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

89917 

Vol. 89, No. 220 

Thursday, November 14, 2024 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

7 CFR Part 4284 

[Docket No. RBS–24–BUSINESS–0004] 

RIN 0570–AB03 

Modernizing Grant Program Regulation 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation and 

response to comments. 

SUMMARY: The Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBCS or the 

Agency), an agency of the Rural 

Development (RD) mission area within 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), published a final rule with 

comment in the Federal Register on 

September 16, 2024, to implement the 

provisions of the Agriculture 

Improvement Act of 2018 related to the 

Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) 

Program and the Agriculture Innovation 

Center (AIC) Program and to modernize 

the Rural Cooperative Development 

Grant Program (RCDG). These changes 

will also help simplify and streamline 

RD program delivery. Through this 

action, RBCS is confirming the final rule 

as it was published and providing 

responses to the public comments that 

were received. 

DATES: The final rule published 

September 16, 2024, at 89 FR 75762, 

and is confirmed and effective 

November 15, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melinda Martin, Program Management 

Division, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20250–3201; 

telephone (202) 720–1400; email: 

melinda.c.martin@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RD is a 

mission area within USDA comprised of 

RBCS, the Rural Utilities Service and 

the Rural Housing Service. RD’s mission 

is to increase economic opportunity and 

improve the quality of life for all rural 

Americans. RD meets its mission by 

providing loans, grants, loan guarantees, 

and technical assistance through a 

multitude of programs aimed at creating 

and improving businesses, housing and 

infrastructure throughout rural America. 

The final rule that published 

September 16, 2024 (89 FR 75762), 

included a 30-day comment period that 

ended October 16, 2024. The changes 

implemented the mandatory provisions 

outlined in sections 7608 and 10102 of 

the Agriculture Improvement Act of 

2018 (Pub. L. 115–334) and updated and 

reorganized subparts F, J and K. In 

addition, language in subpart J was 

updated to incorporate a new 

application intake system that was 

developed and will streamline the 

application process for VAPG. With the 

changes, each subpart is a standalone 

set of definitions and requirements for 

each individual grant program. 

The Agency received detailed 

comments from 19 respondents 

consisting of nonprofit cooperative 

development centers, individuals, and 

current and past awardees of RBCS 

grant programs. The majority of the 

respondents felt the changes were 

positive and would provide clarity for 

the applicants, but several did identify 

areas where additional changes may be 

needed. The Agency reviewed the 

comments, categorized them as general 

or by section of the final rule, and 

provided an Agency response below. 

The Agency has decided to proceed 

with implementation of the final rule 

without further amendments. 

General—Program Accessibility 

Comments: Three respondents stated 

that accessibility for Federal programs 

should be improved for small 

businesses and nonprofits. One 

identified the audit requirement, stating 

that requiring an audit limits these 

organizations from applying because 

they cannot afford an audit. Another 

identified a lack of inclusivity for small 

and micro-sized agricultural businesses 

and nonprofit organizations led by AfroAmerican, Native, and transplanted 

American communities in the Northern 

Mariana Islands. A third identified 

matching funds requirements as a 

concern. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency is aware that accessing 

Federal programs is difficult for smaller 

organizations and strives to limit 

program requirements to those that are 

required by applicable laws and 

regulations. Neither the RCDG program 

nor the VAPG program have audit 

requirements beyond the ones required 

by 2 CFR part 200. The AIC program 

does have an audit requirement for all 

applicants. However, it must be noted 

that small businesses are not eligible 

applicants for the program. It is 

imperative that applicants who are 

considered for funding have the 

financial capability to administer up to 

a $1.5 million project. Thus, reviewing 

the audit for certain financial standards 

is a critical part of the review process to 

ensure that the Agency selects 

applicants who have the financial 

resources to carry out the authorized 

work for the program. The Agency 

recognizes the need to be inclusive of all 

people and ensure equitable access to 

funding opportunities and services. 

Priority is given to distressed and 

disadvantaged communities and also to 

historically underserved agricultural 

producers. With regard to matching 

funds, all three programs have statutory 

requirements that are implemented 

through this regulation. 

General—Local Agriculture Market 

Program (LAMP) Report to Congress 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

while VAPG awards reach all states, 

very few awards reached the following 

states: Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, 

Nevada, North Dakota, Louisiana, 

Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. To 

strengthen program implementation, the 

commenter suggested that the annual 

LAMP Report to Congress include 

additional factors such as the number of 

applications being received from these 

underrepresented states, what type of 

projects are being funded in those states, 

the agricultural products created, and 

the proportion of awards by priority 

categories within individual states. 

Agency Response: The Agency will 

collaborate with the Agriculture 

Marketing Service to assess the 

information that will appear in future 

LAMP reports to Congress. 

Sec. 4284.501 Purpose 

Comment: One respondent states that 

§ 4284.501 mentions that grants are 

made to non-profit institutions, then 

§ 4284.503 defines institutions as a 

college. The respondent continues by 

stating it is vital that private, non-profit 

charitable organizations be explicitly 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89918 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible for the grants and would like for 

the Agency to clarify the eligibility of 

501(c)(3) charitable non-profits. 

Agency Response: In § 4284.503 

Definitions, the final rule defines a 

Nonprofit Institution as ‘‘any 

organization or institution, including an 

accredited Institution of Higher 

Education, no part of the net earnings of 

which inures, or may lawfully inure, to 

the benefit of any private shareholder or 

individual.’’ A 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit would be included in this 

definition. In addition, RCDG applicants 

must have a mission that is in line with 

the purpose of the program and provide 

targeted support for the startup, 

expansion, and operational 

improvement of Cooperatively and 

Mutually Owned Businesses in Rural 

Areas. 

Sec. 4284.503 Definitions 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended that the Agency include 

the International Cooperative Alliance 

(ICA)’s Statement on Cooperative 

Identity in its processes and written 

materials. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

acknowledges that many cooperatives in 

the United States look to the Alliance’s 

Statement of Cooperative Identity for 

guidance; however, the Agency will be 

using a definition of Cooperative based 

on legal concepts recognized in the 

United States. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the definition for Cooperative 

Development fails to include many of 

the essential business development 

activities, such as business plans, 

feasibility analysis, and financial 

analysis that are critical in cooperative 

development. The respondent 

recommends adding these activities to 

the definition of Cooperative 

Development. 

Agency Response: Cooperative 

Development is a subset of the defined 

term Technical Assistance which 

incorporates the activities of assessment 

and analysis through Feasibility Studies 

and Business Plans, customized 

training, written information, in person 

or virtual exchanges, web-based 

curricula, and webinars. 

Comment: One respondent requested 

that the Agency amend the definition of 

Mutually Owned Business to include 

the following: ‘‘This section allows for 

cooperatively governed businesses that 

may not distribute patronage.’’ The 

respondent believes this will explicitly 

recognize childcare and housing 

cooperatives (that provide a service at 

cost and use cost savings instead of 

patronage), as well as purchasing 

cooperatives that may include not-forprofit members such as school districts. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

understands that some cooperatives like 

childcare and housing cooperatives 

operate at cost and may not distribute 

patronage, but that members benefit in 

proportion to their use of the 

cooperative business. Mutually Owned 

Businesses and Cooperatives that 

operate at cost are Cooperatives as 

defined in the regulation. Therefore, no 

change will be made to the definition of 

Mutually Owned Business. 

Comment: Two respondents stated 

that including a separate definition for 

Mutually Owned Business was 

unnecessary and creates confusion. One 

goes on to state that ‘‘Mutually Owned 

Business’’ means a business not 

incorporated under a Cooperative 

statute but operating as a Cooperative. 

Cooperative operation of the business is 

reflected in the articles and bylaws.’’ 

The respondent believes this 

substantially undercuts the clarity of the 

Rule’s definition of Cooperative by 

creating a seemingly different model 

and referring to corporate entity 

enabling laws. The respondent states 

that Congress did not intend to create 

two different categories of enterprise for 

RCDG purposes and thinks that 

cooperatively and mutually owned 

businesses are a single concept, not two 

different categories. 

Agency Response: The definition of 

Mutually Owned Business adopts the 

definition of Cooperative by reference. 

The Agency provided a separate 

definition for Mutually Owned Business 

to clarify that a Mutually Owned 

Business that operates on a Cooperative 

basis meets the definition of a 

Cooperative for the purposes of the 

authorizing statute. Consequently. there 

is no adverse impact to Mutually 

Owned Businesses with respect to 

eligibility or merit-based evaluation for 

the RCDG program. 

Comment: Six respondents noted that 

the final rule does not define 

‘‘Underserved and Economically 

Distressed’’ but will be defined in the 

annual notification for the RCDG 

program. The concern is that this will 

lead to annual inconsistencies with how 

these areas are determined, create 

confusion among applicants, and 

inefficiencies in planning work. The 

respondents recommend defining the 

term in the final rule. Two respondents 

also noted that cooperative developers 

frequently work with economically 

distressed populations in regions that 

may not carry that label and would like 

for there to be flexibility for applicants 

to describe and justify ways in which 

they serve economically distressed 

populations. 

Agency Response: Defining 

‘‘Underserved and Economically 

Distressed’’ in the annual notification 

instead of the final rule will allow the 

Agency to give attention to the priorities 

of the administration, while also 

receiving consistent data and 

maintaining equity among applicants in 

the program competition. 

Sec. 4284.522 Project Eligibility 

Comment: Two respondents state that 

the Agency is placing more value on 

new cooperatives being developed 

relative to helping existing cooperatives 

to thrive. One noted that projects are 

required to focus on the development of 

new rural cooperatives and is concerned 

that assistance to existing cooperatives 

was left out. The respondent reasons 

that assistance to existing cooperatives 

for improvement or expansion can often 

lead to creation of new jobs and 

improved economic activity and would 

like for the Agency to consider adding 

the phrase ‘‘or existing cooperatives’’ to 

the develop new cooperatives 

requirement. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. Section 4284.522(a)(2) 

requires applicants to focus on 

establishing or operating a Center with 

the goals of creating jobs in Rural Areas 

through the development of new Rural 

Cooperatives, Value-Added processing, 

and Rural businesses. The Agency 

agrees that establishing a Center 

involves the development of a new 

cooperative, however, operating a 

Center includes providing assistance to 

existing cooperatives. Providing 

assistance to existing cooperatives is 

already an eligible project focus so 

adding the requested phrase to the final 

rule is unnecessary. 

Sec. 4284.531 Application 

Requirements 

Comment: Seven respondents 

addressed the performance metrics 

included in the final rule. All were in 

favor of the Agency continuing to use 

the previously required metrics or 

allowing applicants to create their own 

metrics that are specific to the needs 

and service demands of their respective 

state and region. One respondent 

suggested ‘‘removing (L) Financial loss 

avoided as a result of a ‘no-go’ decision 

in the Cooperative Development 

Process.’’ They questioned the basis of 

this calculation and stated that it would 

not be something that would be planned 

at the time of application and may occur 

at various stages of the process. 

Agency Response: While the Agency 

has outlined a set of performance 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89919 

metrics to capture the intent of the 

program and to track the benefits and 

effects on rural communities, we want 

to emphasize that applicants may 

provide a ‘‘null’’ response to any of 

these metrics without penalty. The 

intent is that applicants respond to 

metrics that match the goals identified 

in the applicant’s work plan and budget. 

Additionally, we encourage applicants 

to suggest additional metrics that they 

believe would enhance their proposals, 

as we are not scoring the required 

metrics in a way that would adversely 

affect their applications. The annual 

notification for the program will include 

this guidance. 

Comment: One respondent disagrees 

with the Agency’s decision to require 

centers to describe their experience 

within the last three years. They noted 

that applicants are encouraged to 

highlight how they have helped develop 

sustainable businesses and provide 

economic development statistics, but it 

often takes cooperatives and small 

businesses more than three years to 

reach desired levels of performance and 

profitability. The respondent thinks the 

Agency should change the requirement 

back to experience within the last five 

years, as was required previously. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

recognizes that it often takes 

Cooperatives and Mutually Owned 

Businesses more than three years to 

reach desired levels of performance and 

profitability. A Center with three years 

of experience likely has clients in 

various stages of Cooperative 

Development. The three-year period 

allows the Cooperative Development 

Center to highlight its more recent 

experience. 

Comment: Four respondents noted 

that the final rule does not address 

scoring criteria for letters of support. 

Three of the respondents want the 

Agency to continue considering letters 

of support in the scoring process for 

RCDG. However, one respondent 

believes requiring applicants to obtain 

ten letters is excessive and takes time 

away from developing the application 

itself. If support letters remain a scoring 

criterion, they requested that the 

required number of support letters be 

reduced to five to ease the burden on 

applicants. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

understands the importance of 

demonstrating local collaboration. 

However, after careful consideration, 

the Agency decided to remove this 

requirement. The Agency’s goal is to 

encourage applicants to provide a more 

comprehensive narrative, within the 

workplan and budget, that truly reflects 

their impact and partnerships, rather 

than relying on letters that may not offer 

substantive insights. The Agency 

believes this approach will lead to a 

clearer understanding of each Project’s 

community engagement and potential 

benefits. 

Comment: One respondent believes 

that the Agency should continue 

requiring applicants to include their 

incorporation documentation in their 

RCDG application. 

Agency Response: In streamlining the 

regulation, the Agency determined it 

best for applicants to provide the 

incorporation information within the 

context of the application. The Agency 

is now requesting more specific 

information from the applicant about 

the Technical Assistance provided to 

the Cooperative and Mutually Owned 

Business that leads to incorporation in 

§ 4284.531(b)(5)(v)(A). 

Comment: One respondent questioned 

the need for a complete address in the 

Experience section of the application. 

They stated that when a cooperative 

developer is working with a new 

cooperative, there may or may not be a 

complete address available until the 

entity is incorporated and noted that 

previously they only needed to name 

the business or effort and a community. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

understands that there may not be a 

complete address available until an 

entity is incorporated. The annual 

notification for the program will include 

additional guidance on what location 

information should be submitted in 

your application for a new cooperative 

if a complete address is not available. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the final rule did not identify years of 

experience required in the Experience 

section and noted that five years of 

experience was previously required. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. Section 4284.531(b)(5)(v)(A) 

identifies that experience described in 

the application must be within the last 

three (3) years. 

Comment: Two respondents are 

concerned that making New Cooperative 

Approach an application requirement 

could be confusing and 

counterproductive. One noted that 

while it is good to encourage 

innovation, competent and successful 

work should be properly valued. Even 

though new approaches may not occur 

every year, a Center may be doing very 

good work that should continue. The 

second stated that although encouraging 

innovation is important, requiring 

Centers to develop New Cooperative 

Approaches annually will be 

challenging and time consuming. The 

respondent believes it also distracts 

from the technical assistance delivery 

focus by requiring Centers to spend time 

conducting research and seeking 

projects that can fit into a new 

cooperative approach category instead 

of providing technical assistance to 

existing or newly forming cooperatives 

in need of services. The respondent goes 

on to state that existing proven 

approaches already meet the needs of 

most Center clients. They suggest 

providing more flexibility in this area, 

allowing Centers to focus on adapting 

and refining their existing approaches as 

needed. 

Agency Response: The application 

requirement of New Cooperative 

Approach as a scoring criterion is 

required in the authorizing statute for 

the program. 

Sec. 4284.533 Submission 

Requirements 

Comment: Three respondents voiced 

their support of the application 

submission period included in the final 

rule. Two of the respondents also 

requested that the Agency consider 

staggering the deadlines for the RCDG 

and Socially Disadvantaged Groups 

Grant (SDGG) programs by two weeks to 

decrease the burden on centers applying 

for both programs. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees 

and will work to ensure that sufficient 

time is allotted between the RCDG and 

SDGG programs’ application windows. 

Sec. 4284.540 Application Processing 

Comment: One respondent asked if 

the Agency plans to retain the use of 

qualitative evaluation criteria. They 

noted this as a specific evaluation 

criterion called out by the program in 

the past and found it to be an important 

component of RCDG application 

process. 

Agency Response: The Agency is no 

longer scoring on the applicant’s use of 

qualitative evaluation. Instead, the 

Agency will be performing a qualitative 

evaluation on the performance of the 

program using the newly required postaward outcome reports. 

Sec. 4284.554 Multi-Year Award 

Comment: Five respondents voiced 

their support of the RCDG program 

offering a multi-year funding 

opportunity to previous recipients. 

However, three of the respondents 

encouraged the Agency to only award 

multi-year grants if additional 

appropriations are received so that there 

is not a decrease in the number of award 

recipients. If multi-year grants are 

implemented without a commensurate 

increase in appropriations, the three 

respondents suggested that they be 

awarded contingent upon future 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriations. They believe this would 

maintain the improved efficiency and 

consistency of multi-year grants without 

jeopardizing the national impact of the 

program. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The multi-year funding option will be 

contingent upon an increase in future 

appropriations. 

Sec. 4284.560 Reporting Requirements 

Comment: Two respondents 

questioned the requirement to submit 

two annual outcome performance 

reports. One asked if the two reports 

referred to one financial report and one 

narrative report. The other asked if the 

two reports were requesting different 

metrics or longer-term outcomes. 

Agency Response: The intent of the 

requirement pertains to submitting an 

annual outcome performance report for 

two years following the submission of 

the final report. The report’s purpose is 

to assess the performance metrics 

outlined in your application and 

evaluate whether the primary goals and 

objectives of the approved work plan 

and budget were achieved. The final 

rule will be effective as written but the 

Agency will look to clarify this 

requirement in the annual notice and 

when future updates are made to the 

regulation. 

Sec. 4284.916 Reserved Funds 

Comment: One respondent 

recommends that any reserved funds 

not obligated by September 30 of each 

Fiscal Year for Beginning Farmers or 

Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged 

Farmers or Ranchers, and food safety 

related projects to remain in those 

categories. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. The VAPG statute allows for 

any funds in the Beginning Farmers or 

Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged 

Farmers or Ranchers, and Food Safety 

categories that are not obligated by 

September 30 of the Fiscal Year for 

which the funds were made available, to 

be available to the Agency to carry out 

any function of the program. Therefore, 

unobligated funds in those categories 

will be available in the general fund 

competition the subsequent program 

cycle. 

Sec. 4284.925 Allowable Uses of 

Grant and Matching Funds 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the final rule does not provide sufficient 

information on the types of allowable 

food safety related expenses and 

recommends making the following 

items allowable under the food safety 

project category: 

• Easy-to-Clean Food Contact Surfaces 

to help prevent biological and 

physical contamination 

• Portable Hand washing Stations to 

strengthen hygiene practices; 

plumbed dedicated handwashing 

sinks 

• Small-scale box/produce washer (AZS 

brush washer) to effectively clean 

produce 

• Salad spinner to ensure leafy greens 

are effectively washed, dried, and 

cooled in a way that prevents 

contamination 

• Coolbot systems, or any type of 

refrigeration equipment or forced air 

cooler to ensure proper cooling of 

produce 

• Cooler thermometer and monitoring 

to ensure proper cooling of produce 

• Electrolux spin dryer to effectively 

clean produce 

• On-site septic systems or alternative 

waste treatment systems to prevent 

contamination of product 

• Equipment Calibration Services to 

ensure equipment is maintained and 

correctly calibrated to meet Current 

Good Manufacturing Practice 

guidelines 

• Any other equipment that is required 

to access new markets through a 

federal, state or local food safety law 

or a third-party audit 

• Water treatment systems and 

monitoring equipment for postharvest/processing 

• Labeling equipment (for lot codes/ 

traceability) 

• Traceability software—FSMA 204 

compliance/food safety 

• ATP meters for cleaning and 

sanitation validation 

• Food safety recordkeeping software 

• Cleaning and sanitizing equipment 

• Refrigerated transportation (mobile 

coolers, refrigerated trucks/vans) 

The respondent goes on to state that 

expenses related to food safety 

certification, such as GAP certification 

or pre-harvest food safety certification, 

should be considered allowable as long 

as they are a part of a larger project 

scope that is integral to their marketing 

of a value-added product. They believe 

the following certifications should be 

allowable: 

• Training fees (e.g., PCQI training) 

• Process validation costs for 

products—not really certification but 

not equipment 

• Post-harvest HGAP audit fees 

• Food safety consultant fees—assist 

with HACCP plans, post-harvest food 

safety plans, GMP implementation. 

Agency Response: Food safety related 

expenses associated with the postharvest processing and/or marketing of 

a value-added product are eligible for 

the program. However, expenses that are 

unallowable as defined in § 4284.926 of 

the program regulation will not be 

allowed. Examples of eligible food 

safety related expenses will be included 

in the application material for the 

program as well as on a fact sheet 

published on the USDA VAPG website. 

Sec. 4284.931 Application 

Requirements 

Comment: One respondent believes 

that requiring both a feasibility study 

and business plan for VAPG 

applications is excessive for most 

producers. The commenter stated that 

requiring only a business plan would be 

sufficient for most applicants. Their 

second suggestion includes allowing 

applicants to submit either a feasibility 

study or a business plan, providing 

flexibility for producers to choose the 

appropriate option for their project. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. Applicants requesting 

Emerging Market grants for products 

they have marketed for two years or less 

face unknown challenges and obstacles 

moving a Project forward. A Business 

Plan will assist with establishing a set 

of business goals for the Project along 

with reasons why they are obtainable. 

The Business Plan will also address the 

Pro Forma financial goals of the Project. 

A Feasibility Study is a comprehensive 

analysis of the economic, market, 

technical, financial, and management 

capabilities of a Project or business in 

terms of the Project’s expectation for 

success. This would include looking at 

the Business Plan to ensure there is a 

reasonable expectation of success. 

Because of this, the Agency believes 

both a Feasibility Study and Business 

Plan are necessary. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the final rule clarifies that applicant inkind contributions can fulfill 100 

percent of matching fund requirements 

but is concerned that the requirement 

that matching funds be spent in advance 

of grant funding may act as a project 

barrier, since some in-kind match of the 

producer will come later in the cycle of 

the project. They reason that applicants 

should be able to request reimbursement 

for approved project costs before the 

spend-down of their match contribution 

as to not impede the implementation of 

the project. The commenter 

recommends creating an advance 

payment option, modeled off options 

offered in the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service’s Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program. This would 

allow beginning farmers or ranchers, 

socially disadvantaged farmers and 

ranchers, and veteran farmers to be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 89921 

eligible to receive a portion of the award 

up front. 

Agency Response: Program 

regulations require that funds be 

matched at a rate equal to or in advance 

of grant funds. The VAPG program has 

historically been a reimbursement-based 

program. The Agency believes that 

advanced payments would not be 

appropriate for the program and could 

lead to matching requirements not being 

met. This could result in a recipient 

being required to repay advanced funds 

to the Agency. Please note that 

applicant in-kind contributions of 

applicant or family members’ time being 

spent on the project is restricted to 50 

percent of the Matching Funds amount. 

Applicant third-party contributions of 

the Agricultural Commodity inventory 

to be used in the Project can be used to 

satisfy up to 49 percent of the Matching 

Funds requirement. 

Sec. 4284.933 Submission 

Requirements 

Comment: One respondent voiced 

their support of the application 

submission period included in the final 

rule and noted a set application period 

will result in higher quality 

applications. Another voiced concern 

about the submission period for the 

program. The respondent stated that the 

submission period is problematic 

because producers are being asked to 

establish a budget for items and services 

that will not be purchased before 

October 1, a full 71⁄2 months after 

submission of the application, and the 

likelihood of service providers holding 

to pricing for that long is unlikely. Also, 

producers will just be coming off the 

busiest months of the year (June to 

October) and typically schedule time off 

over the holidays so they will have to 

scramble to complete the application by 

February 15. The respondent 

recommends an application submission 

period of January 15 to April 15, or 

something close to those dates. They 

believe this will put the application 

period in the slowest months of the year 

for most agricultural producers and 

allow them to put together a budget 

with price quotes closer to the time that 

funds would be spent. 

Agency Response: When determining 

the timing of the application period for 

VAPG, the Agency considered multiple 

factors including the impact of the 

timing on the applicant pool, input from 

stakeholders, and the resources of the 

Agency. The Agency believes that the 

selected application submission period 

balances these factors by setting the 

deadline for the applications during 

what is typically a less busy time for 

Agricultural Producers while also 

allowing approximately 3.5 months for 

application completion. 

Comment: One respondent is 

concerned that making the application 

online-only may discourage some rural 

applicants from applying. The 

respondent noted that rural areas 

throughout the United States struggle 

with broadband access and often lack 

the infrastructure needed to provide 

consistent, quality internet coverage. 

They request that paper applications 

still be available and considered equally 

against electronic applications. 

Agency Response: The program 

regulation does not address the format 

of applications; instead, the application 

submission process, including where to 

submit an application and the format of 

the application will be described in the 

annual notification for the program. The 

Agency is currently investing significant 

resources into developing an accessible 

application process and commits to 

considering applicant and Agency 

resources when setting up the 

submission process each year. 

Sec. 4284.940 Application Processing 

Comment: Two respondents 

recommend that no preferential 

treatment be given to applicants that 

provide documentation of cash match, 

versus in-kind matching contributions. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

believes that it has provided additional 

flexibility with the allowance of in-kind 

matching funds contributions from 

applicants to recognize the value of 

applicant-provided labor and 

commodities. However, cash 

contributions are considered to be a 

stronger contribution than in-kind 

because of the financial investment and 

frequently contribute to more successful 

project outcomes. It is important to note 

that applications are not selected for 

funding based solely on the type of 

match contributed. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

food safety applications should be 

reviewed by a separate panel that has 

familiarity with the food safety 

landscape. They suggested that 

prioritization in the selection of 

reviewers be oriented towards food 

safety extension educators and 

processing educators, nonprofit 

technical assistance providers, and 

producers who have a variety of 

production profiles as regards crop 

diversity. 

Agency Response: Each eligible 

application will be scored in accordance 

with § 4284.940(c) by independent 

reviewers and USDA RD staff as 

described in the annual notification. 

The annual notification will include 

relevant education and experience 

requirements for independent reviewers 

to ensure they are qualified to review 

VAPG applications, including those in 

the food safety category. 

Sec. 4284.1003 Definitions 

Comment: One respondent expressed 

concerns about the updated definition 

of Agricultural Producer. Their concerns 

focused on the percentage of ownership 

of the agricultural commodity and the 

percentage of the agricultural 

commodity that an agricultural 

producer can purchase. They felt that 

these percentages may be limiting. The 

respondent also felt that the definition 

doesn’t necessarily need to be aligned 

with the VAPG program. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. The Agency believes that the 

AIC program and the VAPG program 

need to use consistent definitions 

wherever possible. The AIC program 

receives a portion of the funds 

appropriated for the VAPG program and 

is one of three programs designed to 

support value-added agriculture in a 

specific way. Allowing assistance to go 

to organizations that have minority 

ownership from agricultural producers 

or to agricultural producers who are 

buying the majority of the agricultural 

commodity needed for the value-added 

agricultural product dilutes the effect of 

the program for agricultural producers, 

who are the legally-mandated 

beneficiary. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the program should explicitly reference 

aquaculture. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency believes that the explicit 

reference to aquaculture in the 

definition of Agricultural Commodity in 

the final rule is sufficient. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

including the following terms in the 

definition of Producer Services adds 

clarity: applied research, product tastetesting, and recipe development. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency expects the changes made, 

in the final rule, to the definition of 

Producer Services will provide clarity to 

applicants and recipients. 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the two changes mandated by the 2018 

Farm Bill to the requirements for the 

Center’s Board of Directors (BOD) are 

beneficial for their Center. The two 

changes are to allow a State Legislator 

to provide representation on the BOD in 

lieu of a representative from the State 

Department of Agriculture and to allow 

representation from any four 

Agricultural Commodity Organizations 

instead of only from the four highestgrossing commodities in the State. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
89922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency supports these changes as 

allowing additional flexibility for 

Centers to meet the requirements for the 

BOD. 

Sec. 4284.1020 Applicant Eligibility 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

additional space should be created for 

community colleges to administer AIC 

awards. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. There is no provision in the 

authorizing statute to give preference or 

additional accommodation to 

community colleges. These community 

colleges are eligible to apply as long as 

they meet the requirements identified in 

the regulation. 

Sec. 4284.1021 Ultimate Beneficiary 

Eligibility 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the program should allow Centers to 

provide producer services to all valueadded producers and processors 

regardless of ownership structure and 

percentage of ownership of the 

agricultural commodity. 

Agency Response: The Agency 

disagrees. First, the authorizing statute 

for the program restricts Center 

assistance to only agricultural 

producers. Second, the program 

supports the same objectives that the 

VAPG program does, which are to help 

agricultural producers increase their 

revenue and customer base for the 

value-added agricultural products they 

make from the agricultural commodities 

that they grow or raise. Allowing 

assistance to go to organizations that 

have minority ownership from 

agricultural producers or to agricultural 

producers who are buying the majority 

of the agricultural commodity needed 

for the value-added agricultural product 

dilutes the effect of the program for 

agricultural producers, who are the 

legally-mandated beneficiary. 

Sec. 4284.1022 Project Eligibility 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the changes to establish a minimum 

award amount, a period of performance, 

and limitations on contracts with other 

Centers adds greater clarity for 

applicants and that the minimum and 

maximum award amounts are 

appropriate for three-year periods of 

performance. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency supports adding clarity for 

applicants and establishing appropriate 

award amounts. 

Sec. 4284.1031 Application 

Requirements 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the change to streamline the 

requirements for an application from a 

narrative format to a form should make 

applying to the program clearer and less 

burdensome. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

Two primary goals of this rulemaking 

effort were to clarify requirements and 

make the application process less 

burdensome for applicants. 

Sec. 4284.1040 Application Processing 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

reducing duplication in the merit 

evaluation criteria is helpful to 

applicants. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency believes that reducing 

duplication will streamline the 

application and merit evaluation 

process. 

Sec. 4284.1051 Notification of 

Successful Applicants 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

moving the burden for some 

requirements, such as the verification of 

matching funds and demonstrating that 

the Center has a qualified BOD, from the 

application phase to the award phase 

will significantly reduce the burden for 

all applicants and especially for 

successful applicants. 

Agency Response: The Agency agrees. 

The Agency believes that moving this 

burden will streamline the application 

process for all applicants. However, it 

notes that the requirements still exist at 

the time of application; only the need to 

verify or demonstrate that the applicant 

meets the requirement has shifted from 

the application to the award phase. 

No change to the rulemaking is 

necessary at this time. The Agency 

appreciates the comments received. The 

Agency confirms the final rule without 

change. 

Kathryn E. Dirksen Londrigan, 

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA Rural Development. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26201 Filed 11–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

30 CFR Parts 250 and 290 

[Docket ID: BSEE–2023–0014 EEEE500000 

256E1700D2 ET1SF0000.EAQ000] 

RIN 1014–AA57 

Bonding Requirements When Filing an 

Appeal of a Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement Civil 

Penalty 

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Interior (Interior) is amending 

regulations administered by the Bureau 

of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement (BSEE) regarding the 

bonding requirements for entities filing 

an appeal from a BSEE decision that 

assesses a civil penalty. The regulations 

will clarify that entities appealing a 

BSEE civil penalty decision to the 

Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) 

must have a bond covering the civil 

penalty assessment amount for the IBLA 

to have jurisdiction over the appeal. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions, contact Janine 

Marie Tobias at Janine.Tobias@bsee.gov 

or (202) 208–4657. For procedural 

questions, contact Kirk Malstrom at 

(703) 787–1751 or by email at regs@

bsee.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Pursuant to the Outer Continental 

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 

1350), BSEE has the delegated authority 

to assess civil penalties to certain 

entities engaged in energy exploration, 

development, and production 

operations on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) following certain violations 

by those entities of a statutory 

provision, regulation, order, or lease, 

license, or permit term. Interior’s 

implementing regulations for this 

authority are located at 30 CFR part 250, 

‘‘Subpart N-Outer Continental Shelf 

Civil Penalties’’ (§§ 250.1400–250.1409). 

Additional relevant regulations 

regarding the procedures for appealing 

civil penalty assessments are found at 

30 CFR part 290, ‘‘Subpart A-Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

Appeal Procedures’’ (§§ 290.1–290.8). 

BSEE recently commenced a review of 

its regulations for civil penalty 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1