Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64149 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

(USDA) 

Statement of Regulatory Priorities 

USDA’s regulatory efforts in 2010 will 

continue to focus on implementing the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (Pub. L. 110-246), known as the 

‘‘2008 Farm Bill,’’ which covers major 

farm, trade, conservation, rural 

development, energy, nutrition 

assistance and other programs. In 

addition, USDA will implement 

regulations that will improve program 

outcomes by achieving the Department’s 

high priority goals as well as reducing 

burden on stakeholders, program 

participants, and small businesses. 

Important areas of activity include the 

following: 

Nutrition Assistance 

• As changes are made for the nutrition 

assistance programs, USDA will work 

to foster actions that will help 

improve diets, and particularly to 

prevent and reduce overweight and 

obesity. In 2010, FNS will continue to 

promote nutritional knowledge and 

education while minimizing 

participant and vendor fraud. 

Food Safety 

• In the area of food safety, USDA will 

continue to develop science-based 

regulations that improve the safety of 

meat, poultry, egg, and farm-raised 

catfish products in the least 

burdensome and most cost-effective 

manner. Regulations will be revised to 

address emerging food safety 

challenges, streamlined to remove 

excessively prescriptive regulations, 

and updated to be made consistent 

with hazard analysis and critical 

control point principles. To assist 

small entities to comply with food 

safety requirements, the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service will continue 

to collaborate with other USDA 

agencies and State partners in the 

enhanced small business outreach 

program. 

Conservation 

• USDA will continue to focus on 

implementing the conservation 

programs authorized in the 2008 Farm 

Bill. Over the past year, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) has promulgated 11 interim 

and proposed rules and has received 

public comment on them. In 2010, 

NRCS will finalize these rules which 

include the Conservation Stewardship 

Program and the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program. 

Promoting Rural Development and 

Renewable Energy 

• USDA priority regulatory actions for 

the Rural Development mission 

primarily relate to promulgating 

relations for programs authorized by 

the 2008 Farm Bill, including the 

Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural 

Micro-Entrepreneurship Program. 

USDA has utilized Notices of Funding 

Availability implement many of these 

programs in Fiscal Year 2009. 

Regulations are needed to maintain 

them. In addition, USDA needs to 

finalize the reform of its on-going 

broadband access program through an 

interim rule that will combine 

provisions of a proposed rule 

published in 2007 and changes in the 

program that were authorized in the 

2008 Farm Bill. 

• USDA will continue to promote 

sustainable economic opportunities to 

revitalize rural communities through 

the purchase and use of renewable, 

environmentally friendly biobased 

products through its BioPreferred 

Program (formerly the Federal 

Biobased Product Preferred 

Procurement Program). USDA will 

continue to designate groups of 

biobased products to receive 

procurement preference from Federal 

agencies and contractors. In addition, 

USDA will finalize a rule establishing 

the Voluntary Labeling Program for 

biobased products. 

Trade Promotion, Market Development, 

Farm Loans, and Disaster Assistance 

• USDA will work to ensure a strong 

U.S. agricultural system through trade 

promotion, market development, farm 

income support, disaster assistance, 

and farm loan programs. In addition 

to the regulations already 

implemented, including those 

pertaining to the eligibility for farm 

program payments, the Farm Service 

Agency will issue new regulations 

implementing disaster assistance 

programs to compensate agricultural 

producers for production losses due 

to natural disasters. Regulations will 

also be developed to implement 

conservation loan programs intended 

to help producers finance the 

construction of conservation 

measures. 

Other Regulatory Activities 

• USDA will work to facilitate a fair, 

competitive marketplace, support the 

organic sector, and continue 

regulatory work to protect the health 

and value of U.S. agricultural and 

natural resources. USDA will 

promulgate regulations to enhance 

enforcement of the Packers and 

Stockyards Act. USDA will also 

finalize a rule specifying access to 

pasture standards for organically 

raised ruminants. In addition, USDA 

will amend regulations related to the 

importation of nursery products and 

animals and animal products. Further, 

USDA will propose specific standards 

for the humane handling, care, 

treatment, and transportation of birds 

under the Animal Welfare Act. 

Reducing Paperwork Burden on 

Customers 

USDA has made substantial progress 

in implementing the goal of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to 

reduce the burden of information 

collection on the public. To meet the 

requirements of the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and 

the E-Government Act, agencies across 

USDA are providing electronic 

alternatives to their traditionally paperbased customer transactions. As a result, 

producers increasingly have the option 

to electronically file forms and all other 

documentation online. To facilitate the 

expansion of electronic government, 

USDA implemented an electronic 

authentication capability that allows 

customers to ‘‘sign-on’’ once and 

conduct business with all USDA 

agencies. Supporting these efforts are 

ongoing analyses to identify and 

eliminate redundant data collections 

and streamline collection instructions. 

The end result of implementing these 

initiatives is better service to our 

customers enabling them to choose 

when and where to conduct business 

with USDA. 

Major Regulatory Priorities 

This document represents summary 

information on prospective significant 

regulations as called for in Executive 

Order 12866. The following agencies are 

represented in this regulatory plan, 

along with a summary of their mission 

and key regulatory priorities for 2010: 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Mission: FNS increases food security 

and reduces hunger in partnership with 

cooperating organizations by providing 

children and low-income people access 

to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition 

education in a manner that supports 

American agriculture and inspires 

public confidence. 

Priorities: In addition to responding to 

provisions of legislation authorizing and 

modifying Federal nutrition assistance 

programs, FNS’s 2010 regulatory plan 

supports the goal to ensure that all of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

America’s children have access to safe, 

nutritious and balanced meals and its 

three related objectives: 

• Improve Access to Nutritious Food. 

This objective represents FNS’s efforts 

to improve nutrition by providing 

access to program benefits (food 

consumed at home, school meals, 

commodities) and distributing State 

administrative funds to support 

program operations. To advance this 

objective, FNS plans to finalize rules 

implementing provisions of the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 to simplify program 

administration, support work, and 

improve access to benefits in the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) formerly the Food 

Stamp Program. FNS will continue to 

improve SNAP administration by 

developing a rule to implement 

provisions of the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 that address 

eligibility, certification, employment, 

and training issues. An interim rule 

implementing provisions of the Child 

Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization 

Act of 2004 to establish automatic 

eligibility for homeless children for 

school meals further supports this 

objective. 

• Promote Healthier Eating Habits and 

Lifestyles. This objective represents 

FNS’s efforts to improve the diets of 

its clients through nutrition 

education, and to ensure that program 

benefits meet appropriate standards to 

effectively improve nutrition for 

program participants. In support of 

this objective, FNS plans to propose 

rules updating the nutrition standards 

in the school meals programs; 

implement the SNAP nutrition 

education provisions of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; 

and establish permanent rules for the 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 

which currently operates in a select 

number of schools in each State, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

• Improve Nutrition Assistance Program 

Management and Customer Service. 

This objective represents FNS’s 

ongoing commitment to maximize the 

accuracy of benefits issued, maximize 

the efficiency and effectiveness of 

program operations, and minimize 

participant and vendor fraud. In 

support of this objective, FNS plans to 

finalize rules in the Child and Adult 

Care Food Program (CACFP) and the 

Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants and 

Children Program (WIC) to improve 

program management and prevent 

vendor fraud. FNS will also finalize a 

rule to improve the SNAP quality 

control process and propose a rule to 

improve the SNAP retailer sanction 

process. 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

Mission: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 

for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and 

catfish products in interstate and foreign 

commerce are wholesome, not 

adulterated, and properly marked, 

labeled, and packaged. 

Priorities: FSIS is committed to 

developing and issuing science-based 

regulations intended to ensure that 

meat, poultry, egg, and catfish products 

are wholesome and not adulterated or 

misbranded. FSIS continues to review 

its existing authorities and regulations 

to streamline excessively prescriptive 

regulations, to revise or remove 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

the Agency’s hazard analysis and 

critical control point (HACCP) 

regulations, and to ensure that it can 

address emerging food safety challenges. 

FSIS is also working with the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) to better 

delineate the two agencies’ jurisdictions 

over various food products. Following 

are some of the Agency’s recent and 

planned initiatives: 

Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In 

March 2009, FSIS published a final rule 

requiring that all cattle that become 

non-ambulatory disabled at any time 

before slaughter, including those that 

become non-ambulatory disabled after 

passing ante-mortem inspection, must 

be condemned and properly disposed 

of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS 

inspection personnel determined, on 

case by-case basis, the disposition of 

cattle that became non-ambulatory 

disabled after they had passed antemortem inspection. The final rule 

removed the provision for case-by-case 

determination by FSIS inspection 

personnel. 

Country of Origin Labeling. In March 

2009, FSIS affirmed its August 2008 

interim final rule requiring country-oforigin labeling (COOL) of any meat or 

poultry product that is a ‘‘covered 

commodity’’ as defined by the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

in the regulations set out in AMS’s 

January 2009 final rule on mandatory 

country-of-origin labeling (COOL). 

2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. 

The 2008 Farm Bill, made several 

amendments to statutes administered by 

FSIS and gave the Agency other 

instructions. As a result, FSIS is 

developing new regulations to 

implement: mandatory inspection for 

catfish; a program for interstate 

shipment of State-inspected meat and 

poultry products; and recall procedure 

and process control reassessment 

requirements for inspected 

establishments. 

• Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing 

regulations to implement 2008 Farm 

Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. 

L. 110-246, Sec. 11016) to make 

catfish amenable to the FMIA. The 

regulations will define ‘‘catfish’’ and 

the scope of coverage of the 

regulations to apply to establishments 

that process catfish and catfish 

products. The regulations will take 

into account the conditions under 

which the catfish are raised and 

transported to a processing 

establishment. 

• Interstate shipment of State-inspected 

meat and poultry products. FSIS is 

proposing regulations to implement a 

new voluntary Federal-State 

cooperative inspection program under 

which State-inspected establishments 

with 25 or fewer employees would be 

eligible to ship meat and poultry 

products in interstate commerce. 

State-inspected establishments 

selected to participate in this program 

would be required to comply with all 

Federal standards under the FMIA 

and the PPIA. These establishments 

would receive inspection services 

from State inspection personnel that 

have been trained and certified to 

assist with enforcement of the FMIA 

and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 

produced under the program that 

have been inspected and passed by 

selected State inspection personnel 

would bear a Federal mark of 

inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 

Farm Bill provides for the interstate 

shipment of State-inspected meat and 

poultry products from selected 

establishments and requires that FSIS 

promulgate implementing regulations 

no later than 18 months from the date 

of its enactment. 

• Notification, Documentation, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Inspected Establishments. FSIS is 

proposing regulations that will 

implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 

Farm Bill on notification, 

documentation, and recordkeeping 

requirements for inspected 

establishments. This section amends 

the FMIA and PPIA to require 

establishments that are subject to 

inspection under these Acts to 

promptly notify the Agency when an 

adulterated or misbranded product 

received by or originating from the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64151 

establishment has entered into 

commerce. Section 11017 also 

requires establishments subject to 

inspection under the FMIA and PPIA 

to prepare and maintain current 

procedures for the recall of all 

products produced and shipped by 

the establishment and document each 

reassessment of the establishment’s 

process control plans. 

• Revision of Egg Products Inspection 

Regulations. FSIS is planning to 

propose requirements for federally 

inspected egg product plants to 

develop and implement HACCP 

systems and sanitation standard 

operating procedures. The Agency 

will be proposing pathogen reduction 

performance standards for egg 

products. Further, the Agency will be 

proposing to remove requirements for 

FSIS approval of egg-product plant 

drawings, specifications, and 

equipment before their use, and to 

end the system for pre-marketing 

approval of labeling for egg products. 

• Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS 

Public Health Information System. To 

support its food safety inspection 

activities, FSIS is developing the 

Public Health Information System 

(PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly 

and Web-based, will replace many of 

the Agency’s current systems and 

automate many business processes. 

Among the many other services it will 

provide, PHIS will automate and 

streamline the export and import 

application and certification 

processes. To facilitate the 

implementation of these PHIS 

applications, FSIS will propose to 

amend the meat, poultry products, 

and egg products inspection 

regulations to provide for electronic 

export and import application and 

certification processes as alternatives 

to the current paper-based systems for 

these certifications. The new 

electronic system will enable the 

Agency to process an establishment’s 

application for export certification, 

verify that the establishment and 

product meet the application and 

certification requirements, approve 

the application, and process the 

export certificate. The Agency is 

proposing the export application and 

certification service as a reimbursable 

service under Agricultural Marketing 

Act authority. 

• Rulemaking to support control of 

Escherichia coli O157:H7. FSIS will 

propose to require that any business 

that grinds or chops raw beef 

products, including products that are 

ground or chopped at the request of 

an individual consumer, keep records 

that will fully and correctly disclose 

all transactions involved in the 

business that are subject to the FMIA. 

These records, such as grinding logs, 

provide critical information about 

how, when, and where ground 

product was prepared, shipped, 

received, stored, and handled, and are 

essential to illness outbreak 

investigations, recalls, and other 

public health activities that FSIS 

conducts. Businesses that will be 

required to comply with this 

proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected 

establishments and retail facilities 

that grind or chop raw beef products, 

including beef manufacturing 

trimmings derived from cattle not 

slaughtered on site at the official 

establishment or retail store. An FSISinspected establishment that grinds or 

chops raw beef products derived from 

cattle slaughtered at that same 

establishment will be exempt from the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

Other Planned Initiatives: 

Performance Standards for Ready-toEat Products. FSIS plans to finalize a 

February 2001 proposed rule to 

establish food safety performance 

standards for all processed ready-to-eat 

(RTE) meat and poultry products and for 

partially heat-treated meat and poultry 

products that are not ready-to-eat. The 

proposal also contained provisions 

addressing post-lethality contamination 

of RTE products with Listeria 

monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS 

published an interim final rule requiring 

establishments to prevent L. 

monocytogenes contamination of RTE 

products. The Agency is evaluating the 

effectiveness of this interim final rule, 

which in 2004 was the subject of a 

regulatory reform nomination to OMB. 

FSIS has carefully reviewed its 

economic analysis of the interim final 

rule in response to this recommendation 

and is planning to adjust provisions of 

the rule to reduce the information 

collection burden on small businesses. 

FSIS is also planning further action with 

respect to other elements of its 2001 

proposal on performance standards for 

processed meat and poultry products, 

based on quantitative risk assessments 

of target pathogens in processed 

products. 

FSIS plans to propose to amend the 

poultry products inspection regulations 

to put in place a system in which the 

establishment sorts the carcasses for 

defects, and the Agency verifies that the 

system is under control and producing 

safe and wholesome product. The 

Agency would propose to adopt 

performance standards, designed to 

ensure that the establishments are 

carrying out slaughter, dressing, and 

chilling operations in a manner that 

ensures no significant growth of 

pathogens. 

The chilling performance standard 

would replace the requirement for 

ready-to-cook poultry products to be 

chilled to 40 °F or below within certain 

time limits according to the weight of 

the dressed carcasses. Poultry 

establishments would have to carry out 

slaughtering, dressing, and chilling 

operations in a manner that ensures no 

significant growth of pathogens. 

FSIS is collaborating with the Food 

and Drug Administration in an effort to 

rationalize the division of food 

protection responsibilities between the 

two agencies and eliminate confusion 

over which agency has jurisdiction over 

which kinds of products. The agencies 

are taking an approach that involves 

considering how the meat or poultry 

ingredients contribute to the 

characteristics and basic identity of food 

products. Thus, FSIS plans to propose 

amending its regulations to exclude 

from its jurisdiction cheese and cheese 

products prepared with less than 50 

percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls, 

and buns prepared with less than 50 

percent meat or poultry; dried poultry 

soup mixes; flavor bases and 

reaction/process flavors; pizza with 

meat or poultry; and salad dressings 

prepared with less than 50 percent meat 

or poultry. FSIS also plans to clarify that 

bagel dogs, natural casings, and closedface meat or poultry sandwiches are 

subject to the Agency’s jurisdiction. 

FSIS Small Business Implications: 

The great majority of businesses 

regulated by FSIS are small businesses. 

Some of the regulations listed above 

substantially affect small businesses. 

Some rulemakings can benefit small 

businesses. For example, the rule on 

interstate shipment of State-inspected 

products will open interstate markets to 

some small State-inspected 

establishments that previously could 

only sell their products within State 

boundaries. 

FSIS conducts a small business 

outreach program that provides critical 

training, access to food safety experts, 

and information resources (such as 

compliance guidance and questions and 

answers on various topics) in forms that 

are uniform, easily comprehended, and 

consistent. The Agency collaborates in 

this effort with other USDA agencies 

and cooperating State partners. For 

example, FSIS makes plant owners and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64152 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

operators aware of loan programs, 

available through USDA’s Rural 

Business and Cooperative programs, to 

help them in upgrading their facilities. 

FSIS employees meet proactively with 

small and very small plant operators to 

learn more about their specific needs 

and provide joint training sessions for 

small and very small plants and FSIS 

employees. 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Mission: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) provides marketing 

services to producers, manufacturers, 

distributors, importers, exporters, and 

consumers of food products. The AMS 

also manages the government’s food 

purchases, supervises food quality 

grading, maintains food quality 

standards, and supervises the Federal 

research and promotion programs. 

Priorities: AMS priority items for the 

next year include a rulemaking required 

as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm 

Bill and a final rule for the National 

Organic Program. 

Dairy Promotion and Research 

Program (Dairy Import Assessments). 

The Dairy Production Stabilization Act 

of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA to 

create a national producer program for 

dairy product promotion, research, and 

nutrition education as part of a 

comprehensive strategy to increase 

human consumption of milk and dairy 

products. Dairy farmers fund this selfhelp program through a mandatory 

assessment on all milk produced in the 

contiguous 48 States and marketed 

commercially. Dairy farmers administer 

the national program through the 

National Dairy Promotion and Research 

Board (Dairy Board). 

The 2008 Farm Bill extended the 

program to include producers in Alaska, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay 

an assessment of $0.15 per 

hundredweight of milk production. 

Imported dairy products will be 

assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of 

fluid milk equivalent. AMS published 

proposed regulations establishing the 

program in the May 19, 2009, Federal 

Register. The proposal had a 30-day 

comment period. Comments received 

for this rule are currently under review. 

AMS expects to publish a final rule 

early next year. 

Access to Pasture. Since 

implementation of the NOP, some 

members of the public have advocated 

for a more explicit regulatory standard 

on the relationship between livestock, 

particularly dairy animals, and grazing 

land. They have asserted the current 

regulatory language on access to pasture 

for ruminants and temporary 

confinement based on an animal’s stage 

of production, when applied together, 

do not provide a uniform requirement 

for the pasturing of ruminant animals 

that meet the principles underlying an 

organic management system for 

livestock and livestock products that 

consumers expect. AMS published a 

proposed rule with a request for 

comment on October 24, 2008. The 

comment period ended December 23, 

2008. AMS received over 80,000 

comments. Due to the high volume of 

comments received, final action on this 

rule is not expected before December 

2009. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

Mission: A major part of the mission 

of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect 

the health and value of American 

agricultural and natural resources. 

APHIS conducts programs to prevent 

the introduction of exotic pests and 

diseases into the United States and 

conducts surveillance, monitoring, 

control, and eradication programs for 

pests and diseases in this country. 

These activities enhance agricultural 

productivity and competitiveness and 

contribute to the national economy and 

the public health. APHIS also conducts 

programs to ensure the humane 

handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of animals under the 

Animal Welfare Act. 

Priorities: With respect to animal 

health, APHIS is continuing work to 

revise its regulations concerning bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) to 

provide a more comprehensive and 

universally applicable framework for 

the importation of certain animals and 

products. In the area of plant health, 

APHIS is in the midst of a revision to 

its regulations for importing nursery 

stock (plants for planting) to better 

address plant health risks associated 

with propagative material. APHIS also 

plans to propose standards for the 

humane handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of birds covered under 

the Animal Welfare Act. 

Grain, Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

Mission: The Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards Administration 

facilitates the marketing of livestock, 

poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and 

related agricultural products and 

promotes fair and competitive trading 

practices for the overall benefit of 

consumers and American agriculture. 

Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work 

that will finalize its August, 2007 

proposed rule regarding the records that 

live poultry dealers must furnish 

poultry growers, including requirements 

for the timing and contents of poultry 

growing arrangements. The 

requirements contained in the final rule 

are intended to help both poultry 

growers and live poultry dealers by 

providing the growers with more 

information about the poultry growing 

arrangement at an earlier stage. 

In addition, GIPSA intends to propose 

a rule that will define practices or 

conduct that are unfair, unjustly 

discriminatory, or deceptive, and/or that 

represent the making or giving of an 

undue or unreasonable preference or 

advantage, and ensure that producers 

and growers can fully participate in any 

arbitration process that may arise 

related to livestock or poultry contracts. 

This regulation is being proposed in 

accordance with the authority granted to 

the Secretary by the Packers and 

Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the 

requirements of Sections 11005 and 

11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Farm Service Agency 

Mission: The Farm Service Agency’s 

(FSA) mission is to stabilize farm 

income; to assist owners and operators 

of farms and ranches to conserve and 

enhance soil, water, and related natural 

resources; to provide credit to new or 

existing farmers and ranchers who are 

temporarily unable to obtain credit from 

commercial sources; and to help farm 

operations recover from the effects of 

disaster, as prescribed by various 

statutes. 

Priorities: FSA’s priority for 2009 will 

be to continue implementing the 2008 

Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which 

was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs 

Federal farm programs through the 

2012. New regulatory actions include: 

• Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm 

Bill provides a set of standing disaster 

assistance programs, including a new 

revenue based program for 

supplemental agricultural disaster 

assistance. These programs require 

completely new regulations and 

revision of existing program 

regulations. 

• Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In 

addition, the 2008 Farm Bill adds a 

new biomass crop assistance program 

that supports the Administration’s 

energy initiative to accelerate the 

investment in and production of 

biofuels. The program will provide 

financial assistance to agricultural 

and forest land owners and operators 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64153 

to establish and produce eligible 

crops, including woody biomass, for 

conversion to bioenergy, and the 

collection, harvest, storage, and 

transportation of eligible material for 

use in a biomass conversion facility. 

• Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm 

Bill also requires changes to farm 

operating loans, down payment loans, 

and emergency loans, including 

expanding to include socially 

disadvantaged farmers, increasing 

loan limits, loan size, funding targets, 

interest rates, and graduating 

borrowers to commercial credit. In 

addition, it establishes a new direct 

and guaranteed loan program to assist 

farmers in implementing conservation 

practices. FSA will develop and issue 

the regulations and make program 

funds available to eligible clientele in 

as timely a manner as possible. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Mission: The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is 

to provide leadership in a partnership 

effort to help America’s private land 

owners and managers conserve their 

soil, water, and other natural resources. 

Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities 

for FY 2010 will be to finalize the rules 

promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm 

Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was 

enacted on June 18, 2008, governs 

USDA conservation programs through 

2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and 

proposed rulemakings pursuant to the 

2008 Farm Bill, and received public 

comment for each of the regulations. In 

order to provide certainty and clarity for 

NRCS program participants, NRCS will 

address the public comments in final 

rulemaking and make any necessary 

clarifications or adjustments in response 

to those comments. 

Among the programs authorized by 

the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation 

Stewardship Program and 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program represent a significant public 

investment in environmental 

improvement and stewardship. The 

2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and 

expanded several other financial 

assistance and conservation easement 

programs, including the Agricultural 

Management Assistance program, the 

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 

Program, the Grasslands Reserve 

Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve 

Program, the Regional Equity 

provisions, the State Technical 

Committee, the Technical Service 

Provider Assistance Initiative, the 

Wetlands Reserve Program, and the 

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. 

During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated 

an interim final rule to identify 

Categorical Exclusions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1970 to streamline delivery of projects 

funded by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans 

to finalize the Categorical Exclusion rule 

in response to public comments. 

Finally, NRCS intends to promulgate a 

program for its ACES program to 

provide consistency with how ACES is 

used by other agencies. 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Mission: Promoting a dynamic 

business environment in rural America 

is the goal of the Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS). Business 

Programs works in partnership with the 

private sector and the community-based 

organizations to provide financial 

assistance and business planning, and 

helps fund projects that create or 

preserve quality jobs and/or promote a 

clean rural environment. The financial 

resources are often leveraged with those 

of other public and private credit source 

lenders to meet business and credit 

needs in under-served areas. Recipients 

of these programs may include 

individuals, corporations, partnerships, 

cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 

corporations, Indian tribes, and private 

companies. The mission of Cooperative 

Program of RBS is to promote 

understanding and use of the 

cooperative form of business as a viable 

organizational option for marketing and 

distributing agricultural products. 

Priorities: RBS’s priority for 2009 will 

be to fully implement the 2008 Farm 

Bill. This includes promulgating 

regulations for Section 9003 (Biorefinery 

Assistance Program), Section 9004 

(Repowering Assistance Program) 

Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for 

Advanced Biofuels) and Section 6022 

(Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 

Program). The Agency has been 

administering Sections 9003 and 9004 

through the use of various Notices 

(Notices of Funds Availability and 

Contract Proposal), rather than 

regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 

(Rural Energy for America Program) will 

be made to incorporate Energy Audits 

and Renewable Energy Development 

Assistance and Feasibility Studies for 

Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant 

purposes, as well as other Farm Bill 

changes to the Section 9007 program. In 

addition, regulations for the Business 

and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program 

will be revised to reflect Farm Bill 

provisions relating to locally or 

regionally produced agricultural food 

products. These rules will be developed 

to minimize program complexity and 

burden on the public while enhancing 

program delivery and Agency oversight. 

Rural Utilities Service 

Mission: To improve the quality of life 

in rural America by providing 

investment capital for the deployment 

of critical rural utilities 

telecommunications, electric and water 

and waste disposal infrastructure. 

Financial assistance is provided to rural 

utilities; municipalities; commercial 

corporations; limited liability 

companies; public utility districts; 

Indian tribes; and cooperative, 

nonprofit, limited-dividend, or mutual 

associations. The public-private 

partnership which is forged between 

RUS and these industries results in 

billions of dollars in rural infrastructure 

development and creates thousands of 

jobs for the American economy. 

Priorities: RUS’ priority in 2010 is 

fulfilling the President’s goal of bringing 

affordable broadband to all rural 

Americans by continuing to develop a 

final rule for the Broadband Loan 

Program, which was authorized by the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002, P.L. 107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) 

and subsequently amended by the 2008 

Farm Bill. In May 2007, RUS published 

a proposed rule to improve the focus 

and strengthen the financial stability of 

the program that was being 

administered under regulations 

developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before 

this proposed rule could be finalized the 

2008 Farm Bill became law, 

significantly changing the statutory 

requirements of the Broadband Loan 

Program. Consequently, RUS now plans 

to publish an interim rule that will 

combine the provisions of the proposed 

rule with the changes made by the 2008 

Farm Bill. 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Obama signed the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) into law. The Recovery Act 

expanded RUS’s existing authority to 

make loans and provides new authority 

to make grants to facilitate broadband 

deployment in rural areas. RUS has 

been tasked with the time sensitive 

priority of developing the regulation for 

this new authority. The Agency will, 

however, also continue to develop a 

final rule for the Broadband Program 

based upon change include in the 2008 

Farm Bill. 

Departmental Administration 

Mission: Departmental 

Administration’s mission is to provide 

management leadership to ensure that 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

USDA administrative programs, 

policies, advice and counsel meet the 

needs of USDA program organizations, 

consistent with laws and mandates; and 

provide safe and efficient facilities and 

services to customers. 

Priorities: In July 2009, USDA’s 

Departmental Administration published 

the proposed rule to establish a program 

to label eligible products made from 

biobased feedstocks. As part of this 

rulemaking, USDA will be accepting 

public comments through September 

2009 on how to implement a program 

that promotes the purchase of products 

made from agricultural and forestry 

feedstocks. Once the public comment 

period is closed, USDA will finalize the 

labeling regulation to allow 

manufacturers and vendors of biobased 

products to display the label on their 

packaging and marketing materials. 

Once completed, this regulation will 

implement a section of the 2008 Farm 

Bill and will promote alternative uses of 

agriculture and forest materials. 

Aggregate Costs and Benefits 

USDA will ensure that its regulations 

provide benefits that exceed costs, but 

are unable to provide an estimate of the 

aggregated impacts of its regulations. 

Problems with aggregation arise due to 

differing baselines, data gaps, and 

inconsistencies in methodology and the 

type of regulatory costs and benefits 

considered. In addition, aggregation 

omits benefits and costs that cannot be 

reliably quantified, such as improved 

health resulting from increased access to 

more nutritious foods; higher levels of 

food safety; and increased quality of life 

derived from investments in rural 

infrastructure. Some benefits and costs 

associated with rules listed in the 

Regulatory Plan cannot currently be 

quantified as the rules are still being 

formulated. For 2010, the Department’s 

focus on Farm Bill and other regulations 

will be to implement the changes in 

such a way as to provide benefits while 

minimizing program complexity and 

regulatory burden for program 

participants. 

USDA—Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: 

ACCESS TO PASTURE 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 6501 et seq 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 205 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The National Organic Program (NOP) is 

administered by the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS). Under the 

NOP, AMS established national 

standards for the production and 

handling of organically produced 

agricultural products. Since 

implementation of the NOP, some 

members of the public have advocated 

for a more explicit regulatory standard 

on the relationship between livestock, 

particularly dairy animals, and grazing 

land. They have asserted the current 

regulatory language on access to 

pasture for ruminants and temporary 

confinement based on an animal’s stage 

of production, when applied together, 

do not provide a uniform requirement 

for the pasturing of ruminant animals 

that meet the principles underlying an 

organic management system for 

livestock and livestock products that 

consumers expect. Comments received 

as a result of the proposed rule will 

assist in determining the Agency’s next 

steps in rulemaking on this issue. 

Statement of Need: 

AMS has determined that current 

regulations regarding access to pasture 

and the contribution of grazing to the 

diet of organically raised livestock lack 

sufficient specificity and clarity to 

enable AMS to efficiently administer 

the Program. Organic System Plans 

(OSPs) dealing with livestock 

management reflect different 

application of existing regulations and 

interpretations of requirements across 

Accredited Certifying Agents (ACAs). 

AMS has received 11 complaints 

requesting enforcement actions for 

alleged violations of the pasture 

provisions of the NOP livestock 

standards. 

Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 

2005, the National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB) made six 

recommendations regarding access to 

the outdoors for livestock, pasture, and 

conditions for temporary confinement 

of animals. The NOSB process for the 

development of recommendations 

consists of: (1) identification of a need 

by members of the public, the NOSB, 

or the NOP; (2) development of a draft 

NOSB recommendation; (3) public 

meeting notice published by the NOP 

on its website and in the Federal 

Register; (4) solicitation of public 

comments on the recommendation 

through regulations.gov and at the 

NOSB’s public meetings; (5) 

finalization of the recommendation; (6) 

NOSB approval of the recommendation; 

and (7) NOSB referral to the Secretary 

for the Secretary’s consideration and 

any appropriate action (e.g., 

rulemaking, policy development, 

guidance). 

In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP 

published an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 

19131) seeking input on the role of 

pasture in the NOP regulations and 

what parts of the NOP regulations 

should be amended to address the role 

of pasture in organic livestock 

management. 

More than 80,500 comments were 

received on the ANPRM. Support for 

strict standards and greater detail on 

the role of pasture in organic livestock 

production was nearly unanimous with 

just 28 of the comments opposing 

changes to the pasture requirements. 

Organic consumers have clearly stated 

in comments that they expect organic 

ruminants to graze pasture and receive 

not less than 30 percent of their Dry 

Matter Intake (DMI) needs from grazing. 

Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments 

were received from consumers 

requesting regulations that would 

clearly establish grazing as a primary 

source of nourishment. Approximately 

80,250 of these comments were in a 

modified form letter. Many of these 

consumers requested that grazing 

account for at least 30 percent of the 

ruminant’s DMI needs. 

AMS published a proposed rule with 

a request for comment on October 24, 

2008. The comment period ended 

December 23, 2008. AMS received more 

than 80,000 comments. Due to the high 

volume of comments received, final 

action on this rule is not expected 

before December 2009. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The NOP is authorized by the Organic 

Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 

as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. 

seq.). The AMS administers the NOP. 

Under the NOP, AMS oversees national 

standards for the production and 

handling of organically produced 

agricultural products. This action is 

being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP 

livestock production regulations have 

sufficient specificity and clarity to 

enable AMS and accredited certifying 

agents to efficiently administer the NOP 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64155 

and to facilitate and improve 

compliance and enforcement. This 

action is also intended to satisfy 

consumer expectations that ruminant 

livestock animals graze pastures during 

the growing season. 

Alternatives: 

Alternatives to this proposed 

rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes 

to the existing regulations; (2) adopt a 

reduced pasturing period, such as the 

120-day minimum period 

recommended by the NOSB and some 

commenters; or (3) adopt a three 

ruminants per acre stocking rate 

measure as suggested by some 

commenters. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: 

This action will increase the cost of 

production for producers who currently 

do not pasture their animals and those 

producers who do not manage their 

pastures at a sufficient level to provide 

at least 30 percent DMI. For organic 

slaughter stock producers, an increase 

in costs might result in a greater 

volume of slaughter animals, at least 

in the short term, entering the market 

driving down prices. Longer term these 

increased costs could result in 

increased consumer prices unless the 

increased costs are off set by reductions 

in other costs of production. Other 

costs of production that could be 

expected to go down are costs 

associated with producer harvest and 

purchase of feed and the cost of herd 

health. 

Benefits: 

This final rule brings uniformity in 

application to the livestock regulations; 

especially as they relate to the 

pasturing of ruminants. This uniformity 

will create equitable, consistent, 

performance standards for all ruminant 

livestock producers. Producers who 

currently operate based on grazing will 

perceive a benefit because these 

producers claim an economic 

disadvantage in competing with 

livestock operations that do not provide 

pasture. This proposed rule would also 

bring uniformity in application to the 

livestock regulations. This uniformity 

in application will allow the ACAs and 

AMS to administer the livestock 

regulations in a way that reflects 

consumer preferences regarding the 

production of organic livestock and 

their products. Commenters have 

clearly stated that they expect organic 

ruminants to graze pasture and receive 

not less than 30 percent of their dry 

matter needs from grazing. Because of 

this, it is crucial that consumer 

expectations are met. This proposed 

rulemaking is intended to reflect 

consumer expectations and producer 

perspectives. This action makes clear 

what access to pasture means under the 

NOP. 

Risks: 

None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM 04/13/06 71 FR 19131 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End 

06/12/06 

NPRM 10/24/08 73 FR 63583 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

12/23/08 

Final Action 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 

Organizations 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

Richard H. Mathews 

Chief of Standards Development and 

Review Branch 

Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–3252 

Fax: 202 205–7808 

Email: richard.mathews@usda.gov 

RIN: 0581–AC57 

USDA—AMS 

2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION 

AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL 

RULE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE 

ORDER 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 1150 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, 

Assessments on imported dairy 

products must be implemented by 

deadline. 

With the passage of Section 1507 in 

the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act was 

amended to apply certain assessments 

to Alaska, Hawaii, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. The 2008 Farm Bill 

authorized the Secretary to issue 

regulations to implement the 

mandatory dairy import assessment 

without providing a notice and 

comment period. However, due to the 

interest of affected parties a notice and 

comment period was provided. 

Abstract: 

The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for 

dairy product promotion, research, and 

nutrition education as part of a 

comprehensive strategy to increase 

human consumption of milk and dairy 

products and to reduce milk surpluses. 

The program functions to strengthen 

the dairy industry’s position in the 

marketplace by maintaining and 

expanding domestic and foreign 

consumption of fluid milk and dairy 

products. Amendments to the Order are 

pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm 

Bills. The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that 

the Order be amended to implement an 

assessment on imported dairy products 

to fund promotion and research. The 

2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory 

assessment rate of 7.5-cent per 

hundredweight of milk, or equivalent 

thereof, on dairy products imported 

into the United States. Additionally, in 

accordance with the 2008 Farm Bill, 

the term ‘‘United States’’ is the Dairy 

Act is amended to mean all States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Producers in these areas will be 

assessed 15 cents per hundredweight 

for all milk produced and marketed. 

Statement of Need: 

In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 

FR 23359) proposed rule (National 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program; 

Proposed Rule on Amendments to the 

Order), AMS received 189 timely 

comments from consumers, dairy 

producers, foreign governments, 

importers, exporters, manufacturers, 

members of Congress, trade 

associations, and other interested 

parties. 

The comments covered a wide range 

of topics, including 39 in opposition 

to the proposal and 150 in support of 

the proposal. Opponents of the 

proposal expressed concern over the 

lack of a referendum requirement 

among those affected; default 

assessment rates; lack of ability to no 

longer promote State-branded dairy 

products; lack of importer organizations 

eligible to become a Qualified Program; 

disputed the cost-benefit analysis for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

importers and producers; and cited 

unreasonable importer paperwork and 

record keeping burdens. 

Proponents of the proposal expressed 

support for an expedited 

implementation of the dairy import 

assessment; cited the enhanced benefits 

both domestic producers and importers 

will receive as a result of 

implementation; recommended new 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes; use 

of a default assessment rate; 

recommended regular reporting of the 

products and assessments on imports; 

and all thresholds for compliance with 

U.S. trade obligations have been met. 

AMS plans to issue a final rule 

implementing the dairy import 

assessment in the near future. In 

response to the comments received and 

after consultation with USTR, AMS is 

addressing, in the final rule, referenda, 

alternative assessment rates, and 

compliance and enforcement activity. 

All remaining changes are 

miscellaneous and minor in nature in 

order to clarify regulatory text. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The National Dairy Promotion and 

Research Program (National Program) is 

authorized under the authorized under 

the provisions of the Dairy Production 

Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 

4501-4514), and the Dairy Promotion 

and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). 

The Dairy Programs unit of USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service has 

day—to—day oversight responsibilities 

for the National Program. 

Alternatives: 

There are no alternatives, as this 

rulemaking is a matter of law based on 

the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Assessments to dairy producers under 

the Order are relatively small compared 

to producer revenue. If dairy producers 

in Alaska, Hawaii, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico had paid assessments of 

$0.15 per hundredweight of milk 

marketed in 2007, it is estimated that 

$1.1 million would have been paid. 

This is about 0.6 percent of the $192 

million total value of milk produced 

and marketed in these areas. 

Benefits to producers in these areas are 

assumed to be similar to those benefits 

received by producers of other U.S. 

geographical regions. Cornell University 

has conducted an independent 

economic analysis of the Program that 

is included in the annual report to 

Congress. Cornell determined that from 

1998 through 2007, each dollar 

invested in generic dairy marketing by 

dairy farmers during the period would 

return between $5.52 and $5.94, on 

average, in net revenue to farmers. 

Assessments collected from importers 

under the National Program will be 

relatively small compared to the value 

of dairy imports. If importers had been 

assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or 

equivalent thereof, for imported dairy 

products in 2007 as specified in this 

rule, it is estimated that less than $6.1 

million would have been paid. This is 

about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion 

value of the dairy products imported 

in 2007. 

Risks: 

If the amendments are not 

implemented, USDA would be in 

violation of the 2002 and 2008 Farm 

Bills. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 05/19/09 74 FR 23359 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

06/18/09 

Final Action 02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Organizations 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Whitney Rick 

Promotion and Research Branch Chief 

Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–6909 

Fax: 202 720–0285 

Email: whitney.rick@usda.gov 

RIN: 0581–AC87 

USDA—Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

3. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS 

AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 2131 to 2159 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 1 to 3 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

APHIS intends to establish standards 

for the humane handling, care, 

treatment, and transportation of birds 

other than birds bred for use in 

research. 

Statement of Need: 

The Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002 amended the 

definition of animal in the Animal 

Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically 

excluding birds, rats of the genus 

Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, 

bred for use in research. While the 

definition of animal in the regulations 

contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded 

rats of the genus Rattus and mice of 

the genus Mus bred for use in research, 

that definition has also excluded all 

birds (i.e., not just those birds bred for 

use in research). In line with this 

change to the definition of animal in 

the AWA, APHIS intends to establish 

standards in 9 CFR part 3 for the 

humane handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of birds other than those 

birds bred for use in research. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to promulgate standards and other 

requirements governing the humane 

handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of certain animals by 

dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, 

operators of auction sales, and carriers 

and immediate handlers. Animals 

covered by the AWA include birds that 

are not bred for use in research. 

Alternatives: 

To be identified. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

To be determined. 

Risks: 

Not applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 01/00/10 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

04/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64157 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Additional Information: 

Additional information about APHIS 

and its programs is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

Agency Contact: 

Gerald Rushin 

Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

4700 River Road, Unit 84 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234 

Phone: 301 734–0954 

RIN: 0579–AC02 

USDA—APHIS 

4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION 

OF BOVINES AND BOVINE 

PRODUCTS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 

to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC 

136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking would amend the 

regulations regarding the importation of 

bovines and bovine products. Under 

this rulemaking, countries would be 

classified as either negligible risk, 

controlled risk, or undetermined risk 

for bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

(BSE). Some commodities would be 

allowed importation into the United 

States regardless of the BSE 

classification of the country of export. 

Other commodities would be subject to 

importation restrictions or prohibitions 

based on the type of commodity and 

the BSE classification of the country. 

The criteria for country classification 

and commodity import would be 

closely aligned with those of the World 

Organization for Animal Health. 

Statement of Need: 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations after conducting a thorough 

review of relevant scientific literature 

and a comprehensive evaluation of the 

issues and concluding that the 

proposed changes would continue to 

guard against the introduction of BSE 

into the United States, while allowing 

the importation of additional animals 

and animal products into this country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Under the Animal Health Protection 

Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the 

Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 

to promulgate regulations to prevent 

the introduction into the United States 

or dissemination of any pest or disease 

of livestock. 

Alternatives: 

We could leave the current bovine 

regulations unchanged, but maintaining 

the status quo would not provide an 

opportunity to apply the latest 

scientific evidence to our BSE-related 

import conditions. Another 

alternative—modifying the BSE 

regulations related to the importation 

of bovines and bovine-derived products 

to precisely match the OIE guidelines 

without allowing for modification 

deemed necessary by APHIS—would 

not allow APHIS to independently 

interpret the scientific literature or 

reflect current USDA regulations and 

policies. Making no changes to the 

current regulations that govern the 

importation of cervids and camelids 

would perpetuate an unnecessary 

constraint on trade in those 

commodities, because cervids and 

camelids pose an extremely low BSE 

risk. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: 

APHIS has concluded that the proposed 

changes would continue to guard 

against the introduction of BSE into the 

United States. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Additional information about APHIS 

and its programs is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

Agency Contact: 

Christopher Robinson 

Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade 

Services, National Center for Import and 

Export, VS 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

4700 River Road, Unit 40 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231 

Phone: 301 734–7837 

RIN: 0579–AC68 

USDA—APHIS 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

5. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR 

PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW 

CATEGORY OF PLANTS FOR 

PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR 

IMPORTATION PENDING RISK 

ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING 

RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 

REVIEW) 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 

7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 319 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This action would establish a new 

category in the regulations governing 

the importation of nursery stock, also 

known as plants for planting. This 

category would list taxa of plants for 

planting whose importation is not 

authorized pending risk assessment. We 

would allow foreign governments to 

request that a pest risk assessment be 

conducted for a taxon whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

risk evaluation. After the pest risk 

assessment was completed, we would 

conduct rulemaking to remove the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

taxon from the proposed category if 

determined appropriate by the risk 

assessment. We are also proposing to 

expand the scope of the plants 

regulated in the plants for planting 

regulations to include non-vascular 

plants. These changes would allow us 

to react more quickly to evidence that 

a taxon of plants for planting may pose 

a pest risk while ensuring that our 

actions are based on scientific 

evidence. 

Statement of Need: 

APHIS typically relies on inspection at 

a Federal plant inspection station or 

port of entry to mitigate the risks of 

pest introduction associated with the 

importation of plants for planting. 

Importation of plants for planting is 

further restricted or prohibited only if 

there is specific evidence that such 

importation could introduce a 

quarantine pest into the United States. 

Most of the taxa of plants for planting 

currently being imported have not been 

thoroughly studied to determine 

whether their importation presents a 

risk of introducing a quarantine pest 

into the United States. The volume and 

the number of types of plants for 

planting have increased dramatically in 

recent years, and there are several 

problems associated with gathering data 

on what plants for planting are being 

imported and on the risks such 

importation presents. In addition, 

quarantine pests that enter the United 

States via the importation of plants for 

planting pose a particularly high risk 

of becoming established within the 

United States. The current regulations 

need to be amended to better address 

these risks. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Secretary of Agriculture may 

prohibit or restrict the importation or 

entry of any plant if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary to prevent the 

introduction into the United States of 

a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 

7712). 

Alternatives: 

APHIS has identified one alternative to 

the approach we are considering. We 

could prohibit the importation of all 

nursery stock pending risk evaluation, 

approval, and notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, similar to APHIS’s 

approach to regulating imported fruits 

and vegetables. This approach would 

lead to a major interruption in 

international trade and would have 

significant economic effects on both 

U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of 

plants for planting. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Undetermined. 

Risks: 

In the absence of some action to revise 

the nursery stock regulations to allow 

us to better address pest risks, 

increased introductions of plant pests 

via imported nursery stock are likely, 

causing extensive damage to both 

agricultural and natural plant resources. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 07/23/09 74 FR 36403 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

10/21/09 

Final Rule 07/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Additional Information: 

Additional information about APHIS 

and its programs is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

Agency Contact: 

Arnold T. Tschanz 

Senior Risk Manager, Commodity Import 

Analysis and Operations, PPQ 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

4700 River Road, Unit 133 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231 

Phone: 301 734–5306 

RIN: 0579–AC03 

USDA—Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

6. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS 

AND STOCKYARDS ACT 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 181 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 201 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, June 18, 2010. 

Abstract: 

GIPSA is proposing regulations under 

the Packers & Stockyards Act, 1921, 

that clarify when certain conduct in the 

livestock and poultry industries 

represents the making or giving of an 

undue or unreasonable preference or 

advantage or subjects a person or 

locality to an undue or unreasonable 

prejudice or disadvantage. These 

proposed regulations also establish 

criteria GIPSA will consider in 

determining whether a live poultry 

dealer has provided reasonable notice 

to poultry growers of any suspension 

of the delivery of birds under a poultry 

growing arrangement; when a 

requirement of additional capital 

investments over the life of a poultry 

growing arrangement or swine 

production contract constitutes a 

violation of the P&S Act; and whether 

a live poultry dealer or swine 

contractor has provided a reasonable 

period of time for a poultry grower or 

a swine production contract grower to 

remedy a breach of contract that could 

lead to termination of the poultry 

growing arrangement or swine 

production contract. The Farm Bill also 

instructed the Secretary to promulgate 

regulations to ensure that producers 

and growers are afforded the 

opportunity to fully participate in the 

arbitration process if they so choose. 

Statement of Need: 

In enacting Title XI of the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-246), Congress 

recognized the nature of problems 

encountered in the livestock and 

poultry industries and amended the 

Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). 

These amendments established new 

requirements for participants in the 

livestock and poultry industries and 

required the Secretary of Agriculture 

(Secretary) to establish criteria to 

consider when determining that certain 

other conduct is in violation of the P&S 

Act. 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration’s (GIPSA) 

attempts to enforce the broad 

prohibitions of the P&S Act have been 

frustrated, in part because it has not 

previously defined what conduct 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64159 

constitutes an unfair practice or the 

giving of an undue preference or 

advantage. The new regulations that 

GIPSA is proposing describe and clarify 

conduct that violates the P&S Act and 

allow for more effective and efficient 

enforcement by GIPSA. They will 

clarify conditions for industry 

compliance with the P&S Act and 

provide for a fairer market place. 

In accordance with the Farm Bill, 

GIPSA is proposing regulations under 

the P&S Act that would clarify when 

certain conduct in the livestock and 

poultry industries represents the 

making or giving of an undue or 

unreasonable preference or advantage 

or subjects a person or locality to an 

undue or unreasonable prejudice or 

disadvantage. These proposed 

regulations also establish criteria that 

GIPSA will consider in determining 

whether a live poultry dealer has 

provided reasonable notice to poultry 

growers of a suspension of the delivery 

of birds under a poultry growing 

arrangement; when a requirement of 

additional capital investments over the 

life of a poultry growing arrangement 

or swine production contract 

constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; 

and whether a packer, swine contractor 

or live poultry dealer has provided a 

reasonable period of time for a grower 

or a swine producer to remedy a breach 

of contract that could lead to 

termination of the growing arrangement 

or production contract. 

The Farm Bill also instructed the 

Secretary to promulgate regulations to 

ensure that poultry growers, swine 

production contract growers and 

livestock producers are afforded the 

opportunity to fully participate in the 

arbitration process, if they so choose. 

We are proposing a required format for 

providing poultry growers, swine 

production contract growers and 

livestock producers the opportunity to 

decline the use of arbitration in 

contracts requiring arbitration. We are 

also proposing criteria that we will 

consider in finding that poultry 

growers, swine production contract 

growers and livestock producers have 

a meaningful opportunity to participate 

fully in the arbitration process if they 

voluntarily agree to do so. We will use 

these criteria to assess the overall 

fairness of the arbitration process. 

In addition to proposing regulations in 

accordance with the Farm Bill, GIPSA 

is proposing regulations that would 

prohibit certain conduct because it is 

unfair, unjustly discriminatory or 

deceptive, in violation of the P&S Act. 

These additional proposed regulations 

are promulgated under the authority of 

§ 407 of the P&S Act, and complement 

those required by the Farm Bill to help 

ensure fair trade and competition in the 

livestock and poultry industries. 

These regulations are intended to 

address the increased use of contracting 

in the marketing and production of 

livestock and poultry by entities under 

the jurisdiction of the P&S Act, and 

practices that result from the use of 

market power and alterations in private 

property rights, which violate the spirit 

and letter of the P&S Act. The effect 

increased contracting has had, and 

continues to have, on individual 

agricultural producers has significantly 

changed the industry and the rural 

economy as a whole, making these 

proposed regulations necessary. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 407 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 

228) provides that the Secretary ‘‘may 

make such rules, regulations, and 

orders as may be necessary to carry out 

the provisions of this Act.’’ Sections 

11005 and 11006 of the Farm Bill 

became effective June 18, 2008, and 

instruct the Secretary to promulgate 

additional regulations as described in 

this notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Alternatives: 

The Farm Bill explicitly directs the 

Secretary to promulgate certain 

regulations. GIPSA determined that 

additional regulations are necessary to 

provide notice to all regulated entities 

of types of practices and conduct that 

GIPSA considers ‘‘unfair’’ so that 

regulated entities are fully informed of 

actions or practices that are considered 

‘‘unfair’’ and therefore, prohibited. 

Within both the mandatory and 

discretionary regulatory provisions we 

considered alternative options. 

For example, GIPSA considered shorter 

notice periods in situations when a live 

poultry dealer suspends delivery of 

birds to a poultry grower. These 

alternatives would not have provided 

adequate trust and integrity in the 

livestock and poultry markets. Other 

alternatives may have been more 

restrictive. We considered prohibiting 

the use of arbitration to resolve 

disputes; however, that option goes 

against a popular method of dispute 

resolution in other industries and is not 

in line with the spirit of the 2008 Farm 

Bill. GIPSA believes that this proposed 

rule represents the best option to level 

the playing field between packers, 

swine contractors, live poultry dealers, 

and the nation’s poultry growers, swine 

production contract growers, or 

livestock producers for the benefit of 

more efficient marketing and public 

good. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: 

Costs are aggregated into three major 

types: 1) administrative costs, which 

include items such as office work, 

postage, filing, and copying; 2) costs of 

analysis, such as a business conducting 

a profit-loss analysis; and 3) adjustment 

costs, such as costs related to changing 

business behavior to achieve 

compliance with the proposed 

regulation. 

Benefits: 

Benefits are also aggregated into three 

major groups: 1) increased pricing 

efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 

3) competitive efficiency. 

Risks: 

None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

H. Tess Butler 

Regulatory Liaison 

Department of Agriculture 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–7486 

Fax: 202 690–2173 

Email: h.tess.butler@usda.gov 

RIN: 0580–AB07 

USDA—GIPSA 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

7. POULTRY CONTRACTS; 

INITIATION, PERFORMANCE, AND 

TERMINATION 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 221 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 201 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

GIPSA is amending the regulations 

issued under the Packers and 

Stockyards Act, 1921, regarding the 

records that live poultry dealers must 

furnish poultry growers, including 

requirements for the timing and 

contents of poultry growing 

arrangements. The amendments to the 

regulatlions will require that live 

poultry dealers timely deliver a copy 

of an offered poultry growing 

arrangement to growers; include 

information about any Performance 

Improvement Plan in poultry growing 

arrangements; include provisions for 

written termination notices in poultry 

growing arrangements; and 

notwithstanding a confidentiality 

provision, allow growers to discuss the 

terms of poultry growing arrangements 

with designated individuals. 

Statement of Need: 

The Grain Inspection Packers and 

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 

believes that the failure to disclose 

certain terms in a poultry growing 

arrangement constitutes an unfair, 

discriminatory, or deceptive practice in 

violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) 

of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S 

Act). 

Because of vertical integration and high 

concentration within the poultry 

industry, poultry growers do not 

realistically have the option of 

negotiating more favorable poultry 

growing arrangement terms with 

competing live poultry dealers because 

there may be no other live poultry 

dealers in the poultry grower’s 

immediate geographic area or there may 

be significant differences in equipment 

requirements among live poultry 

dealers. There is considerable 

asymmetry of information and an 

imbalance in market power. This final 

rule will level the playing field by 

requiring that all live poultry dealers 

adopt fair and transparent practices 

when dealing with poultry growers. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

One of GIPSA’s primary functions is 

the enforcement of the P&S Act, (7 

U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (P&S Act). Under 

authority granted to us by the Secretary 

of Agriculture, GIPSA is authorized (7 

U.S.C. 228) to make those regulations 

necessary to carry out the provisions 

of the P&S Act. 

Alternatives: 

GIPSA collected input on several 

alternatives like issuing policy 

guidance to GIPSA employees, 

providing public notice that failure to 

provide growers with additional 

contract information was an unfair 

practice in violation of § 202 of the 

P&S Act, or recommending that growers 

seek redress of grievances through civil 

court action or arbitration. GIPSA 

determined that none of these 

alternatives will meet the needs of 

poultry growers. We believe, however, 

that this final rule will provide the best 

means of achieving statutory intent at 

the lowest cost to poultry growers and 

live poultry dealers. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: 

The costs to both poultry growers and 

live poultry dealers are negligible, as 

the rule does not impose significant 

additional requirements that increase 

actions that the poultry grower and the 

live poultry dealer must enact; they 

merely affect the timeliness of those 

actions. In some cases, the final rule 

requires that the poultry grower and the 

live poultry dealer commit to writing 

terms and conditions that are already 

in effect, but do not mandate what 

those terms and conditions must be. 

Thus, the only additional cost is the 

cost of producing and transmitting the 

printed document. 

Benefits: 

Collectively, the regulatory provisions 

in the final rule mitigate potential 

asymmetries of information between 

poultry growers and the live poultry 

dealers, which will lead to better 

decisions on the terms of compensation 

and reduce the potential for the 

expression of anti-competitive market 

power. The provisions achieve this 

primarily by improving the quality and 

timeliness of information to growers, 

and to some extent to live poultry 

dealers as well. Benefits should accrue 

to poultry growers from an enhanced 

basis for making the decision as to 

whether to enter into a growout 

contract, and from additional time 

available to make plans for any 

necessary adjustments in those 

instances when the poultry grower is 

subject to a contract termination. Net 

social welfare will benefit from 

improved accuracy in the value 

(pricing) decisions involved in 

transactions between poultry growers 

and live poultry dealers as they 

negotiate contract terms. 

Risks: 

None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 08/01/07 72 FR 41952 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

10/30/07 

Final Action 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

H. Tess Butler 

Regulatory Liaison 

Department of Agriculture 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–7486 

Fax: 202 690–2173 

Email: h.tess.butler@usda.gov 

RIN: 0580–AA98 

USDA—Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

8. ELIGIBILITY, CERTIFICATION, AND 

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD, 

CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT 

OF 2008 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246; PL 104–121 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR Part 273 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations governing the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to 

implement provisions from the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110-246) (FCEA) 

concerning the eligibility and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64161 

certification of SNAP applicants and 

participants and SNAP employment 

and training. In addition, this proposed 

rule would revise the SNAP regulations 

throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change 

the program name from the Food Stamp 

Program to SNAP and to make other 

nomenclature changes as mandated by 

the FCEA. The statutory effective date 

of these provisions was October 1, 

2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

is also proposing two discretionary 

revisions to SNAP regulations to 

provide State agencies options that are 

currently available only through 

waivers. These provisions would allow 

State agencies to average student work 

hours and to provide telephone 

interviews in lieu of face-to-face 

interviews. FNS anticipates that this 

rule would impact the associated 

paperwork burdens. (08-006) 

Statement of Need: 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations governing the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to 

implement provisions from the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110-246) (FCEA) 

concerning the eligibility and 

certification of SNAP applicants and 

participants and SNAP employment 

and training. In addition, this proposed 

rule would revise the SNAP regulations 

throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change 

the program name from the Food Stamp 

Program to SNAP and to make other 

nomenclature changes as mandated by 

the FCEA. The statutory effective date 

of these provisions was October 1, 

2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

is also proposing 2 discretionary 

revisions to SNAP regulations to 

provide State agencies options that are 

currently available only through 

waivers. These provisions would allow 

State agencies to average student work 

hours and to provide telephone 

interviews in lieu of face-to-face 

interviews. FNS anticipates that this 

rule would impact the associated 

paperwork burdens. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (Public Law 110-246) and 7 CFR 

Part 273. 

Alternatives: 

Not applicable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Anticipated costs have not been 

determined; however, it is anticipated 

that this rule would impact the 

associated paperwork burdens. 

Risks: 

Not applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 05/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

RIN: 0584–AD87 

USDA—FNS 

9. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL 

OF 2008 RETAILER SANCTIONS 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

Undetermined 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 276 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This proposed rule would implement 

provisions under Section 4132 of the 

Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 

2008, also referred to as the Farm Bill 

of 2008. Under Section 4132, the 

Department of Agriculture’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided 

with greater authority and flexibility 

when sanctioning retail or wholesale 

food stores that violate Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

rules. Specifically, the Department is 

authorized to assess a civil penalty and 

to disqualify a retail or wholesale food 

store authorized to participate in SNAP. 

Previously, the Department could 

assess a civil penalty or 

disqualification, but not both. Section 

4132 also eliminates the minimum 

disqualification period which was 

previously set at six months. 

In addition to implementing statutory 

provisions, this rule proposes to 

provide a clear administrative penalty 

when an authorized retailer or 

wholesale food store redeems a SNAP 

participant’s Program benefits without 

the knowledge of the participant. All 

Program benefits are issued through the 

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) 

system. The EBT system establishes 

data that may be used to identify fraud 

committed by retail food stores. While 

stealing Program benefits could be 

prosecuted under current statute, 

Program regulations do not provide a 

clear penalty for these thefts. The 

proposed rule would establish an 

administrative penalty for such thefts 

equivalent to the penalty for trafficking 

in Program benefits, which is the 

permanent disqualification of a retailer 

or wholesale food store from SNAP 

participation. 

Finally, the Department proposes to 

identify additional administrative retail 

violations and the associated sanction 

that would be imposed against the 

retail food store for committing the 

violation. For instance, to maintain 

integrity, FNS requires retail and 

wholesale food stores to key enter EBT 

card data in the presence of the actual 

EBT card. The proposed rule would 

codify this requirement and identify the 

specific sanction that would be 

imposed if retail food stores are found 

to be in violation. (08-007) 

Statement of Need: 

This proposed rule would implement 

provisions under Section 4132 of the 

Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 

2008, also referred to as the Farm Bill 

of 2008. Under Section 4132, the 

Department of Agriculture’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided 

with greater authority and flexibility 

when sanctioning retail or wholesale 

food stores that violate Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

rules. Specifically, the Department is 

authorized to assess a civil penalty and 

to disqualify a retail or wholesale food 

store authorized to participate in SNAP. 

Previously, the Department could 

assess a civil penalty or 

disqualification, but not both. Section 

4132 also eliminates the minimum 

disqualification period which was 

previously set at six months. In 

addition to implementing statutory 

provisions, this rule proposes to 

provide a clear administrative penalty 

when an authorized retailer or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

wholesale food store redeems a SNAP 

participant’s Program benefits without 

the knowledge of the participant. All 

Program benefits are issued through the 

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) 

system. The EBT system establishes 

data that may be used to identify fraud 

committed by retail food stores. While 

stealing Program benefits could be 

prosecuted under current statute, 

Program regulations do not provide a 

clear penalty for these thefts. The 

proposed rule would establish an 

administrative penalty for such thefts 

equivalent to the penalty for trafficking 

in Program benefits, which is the 

permanent disqualification of a retailer 

or wholesale food store from SNAP 

participation. Finally, the Department 

proposes to identify additional 

administrative retail violations and the 

associated sanction that would be 

imposed against the retail food store for 

committing the violation. For instance, 

to maintain integrity, FNS requires 

retail and wholesale food stores to key 

enter EBT card data in the presence of 

the actual EBT card. The proposed rule 

would codify this requirement and 

identify the specific sanction that 

would be imposed if retail food stores 

are found to be in violation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110- 

246). 

Alternatives: 

Not applicable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Anticipated costs are undetermined at 

this time until more research is 

conducted. 

Risks: 

Not applicable. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

Additional Information: 

Note: This RIN replaces the previously 

issued RIN 0584-AD78. 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

RIN: 0584–AD88 

USDA—FNS 

10. ∑ FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 

PROGRAM 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008; National School Lunch Act 

(NSLA); 42 U.S.C. 1769(a) 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR Part 211 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 amended the National 

School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add 

section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 

establishes the FFVP as a permanent 

national program in a select number of 

schools in each State, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. Schools in all States 

must apply annually for FFVP funding. 

This proposed rule would implement 

statutory requirements currently 

established through program policy and 

guidance for operators at the State and 

local level. The proposed rule would 

set forth requirements detailed in the 

statute for school selection and 

participation, State agency outreach to 

needy schools, the yearly application 

process, and the funding and allocation 

processes for schools and States. The 

proposed rule would also include the 

statutory per student funding range and 

the requirement for a program 

evaluation. 

In addition, the proposed rule would 

establish oversight activity and 

reporting and record keeping 

requirements that are not included in 

FFVP statutory requirements. 

Implementation of this rule is not 

expected to result in expenses for 

program operators because they receive 

funding to cover food purchases and 

administrative costs. (09-007) 

Statement of Need: 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 amended the National 

School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add 

section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 

establishes the FFVP as a permanent 

national program in a select number of 

schools in each State, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. Schools in all States 

must apply annually for FFVP funding. 

This proposed rule would implement 

statutory requirements currently 

established through program policy and 

guidance for operators at the State and 

local level. The proposed rule would 

set forth requirements detailed in the 

statute for school selection and 

participation, State agency outreach to 

needy schools, the yearly application 

process, and the funding and allocation 

processes for schools and States. The 

proposed rule would also include the 

statutory per student funding range and 

the requirement for a program 

evaluation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Section 19, Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008. National School 

Lunch Act (NSLA). 42 U.S.C. 1769(a). 

Alternatives: 

Because this proposed rule would 

implement statutory requirements set 

forth by the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 by adding section 

19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Program (FFVP), to the National School 

Lunch Act, alternatives to this process 

are not known or being pursued at this 

time. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Implementation of this rule is not 

expected to result in expenses for 

program operators because they receive 

funding to cover food purchases and 

administrative costs. 

Risks: 

No risks by implementing this 

proposed rule have been identified at 

this time. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 04/00/10 

Final Action 12/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64163 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

RIN: 0584–AD96 

USDA—FNS 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

11. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD 

PROGRAM: IMPROVING 

MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM 

INTEGRITY 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

42 USC 1766; PL 103–448; PL 104–193; 

PL 105–336 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR Part 226 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rule amends the Child and Adult 

Care Food Program (CACFP) 

regulations. The changes in this rule 

result from the findings of State and 

Federal program reviews and from 

audits and investigations conducted by 

the Office of Inspector General. This 

rule revises: State agency criteria for 

approving and renewing institution 

applications; program training and 

other operating requirements for child 

care institutions and facilities; and 

State and institution-level monitoring 

requirements. This rule also includes 

changes that are required by the 

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans 

Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the 

Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William 

F. Goodling Child Nutrition 

Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 

105-336). 

The changes are designed to improve 

program operations and monitoring at 

the State and institution levels and, 

where possible, to streamline and 

simplify program requirements for State 

agencies and institutions. (95-024) 

Statement of Need: 

In recent years, State and Federal 

program reviews have found numerous 

cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in 

some instances, fraud, by child care 

institutions and facilities in the CACFP. 

These reviews revealed weaknesses in 

management controls over program 

operations and examples of regulatory 

noncompliance by institutions, 

including failure to pay facilities or 

failure to pay them in a timely manner; 

improper use of program funds for nonprogram expenditures; and improper 

meal reimbursements due to incorrect 

meal counts or to mis-categorized or 

incomplete income eligibility 

statements. In addition, audits and 

investigations conducted by the Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) have raised 

serious concerns regarding the 

adequacy of financial and 

administrative controls in CACFP. 

Based on its findings, OIG 

recommended changes to CACFP 

review requirements and management 

controls. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Some of the changes proposed in the 

rule are discretionary changes being 

made in response to deficiencies found 

in program reviews and OIG audits. 

Other changes codify statutory changes 

made by the Healthy Meals for Healthy 

Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103- 

448), the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act 

of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the 

William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 

Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 

105-336). 

Alternatives: 

In developing the proposal, the Agency 

considered various alternatives to 

minimize burden on State agencies and 

institutions while ensuring effective 

program operation. Key areas in which 

alternatives were considered include 

State agency reviews of institutions and 

sponsoring organization oversight of 

day care homes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

This rule contains changes designed to 

improve management and financial 

integrity in the CACFP. When 

implemented, these changes would 

affect all entities in CACFP, from USDA 

to participating children and children’s 

households. These changes will 

primarily affect the procedures used by 

State agencies in reviewing applications 

submitted by, and monitoring the 

performance of, institutions which are 

participating or wish to participate in 

the CACFP. Those changes which 

would affect institutions and facilities 

will not, in the aggregate, have a 

significant economic impact. 

Data on CACFP integrity is limited, 

despite numerous OIG reports on 

individual institutions and facilities 

that have been deficient in CACFP 

management. While program reviews 

and OIG reports clearly illustrate that 

there are weaknesses in parts of the 

program regulations and that there have 

been weaknesses in oversight, neither 

program reviews, OIG reports, nor any 

other data sources illustrate the 

prevalence and magnitude of CACFP 

fraud and abuse. This lack of 

information precludes USDA from 

estimating the amount of money lost 

due to fraud and abuse or the reduction 

in fraud and abuse the changes in this 

rule will realize. 

Risks: 

Operating under interim rules puts 

State agencies and institutions at risk 

of implementing Program provisions 

subject to change in a final rule. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 09/12/00 65 FR 55103 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

12/11/00 

Interim Final Rule 06/27/02 67 FR 43448 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective 

07/29/02 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period 

End 

12/24/02 

Interim Final Rule 09/01/04 69 FR 53502 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective 

10/01/04 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period 

End 

09/01/05 

Final Action 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local, State 

Federalism: 

This action may have federalism 

implications as defined in EO 13132. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

Related RIN: Merged with 0584–AC94 

RIN: 0584–AC24 

USDA—FNS 

12. SNAP: ELIGIBILITY AND 

CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE 

FARM SECURITY AND RURAL 

INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

PL 107–171, sections 4101 to 4109, 

4114, 4115, and 4401 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR Part 273 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking will amend the 

regulations of the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 

formerly known as the Food Stamp 

Program, to implement 11 provisions of 

the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 that establish new 

eligibility and certification 

requirements for the receipt of food 

stamps. (02-007) 

Statement of Need: 

The rule is needed to implement the 

food stamp certification and eligibility 

provisions of Public Law 107-171, the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The legal basis for this rule is Public 

Law 107-171, the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

Alternatives: 

This final rule deals with changes 

required by Public Law 107-171, the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002. The Department has 

limited discretion in implementing 

provisions of that law. Most of the 

provisions in this rule were effective 

October 1, 2002, and were implemented 

by State agencies prior to publication 

of this rule. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The provisions of this rule simplify 

State administration of SNAP, increase 

eligibility for the program among 

certain groups, increase access to the 

program among low-income families 

and individuals, and increase benefit 

levels. The provisions of Public Law 

107-171 implemented by this rule have 

a 5-year cost of approximately $1.9 

billion. 

Risks: 

SNAP provides nutrition assistance to 

millions of Americans nationwide— 

working families, eligible non-citizens, 

and elderly and disabled individuals. 

Many low-income families don’t earn 

enough money and many elderly and 

disabled individuals don’t receive 

enough in retirement or disability 

benefits to meet all of their expenses 

and purchase healthy and nutritious 

meals. SNAP serves a vital role in 

helping these families and individuals 

achieve and maintain self-sufficiency 

and purchase a nutritious diet. This 

rule implements the certification and 

eligibility provisions of Public Law 

107-171, the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002. It simplifies 

State administration of SNAP, increases 

eligibility for the program among 

certain groups, increases access to the 

program among low-income families 

and individuals, and increases benefit 

levels. The provisions of this rule 

increase benefits by approximately 

$1.95 billion over 5 years. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 04/16/04 69 FR 20724 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

06/15/04 

Final Action 12/00/09 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

RIN: 0584–AD30 

USDA—FNS 

13. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107–171 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rule finalizes the interim rule 

‘‘Non-Discretionary Quality Control 

Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 

107-171’’ (published October 16, 2003 

at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule 

‘‘Discretionary Quality Control 

Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 

107-171’’ (published September 23, 

2005 at 70 FR 55776). 

The following quality control (QC) 

provisions required by sections 4118 

and 4119 of the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title IV 

of Pub. L. 107-171) and contained in 

the interim rule are implemented by 

this final rule: 

1) Timeframes for completing quality 

control reviews; 

2) Timeframes for completing the 

arbitration process; 

3) Timeframes for determining final 

error rates; 

4) The threshold for potential sanctions 

and time period for sanctions; 

5) The calculation of State error rates; 

6) The formula for determining States’ 

liability amounts; 

7) Sanction notification and method of 

payment; and 

8) Corrective action plans. 

The following provisions required by 

sections 4118 and 4119 and additional 

policy and technical changes, and 

contained in the proposed rule, are 

implemented by this final rule. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64165 

Legislative changes based on or 

required by sections 4118 and 4119: 

1) Eliminate enhanced funding; 

2) Establish timeframes for completing 

individual quality control reviews; and 

3) Establish procedures for adjusting 

liability determinations following 

appeal decisions. 

Policy and technical changes: 

1) Require State agency QC reviewers 

to attempt to complete review when a 

household refuses to cooperate; 

2) Mandate FNS validation of negative 

sample for purposes of high 

performance bonuses; 

3) Revise procedures for conducting 

negative case reviews; 

4) Revise timeframes for household 

penalties for refusal to cooperate with 

State and Federal QC reviews; 

5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of 

demonstration and SSA processed 

cases; 

6) Eliminate requirement to report 

differences resulting from Federal 

information exchange systems (FIX) 

errors; 

7) Eliminate references to integrated 

QC; and 

8) Update definitions section to remove 

out-dated definitions. (02-014) 

Statement of Need: 

The rule is needed to implement the 

food stamp quality control provisions 

of Public Law 107-171, the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The legal basis for this rule is Public 

Law 107-171, the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

Alternatives: 

This rule deals with changes required 

by Public Law 107-171, the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002. The Department has no discretion 

in implementing the time frames for 

completing quality control reviews, the 

arbitration process, and determining the 

final error rates; the threshold for 

potential sanctions and the time period 

for the sanctions; the calculation for 

State error rates; the formula for 

determining liability amounts; the 

sanction notification; method of 

payment for liabilities; corrective action 

planning, and the elimination of 

enhanced funding. These provisions 

were effective for the fiscal year 2003 

quality control review period and must 

have been implemented by FNS and 

State agencies during fiscal year 2003. 

This rule also deals in part with 

discretionary changes to the quality 

control system resulting from Public 

Law 107-171. The provision addressing 

results of appeals is required to be 

regulated by Public Law 107-171. The 

remaining changes amend existing 

regulations and are required to make 

technical changes resulting from these 

changes or to update policy consistent 

with current requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The provisions of this rule are not 

anticipated to have any impact on 

benefit levels or administrative costs. 

Risks: 

The FSP provides nutrition assistance 

to millions of Americans nationwide. 

The quality control system measures 

the accuracy of States providing food 

stamp benefits to the program 

recipients. This rule is intended to 

implement the quality control 

provisions of Public Law 107-701, the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002. It will significantly revise 

the system for determining State agency 

liabilities and sanctions for high 

payment error rates. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 10/16/03 68 FR 59519 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective 

12/15/03 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period 

End 

01/14/04 

NPRM 09/23/05 70 FR 55776 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

12/22/05 

Final Action 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

Related RIN: Merged with 0584–AD37 

RIN: 0584–AD31 

USDA—FNS 

14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF 

CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP 

HOUSEHOLDS AND CERTIFICATION 

OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND 

RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE 

MEALS IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 108–265, sec 104 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 

CFR 245 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

In response to Public Law 108-265, 

which amended the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, 

Determining Eligibility for Free and 

Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in 

Schools, will be amended to establish 

categorical (automatic) eligibility for 

free meals and free milk upon 

documentation that a child is (1) 

homeless as defined by the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a 

runaway served by grant programs 

under the Runaway and Homeless 

Youth Act; or (3) migratory as defined 

in section 1309(2) of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act. The rule 

also requires phase-in of mandatory 

direct certification for children who are 

members of households receiving food 

stamps and continues discretionary 

direct certification for other 

categorically eligible children. (04-018) 

Statement of Need: 

The changes made to the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act 

concerning direct certification are 

intended to improve program access, 

reduce paperwork, and improve the 

accuracy of the delivery of free meal 

benefits. This regulation will 

implement the statutory changes and 

provide State agencies and local 

educational agencies with the policies 

and procedures to conduct mandatory 

and discretionary direct certification. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

These changes are being made in 

response to provisions in Public Law 

108-265. 

Alternatives: 

FNS will be working closely with State 

agencies to implement the changes 

made by this regulation and will be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

developing extensive guidance 

materials in conjunction with our 

cooperators. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

This regulation will reduce paperwork, 

target benefits more precisely, and will 

improve program access of eligible 

school children. 

Risks: 

This regulation may require 

adjustments to existing computer 

systems to more readily share 

information between schools, food 

stamp offices, and other agencies. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

Interim Final Rule 02/00/10 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period 

End 

05/00/10 

Final Action 05/00/11 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local, State 

Agency Contact: 

James F. Herbert 

Regulatory Review Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Food and Nutrition Service 

10th Floor 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703 305–2572 

Email: james.herbert@fns.usda.gov 

Related RIN: Merged with 0584–AD62 

RIN: 0584–AD60 

USDA—Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

15. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION 

REGULATIONS 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

Undetermined 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 1031 to 1056 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 

590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR 590.411; 

9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 

590.580; 9 CFR 591; . . . 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) is proposing to require egg 

products plants and establishments that 

pasteurize shell eggs to develop and 

implement Hazard Analysis and 

Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

systems and Sanitation Standard 

Operating Procedures (SOPs). FSIS also 

is proposing pathogen reduction 

performance standards that would be 

applicable to egg products and 

pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is 

proposing to amend the Federal egg 

products inspection regulations by 

removing current requirements for prior 

approval by FSIS of egg products plant 

drawings, specifications, and 

equipment prior to their use in official 

plants. The Agency also plans to 

eliminate the prior label approval 

system for egg products. This proposal 

will not encompass shell egg packers. 

In the near future, FSIS will initiate 

non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell 

egg packers that will provide 

information intended to help them to 

safely process shell eggs intended for 

human consumption or further 

processing. 

Statement of Need: 

The actions being proposed are part of 

FSIS’ regulatory reform effort to 

improve FSIS’ shell egg and egg 

products food safety regulations, better 

define the roles of Government and the 

regulated industry, encourage 

innovations that will improve food 

safety, remove unnecessary regulatory 

burdens on inspected egg products 

plants, and make the egg products 

regulations as consistent as possible 

with the Agency’s meat and poultry 

products regulations. FSIS also is 

taking these actions in light of changing 

inspection priorities and recent 

findings of Salmonella in pasteurized 

egg products. 

This proposal is directly related to 

FSIS’ PR/HACCP initiative. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This proposed rule is authorized under 

the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result 

of any specific mandate by the 

Congress or a Federal court. 

Alternatives: 

A team of FSIS economists and food 

technologists is conducting a costbenefit analysis to evaluate the 

potential economic impacts of several 

alternatives on the public, egg products 

industry, and FSIS. These alternatives 

include: (1) Taking no regulatory 

action; (2) requiring all inspected egg 

products plants to develop, adopt, and 

implement written sanitation SOPs and 

HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a 

lethality-based pathogen reduction 

performance standard many of the 

current highly prescriptive egg products 

processing requirements. The team will 

consider the effects of a uniform, 

across-the-board standard for all egg 

products; a performance standard based 

on the relative risk of different classes 

of egg products; and a performance 

standard based on the relative risks to 

public health of different production 

processes. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of 

this proposed rulemaking to industry, 

FSIS and other Federal agencies, State 

and local governments, small entities, 

and foreign countries. The expected 

costs to industry will depend on a 

number of factors. These costs include 

the required lethality, or level of 

pathogen reduction, and the cost of 

HACCP plan and sanitation SOP 

development, implementation, and 

associated employee training. The 

pathogen reduction costs will depend 

on the amount of reduction sought and 

on the classes of product, product 

formulations, or processes. 

Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and 

Food and Drug Administration may 

change because the two agencies share 

responsibility for inspection and 

oversight of the egg industry and a 

common farm-to-table approach for 

shell egg and egg products food safety. 

Other Federal agencies and local 

governments are not likely to be 

affected. 

Egg and egg product inspection systems 

of foreign countries wishing to export 

eggs and egg products to the U.S. must 

be equivalent to the U.S. system. FSIS 

will consult with these countries, as 

needed, if and when this proposal 

becomes effective. 

This proposal is not likely to have a 

significant impact on small entities. 

The entities that would be directly 

affected by this proposal would be the 

approximately 80 federally inspected 

egg products plants, most of which are 

small businesses, according to Small 

Business Administration criteria. If 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64167 

necessary, FSIS will develop 

compliance guides to assist these small 

firms in implementing the proposed 

requirements. 

Potential benefits associated with this 

rulemaking include: Improvements in 

human health due to pathogen 

reduction; improved utilization of FSIS 

inspection program resources; and cost 

savings resulting from the flexibility of 

egg products plants in achieving a 

lethality-based pathogen reduction 

performance standard. Once specific 

alternatives are identified, economic 

analysis will identify the quantitative 

and qualitative benefits associated with 

each alternative. 

Human health benefits from this 

rulemaking are likely to be small 

because of the low level of (chiefly 

post-processing) contamination of 

pasteurized egg products. In light of 

recent scientific studies that raise 

questions about the efficacy of current 

regulations, however, it is likely that 

measurable reductions will be achieved 

in the risk of foodborne illness. 

The preliminary anticipated annualized 

costs of the proposed action are 

approximately $7.0 million. The 

preliminary anticipated benefits of the 

proposed action are approximately 

$90.0 million per year. 

Risks: 

FSIS believes that this regulatory action 

may result in a further reduction in the 

risks associated with egg products. The 

development of a lethality-based 

pathogen reduction performance 

standard for egg products, replacing 

command-and-control regulations, will 

remove unnecessary regulatory 

obstacles to, and provide incentives for, 

innovation to improve the safety of egg 

products. 

To assess the potential risk-reduction 

impacts of this rulemaking on the 

public, an intra-Agency group of 

scientific and technical experts is 

conducting a risk management analysis. 

The group has been charged with 

identifying the lethality requirement 

sufficient to ensure the safety of egg 

products and the alternative methods 

for implementing the requirement. FSIS 

has developed new risk assessments for 

SE in eggs and for Salmonella spp. in 

liquid egg products to evaluate the risk 

associated with the regulatory 

alternatives. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 06/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, State 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

Agency Contact: 

Victoria Levine 

Program Analyst, Policy Issuances 

Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–5627 

Fax: 202 690–0486 

Email: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AC58 

USDA—FSIS 

16. PRIOR LABELING APPROVAL 

SYSTEM: GENERIC LABEL 

APPROVAL 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 451 to 470; 21 USC 601 to 

695 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 

CFR 412 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This rulemaking will continue an effort 

initiated several years ago by amending 

FSIS’ regulations to expand the types 

of labeling that are generically 

approved. FSIS plans to propose that 

the submission of labeling for approval 

prior to use be limited to certain types 

of labeling, as specified in the 

regulations. In addition, FSIS plans to 

reorganize and amend the regulations 

by consolidating the nutrition labeling 

rules that currently are stated 

separately for meat and poultry 

products (in part 317, subpart B, and 

part 381, subpart Y, respectively) and 

by amending their provisions to set out 

clearly various circumstances under 

which these products are misbranded. 

Statement of Need: 

Expanding the types of labeling that are 

generically approved would permit 

Agency personnel to focus their 

resources on evaluating only those 

claims or special statements that have 

health and safety or economic 

implications. This would essentially 

eliminate the time needed for FSIS 

personnel to evaluate labeling features 

and allocate more time for staff to work 

on other duties and responsibilities. A 

major advantage of this proposal is that 

it is consistent with FSIS’ current 

regulatory approach, which separates 

industry and Agency responsibilities. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This action is authorized under the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.). 

Alternatives: 

FSIS considered several options. The 

first was to expand the types of labeling 

that would be generically approved and 

consolidate into one part, all of the 

labeling regulations applicable to 

products regulated under the FMIA and 

PPIA and the policies currently 

contained in FSIS Directive 7220.1, 

Revision 3. The second option FSIS 

considered was to consolidate only the 

meat and poultry regulations that are 

similar and to expand the types of 

generically approved labeling that can 

be applied by Federal and certified 

foreign establishments. The third 

option and the one favored by FSIS was 

to amend the prior labeling approval 

system in an incremental three-phase 

approach. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The proposed rule would permit the 

Agency to realize an estimated cost 

savings of $670,000 over 10 years. The 

proposed rule would be beneficial 

because it would streamline the generic 

labeling process, while imposing no 

additional cost burden on 

establishments. Consumers would 

benefit because industry would have 

the ability to introduce products into 

the marketplace more quickly. 

Risks: 

None 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 08/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Agency Contact: 

Jeff Canavan 

Labeling and Program Delivery Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

5601 Sunnyside Ave 

Beltsville, MD 20705–4576 

Phone: 301 504–0878 

Fax: 301–504–0872 

Email: jeff.canavan@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AC59 

USDA—FSIS 

17. CHANGES TO REGULATORY 

JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD 

PRODUCTS CONTAINING MEAT AND 

POULTRY 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 601(j); 21 USC 454(f) 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) have concluded 

that a clearer approach to determining 

jurisdiction over meat and poultry 

products is possible. This approach 

involves considering the contribution of 

the meat or poultry ingredients to the 

identity of the food. FSIS is proposing 

to amend the Federal meat and poultry 

products inspection regulations to 

provide consistency and predictability 

in the regulatory jurisdiction over nine 

products or product categories. 

Historically there has been confusion 

about whether these products fall 

within the jurisdiction of FSIS or FDA. 

These proposed changes would exempt 

cheese and cheese products prepared 

with less than 50 percent meat or 

poultry; breads, rolls and buns 

prepared with less than 50 percent 

meat or poultry; dried poultry soup 

mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza 

with meat or poultry; and salad 

dressings prepared with less than 50 

percent meat or poultry from the 

requirements of the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act and the Poultry Product 

Inspection Act and would clarify that 

bagel dogs, natural casings, and close 

faced-sandwiches are subject to the 

requirements of the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act. 

Statement of Need: 

Over the years, FSIS has made 

decisions about the jurisdiction under 

which food products containing meat 

or poultry ingredients are produced 

based on the amount of meat or poultry 

in the product; whether the product is 

represented as a meat or poultry 

product (that is, whether a term that 

refers to meat or poultry is used on 

labeling); whether the product is 

perceived by consumers as a product 

of the meat or poultry industries; and 

whether the product contains poultry 

or meat from an accepted source. With 

regard to the consumer perception 

factor, FSIS made decisions on a caseby-case basis, mostly in response to 

situations involving determinations for 

compliance and enforcement. Although 

this case-by-case approach resulted in 

decisions that made sense at the time 

that they were made, a review in 2004 

to 2005 by a working group of FSIS 

and FDA representatives showed that 

some of the decisions do not appear 

to be fully consistent with other 

product decisions and that the 

reasoning behind various 

determinations was not fully articulated 

or supported. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), the 

Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) 

(21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), and the Egg 

Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 1032), and the regulations that 

implement these Acts, FSIS has 

authority over all meat food and 

poultry products and processed egg 

products. Under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and 

the regulations that implement it, FDA 

has authority over all foods not under 

FSIS’ jurisdiction, including dairy, 

bread and other grain products, 

vegetables and other produce, and other 

products, such as seafood. 

According to the provisions of the 

FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the 

authority to exempt certain human food 

products from the definition of a meat 

food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a 

poultry product (20 U.S.C. 454(f)) based 

on either of two factors: (1) The 

product contains only a relatively small 

proportion of livestock ingredients or 

poultry ingredients, or (2) the product 

historically has not been considered by 

consumers as a product of the meat 

food or poultry industry, and under 

such conditions as he or she may 

prescribe to ensure that the livestock 

or poultry ingredients are not 

adulterated and that the products are 

not represented as meat food or poultry 

products. 

Alternatives: 

FSIS has considered over the years a 

number of variations to clarify the 

confusion regarding jurisdiction for 

these various products. 

Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. 

Although FSIS has considered taking 

no action at this time, the Agency does 

not recommend this option because of 

the continued confusion that exists 

among industry and consumers as to 

jurisdictional coverage for nine 

categories of products. 

Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory 

factors for making jurisdiction decision 

and recommend an amendment. The 

amendment of the statute would be 

from the historical perception factor 

because that is the factor, of the two 

statutory factors, that the working 

group identified as leading to the state 

of confusion about the jurisdiction of 

certain products containing meat or 

poultry. 

Alternative 3: Adopt some of the 

FDA/FSIS working group’s suggested 

approach to making clear and 

transparent jurisdiction decisions by 

proposing changes to regulations to 

codify the current policies on exempted 

products. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FSIS estimates that the initial and 

recurring costs of the rule to industry 

would be approximately $5 million and 

$7 million, respectively. These costs 

would be attributable to new Sanitation 

SOP and HACCP plan development, as 

well as to labeling changes and 

training. FSIS would incur $7 million 

in annual recurring costs (salaries and 

benefits). Establishments coming under 

FSIS jurisdiction also would incur costs 

for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, 

and annual HACCP plan reassessment. 

Benefits to industry would accrue from 

reduced confusion over Agency 

jurisdiction, which may affect labeling 

and recordkeeping costs. There may be 

spill-over benefits accruing from 

changes in consumer behavior. Also, 

there would be improvement in 

efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS 

resources. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64169 

Risks: 

None 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Charles Gioglio 

Labeling and Program Delivery Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 205–0279 

Fax: 202 205–3625 

Email: charles.gioglio@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AD28 

USDA—FSIS 

18. NEW POULTRY SLAUGHTER 

INSPECTION 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 451 et seq 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67; 9 CFR 

381.76; 9 CFR 381.83; 9 CFR 381.91; 

9 CFR 381.94 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

FSIS is proposing a new inspection 

system for young poultry slaughter 

establishments that would facilitate 

public health-based inspection. This 

new system would be available initially 

only to young chicken slaughter 

establishments. Establishments that 

slaughter broilers, fryers, roasters, and 

Cornish game hens (as defined in 9 

CFR 381.170) would be considered as 

‘‘young chicken establishments.’’ FSIS 

is also proposing to revoke the 

provisions that allow young chicken 

slaughter establishments to operate 

under the current Streamlined 

Inspection System (SIS) or the New 

Line Speed (NELS) Inspection System. 

The proposed rule would establish new 

performance standards to reduce 

pathogens. FSIS anticipates that this 

proposed rule would provide the 

framework for action to provide public 

health-based inspection in all 

establishments that slaughter amenable 

poultry species. 

Under the proposed new system, young 

chicken slaughter establishments would 

be required to sort chicken carcasses 

and to conduct other activities to 

ensure that carcasses are not 

adulterated before they enter the 

chilling tank. 

Statement of Need: 

Because of the risk to the public health 

associated with pathogens on young 

chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing a 

new inspection system that would 

allow for more effective inspection of 

young chicken carcasses, would allow 

the Agency to more effectively allocate 

its resources, would encourage industry 

to more readily use new technology, 

and would include new performance 

standards to reduce pathogens. 

This proposed rule is an example of 

regulatory reform because it would 

facilitate technological innovation in 

young chicken slaughter 

establishments. It would likely result in 

more cost-effective dressing of young 

chickens that are ready to cook or ready 

for further processing. Similarly, it 

would likely result in more efficient 

and effective use of Agency resources. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Secretary of Agriculture is charged 

by the Poultry Products Inspection Act 

(PPIA—21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) with 

carrying out a mandatory poultry 

products inspection program. The Act 

requires post-mortem inspection of all 

carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject 

to the Act and such reinspection as 

deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). 

The Secretary is authorized to 

promulgate such rules and regulations 

as are necessary to carry out the 

provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C. 463(b)). 

The Agency has tentatively determined 

that this rule would facilitate FSIS 

post-mortem inspection of young 

chicken carcasses. The proposed new 

system would likely result in more 

efficient and effective use of Agency 

resources and in industry innovations. 

Alternatives: 

FSIS considered the following options 

in developing this proposal: 

1) No action. 

2) Propose to implement HACCP-Based 

Inspection Models Pilot in regulations. 

3) Propose to establish a mandatory, 

rather than a voluntary, new inspection 

system for young chicken slaughter 

establishments. 

4) Propose standards of identity 

regulations for young chickens that 

include trim and processing defect 

criteria and that take into account the 

intended use of the product. 

5) Propose a voluntary new inspection 

system for young chicken slaughter 

establishments and propose standards 

of identity for whole chickens, 

regardless of the products’ intended 

use. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The proposed performance standards 

and the implementation of public 

health-based inspection would likely 

improve the public health. FSIS is 

conducting a risk assessment for this 

proposed rule to assess the likely 

public health benefits that the 

implementation of this rule may 

achieve. 

Establishments that volunteer for this 

proposed new inspection system 

alternative would likely need to make 

capital investments in facilities and 

equipment. They may also need to add 

labor (trained employees). However, 

one of the beneficial effects of these 

investments would likely be the 

lowering of the average cost per pound 

to dress poultry properly. Cost savings 

would likely result because of 

increased line speeds, increased 

productivity, and increased flexibility 

to industry. The expected lower average 

unit cost for dressing poultry would 

likely give a marketing advantage to 

establishments under the new system. 

Consumers would likely benefit from 

lower retail prices for high quality 

poultry products. The rule would also 

likely provide opportunities for the 

industry to innovate because of the 

increased flexibility it would allow 

poultry slaughter establishments. In 

addition, in the public sector, benefits 

would accrue to FSIS from the more 

effective deployment of FSIS inspection 

program personnel to verify process 

control based on risk factors at each 

establishment. 

Risks: 

Salmonella and other pathogens are 

present on a substantial portion of 

poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. 

Foodborne salmonella cause a large 

number of human illnesses that at 

times lead to hospitalization and even 

death. There is an apparent relationship 

between human illness and prevalence 

levels for salmonella in young chicken 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

carcasses. FSIS believes that through 

better allocation of inspection resources 

and the use of performance standards, 

it would be able to reduce the 

prevalence of salmonella and other 

pathogens in young chickens. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 09/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

State 

Agency Contact: 

Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Policy and Program Development 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 205–0495 

Fax: 202 401–1760 

Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AD32 

USDA—FSIS 

19. NOTIFICATION, DOCUMENTATION, 

AND RECORDKEEPING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTED 

ESTABLISHMENTS 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 612 to 613; 21 USC 459 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 417.4; ; 9 CFR 418 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) is proposing to require 

establishments subject to inspection 

under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

and the Poultry Products Inspection 

Act to promptly notify the Secretary of 

Agriculture that an adulterated or 

misbranded product received by or 

originating from the establishment has 

entered into commerce, if the 

establishment believes or has reason to 

believe that this has happened. FSIS is 

also proposing to require these 

establishments to: (1) prepare and 

maintain current procedures for the 

recall of all products produced and 

shipped by the establishment; and (2) 

document each reassessment of the 

process control plans of the 

establishment. 

Statement of Need: 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246, Sec. 

11017), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, 

amended the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA) to require 

establishments subject to inspection 

under these Acts to promptly notify the 

Secretary that an adulterated or 

misbranded product received by or 

originating from the establishment has 

entered into commerce, if the 

establishment believes or has reason to 

believe that this has happened. Section 

11017 also requires establishments 

subject to inspection under the FMIA 

and PPIA to: (1) prepare and maintain 

current procedures for the recall of all 

products produced and shipped by the 

establishment; and (2) document each 

reassessment of the process control 

plans of the establishment. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

21 U.S.C. 612 and 613; 21 U.S.C. 459, 

and Public Law 110-246, Sec. 11017. 

Alternatives: 

The option of no rulemaking is 

unavailable. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Approximate costs: $5.0 million for 

labor and costs; $5.2 million for first 

year costs; $0.7 million average costs 

adjusted with a 3% inflation rate for 

following years. Total approximate 

costs: $10.2 million. The average cost 

of this proposed rule to small entities 

is expected to be less than one tenth 

of one cent of meat and poultry food 

products per annum. Therefore, FSIS 

has made an initial determination that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Approximate benefits: benefits have not 

been monetized because quantified data 

on benefits attributable to this proposed 

rule are not available. Non-monetary 

benefits include improved protection of 

the public health, improved HACCP 

plans, and improved recall 

effectiveness. 

Risks: 

In preparing regulations on the 

shipment of adulterated meat and 

poultry products by meat and poultry 

establishments, the preparation and 

maintenance of procedures for recalled 

products produced and shipped by 

establishments, and the documentation 

of each reassessment of the process 

control plans by the establishment, the 

Agency will consider any risks to 

public health or other pertinent risks 

associated with these actions. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 01/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Victoria Levine 

Program Analyst, Policy Issuances 

Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–5627 

Fax: 202 690–0486 

Email: victoria.levine@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AD34 

USDA—FSIS 

20. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF 

CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 601 et seq PL 110–249, sec 

11016 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new) 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final 

regulations NLT 18 months after 

enactment of PL 110–246. 

Abstract: 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 

11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, 

amended the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) to make catfish an 

amenable species under the FMIA. 

Amenable species must be inspected, 

so this rule will define inspection 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64171 

requirements for catfish. The 

regulations will define ‘‘catfish’’ and 

the scope of coverage of the regulations 

to apply to establishments that process 

farm-raised species of catfish and to 

catfish and catfish products. The 

regulations will take into account the 

conditions under which the catfish are 

raised and transported to a processing 

establishment. 

Statement of Need: 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 

11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, 

amended the Federal Meat Inspection 

Act (FMIA) to make catfish an 

amenable species under the FMIA. The 

Farm Bill directs the Department to 

issue final regulations implementing 

the FMIA amendments not later than 

18 months after the enactment date 

(June 18, 2008) of the legislation. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 and Public Law 

110-246, sec. 11016 

Alternatives: 

The option of no rulemaking is 

unavailable. The Agency will consider 

alternative methods of implementation 

and levels of stringency, and the effects 

on foreign and domestic commerce and 

on small business associated with the 

alternatives. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FSIS anticipates benefits from uniform 

standards and the more extensive and 

intensive inspection service that FSIS 

provides (compared with current 

voluntary inspection programs). FSIS 

would apply requirements for imported 

catfish that would be equivalent to 

those applying to catfish raised and 

processed in the United States. 

Risks: 

In preparing regulations on catfish and 

catfish products, the Agency will 

consider any risks to public health or 

other pertinent risks associated with 

the production, processing, and 

distribution of the products. FSIS will 

determine, through scientific risk 

assessment procedures, the magnitude 

of the risks associated with catfish and 

how they compare with those 

associated with other foods in FSIS’s 

jurisdiction. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, State 

Agency Contact: 

William Milton 

Assistant Office of Catfish Inspection 

Programs 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–5735 

Fax: 202 690–1742 

Email: william.milton@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AD36 

USDA—FSIS 

21. ∑ ELECTRONIC FOREIGN IMPORT 

CERTIFICATES AND SANITATION 

STANDARD OPERATING 

PROCEDURES (SOPS) 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL 

IMPORT ESTABLISHMENTS 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 

U.S.C. 601–695), the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 

451–470);; Egg Products Inspection Act 

(EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031–1056) 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2, 327.4, ; 9 

CFR 381.196, 391.197, 381.198;; 9 CFR 

590.915, 590.920 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

FSIS is proposing to amend meat, 

poultry, and egg products regulations 

to provide for the electronic submission 

of import product and establishment 

applications and certificates and delete 

the ‘‘streamlined’’ inspection 

procedures for Canadian product. In 

addition, FSIS is amending its 

regulations to require Sanitation 

Standard Operating Procedures 

(Sanitation SOPs) in official import 

inspection establishments. 

Statement of Need: 

FSIS is proposing these regulations to 

provide for the electronic submission 

of import product and establishment 

certificates to allow the electronic 

interchange and transmission of data to 

Agency’s computer-based Public Health 

Information System (PHIS), which is 

currently under development. 

Providing an electronic format for 

imported certificates will enable the 

government-to-government exchange of 

data between FSIS and foreign customs 

and inspection authorities. Sanitation 

SOPs are written procedures that are 

developed and implemented by 

establishments to prevent direct 

contamination or adulteration of meat 

or poultry products. Sanitation SOPs 

are required at official (domestic) 

establishments. Current regulations are 

ambiguous concerning Sanitation SOP 

requirements for official import 

inspection establishments. FSIS is 

proposing to require that official import 

inspection establishments comply with 

the Sanitation SOPs regulations to 

eliminate that ambiguity and ensure 

that products do not become 

contaminated as they enter this 

country. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The authorities for this proposed rule 

are: the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 451-470), Egg Products 

Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031- 

1056) and the regulations that 

implement these Acts. 

Alternatives: 

The electronic processing of import 

certifications is voluntary, therefore, 

importers still have the option of using 

the current paper-based system. The 

Agency is proposing to require that 

official import inspection 

establishments adopt Sanitation SOPs 

to prevent direct contamination or 

adulteration of product. Therefore, no 

alternatives were considered. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The opportunity cost of not amending 

the regulations would hinder the 

Agency’s implementation of PHIS. The 

amendments that provide for the 

electronic interchange of data are 

voluntary, so establishments will not 

take them on unless the benefits 

outweigh the costs. It has been the 

Agency’s expectation that official 

import establishments will maintain 

Sanitation SOPs, this proposed rule 

codifies that expectation. Therefore, the 

proposed amendment on sanitation 

requirements will have no costs to the 

industry. The proposed rule will 

facilitate FSIS’s use of the PHIS system, 

enabling the electronic transmission, 

issuance, and authorization of imported 

product data. The PHIS will enable 

FSIS import inspection personnel to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

verify and authorize shipments using 

electronic data, reducing inspector 

workload. The electronic exchange of 

certificate data will help to reduce the 

fraudulent alteration or reproduction of 

certificates. The Agency estimates that 

the electronic processing of import 

certificates will reduce the data-entry 

time for import inspectors, by 50 to 60 

percent. 

Risks: 

None 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: 

Clark Danford 

Director, International Policy Division, 

Office of Policy and Program 

Development 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–9824 

RIN: 0583–AD39 

USDA—FSIS 

22. ∑ ELECTRONIC EXPORT 

APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION 

AS A REIMBURSABLE SERVICE AND 

FLEXIBILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR OFFICIAL EXPORT INSPECTION 

MARKS, DEVICES, AND 

CERTIFICATES 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 

U.S.C. 601–695); Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 

451–470); Egg Products Inspection Act 

(EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031–1056) 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1. 322.2, ; 9 

CFR 381.104, 381.105, 381.106; 9 CFR 

590; 9 CFR 350.3 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service 

(FSIS) is proposing to amend the meat, 

poultry, and egg product inspection 

regulations to provide an electronic 

export application and certification 

process that will be available as an 

alternative to the paper-based 

application and certification method 

currently in use. The electronic export 

application and certification process 

will be available as a reimbursable 

inspection service. FSIS is also 

proposing to provide establishments 

that export meat, poultry, and egg 

products with flexibility in the official 

export inspection marks, and devices 

used and how the products are marked 

for export. 

Statement of Need: 

FSIS is proposing these regulations to 

implement the Public Health 

Information System (PHIS), a computerbased inspection information system 

currently under development. The PHIS 

will include automation of the export 

application and certification process. 

The current export application and 

certification regulations provide only 

for a paper-based process, this 

proposed rule will amend the 

regulations to provide for the electronic 

process. Additionally, this rule is 

needed to provide this automated 

services as a reimbursable certification 

service charged to the exporter. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The authorities for this proposed rule 

are: the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 451-470), the Egg Products 

Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031- 

1056), and the regulations that 

implement these Acts. FSIS is 

proposing the electronic export 

application and certification process as 

a reimbursable service under the 

Agricultural Marketing Act 7 U.S.C. 

1622(h), that provides the Secretary of 

Agriculture with the authority to: 

‘‘inspect, certify, and identify the class, 

quality, quantity, and condition of 

agricultural products when shipped or 

received in interstate commerce, under 

such rules and regulations as the 

Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, 

including assessment and collection of 

such fees as will be reasonable and as 

nearly as may be to cover the cost of 

the service rendered, to the end that 

agricultural products may be marketed 

to the best advantage, that trading may 

be facilitated, and that consumers may 

be able to obtain the quality product 

which they desire.’’ 

Alternatives: 

The electronic processing of export 

applications and certifications is being 

proposed as a voluntary service, 

therefore, exporters have the option of 

continuing to use the current paperbased system. Therefore, no alternatives 

were considered. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FSIS estimates that it will take 

inspection personnel 1 hour to process 

an electronic application and issue an 

electronic certificate. Based on a 

workload of accessing and processing 

an estimated 350,000 

applications/certificates per year, at a 

base time rate of $49.93 per hour, the 

cost of recouping the inspector’s labor 

costs for 2009 would be $17.4 million. 

The amount charged to the exporter 

depends upon the number of electronic 

applications submitted. The use of the 

electronic export application and 

certificate system is voluntary. 

Therefore, exporters will not use this 

service unless the benefits outweigh the 

cost. The electronic export application 

and certificate process will reduce and 

expedite industry workload by 

eliminating the physical handling and 

processing of paperwork. The electronic 

exchange of export information 

between the U.S. and foreign 

governments will help reduce the 

fraudulent alternation or reproduction 

of certificates. The electronic system 

will process the applications and 

certificates will permit exporters to 

move their products faster, thereby 

increasing the amount of revenues 

received at a faster rate. The electronic 

system will provide a streamlined and 

integrated method of processing export 

applications and certificates. 

Risks: 

None 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

No 

Small Entities Affected: 

No 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64173 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

International Impacts: 

This regulatory action will be likely to 

have international trade and investment 

effects, or otherwise be of international 

interest. 

Agency Contact: 

Clark Danford 

Director, International Policy Division, 

Office of Policy and Program 

Development 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–9824 

RIN: 0583–AD41 

USDA—FSIS 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

23. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR 

THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED 

MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; 

CONTROL OF LISTERIA 

MONOCYTOGENES IN 

READY–TO–EAT MEAT AND 

POULTRY PRODUCTS 

Priority: 

Economically Significant. Major under 

5 USC 801. 

Legal Authority: 

21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq 

CFR Citation: 

9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 

CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 

325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 

9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

FSIS has proposed to establish 

pathogen reduction performance 

standards for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and 

partially heat-treated meat and poultry 

products, and measures, including 

testing, to control Listeria 

monocytogenes in RTE products. The 

performance standards spell out the 

objective level of pathogen reduction 

that establishments must meet during 

their operations in order to produce 

safe products but allow the use of 

customized, plant-specific processing 

procedures other than those prescribed 

in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, 

food safety performance standards give 

establishments the incentive and 

flexibility to adopt innovative, sciencebased food safety processing procedures 

and controls, while providing objective, 

measurable standards that can be 

verified by Agency inspectional 

oversight. This set of performance 

standards will include and be 

consistent with standards already in 

place for certain ready-to-eat meat and 

poultry products. 

Statement of Need: 

Although FSIS routinely samples and 

tests some ready-to-eat products for the 

presence of pathogens prior to 

distribution, there are no specific 

regulatory pathogen reduction 

requirements for most of these 

products. The proposed performance 

standards are necessary to help ensure 

the safety of these products; give 

establishments the incentive and 

flexibility to adopt innovative, sciencebased food safety processing procedures 

and controls; and provide objective, 

measurable standards that can be 

verified by Agency oversight. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the Poultry 

Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 

to 470), FSIS issues regulations 

governing the production of meat and 

poultry products prepared for 

distribution in commerce. The 

regulations, along with FSIS inspection 

programs, are designed to ensure that 

meat and poultry products are safe, not 

adulterated, and properly marked, 

labeled, and packaged. 

Alternatives: 

As an alternative to all of the proposed 

requirements, FSIS considered taking 

no action. As alternatives to the 

proposed performance standard 

requirements, FSIS considered endproduct testing and requiring ‘‘use-by’’ 

date labeling on ready-to-eat products. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Benefits are expected to result from 

fewer contaminated products entering 

commercial food distribution channels 

as a result of improved sanitation and 

process controls and in-plant 

verification. FSIS believes that the 

benefits of the rule would exceed the 

total costs of implementing its 

provisions. FSIS currently estimates net 

benefits from the 2003 interim final 

rule at $470 to $575 million, with 

annual recurring costs at $150.4 

million, if FSIS discounts the capital 

cost at 7%. FSIS is continuing to 

analyze the potential impact of the 

other provisions of the proposal. 

The other main provisions of the 

proposed rule are: Lethality 

performance standards for Salmonella 

and E. coli O157:H7 and stabilization 

performance standards for C. 

perfringens that firms must meet when 

producing RTE meat and poultry 

products. Most of the costs of these 

requirements would be associated with 

one-time process performance 

validation in the first year of 

implementation of the rule and with 

revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are 

expected to result from the entry into 

commercial food distribution channels 

of product with lower levels of 

contamination resulting from improved 

in-plant process verification and 

sanitation. Consequently, there will be 

fewer cases of foodborne illness. 

Risks: 

Before FSIS published the proposed 

rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated that 

each year L. monocytogenes caused 

2,540 cases of foodborne illness, 

including 500 fatalities. The Agencies 

estimated that about 65.3 percent of 

these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 

deaths per year, were attributable to 

RTE meat and poultry products. The 

analysis of the interim final rule on 

control of L. monocytogenes 

conservatively estimated that 

implementation of the rule would lead 

to an annual reduction of 27.3 deaths 

and 136.7 illnesses at the median. FSIS 

is continuing to analyze data on 

production volume and Listeria 

controls in the RTE meat and poultry 

products industry and is using the FSIS 

risk assessment model for L. 

monocytogenes to determine the likely 

risk reduction effects of the rule. 

Preliminary results indicate that the 

risk reductions being achieved are 

substantially greater than those 

estimated in the analysis of the interim 

rule. 

FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk 

reductions that might be achieved by 

implementing the lethality and 

stabilization performance standards for 

products that would be subject to the 

proposed rule. The risk reductions to 

be achieved by the proposed rule and 

that are being achieved by the interim 

rule are intended to contribute to the 

Agency’s public health protection 

effort. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 02/27/01 66 FR 12590 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

05/29/01 

NPRM Comment 

Period Extended 

07/03/01 66 FR 35112 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

09/10/01 

Interim Final Rule 06/06/03 68 FR 34208 

Interim Final Rule 

Effective 

10/06/03 

Interim Final Rule 

Comment Period 

End 

01/31/05 

NPRM Comment 

Period Reopened 

03/24/05 70 FR 15017 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

05/09/05 

Affirmation of Interim 

Final Rule 

03/00/10 

Final Action 08/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Agency Contact: 

Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Policy and Program Development 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 205–0495 

Fax: 202 401–1760 

Email: daniel.engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AC46 

USDA—FSIS 

24. FEDERAL–STATE INTERSTATE 

SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE 

INSPECTION PROGRAM 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 (section 11015) 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009. 

Abstract: 

FSIS is proposing regulations to 

implement a new voluntary FederalState cooperative inspection program 

under which State-inspected 

establishments with 25 or fewer 

employees would be eligible to ship 

meat and poultry products in interstate 

commerce. State-inspected 

establishments selected to participate in 

this program would be required to 

comply with all Federal standards 

under the Federal Meat Inspection Act 

(FMIA) and the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (PPIA). These 

establishments would receive 

inspection services from State 

inspection personnel that have been 

trained and certified to assist with 

enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. 

Meat and poultry products produced 

under the program that have been 

inspected and passed by selected Stateinspection personnel would bear a 

Federal mark of inspection. FSIS is 

proposing these regulations in response 

to the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act, enacted on June 18, 2008 (the 2008 

Farm Bill). Section 11015 of 2008 Farm 

Bill provides for the interstate shipment 

of State-inspected meat and poultry 

product from selected establishments 

and requires that FSIS promulgate 

implementing regulations no later than 

18 months from the date of its 

enactment 

Statement of Need: 

This action is needed to implement a 

new Federal-State cooperative program 

that will permit certain State-inspected 

establishments to ship meat and 

poultry products in interstate 

commerce. Inspection services for 

establishments selected to participate in 

the program will be provided by state 

inspection personnel that have been 

trained and certified in the 

administration and enforcement of the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 451, et seq.) Meat and poultry 

products produced by establishments 

selected to participate in the program 

will bear a Federal mark of inspection. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

This action is authorized under section 

11015 of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) 

(PL-110-246). Section 11015 amends 

the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) 

(21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 

U.S.C. 451, et seq.) to establish an 

optional Federal-State cooperative 

program under which State-inspected 

establishments would be permitted to 

ship meat and poultry products in 

interstate commerce. The law requires 

that FSIS promulgate implementing 

regulations no later than 18 months 

after the date of enactment. 

Alternatives: 

1. No action: FSIS did not consider the 

alternative of no action because section 

11015 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires 

that it promulgate regulations to 

implement the new Federal-State 

cooperative program. The Agency did 

consider alternatives on how to 

implement the new program. 

2. Limit participation in the program 

to state-inspected establishments with 

25 or fewer employees on average: 

Under the law, state-inspected 

establishments that have 25 or fewer 

employees on average are permitted to 

participate in the program. The law 

also provides that FSIS may select 

establishments that employ more than 

25 but fewer than 35 employees on 

average as of June 18, 2008 (the date 

of enactment) to participate in the 

program. Under the law, if these 

establishments employ more than 25 

employees on average 3 years after FSIS 

promulgates implementing regulations, 

they are required to transition to a 

Federal establishment. FSIS rejected the 

option of limiting the program to 

establishment that employ 25 or fewer 

employees on average to give additional 

small establishments the opportunity to 

participate in the program and ship 

their meat of poultry products in 

interstate commerce. 

3. Permit establishments with 25 to 35 

employees on average as of June 18, 

2008, to participate in the program. 

FSIS chose the option of permitting 

these establishments to be selected to 

participate in the program to give 

additional small establishments the 

opportunity to ship their meat and 

poultry products in interstate 

commerce. Under this option, FSIS will 

develop a procedure to transition any 

establishment that employs more than 

25 people on average to a Federal 

establishment. Establishments that 

employee 24 to 35 employees on 

average as of June 18, 2008, would be 

subject to the transition procedure 

beginning on the date three years after 

the Agency promulgates implementing 

regulations. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

FSIS is analyzing the costs of this 

proposed rule to industry, FSIS, State 

and local governments, small entities, 

and foreign countries. Participation in 

the new Federal-State cooperative 

program will be optional. Thus, the 

costs and benefits associated with the 

proposed rule will depend on the 

number of States and establishments 

that chose to participate. Very small 

and certain small establishments StateVerDate Nov<24>2008 15:10 Dec 04, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 1260 Sfmt 1260 E:\FR\FM\07DER5.SGM 07DER5

erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64175 

inspected establishments that are 

selected to participate in the program 

are likely to benefit from the program 

because they will be permitted sell 

their products to consumers in other 

States and foreign countries. 

Risks: 

None. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 09/16/09 74 FR 47648 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

11/16/09 

Final Action 09/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Yes 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Federal, State 

Federalism: 

This action may have federalism 

implications as defined in EO 13132. 

Agency Contact: 

Rachel Edelstein 

Director, Policy Issuances Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–0399 

Fax: 202 690–0486 

Email: rachel.edelstein@fsis.usda.gov 

RIN: 0583–AD37 

USDA—Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service (RBS) 

PRERULE STAGE 

25. RURAL ENERGY 

SELF–SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE— 

SECTION 9009 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Secretary shall establish a Rural 

Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative (grant 

program) to provide financial assistance 

for the purpose of enabling eligible 

rural communities to substantially 

increase the energy self-sufficiency of 

the eligible rural communities. 

Business Programs has the primary role 

in program implementation and will 

work in consultation with the Forest 

Service on Community Wood Energy 

Program. The Forest Service has 

operated a program in the past to assist 

rural school systems in the use of 

alternative fuels for heating physical 

plants. Their expertise will assist Rural 

Development in promulgating a 

valuable program, well suited to the 

needs of rural communities. 

Statement of Need: 

This is a new grant program authorized 

by the Farm Bill. The purpose of 

Section 9009, Rural Energy SelfSufficiency Initiative, is to provide 

financial assistance to enable eligible 

rural communities to substantially 

increase the energy self-sufficiency. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency 

Initiative was authorized by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

which made available $5 million 

annually in discretionary funding 

through 2012, but no funds have been 

made available to date. 

Alternatives: 

An alternative would be to publish a 

proposed rule without an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

Farm Bill currently does not clearly 

define eligible rural communities or 

what eligible entities can apply on 

behalf of an eligible community. There 

are no maximum or minimum grant 

amounts set in this program. 

Additionally, the Farm Bill does not 

include any scoring requirements to 

determine who would receive a grant 

under the program. There are other 

program components not defined in the 

statute. Because of the limited 

discretionary funding for this program, 

scoring requirements would need to be 

determined based on extremely focused 

parameters. A determination would 

need to be made as to the size of the 

average project, particularly when you 

are considering a community 

submitting an application to develop 

and install an integrated renewable 

energy system. The program will need 

to clearly define an eligible rural 

community and what type of applicants 

would be eligible. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

It is anticipated that there will be costs 

directly attributable to the contractor, 

which is assisting with drafting the 

notice. Other costs would be internal 

costs associated with the promulgation 

of the rule. The Agency is confident 

that the regulations will contain 

sufficient safeguards to mitigate any 

risk associated with a proposed rule 

and would be a benefit to the agency 

as well as potential applicants 

considering applying for assistance 

under this program. Benefits accruing 

to the publishing of an advance notice 

would enable the Agency to use the 

public comments to develop a more 

focused proposed rule. 

Risks: 

The proposed action does not mitigate 

risk to the public health or safety or 

to the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM 12/00/09 

NPRM 07/00/10 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

09/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

Local 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

Agency Contact: 

Anthony Ashby 

Loan Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

STOP 3224 

1400 Independence Avenue SW, DC 

20250 

Phone: 202 720–0661 

Fax: 202 720–6003 

Email: anthony.ashby@wdc.usda.gov 

RIN: 0570–AA77 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

USDA—RBS 

PROPOSED RULE STAGE 

26. GRANTS FOR EXPANSION OF 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR 

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN 

RURAL AREAS—SECTION 6023 

Priority: 

Other Significant. Major status under 5 

USC 801 is undetermined. 

Unfunded Mandates: 

Undetermined 

Legal Authority: 

Not Yet Determined 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

This is a new program created by the 

Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 

2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of 

the section is to provide grants to 

nonprofit organizations to expand and 

enhance employment opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities in rural 

areas. 

Statement of Need: 

There is no existing program regulation. 

USDA Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service (RBS) is promulgating 

regulations to implement section 6023. 

The regulation will provide assistance, 

which includes grants to nonprofit 

organizations or consortium of 

nonprofit organization that have a 

significant focus on serving the needs 

of individuals with disabilities. 

Assistance will be awarded on a 

competitive basis. Regulatory 

implementation may include certain 

existing requirements identified in 7 

CFR for civil rights requirements, grant 

servicing requirements, and so forth. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Expansion of Employment 

Opportunities for Individuals with 

Disabilities in Rural Areas is authorized 

by the Food, Conservation and Energy 

Act of 2008. The purpose of the section 

is to provide grants to nonprofit 

organizations to expand and enhance 

employment opportunities for 

individuals with disabilities in rural 

areas. 

Alternatives: 

There are no alternatives to issuing a 

proposed regulation in order to allow 

the public opportunity to provide 

comments on the program 

requirements. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The only costs, aside from contractor 

costs, are internal costs associated with 

the promulgation of the proposed rule. 

The Agency is confident that the 

regulation will contain sufficient 

safeguards to mitigate any risk 

associated with a proposed rule and 

would be a benefit to the Agency as 

well as organizations who utilize the 

program. 

Risks: 

None noted. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 01/00/10 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

03/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Government Levels Affected: 

Undetermined 

Federalism: 

Undetermined 

Agency Contact: 

Andrew Jermolowicz 

Assistant Deputy Administrator 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3250 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3250 

Phone: 202 720–8460 

Fax: 202–720–4641 

RIN: 0570–AA72 

USDA—RBS 

27. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM—SECTION 9003 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The purpose of section 9003 is to assist 

in the development of new and 

emerging technologies for the 

development of advanced biofuels. 

Advanced biofuels are fuels derived 

from renewable biomass other than 

corn kernel starch. The program will 

increase energy independence, promote 

resource conservation, diversify 

markets for agricultural and forestry 

products, create jobs, and enhance 

economic development in rural 

economies. Assistance includes grants 

and guaranteed loans. Grants will be 

awarded on a competitive basis. 

Eligible entities include individuals, 

entities, Indians tribes, units of State 

or local governments, farm 

cooperatives, farmer cooperative 

organizations, association of 

agricultural producers, National 

Laboratories, institutions of higher 

learning, rural electric cooperatives, 

public power entities, or a consortium 

of any of the entities. Regulatory 

implementation may include certain 

requirements identified in existing 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

regulations for the Business and 

Industry Guaranteed Loan and the 

Rural Energy for America programs. 

Statement of Need: 

The program will increase energy 

independence, promote resource 

conservation, diversify markets for 

agricultural and forestry products, 

create jobs, and enhance economic 

development in rural economies. The 

program was originally announced in 

the Federal Register as an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

November 20, 2008. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Biorefinery Assistance program 

was authorized by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

which made available $75,000,000 in 

mandatory funding for 2009 and 

$245,000,000 in mandatory funding for 

2010, till expended. Additionally, the 

2008 Farm Bill provided an 

authorization to appropriate up to 

$150,000,000 in discretionary funding 

for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. 

The program provides loan guarantees 

for the development, construction and 

retrofitting of commercial-scale 

biorefineries, and grants to help pay for 

the development and construction costs 

of demonstration-scale biorefineries. 

The purpose is to assist in the 

development of new and emerging 

technologies for the development of 

advanced biofuels. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64177 

Alternatives: 

A Notice of Funding Availability was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 20, 2008, to implement the 

program for fiscal year 2009. Permanent 

regulation need to be implemented to 

provide funding in 2010 and further 

clarify of the program 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

It is anticipated that there will be costs 

directly attributable to the contractor, 

which is assisting with drafting the 

proposed rule. Other costs would be 

internal costs associated with the 

promulgation of the proposed rule. The 

Agency is confident that the regulations 

contain sufficient safeguards to mitigate 

any risk associated with a proposed 

rule and would be a benefit to the 

agency as well as potential applicants 

considering applying for payments 

under this program. Benefits accruing 

to the publishing of a proposed rule 

would clarify the process, payments, 

eligibility and understanding of any 

ambiguity conveyed in the initial 

announcement of the program. 

Additional benefits stem from the 

ability of the public and interested 

parties to comment on program and 

consider issues concerning the 

geographic location and demographic 

composition of locatable projects as 

well as the ownership criteria. 

Risks: 

The proposed action does not mitigate 

risk to the public health or safety or 

to the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

ANPRM 11/20/08 73 FR 70542 

ANPRM Comment 

Period End 

01/20/09 

NPRM 01/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

William C. Smith 

Loan Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3224 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3224 

Phone: 202 205–0903 

Fax: 202 720–6003 

Email: william.smith@wdc.usda.gov 

RIN: 0570–AA73 

USDA—RBS 

28. RURAL BUSINESS RE–POWERING 

ASSISTANCE—SECTION 9004 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The proposed action will encourage 

biorefineries existing at the time the 

2008 Farm Bill became law to replace 

fossil fuels used to produce heat or 

power used in their operation by 

making payments for installation of 

new systems that use renewable 

biomass and/or new production of 

energy from renewable biomass. 

Payments may be made under section 

9004 to any biorefinery that meets the 

requirements of this section for a 

period determined by the Secretary. 

The Secretary shall determine the 

amount of payments to be made after 

considering factors addressing fossil 

fuel offsets and the cost effectiveness 

of renewable biomass systems. 

Statement of Need: 

The new regulations for the program 

will clarify the application process and 

definitively provide rules and 

regulation regarding the payment 

process. These changes are essential to 

clarify for verification and 

measurement of the energy produced 

which is the basis for eighty percent 

of payments under this program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Repowering Assistance program 

was authorized by the Food, 

Conservation, and, Energy Act of 2008, 

which made available $35,000,000 in 

mandatory funding for 2009. A Notice 

of Funding Availability (NOFA) was 

published on June 12, 2009, making 

$20 million available and $35 million 

will be available in 2010. The 2008 

Farm Bill also authorizes $15,000,000 

in discretionary funding to be 

appropriated for each fiscal year 2009 

through 2012. The program provides for 

the payments to provide incentives to 

biorefineries to use renewable biomass 

for heat and or power. The purpose is 

to reduce the dependence of biofuel 

producers on fossil fuels and to 

develop renewable biomass as an 

alternative energy source. The proposed 

new regulations are an administrative, 

rather than legislative, initiative. 

Alternatives: 

Other than issuing a NOFA with the 

possibility that all funds available for 

this program would be obligated, there 

is no alternative to issuing a proposed 

regulation. The proposed regulation 

provides an opportunity for public 

comments on aspects of the program 

such as level of payments, geographical 

eligibility, time frame of prospective 

payments and ownership criteria. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The only costs, aside from contractor 

costs, are internal costs associated with 

the promulgation of the proposed rule. 

The Agency is confident that the 

regulations contain sufficient 

safeguards to mitigate any risk 

associated with a proposed rule and 

would be benefit to the agency as well 

as potential applicants considering 

applying for payments under this 

program. Benefits accruing to the 

publishing from a proposed rule would 

be attributable to the opportunity of 

public comments which are believed to 

improve program payment target levels 

and shed light on the associated needs 

and applicants. Publication and 

refinement of measurement and 

verification protocols used in making 

payments is expected as result of 

comments and experience gained from 

initiating the program. 

Risks: 

The proposed action does not mitigate 

risk to the public health or safety or 

to the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Frederick Petok 

Loan Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3225 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3225 

Phone: 202 690–0784 

Fax: 202 720–2213 

RIN: 0570–AA74 

USDA—RBS 

29. RURAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS 

FOR PAYMENTS FOR THE 

BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR 

ADVANCED BIOFUELS—SECTION 

9005 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–234 

CFR Citation: 

Not Yet Determined 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Bioenergy Program for Advanced 

Biofuels directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture to make payments to 

eligible producers to support and 

ensure an expanding production of 

advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels 

are defined as ‘fuel derived from 

renewable biomass other than corn 

kernel starch’ in The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

The program will increase energy 

independence, promote resource 

conservation, diversify markets for 

agricultural and forestry products, 

create jobs, and enhance economic 

development in rural economies. To 

receive a payment, an eligible producer 

shall enter into a contract with the 

Secretary of Agriculture for production 

of advanced biofuels. The basis for 

payments under this program are the 

quantity and duration of production of 

biofuel produced by an eligible 

producer, the net nonrenewable energy 

content of the advanced biofuel, and 

other appropriate factors as determined 

by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Statement of Need: 

The new regulations for the program 

known as the Bioenergy Program for 

Advanced Biofuels will clarify the 

application process, eligibility, payment 

formula’s and eligible products and 

provide substantive rules and 

regulation regarding the payment 

process. These regulations are essential 

to allow for verification and 

measurement of the advanced biofuel 

development promoted by this 

program. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Bioenergy Program for Advanced 

Biofuels program was authorized by the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008, which made mandatory funding 

available of $55,000,000 in for fiscal 

year (FY) 2009, $55,000,000 in FY 

2010, $85,000,000 in FY 2011 and 

$105,000,000 in FY 2012. A Notice of 

Funding Availability (NOFA) was 

published on June 12, 2009 and that 

made $35 million available in 2009. 

The remaining $20 million will be 

available in 2010 in addition to $55 

million for 2010, included in the Farm 

Bill. An additional $25,000,000 in 

discretionary funding is authorized to 

be appropriated for each fiscal year 

2009 through 2012 may be made 

available. The program provides for the 

payments to support and ensure 

expanding the production of advanced 

biofuels. 

Alternatives: 

A NOFA was published in June 2009 

for immediate program implementation. 

Permanent regulations are required to 

provide funding for 2010. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

It is anticipated that there will be costs 

directly attributable to the contractor, 

which is assisting with drafting the 

proposed rule. Other costs would be 

internal costs associated with the 

promulgation of the proposed rule. The 

Agency is confident that the regulations 

contain sufficient safeguards to mitigate 

any risk associated with a proposed 

rule and would be a benefit to the 

agency as well as potential applicants 

considering applying for payments 

under this program. Benefits accruing 

to the publishing of a proposed rule 

would clarify the process, payments, 

eligibility and understanding of any 

ambiguity conveyed in the initial 

announcement of the program. 

Additional benefits stem from the 

ability of the public and interested 

parties to comment on program and 

consider issues concerning the 

geographic location and demographic 

composition of locatable projects as 

well as the ownership criteria. 

Risks: 

The proposed action does not mitigate 

risk to the public health or safety or 

to the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 12/00/09 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Diane Berger 

Loan/Grant Analyst 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3225 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3225 

Phone: 202 260–1508 

Fax: 202–720–6003 

Email: diane.berger@wdc.usda.gov 

RIN: 0570–AA75 

USDA—RBS 

30. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA 

PROGRAM—SECTION 9007 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

7 CFR 4280–B; 7 CFR 4280–D 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 (FSRIA)) is being replaced 

with a new program titled the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP), 

section 9007 of The Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

The new program will provide grants 

for energy audits and renewable energy 

development assistance; and financial 

assistance for energy efficiency 

improvements and renewable energy 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64179 

systems. The program will increase 

energy independence, promote resource 

conservation, diversify markets for 

agricultural and forestry products, 

create jobs, and enhance economic 

development in rural economies. 

Eligible entities based on the subprogram of the sub-section include 

units of State, tribal, or local 

government; land grant or other 

institutions of higher education; rural 

electric cooperatives or public power 

entities; agricultural producers; rural 

small businesses; and any similar entity 

as determined by the Secretary. The bill 

directs that at least 20 percent of funds 

be used for grants of up to $20,000 

each. The bill merges the energy audit 

program and the Renewable Energy 

Systems and Energy Efficiency 

Improvements programs. 

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

(RBS) intends to publish a proposed 

rule to implement changes to RD 

Instruction 4280-B and the Energy 

Audit and Renewable Energy 

Development Assistance grant 

regulations in RD Instruction 4280-C. 

The changes will incorporate 

provisions from the Farm Bill and other 

initiatives intended to enhance program 

delivery and Agency oversight. 

Statement of Need: 

Changes are needed to the regulation 

for the program known as the Rural 

Energy for America Program (REAP), 

due to the changes required by the 

2008 Farm Bill. The program was 

previously called the Renewable Energy 

Systems and Energy Efficiency 

Improvement program and was created 

by the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to 

the change in the title of the program, 

several regulatory changes are needed 

for REAP as outlined above. These 

changes are required to comply with 

current statutes. The program was 

implemented utilizing a notice of 

funding availability in FY 2009. 

Permanent regulation is required to 

implement the program in 2010. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The Rural Energy for America program 

was authorized by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, 

which made available $55,000,000 in 

mandatory funding for 2009, 

$60,000,000 mandatory funding for 

2010, $70,000,000 mandatory funding 

for 2011 and 2012. The Farm Bill 

authorized to be appropriated 

$25,000,000 in discretionary funding 

for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. 

The program provides for grants and 

guaranteed loan for renewable energy 

systems and energy efficiency 

improvements, and grants for feasibility 

studies and energy audit and renewable 

energy development assistance. The 

purpose of the program is to reduce the 

energy consumption and increase 

renewable energy production. The 

regulations are an administrative and a 

legislative initiative. 

Alternatives: 

There is no alternative to issuing a 

proposed regulation, which allows the 

public an opportunity to provide 

comments on the program 

requirements. Permanent regulations 

are required to provide funding in 

2010. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

The only costs, aside from contractor 

costs, are internal costs associated with 

the promulgation of the proposed rule. 

The Agency is confident that the 

regulations contain sufficient 

safeguards to mitigate any risk 

associated with a proposed rule and 

would be a benefit to the agency as 

well as potential applicants considering 

applying for payments under this 

program. Benefits accruing to the 

publishing from a proposed rule would 

be attributable to the opportunity of 

public comments which are believed to 

improve program implementation and 

impact. 

Risks: 

The proposed action does not mitigate 

risk to the public health or safety or 

to the environment. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 03/00/10 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

05/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Kelley Oehler 

Deputy Loan Specialist 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3225 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3225 

Phone: 202 720–6819 

Email: kelley.oehler@wdc.usda.gov 

RIN: 0570–AA76 

USDA—RBS 

FINAL RULE STAGE 

31. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR 

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM—SECTION 

6022 

Priority: 

Other Significant 

Legal Authority: 

PL 110–246 

CFR Citation: 

None 

Legal Deadline: 

None 

Abstract: 

The Food Conservation, and Energy Act 

of 2008 (the Act) includes Section 6022 

establishing the Rural 

Microentrepreneur Assistance Program 

(RMAP). The Act mandates that the 

Secretary of Agriculture establish a 

program to make loans and grants to 

support microentrepreneurs in the 

development and ongoing success of 

rural microenterprises. The Act further 

mandates that entities will use funds 

borrowed from the Agency to make 

microloans of not more than $50,000 

to rural microenterprises for eligible 

purposes; that the Agency will make 

grants to provide business based 

training and technical assistance; and 

that the Agency will provide funding 

to improve the capacity of rural 

Microenterprise Development 

Organizations (MDOs) to provide 

services to rural microenterprise 

clients. 

Upon enactment of the Act, a 

committee was formed to discuss 

policy, implementation, and processes 

needed to move the program forward. 

In mid-January, 2009 a listening forum 

was held at USDA. The object of the 

listening forum was to allow public 

comment regarding the statute and to 

obtain opinions regarding the 

implementation of the program. The 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 

Business Programs is currently 

preparing a proposed rule with an 

anticipated publication date of late 

December 2009. The proposed rule is 

based on verbiage in the statute, 

comments made at the listening forum, 

research of similar-but not the sametypes of programs within USDA and at 

other agencies, and the experience of 

the writers, one of whom worked in 

or managed Federal 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
64180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 

microentrepreneurship programs for 13 

years. The goal of the proposed rule 

is to obtain public comment, revise the 

rule accordingly, and ensure a sound 

program. Comments received from the 

proposed rule will be used as a basis 

for publication of a final rule which 

is anticipated for the spring of 2010. 

The proposed rule will include 

instructions for the management of loan 

and grant programming and for the 

management of the ultimate recipient 

microloan portfolio. Any organization 

receiving a loan under the program will 

be expected to capitalize a revolving 

loan fund which will make loans of 

$50,000 or less to ultimate recipients. 

Any organization that receives a loan 

will also be automatically eligible to 

receive a grant so that it may provide 

an integrated program of micro-level 

lending coupled with business based 

training and technical assistance for its 

microborrowers. Grants will also be 

provided to build the capacity of rural 

MDOs so that they may improve their 

operations and services for the end 

users, or so that they may improve the 

operational capacity of other MDOs to 

provide services to end users. 

This program will require a complete 

new set of regulations. 

Statement of Need: 

The new regulation for the program 

will be user friendly and responsive to 

industry comments. Publication of the 

proposed rule is crucial to program 

implementation. The program will 

directly create new businesses, assist 

with the expansion of existing 

microbusinesses (for purposes of this 

program, a microenterprise is a rural 

business that employs 10 or fewer Full 

Time Employees (FTE)), create jobs, 

increase the flow of tax dollars to rural 

communities, and add lasting value in 

terms of rural community impact. 

Summary of Legal Basis: 

The RMAP was authorized by the Food 

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. 

The Act establishes the Rural 

Microentrepreneur Assistance Program 

and mandates that the new program 

will make loans and grants to support 

microentrepreneurs in the development 

and ongoing success of rural 

microenterprises. It further mandates 

that entities will use funds borrowed 

from the Agency to make microloans 

of not more than $50,000 to rural 

microenterprises for eligible purposes; 

that the Agency will make grants to 

provide business based training and 

technical assistance; and that the 

Agency will provide funding to 

improve the capacity of rural MDOs to 

provide services to rural 

microenterprise clients. 

The purpose of the program is to 

increase access to capital and business 

based training in rural areas for rural 

business owners and potential business 

owners at the start up and micro levels. 

Alternatives: 

The proposed rule process is our only 

current route for implementation. 

Funding for the initial four years (2009- 

2012) of the program is mandatory and 

FY2009 funding will be expendable in 

FY2010. The proposed rule will allow 

the Agency to use both years’ funding 

in the inaugural year of program 

implementation. 

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: 

Costs: 

Initial costs include the cost of the 

listening conference; staff time; and the 

cost of the regulation writing contractor 

that works in close concert with staff. 

Ongoing costs include a minimal 

increase of one FTE, and space for 

same, at the National Office level. The 

state offices are not currently under 

consideration for more FTEs as a result 

of this program. 

Other costs will/do include the cost of 

automation of distribution of funding, 

loan servicing, grant servicing, 

repayment systems, and oversight 

systems. The assigned office (Specialty 

Programs Division) has been working 

with the Information Technology (IT) 

offices to implement the program 

through RULSS which is the newer 

generation of agency automation 

systems and is the most flexible in 

terms of meeting the needs of the 

statute. Finally, Training will be 

required for field staff. 

Cost Mitigation—To mitigate 

implementation costs the proposed rule 

has considered existing programs to 

ensure that implementation will be less 

process based and more results driven 

when compared to other programs. 

Automated processes will help ensure 

efficiency. Use of existing field staff 

will keep new FTEs to a minimum. 

Benefits: 

The initial benefits to program 

implementation include the addition of 

a small rural business lending program 

that increases access to Rural 

Development programming by adding 

to the starting end of the business 

financing continuum of services. The 

program allows Rural Development to 

open its doors to rural clients at the 

very beginning level of the business 

start-up and initial growth phases, and 

provide assistance to businesses that 

are often too small to be considered 

viable for a bank loan. The long term 

benefits to program implementation 

include long term availability of this 

new pathway to assist rural start-up 

businesses; increased access to business 

capital in rural areas, at a grass roots 

level, and often to pre-bankable 

ultimate recipients; expansion of 

business opportunities in rural areas; 

increased tax flow as businesses 

become profitable; increased job 

creation and rural job retention as new 

and existing microbusinesses sprout 

and grow; support of micro level 

entities producing organic food 

product, locally grown food product, 

and locally manufactured goods for 

intra and interstate export; service 

industry growth; increased opportunity 

for rural youth; and legal immigrants; 

and increased exposure of Rural 

Development funding programs to the 

target constituency. 

Mandatory funding is set at $4 million 

for FY2009; $4 million for FY2010; $4 

million for FY2011; and $3 million for 

FY2012. The statute authorizes up to 

$40 million per year for each of the 

years in addition to mandatory funding. 

Risks: 

Program risks include making of loans 

and grants to multiple types of entities 

for multiple purposes with a singular 

goal; ability to select appropriately 

capable lending and training entities; 

reliance on selected entities for sound 

microloan underwriting and 

appropriate portfolio management; and 

availability of enough grant funding for 

ongoing technical assistance in the out 

years. We anticipate mitigating these 

risks via sound regulatory guidance, 

appropriate training, and clear 

communication of expectations to 

selected participants. Further, the 

statute is based in part on a successful 

non-USDA program of a similar nature 

with which many of the stakeholders 

and selected participants will be 

familiar providing this agency with a 

level of confidence. 

Timetable: 

Action Date FR Cite 

NPRM 10/07/09 74 FR 51714 

NPRM Comment 

Period End 

11/23/09 

Final Rule 02/00/10 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Required: 

Undetermined 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 233 / Monday, December 7, 2009 / The Regulatory Plan 64181 

Small Entities Affected: 

Businesses 

Government Levels Affected: 

None 

Agency Contact: 

Jody Raskind 

Director, Specialty Lenders Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3225 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250–3224 

Phone: 202 690–1400 

Email: jody.raskind@wdc.usda.gov 

Lori Washington 

Loan Specialist, Specialty Lenders 

Division 

Department of Agriculture 

Rural Business–Cooperative Service 

STOP 3225 

1400 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Phone: 202 720–9815 

Fax: 202 720–2213 

Email: lori.washington@wdc.usda.gov 

RIN: 0570–AA71 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES