This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

3735 

Vol. 86, No. 10 

Friday, January 15, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1464 

[Docket ID NRCS–2019–0012] 

RIN 0578–AA70 

Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program 

AGENCY: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), 

United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with 

minor changes, an interim rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 13, 2020. The interim rule 

implemented changes to RCPP that were 

either necessitated by the Agriculture 

Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 

Farm Bill) and changes for 

administrative streamlining 

improvements and clarifications. CCC 

amended this interim rule with a 

technical correction on March 17, 2020. 

NRCS received input from 65 

commenters who provided 335 

comments in response to the interim 

rule. This final rule makes permanent 

the provisions of the interim rule, 

responds to comments received, and 

makes further adjustments in response 

to some of the comments received. 

DATES: Effective: January 15, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari 

Cohen; phone: (202) 720–6037; or email: 

kari.cohen@usda.gov. Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication should 

contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 

720–2600 (voice). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized and 

amended RCPP. On February 13, 2020, 

an interim rule with request for 

comments was published in the Federal 

Register (85 FR 8131–8145) that added 

RCPP regulations in 7 CFR part 1464 to 

implement changes made by the 2018 

Farm Bill. A technical correction was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15051–15052). 

This final rule adopts, with minor 

changes, the interim rule. 

Discussion of RCPP (7 CFR part 1464) 

RCPP, implemented under the 

direction of the Chief of NRCS, 

promotes coordination of NRCS 

conservation activities with partners 

that offer value-added contributions to 

address on-farm, watershed, and 

regional natural resource concerns. 

Through RCPP, NRCS seeks to co-invest 

with partners to implement projects that 

demonstrate innovative solutions to 

conservation challenges and provide 

measurable improvements and 

outcomes. 

RCPP projects may only be carried out 

on agricultural or nonindustrial private 

forest land or associated land on which 

NRCS determines an eligible activity 

would help achieve conservation 

benefits. Eligible conservation activities 

may be implemented on public lands 

when those activities will benefit 

eligible lands as determined by NRCS 

and are included in the scope of an 

approved RCPP project. 

The interim rule: 

• Created a new part in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) to 

acknowledge that RCPP is now a standalone program, no longer subordinated 

to its covered programs. 

• Identified three contract types for 

implementation of RCPP, including 

programmatic partnership agreements, 

program contracts, and supplemental 

agreements. 

• Defined terms to address changes 

made by the 2018 Farm Bill, 

including— 

Æ Conservation benefits; 

Æ Eligible activity; 

Æ Eligible partner; 

Æ Lead partner; 

Æ Nonlead partner; 

Æ Participant; 

Æ Priority resource concern; 

Æ Project resource concern; 

Æ Proposal; and 

Æ RCPP plan of operations. 

• Identified that NRCS may award up 

to 15 Alternative Funding Arrangement 

(AFA) projects, which rely on partner 

capacity to implement conservation 

activities. 

• Acknowledged the reduction from 

three funding pools to two and directed 

partners to apply to either the Critical 

Conservation Area (CCA) or State and 

Multistate funding pool. 

• Added provisions requiring all 

RCPP project partners to develop and 

report on their environmental outcomes. 

• Expanded the scope of RCPP by 

including the authorities of the 

Conservation Reserve Program (16 

U.S.C. 3831–3835) and the Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention 

Program (Pub. L. 83–566), excluding the 

Watershed Rehabilitation Program, in 

the definition of ‘‘covered programs.’’ 

• Expanded the purpose of RCPP to 

include protection of drinking water 

and ground water on eligible land. 

• Allowed partnership agreements to 

be longer than 5 years in certain 

situations, as determined by NRCS, to 

further purposes of RCPP. 

• Allowed partnership agreement 

renewals for a period not to exceed 5 

years that in certain situations may be 

funded through an expedited 

noncompetitive process. 

• Allowed a partnership agreement, 

or a renewal partnership agreement, to 

be extended one time for up to 12 

months. 

• Required reporting publicly at the 

time of selection the amount of 

technical assistance (TA) that will be set 

aside for project implementation. 

• Acknowledged an obligation to 

provide guidance for partners on how to 

quantify and report project outcomes, 

including achievement of conservation 

benefits. 

Summary of Comments 

The interim rule 60-day comment 

period ended May 12, 2020. NRCS 

received 335 comments from 65 

commenters in response to the rule. 

NRCS reviewed these 335 comments 

and categorized and summarized them 

according to the topics identified below. 

NRCS received comments on a wide 

variety of topics, including several 

comments of a general nature, most of 

which expressed support, as well as a 

few comments that were not relevant to 

RCPP or to the RCPP interim rule. The 

topics that generated the greatest 

response were easements, funding 

pools, program administration, program 

contracts, and proposals. 

3736 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

In this rule, the comments have been 

organized alphabetically by topic. The 

topics include: 

• Adjusted gross income (AGI) 

waivers; 

• Alternative funding arrangements 

(AFA); 

• Availability of program funding 

(APF); 

• Easements; 

• Eligibility; 

• Funding pools; 

• Partner contributions; 

• Program administration; 

• Program contracts; 

• Programmatic partnership 

agreements; 

• Proposals; 

• RCPP activity types; 

• Renewals; and 

• Supplemental agreements. 

Adjusted Gross Income Waivers 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

expressing concern about reporting 

requirements necessary to receive an 

AGI eligibility determination from the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA). Comment 

also expressed concern that the AGI 

waiver process may harm the ability of 

small farms to receive conservation 

assistance and suggested adding more 

detail on the process and criteria for 

granting AGI waivers. 

Response: AGI eligibility 

determination processes are not within 

the purview of NRCS or this 

rulemaking. However, NRCS recently 

published a National Bulletin (NB 440– 

20–26) which indicated that an RCPP 

lead partner may request a waiver of the 

applicability of AGI at the RCPP project 

level during the initial Partnership 

Project Agreement (PPA) negotiation 

only. If granted, producers participating 

in RCPP through individual contracts or 

agreements will not be required to file 

AGI paperwork or have AGI 

determinations made by FSA. If the 

RCPP lead partner does not request or 

receive a project-level waiver of the 

applicability of AGI, a producer may 

seek a waiver of the AGI limitation upon 

receiving an AGI determination. No 

changes are made in the final rule in 

response to this issue. 

Alternative Funding Arrangements 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

requesting clarification that NRCS 

retains administrative responsibility for 

conservation compliance, AGI, and 

payment limitation determinations, 

tenant rights, producer appeals, civil 

rights, and other similar responsibilities. 

Additionally, comment requested that 

NRCS: 

• Remove the parenthetical about 

roads, dams, and irrigation facilities 

used to describe the types of 

infrastructure upon which an AFA 

could focus; 

• Provide guidance on AFA goals; 

• Only use AFAs in limited 

circumstances and apply stringent 

criteria; 

• Support AFA irrigation projects and 

provide incentives for projects that 

would benefit fish and other aquatic 

species, particularly in overallocated 

basins; 

• Administer AFA projects through 

grant agreements; and 

• Expand the indirect costs eligible 

for reimbursement under AFA projects. 

Response: NRCS will define 

responsibilities in the APF 

announcements and AFA partnership 

agreements, while still maintaining 

flexibility. NRCS will identify which 

responsibilities must remain with 

NRCS. 

This final rule removes the 

parenthetical from § 1464.25. RCPP 

infrastructure projects relate to 

conservation activities that significantly 

address resource concerns but require 

greater investment than a single 

producer can make. NRCS’s goal for 

AFA projects is to fund proposals that 

are consistent with RCPP purposes but 

are more effectively and efficiently 

carried out through lead partner efforts 

than through NRCS’s conservation 

delivery system. AFA criteria are 

published as part of funding 

announcements when AFA funding is 

made available. AFAs are 

‘‘programmatic instruments’’ that 

provide NRCS with the ability to 

balance the flexibility of grants or other 

agreement mechanisms with statutorily 

mandated responsibilities regarding 

NRCS roles. For all RCPP projects, 

including AFAs, the statutory limitation 

on administrative costs prohibits use of 

RCPP funding for a partner’s indirect 

costs. Other than removing the 

parenthetical noted above, there are no 

other changes made in the final rule in 

response to this issue. 

Availability of Program Funding (APF) 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

expressing support for the existing APF 

and requesting that NRCS: 

• Clarify its intent to cover project 

management costs; 

• Provide written feedback for 

projects that are not selected; and 

• Follow procedures of lead public 

entities when possible to promote 

efficiency. 

Comment also included request for 

additional funding and flexibility for 

TA, including TA-only projects or 

projects focused on conservation 

planning. 

Response: RCPP projects are 

collaborative, and NRCS works with 

each partner to develop procedural 

flexibility to help deliver conservation 

assistance effectively in the project area. 

While partners provide significant 

contribution to project costs, NRCS 

focuses on the technical and financial 

resources necessary to implement 

conservation activities and covers much 

of the project costs. For projects that are 

not selected, NRCS provides feedback to 

partners to help them develop more 

competitive proposals for future 

submission. NRCS strongly supports 

conservation planning and technical 

assistance delivery in its program 

implementation efforts, including RCPP, 

and selects proposals that most 

effectively delivery conservation 

outcomes. No changes are made in the 

final rule in response to these issues. 

With respect to TA-only type projects, 

the Farm Bill makes clear that all RCPP 

projects are intended to generate 

conservation benefits and report on 

conservation outcomes, therefore, RCPP 

should prioritize on-the-ground 

conservation activities plus the TA 

required to get that conservation on the 

ground. NRCS has an extensive 

Conservation Technical Assistance 

program that provides such support to 

its partners. 

Easements 

Buy-Protect-Sell (BPS) Transactions 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

related to BPS easement transactions, 

including support for the availability of 

BPS transactions under RCPP and 

requesting the extension of such 

flexibility to U.S.-held easements. 

Comment also: 

(a) Recommended that NRCS consider 

as eligible BPS projects that encompass 

land purchased on an interim basis by 

State or county governments to improve 

land access by Historically Underserved 

(HU) producers; 

(b) Addressed easement deed terms, 

recommending that NRCS make the 

minimum deed terms available as soon 

as possible and provide full flexibility 

in the use of entity-written deed terms; 

and 

(c) Recommended that the entity 

match follow ACEP–ALE flexibility, 

which allows a landowner’s donation of 

easement value to constitute all of the 

nonfederal match requirements. 

Response: Based on the ACEP 

definition, BPS transactions are unique 

transactions that require the transfer of 

an easement to an eligible entity and do 

not include the United States as the 

ultimate easement holder. ACEP land 

eligibility is limited to private and 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3737 

1Ungulates are hooved mammals. 

Tribal lands. In contrast, RCPP land 

eligibility includes certain public lands, 

and NRCS may allow States and local 

government agencies to enter into a BPS 

transaction under RCPP. NRCS will 

announce any authorizations for such 

transactions through an APF. 

NRCS has posted the minimum deed 

terms to provide a full range of options 

for US-held and entity-held easements. 

The minimum deed terms provide 

eligible entities with maximum 

flexibility to use their own terms while 

NRCS ensures that RCPP purposes and 

requirements are met. NRCS will also 

maintain easement compensation 

flexibility under the final rule. Future 

APFs will provide information on the 

best approach for leveraging Federal 

funding and partner efforts. 

No changes are made in the final rule 

in response to these issues. 

U.S.-Held Easement Compensation 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

about the range of easement types 

available under RCPP, expressing 

support for the flexibility and requesting 

that NRCS avoid competition between 

RCPP U.S.-held agricultural land 

easements and other farm protection 

programs. Comment also addressed the 

easement valuation structure identified 

in the APF, opposing the use of tiered 

easement compensation based upon 

level of U.S.-held RCPP easement 

protection. Comment also recommended 

that NRCS consider landowner 

charitable donation of easement value 

and landowner management activities 

on an easement as part of the partner’s 

contribution. 

Response: The three tiers of 

compensation paid to landowners 

enrolling in a U.S.-held RCPP easement 

were established to emphasize the 

partnership nature of RCPP and to 

ensure that RCPP would not compete 

with other NRCS easement programs. 

While partner contributions are 

encouraged to compensate landowners 

fully for enrollment of less restrictive 

easement types, landowner donations of 

easement value or associated 

management costs cannot be counted as 

partner contribution. Doing so would 

reduce the incentive for partners to 

provide assistance to producers. For 

example, when RCPP reimburses a 

producer for up to 75 percent of the cost 

of implementing a conservation 

practice, the remaining 25 percent is the 

producer’s responsibility. If the 

producer solely pays for the 25 percent 

share, it is not considered a partner 

contribution. A partner contribution 

only occurs if the partner assists the 

producer with the cost of the practice. 

NRCS will continue to encourage greater 

partner investment in project success 

through the competitive tiering of 

easement compensation. No changes are 

made in the final rule in response to 

these issues. 

Eligibility 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

about land eligibility in general, 

including support for the eligibility of 

certain public agricultural lands and 

some suggesting expansion of such 

eligibility to all public land. Comment 

also supported the eligibility of lands 

owned by non-governmental 

organizations, while other comment 

recommended that eligibility be 

expanded to include forest land under 

threat from grazing by ungulates.1

Commenters also expressed 

appreciation for the consistency of land 

eligibility between the CSP and RCPP 

interim rules and urged NRCS to be 

flexible in determining whether such 

land is under the ‘‘effective control’’ of 

the producer. 

Response: NRCS appreciates 

comments regarding land eligibility 

with respect to lands owned by public 

and non-governmental entities. The 

RCPP activity type informs whether or 

not public land or land owned by a nongovernmental entity is eligible given 

existing public trust protections and 

related restrictions and the relationship 

of those protections and restrictions to 

addressing resource concerns. As a 

result, NRCS believes that the current 

parameters best reflect the scope of land 

eligibility. No changes are made in the 

final rule in response to these issues. 

Funding Pools 

Critical Conservation Areas 

Comment: NRCS received comments 

related to Critical Conservation Areas 

(CCAs), including recommending that 

NRCS: 

(a) Add excess water as a concern for 

the Mississippi River basin; 

(b) Consolidate the Columbia River 

basin and the California Bay Delta into 

a single CCA; 

(c) Add water source protection to all 

eight CCAs; 

(d) Add soil health or soil quality as 

a priority resource concern for all eight 

CCAs; 

(e) Allow CCA projects to include 

areas outside of a CCA; 

(f) Continue Conservation Assessment 

and Ranking Tool (CART) use; 

(g) Expand CCAs to include New 

England; 

(h) Identify a new CCA focusing on 

coral reefs in the Pacific Islands Areas 

and the Caribbean Area; 

(i) Identify a new CCA focusing on the 

Puget Sound; 

(j) Continue the CCA in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed; 

(k) Update CCAs to cover all 50 states; 

and 

(l) Clarify that if a proposal is within 

a CCA it will only receive priority if it 

both achieves conservation benefits and 

addresses the CCA’s primary resource 

concern. 

Response: While lands outside a CCA 

can influence resource concerns within 

a critical conservation area, NRCS 

identified CCA boundaries to provide 

clear demarcation. This final rule 

clarifies that lands outside of a CCA are 

not eligible for proposals or applications 

in a CCA. The regulation is also 

amended to reflect that NRCS will give 

priority to proposals in CCAs that both 

(1) achieve conservation benefits and (2) 

address at least one of a CCA’s priority 

resource concerns. 

NRCS appreciates the comments 

related to CART and suggestions 

regarding RCPP and water resource, soil 

health, and soil quality. Regarding 

proposed changes to the eight 

designated CCAs, the Secretary 

identifies CCAs, including whether an 

existing CCA will be re-designated. 

NRCS is working with the Office of the 

Secretary to determine whether the 

current designation status of CCAs, 

including the re-designation of current 

CCAs or new CCAs, should be 

undertaken. No changes are made in the 

final rule in response to these issues. 

Other 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

related to funding pools that did not 

address CCAs. Comment expressed 

concern that the National funding pool 

was eliminated and suggested that State 

Conservationists should be the selecting 

official for the State and Multi-State 

funding pool. 

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill 

mandated removal of the National 

funding pool. NRCS provides State 

Conservationists with advisory 

allocations to guide the State’s ranking 

process. However, the Chief makes all 

final selections. No changes are made in 

the final rule in response to these issues. 

Renewals 

Comment: NRCS received support for 

the renewal process though some 

comment critiqued its competitive 

nature due to limited funds. Comment 

recommended that a renewal 

demonstrate the continued need for the 

project and requested that NRCS post 

renewal criteria prior to requesting 

renewal applications. Comment 

alternatively recommended funding all 

3738 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

renewal requests that qualify, even if it 

must be done at a reduced rate. 

Response: Renewals of partnership 

agreements do not compete with new 

proposals, but criteria are needed so that 

NRCS only renews those partnership 

agreements that represent the best 

investment of additional RCPP 

resources. To do so, NRCS uses 

screening questions to determine if a 

project has met or exceeded the original 

objectives, alongside other factors— 

including available funding and project 

diversity (geographic and type)—to 

determine which projects will be offered 

renewal. 

Partner Contributions 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

recommending: 

(a) Increased practice payments to 

encourage producer participation in 

RCPP projects; 

(b) Clarification that RCPP funding 

can be stacked with any other source of 

funding; 

(c) Clarification that partners may 

reduce their contributions if NRCS 

provides an award amount less than the 

partner’s proposal request; 

(d) Landowner donations (for 

example, related to practice 

implementation) be allowed as partner 

contributions if they are based on 

verifiable expenses; and 

(e) A flexible structure for partner 

contributions that match overall 

objectives of individual projects. 

Comment also supported NRCS 

setting partner contribution goals (for 

example, at least 1:1), allowing partner 

contribution expenditures after award 

announcement, and the explicit 

addition of in-kind contributions as 

allowable partner contributions. 

Comment also expressed misplaced 

concerns that RCPP requires the partner 

contribution match to be made in cash. 

Response: NRCS proportionally 

reduces expected partner contributions 

when the NRCS award is less than the 

amount requested, unless negotiated 

differently by the parties. NRCS will not 

consider landowner expenses to be 

partner contributions because the 

purpose is to stimulate assistance to 

producers. NRCS will continue to 

clarify contribution requirements in 

APFs. No changes are made in the final 

rule in response to these issues. 

Program Administration 

Evaluation Criteria 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

recommending use of the following 

criteria when evaluating proposals for 

their conservation impact or outcomes, 

including suggestions that metrics 

should be used for partnership 

renewals; use of honeybees and other 

pollinators; use of practices to support 

native vegetation; and implementation 

of a drought contingency plan. 

Comment also recommended that 

NRCS: 

(a) Identify selection criteria for 

partnership agreements, including 

whether there is the availability of 

alternative funding arrangements, in 

each APF; 

(b) Use a simplified evaluation 

process; 

(c) Consult with partners on all 

aspects of distributing RCPP financial 

assistance; 

(d) Utilize fully AFAs; 

(e) Work with local working groups as 

part of the proposal ranking criteria; 

(f) Provide more certainty on 

reimbursement of real costs of both 

project implementation and proposal 

development; 

(g) Work with the lead partner to rank 

and select priority projects; 

(h) Involve the lead partner in 

program contract selection and 

development; 

(i) Provide equal treatment for small, 

midsize, and large farms; 

(j) Provide an option to forego a 

public and open enrollment process; 

(k) Amend the ‘‘priority resource 

concern’’ definition in § 1464.3 to 

highlight soil health as critical to water 

quality, aquifer recharge, carbon 

sequestration and water retention; and 

(l) Use caution applying ‘‘innovation’’ 

criteria since it is difficult to apply to 

flood damage reduction projects. 

Response: RCPP encourages flexible 

and streamlined delivery of 

conservation assistance to producers. To 

maximize its flexibility and set it apart 

from other NRCS programs, evaluation 

criteria used to assess proposals are 

developed at the APF level. Moving 

forward, NRCS will consider the 

evaluation criteria proposed by 

commenters in developing APFs and, in 

doing so, will involve partners, 

stakeholders, and local working groups. 

Of note, NRCS believes that including 

scientific conclusions about the role of 

soil health in the definition of priority 

resource concern is not congruent with 

the concept that identifying priority 

resource concerns depends on the needs 

of the CCA, rather than a broad, national 

objective. No changes are made in the 

final rule in response to these issues. 

General 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

requesting that NRCS: 

(a) Clarify roles and responsibilities of 

conservation partners and Technical 

Service Providers (TSPs) from the time 

of application through the 

implementation phases; 

(b) Simplify the proposal application, 

ranking, and implementation processes 

(for example, maintain the adjustment 

of terms option); 

(c) Require in regulation that there be 

a communication plan between NRCS 

and the lead partner to facilitate the 

entire RCPP project; 

(d) Specify the reporting requirements 

for both NRCS and RCPP partners; 

(e) Clarify when contract type will be 

determined in the application process; 

(f) Provide detail on the 

documentation and planning of 

technical assistance and contributions; 

(g) Acknowledge source water 

protection as a goal, and; 

(h) Publish a ‘‘plan for comment’’ that 

outlines how NRCS will track and 

report expenditures towards source 

water protection. 

Response: NRCS appreciates feedback 

intended to improve processes and 

delivery. Proposal application questions 

are specific to each funding 

announcement and are created as part of 

the funding announcement 

development process. To ensure that 

projects are feasible and meet program 

goals and objectives, technical experts 

provide input into question 

development and are involved 

throughout the evaluation and ranking 

process. 

Programmatic partnership agreements 

specify the responsibilities and 

expectations of both NRCS and the lead 

partner from project implementation to 

close. In addition, per § 1464.2, NRCS 

has designated an RCPP coordinator for 

each State, whose role is to guide and 

assist partners through program 

implementation. Because the existing 

process provides ample opportunity for 

communication between NRCS and the 

lead partner, no change is made to the 

regulation to require a communication 

plan. 

NRCS tracks and documents technical 

assistance internally. NRCS will provide 

partners a semiannual report that 

contains the status of each pending and 

obligated contract under each project 

and an annual report describing how 

NRCS used that fiscal year’s TA. 

RCPP funds associated with RCPP 

producer contracts in a source water 

protection (SWP) area as modeled by the 

Environmental Protection Agency are 

counted towards the 10 percent of funds 

that statute requires to be utilized for 

source water protection. This final rule 

adjusted the rule language to 

incorporate SWP as a priority. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3739 

Historically Underrepresented (HU) 

Groups 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

recommending that NRCS incorporate 

into the final rule benchmarks related to 

participation by HU groups to reflect the 

importance and increasing engagement 

of women who participate in RCPP, and 

to ensure that RCPP does not 

inadvertently favor large landowners. 

Comment also recommended adding 

language to identify HU groups as a 

priority in the proposal procedures 

(§ 1464.20), ranking and proposal 

selection (§ 1464.21), and partnership 

agreement (§ 1464.22) sections of the 

final rule. 

Response: Consistent with the 2018 

Farm Bill, NRCS gives priority 

consideration to RCPP proposals that 

provide outreach to, and engagement of, 

HU groups. (HU groups, as specified in 

the RCPP authorizing legislation, 

include beginning farmers or ranchers, 

socially disadvantaged farmers or 

ranchers, limited resource farmers or 

ranchers, and veteran farmers and 

ranchers. NRCS has and will continue to 

provide program-specific outreach to 

HU groups at the national, State, and 

local levels. These efforts are often 

tailored to the needs of the service area, 

with targeted efforts for HU producers. 

Gender is not a covered HU group, 

which is specified in the authorizing 

legislation; however, NRCS encourages 

the participation of all producers who 

are eligible. 

This final rule encourages further HU 

producer and landowner enrollment, 

including requiring partnership 

agreements to denote any authorizations 

for higher payment rates, advance 

payment options, or other methods for 

encouraging HU participation. Changes 

are made in the final rule in response to 

these issues. 

Outcomes Measuring and Reporting 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

requesting that the rule be updated to 

require partners to assess the 

conservation progress of their RCPP 

projects ‘‘in a quantified form to the 

extent practicable.’’ Comment further 

recommended the use of existing 

metrics for outcomes measurement, and 

also suggested that NRCS provide 

partners with geospatial data on new 

and existing practices to help facilitate 

outcomes measurement and reporting. 

Additionally, comment expressed 

concern that outcomes activities will 

further burden already strained NRCS 

staff capacity. Lastly, comment 

requested dedicated NRCS funding for 

monitoring conservation practices 

implemented as part of RCPP projects. 

Response: The 2018 Farm Bill 

requires NRCS to gather quantitative 

data regarding conservation benefits, as 

set forth in the requirements of APFs. 

RCPP lead partners are required, to the 

extent practicable, to report on the 

conservation environmental outcomes 

of their projects. Reporting on 

economic, financial, and social 

outcomes is optional but encouraged. 

NRCS is committed to collaborating 

with lead partners to ensure that their 

reporting of outcomes help NRCS 

evaluate the value of RCPP investments. 

No changes are made in the final rule in 

response to these issues. 

Payment 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

suggesting a per-producer payment limit 

of $450,000 under RCPP, consistent 

with payment limitations under EQIP. 

Comment also suggested that NRCS base 

payment rates on real, local costs using 

prevailing wages or the regional 

Consumer Price Index. 

Response: Payment limitations, such 

as those set forth in 7 CFR parts 1466 

(EQIP) and 1470 (CSP) are established 

by statute. RCPP does not have a 

statutory payment limitation. NRCS 

plans to have activity-level limitations 

on producer contracts to ensure wider 

availability of funding. These 

limitations will be identified in 

partnership agreements and posted on 

NRCS State websites. No changes are 

made in the final rule in response to 

these issues. 

Staff Support 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

supporting increased NRCS staffing to 

focus on RCPP projects and 

communicate with partners, including 

strong support for the 2018 Farm Bill’s 

requirement, as reflected in the interim 

rule, that each State identify an RCPP 

Coordinator. 

Comment emphasized the need for 

designated program staff (including 

increasing staff where program 

workload was high) and urged that 

NRCS further support the RCPP State 

Coordinators by developing job 

descriptions for the new role and 

providing adequate time needed to 

fulfill the responsibilities. Comment 

also requested that states provide 

additional local, technical contacts for 

RCPP projects to ensure program goals 

are achieved and urged process 

efficiencies that allow NRCS technical 

partners, such as conservation districts, 

to implement projects without incurring 

NRCS staff time. 

Additionally, NRCS received 

comment expressing concern about 

NRCS’ dependence on partners and 

TSP, citing insufficient NRCS staffing at 

the state and local levels. Comment also 

requested that NRCS delegate authority 

to State and regional entities to carry out 

contract deliverables. 

Response: NRCS has designated State 

RCPP coordinators. NRCS appreciates 

comments expressing concern about 

NRCS staffing capacity and NRCS’ 

ability to meet and customer service 

needs in States with heavy workloads. 

No changes are made in the final rule in 

response to these issues. 

Technical and Software Upgrades 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

recommending that NRCS involve 

partners in implementing tools such as 

CART, ensure that all technology be in 

operation prior to accepting 

applications so that the process does not 

change midstream, and clarify how 

applicants will be selected for different 

program contract types. Comment 

additionally recommended including a 

standardized set of application 

questions and consistent reporting 

requirements, and that these be 

communicated to potential partners 

earlier in the process. Comment also 

expressed an interest in ensuring CART 

remain size-neutral. 

Response: NRCS has and will 

continue to develop and improve our 

business tools, such as CART, including 

evaluating how to remain size-neutral. 

NRCS does not intend to change 

application procedures over the course 

of an application period, though it will 

continue to refine the process for future 

application periods. The process for 

matching an applicant with an RCPP 

contract depends on the nature of the 

specific programmatic agreement. No 

changes are made in this final rule in 

response to these issues. 

Technical Service Providers 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

about RCPP’s use of TSPs, including 

that NRCS do more to encourage the use 

of TSPs and allow technical assistance 

to be provided by entities other than 

NRCS-certified TSPs. 

Response: Requirements about 

delivery of technical services through 

TSPs is covered in 7 CFR part 652. The 

TSP regulation identifies the 

requirements for a producer to be 

reimbursed for the cost of hiring a TSP 

to obtain technical services related to an 

NRCS conservation program, including 

RCPP, and such a TSP must be certified 

by NRCS. The TSP regulation also 

identifies that NRCS may obtain 

additional assistance in its delivery of 

technical assistance through a 

procurement contract or cooperative 

agreements. Since the solicitation 

3740 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

methods used for those contract or 

agreement types ensure that NRCS 

obtains assistance from qualified TSPs, 

the TSP regulations specify that such 

TSPs do not also need to be certified 

under 7 CFR part 652. For more 

information, visit the NRCS TSP website 

at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ 

portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/ 

technical/tsp/. No changes are made in 

the final rule in response to these issues. 

Program Contracts 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

requesting clarification as to whether 

RCPP contracts can serve to meet 

existing compliance and enforcement 

requirements. Comment also 

encouraged separate contracts for 

easements on agricultural land, a focus 

on co-operators’ needs and resources 

rather than program requirements, and 

that NRCS provide a visual depiction as 

to how the new contracting method will 

be efficient and independent. Comment 

also expressed support for skipping an 

eligible application on a ranking list if 

the remaining funding is insufficient to 

fund that application or for other 

limited circumstances that would 

warrant not selecting applications 

strictly according to rank order. 

Response: Conservation activities 

funded under RCPP, as with other NRCS 

voluntary conservation programs, can 

address resource concerns that meet a 

producer’s compliance requirements, 

provided that the producer is not under 

an administrative order or other 

compulsory enforcement process related 

to the producer’s failure to meet those 

requirements. NRCS will provide 

informational materials to partners 

about the new contracting methods as 

requested. No changes to the rule were 

needed to address these issues. 

Programmatic Partnership Agreements 

Comment: Comment praised approval 

of salary expenses in PPAs and the 

ability to make selections out of rank 

order for critical projects. Comment also 

suggested that more clarification is 

needed in the rule on expenses incurred 

prior to PPA completion, how and when 

funding will become available, how 

funds for project management can be 

requested, who measures success in TA 

and FA activities, and how partnerships 

can be terminated. 

Respondents suggested that NRCS 

should: 

(a) Publicly report on its TA 

expenditures under PPAs; 

(b) Require lead partners to 

periodically assess conservation 

benefits; 

(c) Increase PPA length beyond 5 

years if needed; and 

(d) Establish that lead partners will be 

required to follow all applicable laws, 

rules, and guidelines expected of NRCS 

when awarding contracts. 

Response: The RCPP statute specifies 

the terms for PPAs and no change is 

needed to address agreement duration 

in this rule. The AFAs provide detail as 

to the ability to receive payment for prePPA expenses. The terms and 

conditions associated with terminating a 

PPA are specified in the PPA itself. The 

regulation addresses the consequences 

should NRCS determine that PPA 

termination is necessary. No changes are 

made in the final rule in response to 

these issues. 

Proposals 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

about several aspects of APFs, 

recommending that the RCPP regulation 

include similar detail as APFs regarding 

proposal requirements and the 

evaluation process beyond the four 

overarching pillars. Comment also 

requested language: 

(a) Addressing circumstances under 

which ‘‘associated’’ non-agricultural 

lands would be eligible for RCPP; 

(b) Defining ‘‘eligible activities’’ more 

clearly; 

(c) Providing information about the 

percentages of project funding that will 

be available for FA versus TA; and 

(d) Providing clear guidance on what 

can and cannot count as direct or inkind partner contribution. 

Further, NRCS received comment: 

(a) Requesting clarity regarding 

‘‘innovation’’ and ‘‘flexibility’’; 

(b) Identifying that limiting the 

percentage of funding that can be 

allocated using discretionary 

prioritization factors would increase 

transparency; 

(c) Requesting that the RCPP Portal be 

active at the beginning of the 

application process; and 

(d) Recommending language for the 

regulation to reflect conservation 

benefits as a proposal requirement. 

Response: The funding announcement 

process and timeline, including the 

application questions and criteria, are 

published as part of each funding 

announcement. This process provides 

the greatest program flexibility 

regarding the diversity of partner 

capabilities, resource concerns, and 

other program goals. The criteria are 

made public and provide transparency 

about how NRCS is focusing its RCPP 

implementation. The circumstances 

about eligible activities, associated nonagricultural lands, and TA and FA 

percentages will be addressed in 

upcoming APFs. 

Similarly, APFs include more 

information about ‘‘innovation,’’ 

selection criteria, and weightings as 

these terms relate to program priorities. 

Establishing funding percentages or 

limitations in the regulation would 

reduce NRCS’s ability to tailor APFs to 

critical resource concerns. In response 

to comment, this rule revises 

§ 1464.20(b) to focus proposal priorities 

on conservation benefits. No other 

changes are made in the final rule in 

response to these issues. 

RCPP Activity Types 

Rental Contract Duration 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

recommending that RCPP rental 

contracts should be for 10 years, as that 

is the duration authorized under the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). 

Response: NRCS uses RCPP land 

rental contracts to focus on short-term, 

targeted rental needs in the context of a 

larger RCPP project, unlike the longerterm purpose of CRP rental contracts. 

RCPP rental contracts are focused on 

actions such as incentivizing adoption 

of an innovative cropping system or to 

transition to an organic production 

system and thus are short term (3 years). 

No change was made in response to this 

comment. 

Other 

Comment: NRCS received comment 

covering a variety of RCPP activity 

types. For practice innovation related to 

land management contracts, comment 

recommended: 

(a) Simplifying the process for adding 

interim conservation practice standards; 

(b) Including practices focused on 

water recycling, the recycling of liquid 

waste, and the adoption of advanced 

nutrient recovery technology; 

(c) Allowing a flexible fallow program 

to be eligible; and 

(d) Allowing different practices and 

approaches to be used in the same RCPP 

project and not limit practices in RCPP 

project awards. 

For rental contracts, comment 

recommended: 

(a) Clarifying the availability and 

eligibility of land-rental practices (from 

CRP), especially for longer contracts and 

practices; 

(b) Concern about not applying the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP) authority for riparian 

buffers; 

(c) Having project partners add a 

farmer mentor component to projects 

utilizing the short-term land rental 

option; and 

(d) Clarifying whether the use of CRP 

authorities (16 U.S.C. 3831–3835) 

includes CREP. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3741 

For easement agreements, comment 

recommended: 

(a) Expanding the reach of entity-held 

easements by allowing other land, 

including forested land, wetlands, and 

riparian areas, as it appeared to the 

commenter that the interim rule 

decoupled requirements specific to 

NRCS’s Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program (HFRP); and 

(b) Authorizing payments to 

producers participating in a project that 

addresses water quantity concerns and 

that would encourage conversion from 

irrigated to dryland farming. 

Comment expressed support for the 

interim rule’s inclusion of expanding 

Public Law 83–566 activities 

nationwide within RCPP. Finally, 

comment recommended that NRCS 

continue to allow for greater flexibility 

in RCPP activity types. 

Response: NRCS will maintain the 

integrity of its RCPP practices to ensure 

wise use of Federal funds while 

supporting innovation. CREP is a 

component of CRP (administered by 

FSA), and CREP agreements are 

partnership agreements with state 

governments. NRCS believes that CREPstyle agreements would be redundant to 

the RCPP partnership agreement and 

would not aid in meeting RCPP goals 

efficiently. 

NRCS expanded the availability of 

both U.S.-held and entity-held 

easements to the full extent of the RCPP 

land eligibility criteria, and therefore 

the types of easements identified by the 

comment are already available. In 

addition, the 2018 Farm Bill expanded 

the availability of Public Law 83–566 

authority nationwide, and NRCS has 

entered into PPAs that utilize the Public 

Law 83–566 authority beyond CCAs. 

HFRP land eligibility criteria differs 

from RCPP criteria. RCPP forest land 

eligibility is limited to non-industrial 

private forest land, while HFRP 

eligibility encompasses commercial 

forest land as well. 

No changes are made in the final rule 

in response to these issues. 

Supplemental Agreements 

Comment: Comment expressed 

support for the addition of 

supplemental agreements to the interim 

rule and recommended clarifying that 

NRCS consult with the lead partner 

when entering into a supplemental 

agreement with a non-lead partner and 

provide fuller discussion and 

clarification of the use of supplemental 

agreements. 

Response: A supplemental agreement 

is a flexible vehicle for obligating RCPP 

funding to an eligible partner or third 

party to carry out authorized RCPP 

activities. Supplemental agreements are 

used generally to award TA funding, to 

implement watershed or public works 

projects, or to implement an entity-held 

easement agreement. As a condition of 

supplemental agreement(s), NRCS and a 

partner may negotiate documentation 

requirements for payment, based on 

agreement deliverables and activities. 

Supplemental agreements will require 

additional reporting beyond that 

required of the overall project’s lead 

partner. No changes are made in the 

final rule in response to this issue. 

Notice and Comment, Paperwork 

Reduction Act, and Effective Date 

In general, the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) 

requires that a notice of proposed 

rulemaking be published in the Federal 

Register and interested persons be given 

an opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking through submission of 

written data, views, or arguments with 

or without opportunity for oral 

presentation, except when the rule 

involves a matter relating to public 

property, loans, grants, benefits, or 

contracts. This final rule involves 

matters relating to benefits and therefore 

is exempt from the APA requirements. 

Further, the regulations to implement 

the programs of chapter 58 of title 16 of 

the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C. 

3846, and the administration of those 

programs, are: 

• To be made as an interim rule 

effective on publication, with an 

opportunity for notice and comment, 

• Exempt from the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. ch. 35), and 

• To use the authority under 5 U.S.C. 

808 related to Congressional review and 

any potential delay in the effective date. 

For major rules, the Congressional 

Review Act requires a delay in the 

effective date of 60 days after 

publication to allow for Congressional 

Review. This rule is a major rule under 

the Congressional Review Act, as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

authority in 5 U.S.C. 808 provides that 

when an agency finds for good cause 

that notice and public procedure are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, that the rule may 

take effect at such time as the agency 

determines. Due to the nature of the 

rule, the mandatory requirements of the 

2018 Farm Bill, and the need to 

implement the regulations expeditiously 

to provide RCPP assistance to 

producers, NRCS and CCC find that full 

notice and public procedure are 

contrary to the public interest. 

Therefore, even though this rule is a 

major rule for purposes of the 

Congressional Review Act of 1996, 

NRCS and CCC are not required to delay 

the effective date for 60 days from the 

date of publication to allow for 

Congressional review. Therefore, this 

rule is effective on the date of 

publication in the Federal Register. At 

the same time, NRCS and CCC note that 

this final rule reflects consideration of 

the comments that were provided in 

response to the interim rule. 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, 

and 13777 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ and Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ direct agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasized the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Executive 

Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ established a federal 

policy to alleviate unnecessary 

regulatory burdens on the American 

people. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) designated this rule as 

economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, 

OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs 

and benefits of this rule are summarized 

below. The full regulatory impact 

analysis is available on https://

www.regulations.gov/. 

Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs,’’ requires that in order to manage 

the private costs required to comply 

with federal regulations for every new 

significant or economically significant 

regulation issued, the new costs must be 

offset by the elimination of at least two 

prior regulations. This rule involves 

transfer payments and does not rise to 

the level required to comply with 

Executive Order 13771. 

OMB guidance in M–17–21, dated 

April 5, 2017, specifies that ‘‘transfer 

rules’’ are not covered by Executive 

Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs.’’ Transfer 

rules are Federal spending regulatory 

actions that cause only income transfers 

between taxpayers and program 

beneficiaries. Therefore, this is 

considered a transfer rule and is not 

covered by Executive Order 13771. 

3742 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Cost Benefit Analysis 

RCPP is a voluntary collaborative 

program that provides financial and 

technical assistance to partner 

organizations to help agricultural 

producers plan and implement 

conservation activities to address 

natural resource concerns on private or 

Tribal agricultural, nonindustrial 

private forest and certain associated 

lands. RCPP was first authorized by 

Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill. To date, 

375 projects have been selected across 

the U.S. and Puerto Rico leveraging $1 

billion in NRCS technical and financial 

assistance with approximately $1.3 

billion in partner contributions. 

Under the 2014 Farm Bill, 

conservation activities were undertaken 

through partnership agreements 

(between NRCS and a lead partner) and 

contracts or agreements with eligible 

landowners, entities, and individuals 

under one or more covered programs 

(EQIP, CSP, ACEP, HFRP, and Pub. L. 

83–566). EQIP, CSP, and ACEP each 

contributed seven percent of their 

annual funding toward RCPP 

partnership projects. In addition, the 

2014 Farm Bill provided $100 million 

annually in direct RCPP mandatory 

funding. 

The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized 

RCPP with significant changes to how 

RCPP is funded. Specifically, the 

contributions from ‘‘covered programs’’ 

are eliminated as a funding source and 

‘‘covered program contracts’’ are 

replaced with RCPP contracts and 

programmatic partnership agreements. 

The 2018 Farm Bill repeals the seven 

percent reserved resources from the 

covered programs, provides $300 

million in annual mandatory CCC 

funding, and establishes RCPP 

standalone contracts. Federal transfers 

under the 2014 Farm Bill totaled 

slightly more than $1 billion for FY2014 

through 2018, or $200 million on an 

annual basis. The $300 million in 

mandatory annual funding increases 

RCPP funding by approximately $100 

million annually, taking into account 

the past contribution of the ‘‘covered 

programs’’ for fiscal years 2014 through 

2018. 

The 2018 Farm Bill also changed the 

‘‘funding pool’’ structure by 

streamlining from three pools to two 

pools and providing 50 percent of funds 

to a CCA pool and 50 percent of funds 

to a state and multi-state pool. It also 

allows project renewals and creates new 

programmatic authorities and 

expectations for the administration of 

agreements with partners. In addition, 

application and renewal processes are 

simplified to encourage participation by 

both producers and project partners. To 

ensure that only the most successful of 

projects qualify for renewal on a noncompetitive basis, NRCS has identified 

in this rule that a partner has met or 

exceeded the objectives of the original 

project in order to be considered for 

renewal. 

Estimates of costs, benefits, and 

transfers of RCPP on an annual basis are 

reported in Table 1. Given a 3 percent 

discount rate, the projected annualized 

real cost to producers of accessing RCPP 

is $204,258 and the projected 

annualized real transfers are $289 

million. Conservation benefits from 

RCPP are difficult to quantify at a 

national scale but have been described 

by studies at an individual project or 

watershed or local scale as it relates the 

different types of conservation practices 

implemented. 

TABLE 1—RCPP ANNUAL ESTIMATED

COSTS, BENEFITS AND TRANSFERS a

Category Annual estimate 

Costs b ............................ $204,258. 

Benefits .......................... Qualitative. 

Transfers ........................ $289,000,000. 

aAll estimates are discounted at 3 percent 

to 2019 $ except for the participant access 

cost, which is nominal. b Imputed cos[t] of applicant time to gain access to RCPP. 

Most of this rule’s impact consists of 

transfer payments from the Federal 

Government to producers or to partners 

for the benefit of producers. The 

conservation benefits of RCPP financial 

and technical assistance funding 

delivered to date have been directly 

comparable to that provided by covered 

programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP, etc.), and 

similar benefits are expected from RCPP 

funding under the 2018 Farm Bill. 

Additionally, conservation benefits of 

partner contributions and collaboration 

in RCPP projects are expected to 

magnify the benefits of RCPP funding 

over each project’s life, offsetting initial 

delays in obligation and 

implementation. NRCS will discuss 

methods to quantify the incremental 

benefits obtained from RCPP with lead 

partners, but due to the 5-year life of a 

typical RCPP project, only limited data 

are available at this time to support this 

conclusion. Therefore, NRCS and 

partners may use various mechanisms 

such as modeling to predict long-term 

outcomes. Despite these data 

limitations, RCPP is expected to 

positively affect natural resource 

concerns—through both the $300 

million in funding provided annually by 

Congress and by the leverage of partner 

contributions. 

Clarity of the Regulation 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, requires each agency to write all 

rules in plain language. In addition to 

the substantive comments NRCS 

received on the interim rule, NRCS 

invited public comments on how to 

make the rule easier to understand. 

NRCS has incorporated these 

recommendations for improvement 

where appropriate. NRCS responses to 

public comment are described in more 

detail above. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory analysis of any rule 

whenever an agency is required by APA 

or any other law to publish a proposed 

rule, unless the agency certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule is 

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act because no law requires that a 

proposed rule be published for this 

rulemaking initiative. 

Environmental Review 

The environmental impacts of this 

rule have been considered in a manner 

consistent with the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and the NRCS regulations 

for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 

650). The 2018 Farm Bill requires minor 

changes to NRCS conservation 

programs, and there are no changes to 

the basic structure of the programs. The 

analysis has determined that there will 

not be a significant impact to the human 

environment and as a result, an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

not required to be prepared (40 

CFR1501.5 and 1501.6). While OMB has 

designated this rule as ‘‘economically 

significant’’ under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘. . . economic or social effects 

are not intended by themselves to 

require preparation of an environmental 

impact statement’’ (40 CFR 1502.16(b)), 

when not interrelated to natural or 

physical environmental effects. The 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) were available for review and 

comment for 30 days from the date of 

publication of this interim rule in the 

Federal Register. NRCS considered this 

input and determined that there was not 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 3743 

any new information provided that was 

relevant to environmental concerns or 

bore on the proposed action or its 

impacts that warranted an 

environmental impact statement or 

revising the current available RCPP EA 

and FONSI. 

Executive Order 12372 

Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs,’’ requires consultation with 

State and local officials that would be 

directly affected by proposed federal 

financial assistance. The objectives of 

the Executive order are to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened Federalism, by relying on 

State and local processes for State and 

local government coordination and 

review of proposed federal financial 

assistance and direct federal 

development. For reasons specified in 

the final rule related notice regarding 7 

CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, 

June 24, 1983), the programs and 

activities in this rule are excluded from 

the scope of Executive Order 12372. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform.’’ This rule will not preempt 

State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies unless they represent an 

irreconcilable conflict with this rule. 

Before any judicial actions may be 

brought regarding the provisions of this 

rule, the administrative appeal 

provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be 

exhausted, consistent with 7 U.S.C. 

6912(e). 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ 

The policies contained in this rule do 

not have any substantial direct effect on 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, except as required 

by law. Nor does this rule impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments. Therefore, 

consultation with the States is not 

required. 

Executive Order 13175 

This rule has been reviewed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175 

requires federal agencies to consult and 

coordinate with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

The USDA’s Office of Tribal Relations 

(OTR) has assessed the impact of this 

rule on Indian Tribes and determined 

that this rule does not have significant 

Tribal implications that require Tribal 

consultations. Moreover, OTR states that 

NRCS has adhered to the spirit and 

intent of Executive Order 13175. Tribal 

consultation for this rule was included 

in the two 2018 Farm Bill Tribal 

consultation held on May 1, 2019, at the 

National Museum of the American 

Indian, in Washington, DC, and on June 

26–28, 2019, in Sparks, NV. For the May 

1, 2019, Tribal consultation, the portion 

of the Tribal consultation relative to this 

rule was conducted by Bill Northey, 

USDA Under Secretary for the Farm 

Production and Conservation mission 

area, as part of the Title II session. There 

were no specific comments from Tribes 

on the RCPP rule during the Tribal 

consultation. If a tribe requests 

additional consultation, NRCS will 

work with OTR to ensure that 

meaningful consultation is provided 

where changes, additions, and 

modifications identified in this rule are 

not expressly mandated by legislation. 

Separate from Tribal consultation, 

communication and outreach efforts are 

in place to assure that all producers, 

including Tribes (or their members), are 

provided information about the 

regulation changes. Specifically, NRCS 

obtains input through Tribal 

Conservation Advisory Councils. A 

Tribal Conservation Advisory Council 

may be an existing Tribal committee or 

department and may also constitute an 

association of member Tribes organized 

to provide direct consultation to NRCS 

at the State, regional, and national levels 

to provide input on NRCS rules, 

policies, programs, and impacts on 

Tribes. Tribal Conservation Advisory 

Councils provide a venue for agency 

leaders to gather input on Tribal 

interests. Additionally, NRCS held 

discussions subsequent to the interim 

rule publication with Indian Tribes and 

Tribal entities to continue discussions 

about the 2018 Farm Bill conservation 

programs implementation, obtain input 

about how to improve Tribal and Tribal 

member access to NRCS conservation 

assistance, and make any appropriate 

adjustments to the regulations that will 

foster such improved access. 

Unfunded Mandates 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 

104–4), requires federal agencies to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

Governments or the private sector. 

Agencies generally must prepare a 

written statement, including cost 

benefits analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more in any 1 year for State, local or 

Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector. UMRA generally 

requires agencies to consider 

alternatives and adopt the more costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

This rule contains no federal mandates, 

as defined under Title II of UMRA, for 

State, local, and Tribal Governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

UMRA. 

Federal Assistance Programs 

The title and number of the Federal 

Domestic Assistance Programs in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

to which this rule applies: 

10.932—Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

NRCS and CCC are committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act, 

to promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1464 

Agricultural operations, Conservation 

payments, Conservation practices, 

Eligible activities, Environmental 

credits, Forestry management, Natural 

resources, Resource concern, Soil and 

water conservation, Wildlife. 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 1464, which was 

published at 85 FR 8131 on February 13, 

2020, including the technical correction 

published at 85 FR 15051 on March 17, 

2020, is adopted as a final rule with the 

following changes: 

PART 1464—REGIONAL 

CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1464 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 

U.S.C. 3871 et seq. 

3744 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 2. In § 1464.3, amend the definition of 

‘‘Priority resource concern’’ by revising 

paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows: 

§ 1464.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Priority resource concern * * * 

(1) Water quality improvement, 

including source water protection, 

through measures such as reducing 

erosion, promoting sediment control, or 

addressing nutrient management 

activities affecting large bodies of water 

of regional, national, or international 

significance; 

(2) Water quantity improvement, 

including protection or improvement 

relating to: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 1464.20 revise paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) as follows: 

§ 1464.20 Proposal procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The scope of the proposed project, 

including one or more conservation 

benefits that the project must achieve; 

(2) A plan for monitoring, evaluating, 

and reporting on progress made toward 

achieving the project’s conservation 

objectives; 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 1464.21 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(5), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’ and add the word ‘‘and’’ in 

its place; 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(7), removing the 

word ‘‘or’’; 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(8) as 

paragraph (b)(9); 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (b)(8); and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (c)(4). 

The additions read as follows. 

§ 1464.21 Ranking consideration and 

proposal selection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) To a significant extent involve— 

(i) Historically underserved 

producers; 

(ii) A community-based organization 

comprising, representing, or exclusively 

working with historically underserved 

producers; 

(iii) Developing an innovative 

conservation approach or technology 

specifically targeting historically 

underserved producers’ unique needs 

and limitations; or 

(iv) An 1890 or 1994 land grant 

institution (7 U.S.C. 3222 et seq.), 

Hispanic-serving institution (20 U.S.C. 

1101a), or other minority-serving 

institution, such as an historically Black 

college or university (20 U.S.C. 1061), a 

tribally controlled college or university 

(25 U.S.C. 1801), or Asian American and 

Pacific Islander-serving institution (20 

U.S.C. 1059g); or 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Lands outside of a CCA are not 

eligible for consideration under the CCA 

funding pool, even where such land 

may influence resource concerns within 

the CCA. 

■ 5. Amend § 1464.22 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(11) 

and (12) as paragraphs (d)(12) and (13); 

■ d. Adding new paragraph (d)(11). 

The addition reads as set forth below. 

§ 1464.22 Partnership agreements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(11) Provide a detailed description of 

how the lead partner will facilitate 

participation of historically underserved 

producers (including through advance 

payment options, increased payment 

rates, outreach activities, or other 

methods for increasing participation by 

historically underserved producers) if 

the proposal received increased ranking 

priority as described in § 1464.21(b)(8); 

* * * * * 

§ 1464.25 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 1466.25 amend paragraph (b)(2) 

by removing the parenthetical phrase 

‘‘(such as roads, dams, and irrigation 

facilities)’’. 

■ 7. In § 1464.30, add paragraph (d)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1464.30 Application for program 

contracts and selecting applications for 

funding. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Lands outside of a CCA are not 

eligible for applications in the CCA, 

even where conservation efforts on such 

land may influence resource concerns 

within the CCA. 

Kevin Norton, 

Acting Chief, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

Robert Stephenson, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00300 Filed 1–12–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–16–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 2 

[NRC–2020–0033] 

RIN 3150–AK46 

Non-Substantive Amendments to 

Adjudicatory Proceeding 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of January 19, 2021, for 

the direct final rule that was published 

in the Federal Register on November 5, 

2020. This direct final rule revised and 

clarified the agency’s rules of practice 

and procedure to reflect current Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

practice, Commission case law, and a 

decision of the Supreme Court of the 

United States and to enhance 

consistency within the NRC’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective date: The effective date 

of January 19, 2021, for the direct final 

rule published November 5, 2020 (85 FR 

70435), is confirmed. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2020–0033 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information for this action. You may 

obtain publicly-available information 

related to this action by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0033. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Dawn 

Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; 

email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession number for each document 

referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) 

is provided the first time that it is