits:
This final rule brings uniformity in application to the livestock
regulations; especially as they relate to the pasturing of ruminants.
This uniformity will create equitable, consistent, performance
standards for all ruminant livestock producers. Producers who currently
operate based on grazing will perceive a benefit because these
producers claim an economic disadvantage in competing with livestock
operations that do not provide pasture. This proposed rule would also
bring uniformity in application to the livestock regulations. This
uniformity in application will allow the ACAs and AMS to administer the
livestock regulations in a way that reflects consumer preferences
regarding the production of organic livestock and their products.
Commenters have clearly stated that they expect organic ruminants to
graze pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their dry matter
needs from grazing. Because of this, it is crucial that consumer
expectations are met. This proposed rulemaking is intended to reflect
consumer expectations and producer perspectives. This action makes
clear what access to pasture means under the NOP.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 04/13/06 71 FR 19131
ANPRM Comment Period End 06/12/06
NPRM 10/24/08 73 FR 63583
NPRM Comment Period End 12/23/08
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: richard.mathews@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL RULE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 1150
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, Assessments on imported dairy
products must be implemented by deadline.
With the passage of Section 1507 in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act
was amended to apply certain assessments to Alaska, Hawaii, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 2008
Farm Bill authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement
the mandatory dairy import assessment without providing a notice and
comment period. However, due to the interest of affected parties a
notice and comment period was provided.
Abstract:
The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for dairy product promotion,
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and to reduce
milk surpluses. The program functions to strengthen the dairy
industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding
domestic and foreign consumption of fluid milk and dairy products.
Amendments to the Order are pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that the Order be amended to implement an
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research.
The 2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cent
per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products
imported into the United States. Additionally, in accordance with the
2008 Farm Bill, the term ``United States'' is the Dairy Act is amended
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. Producers in these areas will be assessed 15 cents per
hundredweight for all milk produced and marketed.
Statement of Need:
In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23359) proposed rule (National
Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Proposed Rule on Amendments to
the Order), AMS received 189 timely comments from consumers, dairy
producers, foreign governments, importers, exporters, manufacturers,
members of Congress, trade associations, and other interested parties.
The comments covered a wide range of topics, including 39 in opposition
to the proposal and 150 in support of the proposal. Opponents of the
proposal expressed concern over the lack of a referendum requirement
among those affected; default assessment rates; lack of ability to no
longer promote State-branded dairy products; lack of importer
organizations eligible to become a Qualified Program; disputed the
cost-benefit analysis for
[[Page 64156]]
importers and producers; and cited unreasonable importer paperwork and
record keeping burdens.
Proponents of the proposal expressed support for an expedited
implementation of the dairy import assessment; cited the enhanced
benefits both domestic producers and importers will receive as a result
of implementation; recommended new Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes;
use of a default assessment rate; recommended regular reporting of the
products and assessments on imports; and all thresholds for compliance
with U.S. trade obligations have been met.
AMS plans to issue a final rule implementing the dairy import
assessment in the near future. In response to the comments received and
after consultation with USTR, AMS is addressing, in the final rule,
referenda, alternative assessment rates, and compliance and enforcement
activity. All remaining changes are miscellaneous and minor in nature
in order to clarify regulatory text.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program) is
authorized under the authorized under the provisions of the Dairy
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514), and the
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). The Dairy
Programs unit of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day--to--day
oversight responsibilities for the National Program.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based
on the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Assessments to dairy producers under the Order are relatively small
compared to producer revenue. If dairy producers in Alaska, Hawaii, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had paid
assessments of $0.15 per hundredweight of milk marketed in 2007, it is
estimated that $1.1 million would have been paid. This is about 0.6
percent of the $192 million total value of milk produced and marketed
in these areas.
Benefits to producers in these areas are assumed to be similar to those
benefits received by producers of other U.S. geographical regions.
Cornell University has conducted an independent economic analysis of
the Program that is included in the annual report to Congress. Cornell
determined that from 1998 through 2007, each dollar invested in generic
dairy marketing by dairy farmers during the period would return between
$5.52 and $5.94, on average, in net revenue to farmers.
Assessments collected from importers under the National Program will be
relatively small compared to the value of dairy imports. If importers
had been assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or equivalent thereof, for
imported dairy products in 2007 as specified in this rule, it is
estimated that less than $6.1 million would have been paid. This is
about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion value of the dairy products
imported in 2007.
Risks:
If the amendments are not implemented, USDA would be in violation of
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/19/09 74 FR 23359
NPRM Comment Period End 06/18/09
Final Action 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Organizations
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Whitney Rick
Promotion and Research Branch Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6909
Fax: 202 720-0285
Email: whitney.rick@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
3. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 1 to 3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in
research.
Statement of Need:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus,
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
other than those birds bred for use in research.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales,
and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include
birds that are not bred for use in research.
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 04/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
[[Page 64157]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Gerald Rushin
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0954
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION OF BOVINES AND BOVINE
PRODUCTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation
of bovines and bovine products. Under this rulemaking, countries would
be classified as either negligible risk, controlled risk, or
undetermined risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Some
commodities would be allowed importation into the United States
regardless of the BSE classification of the country of export. Other
commodities would be subject to importation restrictions or
prohibitions based on the type of commodity and the BSE classification
of the country. The criteria for country classification and commodity
import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization
for Animal Health.
Statement of Need:
We are proposing to amend the regulations after conducting a thorough
review of relevant scientific literature and a comprehensive evaluation
of the issues and concluding that the proposed changes would continue
to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States, while
allowing the importation of additional animals and animal products into
this country.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.),
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to
prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of any
pest or disease of livestock.
Alternatives:
We could leave the current bovine regulations unchanged, but
maintaining the status quo would not provide an opportunity to apply
the latest scientific evidence to our BSE-related import conditions.
Another alternative--modifying the BSE regulations related to the
importation of bovines and bovine-derived products to precisely match
the OIE guidelines without allowing for modification deemed necessary
by APHIS--would not allow APHIS to independently interpret the
scientific literature or reflect current USDA regulations and policies.
Making no changes to the current regulations that govern the
importation of cervids and camelids would perpetuate an unnecessary
constraint on trade in those commodities, because cervids and camelids
pose an extremely low BSE risk.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Undetermined.
Risks:
APHIS has concluded that the proposed changes would continue to guard
against the introduction of BSE into the United States.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Christopher Robinson
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center
for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 40
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-7837
RIN: 0579-AC68
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
5. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 319
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting.
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We would allow foreign
governments to request that a pest risk assessment be conducted for a
taxon whose importation is not authorized pending risk evaluation.
After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would conduct
rulemaking to remove the
[[Page 64158]]
taxon from the proposed category if determined appropriate by the risk
assessment. We are also proposing to expand the scope of the plants
regulated in the plants for planting regulations to include non-
vascular plants. These changes would allow us to react more quickly to
evidence that a taxon of plants for planting may pose a pest risk while
ensuring that our actions are based on scientific evidence.
Statement of Need:
APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address
these risks.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 7712).
Alternatives:
APHIS has identified one alternative to the approach we are
considering. We could prohibit the importation of all nursery stock
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking,
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and
vegetables. This approach would lead to a major interruption in
international trade and would have significant economic effects on both
U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of plants for planting.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Undetermined.
Risks:
In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 07/23/09 74 FR 36403
NPRM Comment Period End 10/21/09
Final Rule 07/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Additional Information:
Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Risk Manager, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
6. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
7 USC 181
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 201
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, June 18, 2010.
Abstract:
GIPSA is proposing regulations under the Packers & Stockyards Act,
1921, that clarify when certain conduct in the livestock and poultry
industries represents the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality to an undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed regulations also
establish criteria GIPSA will consider in determining whether a live
poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a live poultry
dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for
a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a
breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry
growing arrangement or swine production contract. The Farm Bill also
instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations to ensure that
producers and growers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate
in the arbitration process if they so choose.
Statement of Need:
In enacting Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-246), Congress recognized the nature of problems
encountered in the livestock and poultry industries and amended the
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). These amendments established new
requirements for participants in the livestock and poultry industries
and required the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish
criteria to consider when determining that certain other conduct is in
violation of the P&S Act.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA)
attempts to enforce the broad prohibitions of the P&S Act have been
frustrated, in part because it has not previously defined what conduct
[[Page 64159]]
constitutes an unfair practice or the giving of an undue preference or
advantage. The new regulations that GIPSA is proposing describe and
clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act and allow for more effective
and efficient enforcement by GIPSA. They will clarify conditions for
industry compliance with the P&S Act and provide for a fairer market
place.
In accordance with the Farm Bill, GIPSA is proposing regulations under
the P&S Act that would clarify when certain conduct in the livestock
and poultry industries represents the making or giving of an undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality
to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed
regulations also establish criteria that GIPSA will consider in
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable
notice to poultry growers of a suspension of the delivery of birds
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and
whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided
a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy
a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing
arrangement or production contract.
The Farm Bill also instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations
to ensure that poultry growers, swine production contract growers and
livestock producers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate
in the arbitration process, if they so choose. We are proposing a
required format for providing poultry growers, swine production
contract growers and livestock producers the opportunity to decline the
use of arbitration in contracts requiring arbitration. We are also
proposing criteria that we will consider in finding that poultry
growers, swine production contract growers and livestock producers have
a meaningful opportunity to participate fully in the arbitration
process if they voluntarily agree to do so. We will use these criteria
to assess the overall fairness of the arbitration process.
In addition to proposing regulations in accordance with the Farm Bill,
GIPSA is proposing regulations that would prohibit certain conduct
because it is unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive, in
violation of the P&S Act. These additional proposed regulations are
promulgated under the authority of Sec. 407 of the P&S Act, and
complement those required by the Farm Bill to help ensure fair trade
and competition in the livestock and poultry industries.
These regulations are intended to address the increased use of
contracting in the marketing and production of livestock and poultry by
entities under the jurisdiction of the P&S Act, and practices that
result from the use of market power and alterations in private property
rights, which violate the spirit and letter of the P&S Act. The effect
increased contracting has had, and continues to have, on individual
agricultural producers has significantly changed the industry and the
rural economy as a whole, making these proposed regulations necessary.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 407 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 228) provides that the Secretary
``may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act.'' Sections 11005 and 11006 of the
Farm Bill became effective June 18, 2008, and instruct the Secretary to
promulgate additional regulations as described in this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Alternatives:
The Farm Bill explicitly directs the Secretary to promulgate certain
regulations. GIPSA determined that additional regulations are necessary
to provide notice to all regulated entities of types of practices and
conduct that GIPSA considers ``unfair'' so that regulated entities are
fully informed of actions or practices that are considered ``unfair''
and therefore, prohibited. Within both the mandatory and discretionary
regulatory provisions we considered alternative options.
For example, GIPSA considered shorter notice periods in situations when
a live poultry dealer suspends delivery of birds to a poultry grower.
These alternatives would not have provided adequate trust and integrity
in the livestock and poultry markets. Other alternatives may have been
more restrictive. We considered prohibiting the use of arbitration to
resolve disputes; however, that option goes against a popular method of
dispute resolution in other industries and is not in line with the
spirit of the 2008 Farm Bill. GIPSA believes that this proposed rule
represents the best option to level the playing field between packers,
swine contractors, live poultry dealers, and the nation's poultry
growers, swine production contract growers, or livestock producers for
the benefit of more efficient marketing and public good.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
Costs are aggregated into three major types: 1) administrative costs,
which include items such as office work, postage, filing, and copying;
2) costs of analysis, such as a business conducting a profit-loss
analysis; and 3) adjustment costs, such as costs related to changing
business behavior to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation.
Benefits:
Benefits are also aggregated into three major groups: 1) increased
pricing efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 3) competitive
efficiency.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: h.tess.butler@usda.gov
RIN: 0580-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--GIPSA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
7. POULTRY CONTRACTS; INITIATION, PERFORMANCE, AND TERMINATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 221
[[Page 64160]]
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 201
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
GIPSA is amending the regulations issued under the Packers and
Stockyards Act, 1921, regarding the records that live poultry dealers
must furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The amendments to the
regulatlions will require that live poultry dealers timely deliver a
copy of an offered poultry growing arrangement to growers; include
information about any Performance Improvement Plan in poultry growing
arrangements; include provisions for written termination notices in
poultry growing arrangements; and notwithstanding a confidentiality
provision, allow growers to discuss the terms of poultry growing
arrangements with designated individuals.
Statement of Need:
The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
believes that the failure to disclose certain terms in a poultry
growing arrangement constitutes an unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive
practice in violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) of the Packers and
Stockyards Act (P&S Act).
Because of vertical integration and high concentration within the
poultry industry, poultry growers do not realistically have the option
of negotiating more favorable poultry growing arrangement terms with
competing live poultry dealers because there may be no other live
poultry dealers in the poultry grower's immediate geographic area or
there may be significant differences in equipment requirements among
live poultry dealers. There is considerable asymmetry of information
and an imbalance in market power. This final rule will level the
playing field by requiring that all live poultry dealers adopt fair and
transparent practices when dealing with poultry growers.
Summary of Legal Basis:
One of GIPSA's primary functions is the enforcement of the P&S Act, (7
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (P&S Act). Under authority granted to us by the
Secretary of Agriculture, GIPSA is authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make
those regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act.
Alternatives:
GIPSA collected input on several alternatives like issuing policy
guidance to GIPSA employees, providing public notice that failure to
provide growers with additional contract information was an unfair
practice in violation of Sec. 202 of the P&S Act, or recommending that
growers seek redress of grievances through civil court action or
arbitration. GIPSA determined that none of these alternatives will meet
the needs of poultry growers. We believe, however, that this final rule
will provide the best means of achieving statutory intent at the lowest
cost to poultry growers and live poultry dealers.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
The costs to both poultry growers and live poultry dealers are
negligible, as the rule does not impose significant additional
requirements that increase actions that the poultry grower and the live
poultry dealer must enact; they merely affect the timeliness of those
actions. In some cases, the final rule requires that the poultry grower
and the live poultry dealer commit to writing terms and conditions that
are already in effect, but do not mandate what those terms and
conditions must be. Thus, the only additional cost is the cost of
producing and transmitting the printed document.
Benefits:
Collectively, the regulatory provisions in the final rule mitigate
potential asymmetries of information between poultry growers and the
live poultry dealers, which will lead to better decisions on the terms
of compensation and reduce the potential for the expression of anti-
competitive market power. The provisions achieve this primarily by
improving the quality and timeliness of information to growers, and to
some extent to live poultry dealers as well. Benefits should accrue to
poultry growers from an enhanced basis for making the decision as to
whether to enter into a growout contract, and from additional time
available to make plans for any necessary adjustments in those
instances when the poultry grower is subject to a contract termination.
Net social welfare will benefit from improved accuracy in the value
(pricing) decisions involved in transactions between poultry growers
and live poultry dealers as they negotiate contract terms.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/01/07 72 FR 41952
NPRM Comment Period End 10/30/07
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: h.tess.butler@usda.gov
RIN: 0580-AA98
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
8. ELIGIBILITY, CERTIFICATION, AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROVISIONS
OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246; PL 104-121
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and
[[Page 64161]]
certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment
and training. In addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP
regulations throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from
the Food Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes
as mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these
provisions was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is
also proposing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to
provide State agencies options that are currently available only
through waivers. These provisions would allow State agencies to average
student work hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-
to-face interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule would impact the
associated paperwork burdens. (08-006)
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of
SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In
addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP regulations
throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from the Food
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions
was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also proposing
2 discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies
options that are currently available only through waivers. These
provisions would allow State agencies to average student work hours and
to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS
anticipates that this rule would impact the associated paperwork
burdens.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246) and 7
CFR Part 273.
Alternatives:
Not applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Anticipated costs have not been determined; however, it is anticipated
that this rule would impact the associated paperwork burdens.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD87
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
9. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL OF 2008
RETAILER SANCTIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 276
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules.
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six
months.
In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule proposes to
provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized retailer or
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP
participation.
Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional administrative
retail violations and the associated sanction that would be imposed
against the retail food store for committing the violation. For
instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale food
stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual EBT
card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify the
specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are found
to be in violation. (08-007)
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules.
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six
months. In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule
proposes to provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized
retailer or
[[Page 64162]]
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP
participation. Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional
administrative retail violations and the associated sanction that would
be imposed against the retail food store for committing the violation.
For instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale
food stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual
EBT card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify
the specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are
found to be in violation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-246).
Alternatives:
Not applicable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Anticipated costs are undetermined at this time until more research is
conducted.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
Note: This RIN replaces the previously issued RIN 0584-AD78.
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
10. FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; National School Lunch Act
(NSLA); 42 U.S.C. 1769(a)
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 211
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding.
This proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.
In addition, the proposed rule would establish oversight activity and
reporting and record keeping requirements that are not included in FFVP
statutory requirements. Implementation of this rule is not expected to
result in expenses for program operators because they receive funding
to cover food purchases and administrative costs. (09-007)
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding. This
proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 19, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. National School
Lunch Act (NSLA). 42 U.S.C. 1769(a).
Alternatives:
Because this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements set
forth by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 by adding
section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), to the
National School Lunch Act, alternatives to this process are not known
or being pursued at this time.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Implementation of this rule is not expected to result in expenses for
program operators because they receive funding to cover food purchases
and administrative costs.
Risks:
No risks by implementing this proposed rule have been identified at
this time.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/00/10
Final Action 12/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
[[Page 64163]]
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD96
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
11. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM
INTEGRITY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1766; PL 103-448; PL 104-193; PL 105-336
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 226
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State
and Federal program reviews and from audits and investigations
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule revises: State
agency criteria for approving and renewing institution applications;
program training and other operating requirements for child care
institutions and facilities; and State and institution-level monitoring
requirements. This rule also includes changes that are required by the
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
The changes are designed to improve program operations and monitoring
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline
and simplify program requirements for State agencies and institutions.
(95-024)
Statement of Need:
In recent years, State and Federal program reviews have found numerous
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in some instances, fraud, by child
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed
weaknesses in management controls over program operations and examples
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of
program funds for non-program expenditures; and improper meal
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to mis-categorized or
incomplete income eligibility statements. In addition, audits and
investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have
raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of financial and
administrative controls in CACFP. Based on its findings, OIG
recommended changes to CACFP review requirements and management
controls.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Some of the changes proposed in the rule are discretionary changes
being made in response to deficiencies found in program reviews and OIG
audits. Other changes codify statutory changes made by the Healthy
Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).
Alternatives:
In developing the proposal, the Agency considered various alternatives
to minimize burden on State agencies and institutions while ensuring
effective program operation. Key areas in which alternatives were
considered include State agency reviews of institutions and sponsoring
organization oversight of day care homes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those changes which
would affect institutions and facilities will not, in the aggregate,
have a significant economic impact.
Data on CACFP integrity is limited, despite numerous OIG reports on
individual institutions and facilities that have been deficient in
CACFP management. While program reviews and OIG reports clearly
illustrate that there are weaknesses in parts of the program
regulations and that there have been weaknesses in oversight, neither
program reviews, OIG reports, nor any other data sources illustrate the
prevalence and magnitude of CACFP fraud and abuse. This lack of
information precludes USDA from estimating the amount of money lost due
to fraud and abuse or the reduction in fraud and abuse the changes in
this rule will realize.
Risks:
Operating under interim rules puts State agencies and institutions at
risk of implementing Program provisions subject to change in a final
rule.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/12/00 65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End 12/11/00
Interim Final Rule 06/27/02 67 FR 43448
Interim Final Rule
Effective 07/29/02
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 12/24/02
Interim Final Rule 09/01/04 69 FR 53502
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/01/04
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 09/01/05
Final Action 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
[[Page 64164]]
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AC94
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
12. SNAP: ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE FARM SECURITY
AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171, sections 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR Part 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will amend the regulations of the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp
Program, to implement 11 provisions of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 that establish new eligibility and certification
requirements for the receipt of food stamps. (02-007)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp certification and
eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This final rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has
limited discretion in implementing provisions of that law. Most of the
provisions in this rule were effective October 1, 2002, and were
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of SNAP,
increase eligibility for the program among certain groups, increase
access to the program among low-income families and individuals, and
increase benefit levels. The provisions of Public Law 107-171
implemented by this rule have a 5-year cost of approximately $1.9
billion.
Risks:
SNAP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide--working families, eligible non-citizens, and elderly and
disabled individuals. Many low-income families don't earn enough money
and many elderly and disabled individuals don't receive enough in
retirement or disability benefits to meet all of their expenses and
purchase healthy and nutritious meals. SNAP serves a vital role in
helping these families and individuals achieve and maintain self-
sufficiency and purchase a nutritious diet. This rule implements the
certification and eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It simplifies State
administration of SNAP, increases eligibility for the program among
certain groups, increases access to the program among low-income
families and individuals, and increases benefit levels. The provisions
of this rule increase benefits by approximately $1.95 billion over 5
years.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/16/04 69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End 06/15/04
Final Action 12/00/09
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
13. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule finalizes the interim rule ``Non-Discretionary Quality
Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (published
October 16, 2003 at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule ``Discretionary
Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171''
(published September 23, 2005 at 70 FR 55776).
The following quality control (QC) provisions required by sections 4118
and 4119 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title
IV of Pub. L. 107-171) and contained in the interim rule are
implemented by this final rule:
1) Timeframes for completing quality control reviews;
2) Timeframes for completing the arbitration process;
3) Timeframes for determining final error rates;
4) The threshold for potential sanctions and time period for sanctions;
5) The calculation of State error rates;
6) The formula for determining States' liability amounts;
7) Sanction notification and method of payment; and
8) Corrective action plans.
The following provisions required by sections 4118 and 4119 and
additional policy and technical changes, and contained in the proposed
rule, are implemented by this final rule.
[[Page 64165]]
Legislative changes based on or required by sections 4118 and 4119:
1) Eliminate enhanced funding;
2) Establish timeframes for completing individual quality control
reviews; and
3) Establish procedures for adjusting liability determinations
following appeal decisions.
Policy and technical changes:
1) Require State agency QC reviewers to attempt to complete review when
a household refuses to cooperate;
2) Mandate FNS validation of negative sample for purposes of high
performance bonuses;
3) Revise procedures for conducting negative case reviews;
4) Revise timeframes for household penalties for refusal to cooperate
with State and Federal QC reviews;
5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of demonstration and SSA processed
cases;
6) Eliminate requirement to report differences resulting from Federal
information exchange systems (FIX) errors;
7) Eliminate references to integrated QC; and
8) Update definitions section to remove out-dated definitions. (02-014)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp quality control
provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has no
discretion in implementing the time frames for completing quality
control reviews, the arbitration process, and determining the final
error rates; the threshold for potential sanctions and the time period
for the sanctions; the calculation for State error rates; the formula
for determining liability amounts; the sanction notification; method of
payment for liabilities; corrective action planning, and the
elimination of enhanced funding. These provisions were effective for
the fiscal year 2003 quality control review period and must have been
implemented by FNS and State agencies during fiscal year 2003. This
rule also deals in part with discretionary changes to the quality
control system resulting from Public Law 107-171. The provision
addressing results of appeals is required to be regulated by Public Law
107-171. The remaining changes amend existing regulations and are
required to make technical changes resulting from these changes or to
update policy consistent with current requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on
benefit levels or administrative costs.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will
significantly revise the system for determining State agency
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/16/03 68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/15/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/14/04
NPRM 09/23/05 70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End 12/22/05
Final Action 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLDS AND
CERTIFICATION OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE MEALS
IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 104
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 245
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining Eligibility for Free
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, will be amended to
establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free meals and free
milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as defined by the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway served by grant
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or (3) migratory as
defined in section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory direct certification
for children who are members of households receiving food stamps and
continues discretionary direct certification for other categorically
eligible children. (04-018)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning direct certification are intended to improve program access,
reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy of the delivery of free meal
benefits. This regulation will implement the statutory changes and
provide State agencies and local educational agencies with the policies
and procedures to conduct mandatory and discretionary direct
certification.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
FNS will be working closely with State agencies to implement the
changes made by this regulation and will be
[[Page 64166]]
developing extensive guidance materials in conjunction with our
cooperators.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely,
and will improve program access of eligible school children.
Risks:
This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and
other agencies.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 02/00/10
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 05/00/10
Final Action 05/00/11
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
15. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 1031 to 1056
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR
590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 CFR 591; . . .
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require
egg products plants and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is
proposing to amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by
removing current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg
products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their
use in official plants. The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior
label approval system for egg products. This proposal will not
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate
non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell egg packers that will provide
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended
for human consumption or further processing.
Statement of Need:
The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort
to improve FSIS' shell egg and egg products food safety regulations,
better define the roles of Government and the regulated industry,
encourage innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and make the egg
products regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat
and poultry products regulations. FSIS also is taking these actions in
light of changing inspection priorities and recent findings of
Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.
This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate
by the Congress or a Federal court.
Alternatives:
A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is conducting a cost-
benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic impacts of several
alternatives on the public, egg products industry, and FSIS. These
alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) requiring
all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and implement
written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of the
current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements. The
team will consider the effects of a uniform, across-the-board standard
for all egg products; a performance standard based on the relative risk
of different classes of egg products; and a performance standard based
on the relative risks to public health of different production
processes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of
reduction sought and on the classes of product, product formulations,
or processes.
Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration may
change because the two agencies share responsibility for inspection and
oversight of the egg industry and a common farm-to-table approach for
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and
local governments are not likely to be affected.
Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to
export eggs and egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S.
system. FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when
this proposal becomes effective.
This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal
would be the approximately 80 federally inspected egg products plants,
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business
Administration criteria. If
[[Page 64167]]
necessary, FSIS will develop compliance guides to assist these small
firms in implementing the proposed requirements.
Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include:
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.
Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of
foodborne illness.
The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are
approximately $7.0 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the
proposed action are approximately $90.0 million per year.
Risks:
FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further
reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The development of
a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard for egg
products, replacing command-and-control regulations, will remove
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives for,
innovation to improve the safety of egg products.
To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking on
the public, an intra-Agency group of scientific and technical experts
is conducting a risk management analysis. The group has been charged
with identifying the lethality requirement sufficient to ensure the
safety of egg products and the alternative methods for implementing the
requirement. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for SE in eggs and
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk
associated with the regulatory alternatives.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 06/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
16. PRIOR LABELING APPROVAL SYSTEM: GENERIC LABEL APPROVAL
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 to 470; 21 USC 601 to 695
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 412
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will continue an effort initiated several years ago by
amending FSIS' regulations to expand the types of labeling that are
generically approved. FSIS plans to propose that the submission of
labeling for approval prior to use be limited to certain types of
labeling, as specified in the regulations. In addition, FSIS plans to
reorganize and amend the regulations by consolidating the nutrition
labeling rules that currently are stated separately for meat and
poultry products (in part 317, subpart B, and part 381, subpart Y,
respectively) and by amending their provisions to set out clearly
various circumstances under which these products are misbranded.
Statement of Need:
Expanding the types of labeling that are generically approved would
permit Agency personnel to focus their resources on evaluating only
those claims or special statements that have health and safety or
economic implications. This would essentially eliminate the time needed
for FSIS personnel to evaluate labeling features and allocate more time
for staff to work on other duties and responsibilities. A major
advantage of this proposal is that it is consistent with FSIS' current
regulatory approach, which separates industry and Agency
responsibilities.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 et seq.).
Alternatives:
FSIS considered several options. The first was to expand the types of
labeling that would be generically approved and consolidate into one
part, all of the labeling regulations applicable to products regulated
under the FMIA and PPIA and the policies currently contained in FSIS
Directive 7220.1, Revision 3. The second option FSIS considered was to
consolidate only the meat and poultry regulations that are similar and
to expand the types of generically approved labeling that can be
applied by Federal and certified foreign establishments. The third
option and the one favored by FSIS was to amend the prior labeling
approval system in an incremental three-phase approach.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed rule would permit the Agency to realize an estimated cost
savings of $670,000 over 10 years. The proposed rule would be
beneficial because it would streamline the generic labeling process,
while imposing no additional cost burden on establishments. Consumers
would benefit because industry would have the ability to introduce
products into the marketplace more quickly.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
[[Page 64168]]
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Jeff Canavan
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705-4576
Phone: 301 504-0878
Fax: 301-504-0872
Email: jeff.canavan@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC59
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
17. CHANGES TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS
CONTAINING MEAT AND POULTRY
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601(j); 21 USC 454(f)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to
determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible.
This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or
poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to
amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to
provide consistency and predictability in the regulatory jurisdiction
over nine products or product categories. Historically there has been
confusion about whether these products fall within the jurisdiction of
FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese and cheese
products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; breads,
rolls and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry;
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or
poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs,
natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act.
Statement of Need:
Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under
which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced
based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the
product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a
term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the
product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry
industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an
accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS
made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to
situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement.
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made
sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004 to 2005 by a
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives showed that some of the
decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations was not
fully articulated or supported.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695),
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), and
the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the
regulations that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat
food and poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement
it, FDA has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction,
including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other
produce, and other products, such as seafood.
According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the
authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of
a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C.
454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) The product contains only a
relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry
ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by
consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under
such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock
or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are
not represented as meat food or poultry products.
Alternatives:
FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify
the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products.
Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered
taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this
option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry
and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of
products.
Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction
decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would
be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of
the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading
to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products
containing meat or poultry.
Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working group's suggested
approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by
proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on
exempted products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS estimates that the initial and recurring costs of the rule to
industry would be approximately $5 million and $7 million,
respectively. These costs would be attributable to new Sanitation SOP
and HACCP plan development, as well as to labeling changes and
training. FSIS would incur $7 million in annual recurring costs
(salaries and benefits). Establishments coming under FSIS jurisdiction
also would incur costs for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and
annual HACCP plan reassessment.
Benefits to industry would accrue from reduced confusion over Agency
jurisdiction, which may affect labeling and recordkeeping costs. There
may be spill-over benefits accruing from changes in consumer behavior.
Also, there would be improvement in efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS
resources.
[[Page 64169]]
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Fax: 202 205-3625
Email: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
18. NEW POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67; 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR 381.83; 9 CFR 381.91; 9
CFR 381.94
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection.
This new system would be available initially only to young chicken
slaughter establishments. Establishments that slaughter broilers,
fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined in 9 CFR 381.170)
would be considered as ``young chicken establishments.'' FSIS is also
proposing to revoke the provisions that allow young chicken slaughter
establishments to operate under the current Streamlined Inspection
System (SIS) or the New Line Speed (NELS) Inspection System. The
proposed rule would establish new performance standards to reduce
pathogens. FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would provide the
framework for action to provide public health-based inspection in all
establishments that slaughter amenable poultry species.
Under the proposed new system, young chicken slaughter establishments
would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to conduct other
activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated before they
enter the chilling tank.
Statement of Need:
Because of the risk to the public health associated with pathogens on
young chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing a new inspection system that
would allow for more effective inspection of young chicken carcasses,
would allow the Agency to more effectively allocate its resources,
would encourage industry to more readily use new technology, and would
include new performance standards to reduce pathogens.
This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it would
facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter
establishments. It would likely result in more cost-effective dressing
of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready for further
processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more efficient and
effective use of Agency resources.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) with carrying out a
mandatory poultry products inspection program. The Act requires post-
mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject to
the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)).
The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C.
463(b)). The Agency has tentatively determined that this rule would
facilitate FSIS post-mortem inspection of young chicken carcasses. The
proposed new system would likely result in more efficient and effective
use of Agency resources and in industry innovations.
Alternatives:
FSIS considered the following options in developing this proposal:
1) No action.
2) Propose to implement HACCP-Based Inspection Models Pilot in
regulations.
3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.
4) Propose standards of identity regulations for young chickens that
include trim and processing defect criteria and that take into account
the intended use of the product.
5) Propose a voluntary new inspection system for young chicken
slaughter establishments and propose standards of identity for whole
chickens, regardless of the products' intended use.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The proposed performance standards and the implementation of public
health-based inspection would likely improve the public health. FSIS is
conducting a risk assessment for this proposed rule to assess the
likely public health benefits that the implementation of this rule may
achieve.
Establishments that volunteer for this proposed new inspection system
alternative would likely need to make capital investments in facilities
and equipment. They may also need to add labor (trained employees).
However, one of the beneficial effects of these investments would
likely be the lowering of the average cost per pound to dress poultry
properly. Cost savings would likely result because of increased line
speeds, increased productivity, and increased flexibility to industry.
The expected lower average unit cost for dressing poultry would likely
give a marketing advantage to establishments under the new system.
Consumers would likely benefit from lower retail prices for high
quality poultry products. The rule would also likely provide
opportunities for the industry to innovate because of the increased
flexibility it would allow poultry slaughter establishments. In
addition, in the public sector, benefits would accrue to FSIS from the
more effective deployment of FSIS inspection program personnel to
verify process control based on risk factors at each establishment.
Risks:
Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial portion of
poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella cause a large
number of human illnesses that at times lead to hospitalization and
even death. There is an apparent relationship between human illness and
prevalence levels for salmonella in young chicken
[[Page 64170]]
carcasses. FSIS believes that through better allocation of inspection
resources and the use of performance standards, it would be able to
reduce the prevalence of salmonella and other pathogens in young
chickens.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
19. NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
INSPECTED ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 612 to 613; 21 USC 459
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 417.4; ; 9 CFR 418
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require
establishments subject to inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection
Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to promptly notify the
Secretary of Agriculture that an adulterated or misbranded product
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that
this has happened. FSIS is also proposing to require these
establishments to: (1) prepare and maintain current procedures for the
recall of all products produced and shipped by the establishment; and
(2) document each reassessment of the process control plans of the
establishment.
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246,
Sec. 11017), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to
require establishments subject to inspection under these Acts to
promptly notify the Secretary that an adulterated or misbranded product
received by or originating from the establishment has entered into
commerce, if the establishment believes or has reason to believe that
this has happened. Section 11017 also requires establishments subject
to inspection under the FMIA and PPIA to: (1) prepare and maintain
current procedures for the recall of all products produced and shipped
by the establishment; and (2) document each reassessment of the process
control plans of the establishment.
Summary of Legal Basis:
21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459, and Public Law 110-246, Sec.
11017.
Alternatives:
The option of no rulemaking is unavailable.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Approximate costs: $5.0 million for labor and costs; $5.2 million for
first year costs; $0.7 million average costs adjusted with a 3%
inflation rate for following years. Total approximate costs: $10.2
million. The average cost of this proposed rule to small entities is
expected to be less than one tenth of one cent of meat and poultry food
products per annum. Therefore, FSIS has made an initial determination
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approximate benefits: benefits have not been monetized because
quantified data on benefits attributable to this proposed rule are not
available. Non-monetary benefits include improved protection of the
public health, improved HACCP plans, and improved recall effectiveness.
Risks:
In preparing regulations on the shipment of adulterated meat and
poultry products by meat and poultry establishments, the preparation
and maintenance of procedures for recalled products produced and
shipped by establishments, and the documentation of each reassessment
of the process control plans by the establishment, the Agency will
consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks associated
with these actions.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD34
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
20. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq PL 110-249, sec 11016
CFR Citation:
9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new)
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final regulations NLT 18 months after
enactment of PL 110-246.
Abstract:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec.
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the
FMIA. Amenable species must be inspected, so this rule will define
inspection
[[Page 64171]]
requirements for catfish. The regulations will define ``catfish'' and
the scope of coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments
that process farm-raised species of catfish and to catfish and catfish
products. The regulations will take into account the conditions under
which the catfish are raised and transported to a processing
establishment.
Statement of Need:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec.
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the
FMIA. The Farm Bill directs the Department to issue final regulations
implementing the FMIA amendments not later than 18 months after the
enactment date (June 18, 2008) of the legislation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 and Public Law 110-246, sec. 11016
Alternatives:
The option of no rulemaking is unavailable. The Agency will consider
alternative methods of implementation and levels of stringency, and the
effects on foreign and domestic commerce and on small business
associated with the alternatives.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS anticipates benefits from uniform standards and the more extensive
and intensive inspection service that FSIS provides (compared with
current voluntary inspection programs). FSIS would apply requirements
for imported catfish that would be equivalent to those applying to
catfish raised and processed in the United States.
Risks:
In preparing regulations on catfish and catfish products, the Agency
will consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks
associated with the production, processing, and distribution of the
products. FSIS will determine, through scientific risk assessment
procedures, the magnitude of the risks associated with catfish and how
they compare with those associated with other foods in FSIS's
jurisdiction.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Agency Contact:
William Milton
Assistant Office of Catfish Inspection Programs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5735
Fax: 202 690-1742
Email: william.milton@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
21. ELECTRONIC FOREIGN IMPORT CERTIFICATES AND SANITATION
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS) REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL IMPORT
ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470);; Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2, 327.4, ; 9 CFR 381.196, 391.197, 381.198;; 9
CFR 590.915, 590.920
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing to amend meat, poultry, and egg products regulations
to provide for the electronic submission of import product and
establishment applications and certificates and delete the
``streamlined'' inspection procedures for Canadian product. In
addition, FSIS is amending its regulations to require Sanitation
Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) in official import
inspection establishments.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide for the electronic
submission of import product and establishment certificates to allow
the electronic interchange and transmission of data to Agency's
computer-based Public Health Information System (PHIS), which is
currently under development. Providing an electronic format for
imported certificates will enable the government-to-government exchange
of data between FSIS and foreign customs and inspection authorities.
Sanitation SOPs are written procedures that are developed and
implemented by establishments to prevent direct contamination or
adulteration of meat or poultry products. Sanitation SOPs are required
at official (domestic) establishments. Current regulations are
ambiguous concerning Sanitation SOP requirements for official import
inspection establishments. FSIS is proposing to require that official
import inspection establishments comply with the Sanitation SOPs
regulations to eliminate that ambiguity and ensure that products do not
become contaminated as they enter this country.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)(21
U.S.C. 1031-1056) and the regulations that implement these Acts.
Alternatives:
The electronic processing of import certifications is voluntary,
therefore, importers still have the option of using the current paper-
based system. The Agency is proposing to require that official import
inspection establishments adopt Sanitation SOPs to prevent direct
contamination or adulteration of product. Therefore, no alternatives
were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The opportunity cost of not amending the regulations would hinder the
Agency's implementation of PHIS. The amendments that provide for the
electronic interchange of data are voluntary, so establishments will
not take them on unless the benefits outweigh the costs. It has been
the Agency's expectation that official import establishments will
maintain Sanitation SOPs, this proposed rule codifies that expectation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment on sanitation requirements will have
no costs to the industry. The proposed rule will facilitate FSIS's use
of the PHIS system, enabling the electronic transmission, issuance, and
authorization of imported product data. The PHIS will enable FSIS
import inspection personnel to
[[Page 64172]]
verify and authorize shipments using electronic data, reducing
inspector workload. The electronic exchange of certificate data will
help to reduce the fraudulent alteration or reproduction of
certificates. The Agency estimates that the electronic processing of
import certificates will reduce the data-entry time for import
inspectors, by 50 to 60 percent.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD39
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
22. ELECTRONIC EXPORT APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION AS A
REIMBURSABLE SERVICE AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL
EXPORT INSPECTION MARKS, DEVICES, AND CERTIFICATES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695); Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470); Egg Products
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1. 322.2, ; 9 CFR 381.104, 381.105, 381.106; 9
CFR 590; 9 CFR 350.3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the
meat, poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide an
electronic export application and certification process that will be
available as an alternative to the paper-based application and
certification method currently in use. The electronic export
application and certification process will be available as a
reimbursable inspection service. FSIS is also proposing to provide
establishments that export meat, poultry, and egg products with
flexibility in the official export inspection marks, and devices used
and how the products are marked for export.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing these regulations to implement the Public Health
Information System (PHIS), a computer-based inspection information
system currently under development. The PHIS will include automation of
the export application and certification process. The current export
application and certification regulations provide only for a paper-
based process, this proposed rule will amend the regulations to provide
for the electronic process. Additionally, this rule is needed to
provide this automated services as a reimbursable certification service
charged to the exporter.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21
U.S.C. 1031-1056), and the regulations that implement these Acts. FSIS
is proposing the electronic export application and certification
process as a reimbursable service under the Agricultural Marketing Act
7 U.S.C. 1622(h), that provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the
authority to: ``inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality,
quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or
received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as
the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, including assessment and
collection of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be
to cover the cost of the service rendered, to the end that agricultural
products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be
facilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality
product which they desire.''
Alternatives:
The electronic processing of export applications and certifications is
being proposed as a voluntary service, therefore, exporters have the
option of continuing to use the current paper-based system. Therefore,
no alternatives were considered.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS estimates that it will take inspection personnel 1 hour to process
an electronic application and issue an electronic certificate. Based on
a workload of accessing and processing an estimated 350,000
applications/certificates per year, at a base time rate of $49.93 per
hour, the cost of recouping the inspector's labor costs for 2009 would
be $17.4 million. The amount charged to the exporter depends upon the
number of electronic applications submitted. The use of the electronic
export application and certificate system is voluntary. Therefore,
exporters will not use this service unless the benefits outweigh the
cost. The electronic export application and certificate process will
reduce and expedite industry workload by eliminating the physical
handling and processing of paperwork. The electronic exchange of export
information between the U.S. and foreign governments will help reduce
the fraudulent alternation or reproduction of certificates. The
electronic system will process the applications and certificates will
permit exporters to move their products faster, thereby increasing the
amount of revenues received at a faster rate. The electronic system
will provide a streamlined and integrated method of processing export
applications and certificates.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
[[Page 64173]]
Government Levels Affected:
None
International Impacts:
This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD41
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
23. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria
monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance standards spell out the
objective level of pathogen reduction that establishments must meet
during their operations in order to produce safe products but allow the
use of customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than
those prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
Statement of Need:
Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some ready-to-eat products
for the presence of pathogens prior to distribution, there are no
specific regulatory pathogen reduction requirements for most of these
products. The proposed performance standards are necessary to help
ensure the safety of these products; give establishments the incentive
and flexibility to adopt innovative, science-based food safety
processing procedures and controls; and provide objective, measurable
standards that can be verified by Agency oversight.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), FSIS issues
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products
prepared for distribution in commerce. The regulations, along with FSIS
inspection programs, are designed to ensure that meat and poultry
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to all of the proposed requirements, FSIS considered
taking no action. As alternatives to the proposed performance standard
requirements, FSIS considered end-product testing and requiring ``use-
by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Benefits are expected to result from fewer contaminated products
entering commercial food distribution channels as a result of improved
sanitation and process controls and in-plant verification. FSIS
believes that the benefits of the rule would exceed the total costs of
implementing its provisions. FSIS currently estimates net benefits from
the 2003 interim final rule at $470 to $575 million, with annual
recurring costs at $150.4 million, if FSIS discounts the capital cost
at 7%. FSIS is continuing to analyze the potential impact of the other
provisions of the proposal.
The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and
stabilization performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must
meet when producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of
these requirements would be associated with one-time process
performance validation in the first year of implementation of the rule
and with revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are expected to result from
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process
verification and sanitation. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of
foodborne illness.
Risks:
Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated
that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of foodborne
illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated that about
65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths per year,
were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The analysis of the
interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes conservatively
estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to an annual
reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses at the median. FSIS is
continuing to analyze data on production volume and Listeria controls
in the RTE meat and poultry products industry and is using the FSIS
risk assessment model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely risk
reduction effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that the
risk reductions being achieved are substantially greater than those
estimated in the analysis of the interim rule.
FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's
public health protection effort.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/27/01 66 FR 12590
[[Page 64174]]
NPRM Comment Period End 05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/03/01 66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/01
Interim Final Rule 06/06/03 68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/06/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period
Reopened 03/24/05 70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End 05/09/05
Affirmation of Interim
Final Rule 03/00/10
Final Action 08/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
24. FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246 (section 11015)
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009.
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new voluntary Federal-
State cooperative inspection program under which State-inspected
establishments with 25 or fewer employees would be eligible to ship
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. State-inspected
establishments selected to participate in this program would be
required to comply with all Federal standards under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA).
These establishments would receive inspection services from State
inspection personnel that have been trained and certified to assist
with enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products
produced under the program that have been inspected and passed by
selected State-inspection personnel would bear a Federal mark of
inspection. FSIS is proposing these regulations in response to the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, enacted on June 18, 2008 (the 2008
Farm Bill). Section 11015 of 2008 Farm Bill provides for the interstate
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry product from selected
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate implementing
regulations no later than 18 months from the date of its enactment
Statement of Need:
This action is needed to implement a new Federal-State cooperative
program that will permit certain State-inspected establishments to ship
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Inspection services
for establishments selected to participate in the program will be
provided by state inspection personnel that have been trained and
certified in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) Meat and poultry
products produced by establishments selected to participate in the
program will bear a Federal mark of inspection.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under section 11015 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) (PL-110-246).
Section 11015 amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C.
601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C.
451, et seq.) to establish an optional Federal-State cooperative
program under which State-inspected establishments would be permitted
to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The law
requires that FSIS promulgate implementing regulations no later than 18
months after the date of enactment.
Alternatives:
1. No action: FSIS did not consider the alternative of no action
because section 11015 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires that it promulgate
regulations to implement the new Federal-State cooperative program. The
Agency did consider alternatives on how to implement the new program.
2. Limit participation in the program to state-inspected establishments
with 25 or fewer employees on average: Under the law, state-inspected
establishments that have 25 or fewer employees on average are permitted
to participate in the program. The law also provides that FSIS may
select establishments that employ more than 25 but fewer than 35
employees on average as of June 18, 2008 (the date of enactment) to
participate in the program. Under the law, if these establishments
employ more than 25 employees on average 3 years after FSIS promulgates
implementing regulations, they are required to transition to a Federal
establishment. FSIS rejected the option of limiting the program to
establishment that employ 25 or fewer employees on average to give
additional small establishments the opportunity to participate in the
program and ship their meat of poultry products in interstate commerce.
3. Permit establishments with 25 to 35 employees on average as of June
18, 2008, to participate in the program. FSIS chose the option of
permitting these establishments to be selected to participate in the
program to give additional small establishments the opportunity to ship
their meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Under this
option, FSIS will develop a procedure to transition any establishment
that employs more than 25 people on average to a Federal establishment.
Establishments that employee 24 to 35 employees on average as of June
18, 2008, would be subject to the transition procedure beginning on the
date three years after the Agency promulgates implementing regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the costs of this proposed rule to industry, FSIS,
State and local governments, small entities, and foreign countries.
Participation in the new Federal-State cooperative program will be
optional. Thus, the costs and benefits associated with the proposed
rule will depend on the number of States and establishments that chose
to participate. Very small and certain small establishments State-
[[Page 64175]]
inspected establishments that are selected to participate in the
program are likely to benefit from the program because they will be
permitted sell their products to consumers in other States and foreign
countries.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/16/09 74 FR 47648
NPRM Comment Period End 11/16/09
Final Action 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Rachel Edelstein
Director, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0399
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: rachel.edelstein@fsis.usda.gov
RIN: 0583-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
25. RURAL ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE--SECTION 9009
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Secretary shall establish a Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency
Initiative (grant program) to provide financial assistance for the
purpose of enabling eligible rural communities to substantially
increase the energy self-sufficiency of the eligible rural communities.
Business Programs has the primary role in program implementation and
will work in consultation with the Forest Service on Community Wood
Energy Program. The Forest Service has operated a program in the past
to assist rural school systems in the use of alternative fuels for
heating physical plants. Their expertise will assist Rural Development
in promulgating a valuable program, well suited to the needs of rural
communities.
Statement of Need:
This is a new grant program authorized by the Farm Bill. The purpose of
Section 9009, Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative, is to provide
financial assistance to enable eligible rural communities to
substantially increase the energy self-sufficiency.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative was authorized by the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $5
million annually in discretionary funding through 2012, but no funds
have been made available to date.
Alternatives:
An alternative would be to publish a proposed rule without an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Farm Bill currently does not clearly
define eligible rural communities or what eligible entities can apply
on behalf of an eligible community. There are no maximum or minimum
grant amounts set in this program. Additionally, the Farm Bill does not
include any scoring requirements to determine who would receive a grant
under the program. There are other program components not defined in
the statute. Because of the limited discretionary funding for this
program, scoring requirements would need to be determined based on
extremely focused parameters. A determination would need to be made as
to the size of the average project, particularly when you are
considering a community submitting an application to develop and
install an integrated renewable energy system. The program will need to
clearly define an eligible rural community and what type of applicants
would be eligible.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the notice. Other costs
would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the rule.
The Agency is confident that the regulations will contain sufficient
safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and
would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants
considering applying for assistance under this program. Benefits
accruing to the publishing of an advance notice would enable the Agency
to use the public comments to develop a more focused proposed rule.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 12/00/09
NPRM 07/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 09/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Anthony Ashby
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0661
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: anthony.ashby@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0570-AA77
[[Page 64176]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
26. GRANTS FOR EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS--SECTION 6023
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
Not Yet Determined
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This is a new program created by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the section is to provide
grants to nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.
Statement of Need:
There is no existing program regulation. USDA Rural Business-
Cooperative Service (RBS) is promulgating regulations to implement
section 6023. The regulation will provide assistance, which includes
grants to nonprofit organizations or consortium of nonprofit
organization that have a significant focus on serving the needs of
individuals with disabilities. Assistance will be awarded on a
competitive basis. Regulatory implementation may include certain
existing requirements identified in 7 CFR for civil rights
requirements, grant servicing requirements, and so forth.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals with
Disabilities in Rural Areas is authorized by the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008. The purpose of the section is to provide grants to
nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment opportunities
for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives to issuing a proposed regulation in order to
allow the public opportunity to provide comments on the program
requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulation will contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a
benefit to the Agency as well as organizations who utilize the program.
Risks:
None noted.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 03/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Andrew Jermolowicz
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3250
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-3250
Phone: 202 720-8460
Fax: 202-720-4641
RIN: 0570-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
27. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 9003
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The purpose of section 9003 is to assist in the development of new and
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.
Advanced biofuels are fuels derived from renewable biomass other than
corn kernel starch. The program will increase energy independence,
promote resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and
forestry products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in
rural economies. Assistance includes grants and guaranteed loans.
Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible entities
include individuals, entities, Indians tribes, units of State or local
governments, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations,
association of agricultural producers, National Laboratories,
institutions of higher learning, rural electric cooperatives, public
power entities, or a consortium of any of the entities. Regulatory
implementation may include certain requirements identified in existing
Rural Business-Cooperative Service regulations for the Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loan and the Rural Energy for America programs.
Statement of Need:
The program will increase energy independence, promote resource
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products,
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. The
program was originally announced in the Federal Register as an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 20, 2008.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Biorefinery Assistance program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $75,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009 and $245,000,000 in mandatory funding for
2010, till expended. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided an
authorization to appropriate up to $150,000,000 in discretionary
funding for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides
loan guarantees for the development, construction and retrofitting of
commercial-scale biorefineries, and grants to help pay for the
development and construction costs of demonstration-scale
biorefineries. The purpose is to assist in the development of new and
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.
[[Page 64177]]
Alternatives:
A Notice of Funding Availability was published in the Federal Register
on November 20, 2008, to implement the program for fiscal year 2009.
Permanent regulation need to be implemented to provide funding in 2010
and further clarify of the program
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential
applicants considering applying for payments under this program.
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as
the ownership criteria.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 11/20/08 73 FR 70542
ANPRM Comment Period End 01/20/09
NPRM 01/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
William C. Smith
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 205-0903
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: william.smith@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0570-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
28. RURAL BUSINESS RE-POWERING ASSISTANCE--SECTION 9004
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The proposed action will encourage biorefineries existing at the time
the 2008 Farm Bill became law to replace fossil fuels used to produce
heat or power used in their operation by making payments for
installation of new systems that use renewable biomass and/or new
production of energy from renewable biomass.
Payments may be made under section 9004 to any biorefinery that meets
the requirements of this section for a period determined by the
Secretary. The Secretary shall determine the amount of payments to be
made after considering factors addressing fossil fuel offsets and the
cost effectiveness of renewable biomass systems.
Statement of Need:
The new regulations for the program will clarify the application
process and definitively provide rules and regulation regarding the
payment process. These changes are essential to clarify for
verification and measurement of the energy produced which is the basis
for eighty percent of payments under this program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Repowering Assistance program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and, Energy Act of 2008, which made available $35,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
was published on June 12, 2009, making $20 million available and $35
million will be available in 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill also authorizes
$15,000,000 in discretionary funding to be appropriated for each fiscal
year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for the payments to
provide incentives to biorefineries to use renewable biomass for heat
and or power. The purpose is to reduce the dependence of biofuel
producers on fossil fuels and to develop renewable biomass as an
alternative energy source. The proposed new regulations are an
administrative, rather than legislative, initiative.
Alternatives:
Other than issuing a NOFA with the possibility that all funds available
for this program would be obligated, there is no alternative to issuing
a proposed regulation. The proposed regulation provides an opportunity
for public comments on aspects of the program such as level of
payments, geographical eligibility, time frame of prospective payments
and ownership criteria.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be benefit
to the agency as well as potential applicants considering applying for
payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the publishing from a
proposed rule would be attributable to the opportunity of public
comments which are believed to improve program payment target levels
and shed light on the associated needs and applicants. Publication and
refinement of measurement and verification protocols used in making
payments is expected as result of comments and experience gained from
initiating the program.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 64178]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Frederick Petok
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 690-0784
Fax: 202 720-2213
RIN: 0570-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
29. RURAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS FOR PAYMENTS FOR THE BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR
ADVANCED BIOFUELS--SECTION 9005
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-234
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to make payments to eligible producers to support and
ensure an expanding production of advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels
are defined as `fuel derived from renewable biomass other than corn
kernel starch' in The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The
program will increase energy independence, promote resource
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products,
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. To
receive a payment, an eligible producer shall enter into a contract
with the Secretary of Agriculture for production of advanced biofuels.
The basis for payments under this program are the quantity and duration
of production of biofuel produced by an eligible producer, the net
nonrenewable energy content of the advanced biofuel, and other
appropriate factors as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Statement of Need:
The new regulations for the program known as the Bioenergy Program for
Advanced Biofuels will clarify the application process, eligibility,
payment formula's and eligible products and provide substantive rules
and regulation regarding the payment process. These regulations are
essential to allow for verification and measurement of the advanced
biofuel development promoted by this program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program was authorized by
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made mandatory
funding available of $55,000,000 in for fiscal year (FY) 2009,
$55,000,000 in FY 2010, $85,000,000 in FY 2011 and $105,000,000 in FY
2012. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published on June 12,
2009 and that made $35 million available in 2009. The remaining $20
million will be available in 2010 in addition to $55 million for 2010,
included in the Farm Bill. An additional $25,000,000 in discretionary
funding is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year 2009
through 2012 may be made available. The program provides for the
payments to support and ensure expanding the production of advanced
biofuels.
Alternatives:
A NOFA was published in June 2009 for immediate program implementation.
Permanent regulations are required to provide funding for 2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential
applicants considering applying for payments under this program.
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as
the ownership criteria.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Diane Berger
Loan/Grant Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 260-1508
Fax: 202-720-6003
Email: diane.berger@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0570-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
30. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM--SECTION 9007
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 4280-B; 7 CFR 4280-D
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA)) is being
replaced with a new program titled the Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP), section 9007 of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
The new program will provide grants for energy audits and renewable
energy development assistance; and financial assistance for energy
efficiency improvements and renewable energy
[[Page 64179]]
systems. The program will increase energy independence, promote
resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry
products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural
economies. Eligible entities based on the sub-program of the sub-
section include units of State, tribal, or local government; land grant
or other institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives
or public power entities; agricultural producers; rural small
businesses; and any similar entity as determined by the Secretary. The
bill directs that at least 20 percent of funds be used for grants of up
to $20,000 each. The bill merges the energy audit program and the
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements programs.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) intends to publish a
proposed rule to implement changes to RD Instruction 4280-B and the
Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance grant
regulations in RD Instruction 4280-C. The changes will incorporate
provisions from the Farm Bill and other initiatives intended to enhance
program delivery and Agency oversight.
Statement of Need:
Changes are needed to the regulation for the program known as the Rural
Energy for America Program (REAP), due to the changes required by the
2008 Farm Bill. The program was previously called the Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement program and was created by
the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to the change in the title of the
program, several regulatory changes are needed for REAP as outlined
above. These changes are required to comply with current statutes. The
program was implemented utilizing a notice of funding availability in
FY 2009. Permanent regulation is required to implement the program in
2010.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Rural Energy for America program was authorized by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $55,000,000
in mandatory funding for 2009, $60,000,000 mandatory funding for 2010,
$70,000,000 mandatory funding for 2011 and 2012. The Farm Bill
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 in discretionary funding for
each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for grants and
guaranteed loan for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency
improvements, and grants for feasibility studies and energy audit and
renewable energy development assistance. The purpose of the program is
to reduce the energy consumption and increase renewable energy
production. The regulations are an administrative and a legislative
initiative.
Alternatives:
There is no alternative to issuing a proposed regulation, which allows
the public an opportunity to provide comments on the program
requirements. Permanent regulations are required to provide funding in
2010.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a
benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants considering
applying for payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the
publishing from a proposed rule would be attributable to the
opportunity of public comments which are believed to improve program
implementation and impact.
Risks:
The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or
safety or to the environment.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Kelley Oehler
Deputy Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 720-6819
Email: kelley.oehler@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0570-AA76
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--RBS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
31. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 6022
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 110-246
CFR Citation:
None
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) includes
Section 6022 establishing the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Program (RMAP). The Act mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture
establish a program to make loans and grants to support
microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of rural
microenterprises. The Act further mandates that entities will use funds
borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than $50,000 to
rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the Agency will make
grants to provide business based training and technical assistance; and
that the Agency will provide funding to improve the capacity of rural
Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) to provide services to
rural microenterprise clients.
Upon enactment of the Act, a committee was formed to discuss policy,
implementation, and processes needed to move the program forward. In
mid-January, 2009 a listening forum was held at USDA. The object of the
listening forum was to allow public comment regarding the statute and
to obtain opinions regarding the implementation of the program. The
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Business Programs is currently
preparing a proposed rule with an anticipated publication date of late
December 2009. The proposed rule is based on verbiage in the statute,
comments made at the listening forum, research of similar-but not the
same- types of programs within USDA and at other agencies, and the
experience of the writers, one of whom worked in or managed Federal
[[Page 64180]]
microentrepreneurship programs for 13 years. The goal of the proposed
rule is to obtain public comment, revise the rule accordingly, and
ensure a sound program. Comments received from the proposed rule will
be used as a basis for publication of a final rule which is anticipated
for the spring of 2010.
The proposed rule will include instructions for the management of loan
and grant programming and for the management of the ultimate recipient
microloan portfolio. Any organization receiving a loan under the
program will be expected to capitalize a revolving loan fund which will
make loans of $50,000 or less to ultimate recipients. Any organization
that receives a loan will also be automatically eligible to receive a
grant so that it may provide an integrated program of micro-level
lending coupled with business based training and technical assistance
for its microborrowers. Grants will also be provided to build the
capacity of rural MDOs so that they may improve their operations and
services for the end users, or so that they may improve the operational
capacity of other MDOs to provide services to end users.
This program will require a complete new set of regulations.
Statement of Need:
The new regulation for the program will be user friendly and responsive
to industry comments. Publication of the proposed rule is crucial to
program implementation. The program will directly create new
businesses, assist with the expansion of existing microbusinesses (for
purposes of this program, a microenterprise is a rural business that
employs 10 or fewer Full Time Employees (FTE)), create jobs, increase
the flow of tax dollars to rural communities, and add lasting value in
terms of rural community impact.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The RMAP was authorized by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of
2008. The Act establishes the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Program and mandates that the new program will make loans and grants to
support microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of
rural microenterprises. It further mandates that entities will use
funds borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than
$50,000 to rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the
Agency will make grants to provide business based training and
technical assistance; and that the Agency will provide funding to
improve the capacity of rural MDOs to provide services to rural
microenterprise clients.
The purpose of the program is to increase access to capital and
business based training in rural areas for rural business owners and
potential business owners at the start up and micro levels.
Alternatives:
The proposed rule process is our only current route for implementation.
Funding for the initial four years (2009-2012) of the program is
mandatory and FY2009 funding will be expendable in FY2010. The proposed
rule will allow the Agency to use both years' funding in the inaugural
year of program implementation.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs:
Initial costs include the cost of the listening conference; staff time;
and the cost of the regulation writing contractor that works in close
concert with staff.
Ongoing costs include a minimal increase of one FTE, and space for
same, at the National Office level. The state offices are not currently
under consideration for more FTEs as a result of this program.
Other costs will/do include the cost of automation of distribution of
funding, loan servicing, grant servicing, repayment systems, and
oversight systems. The assigned office (Specialty Programs Division)
has been working with the Information Technology (IT) offices to
implement the program through RULSS which is the newer generation of
agency automation systems and is the most flexible in terms of meeting
the needs of the statute. Finally, Training will be required for field
staff.
Cost Mitigation--To mitigate implementation costs the proposed rule has
considered existing programs to ensure that implementation will be less
process based and more results driven when compared to other programs.
Automated processes will help ensure efficiency. Use of existing field
staff will keep new FTEs to a minimum.
Benefits:
The initial benefits to program implementation include the addition of
a small rural business lending program that increases access to Rural
Development programming by adding to the starting end of the business
financing continuum of services. The program allows Rural Development
to open its doors to rural clients at the very beginning level of the
business start-up and initial growth phases, and provide assistance to
businesses that are often too small to be considered viable for a bank
loan. The long term benefits to program implementation include long
term availability of this new pathway to assist rural start-up
businesses; increased access to business capital in rural areas, at a
grass roots level, and often to pre-bankable ultimate recipients;
expansion of business opportunities in rural areas; increased tax flow
as businesses become profitable; increased job creation and rural job
retention as new and existing microbusinesses sprout and grow; support
of micro level entities producing organic food product, locally grown
food product, and locally manufactured goods for intra and interstate
export; service industry growth; increased opportunity for rural youth;
and legal immigrants; and increased exposure of Rural Development
funding programs to the target constituency.
Mandatory funding is set at $4 million for FY2009; $4 million for
FY2010; $4 million for FY2011; and $3 million for FY2012. The statute
authorizes up to $40 million per year for each of the years in addition
to mandatory funding.
Risks:
Program risks include making of loans and grants to multiple types of
entities for multiple purposes with a singular goal; ability to select
appropriately capable lending and training entities; reliance on
selected entities for sound microloan underwriting and appropriate
portfolio management; and availability of enough grant funding for
ongoing technical assistance in the out years. We anticipate mitigating
these risks via sound regulatory guidance, appropriate training, and
clear communication of expectations to selected participants. Further,
the statute is based in part on a successful non-USDA program of a
similar nature with which many of the stakeholders and selected
participants will be familiar providing this agency with a level of
confidence.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/07/09 74 FR 51714
NPRM Comment Period End 11/23/09
Final Rule 02/00/10
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
[[Page 64181]]
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Jody Raskind
Director, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 690-1400
Email: jody.raskind@wdc.usda.gov
Lori Washington
Loan Specialist, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9815
Fax: 202 720-2213
Email: lori.washington@wdc.usda.gov
RIN: 0570-AA71
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S
