`[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 64149-64181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X09-41207]


[[Page 64149]]




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2010 will continue to focus on 
implementing the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-246), known as the ``2008 Farm Bill,'' which covers major farm, 
trade, conservation, rural development, energy, nutrition assistance 
and other programs. In addition, USDA will implement regulations that 
will improve program outcomes by achieving the Department's high 
priority goals as well as reducing burden on stakeholders, program 
participants, and small businesses. Important areas of activity include 
the following:
Nutrition Assistance
 As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs, 
            USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve 
            diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight 
            and obesity. In 2010, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vendor fraud.
Food Safety
 In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop 
            science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, 
            poultry, egg, and farm-raised catfish products in the least 
            burdensome and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will 
            be revised to address emerging food safety challenges, 
            streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive regulations, 
            and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and 
            critical control point principles. To assist small entities 
            to comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety 
            and Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with 
            other USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced 
            small business outreach program.
Conservation
 USDA will continue to focus on implementing the conservation 
            programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Over the past 
            year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has 
            promulgated 11 interim and proposed rules and has received 
            public comment on them. In 2010, NRCS will finalize these 
            rules which include the Conservation Stewardship Program 
            and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Promoting Rural Development and Renewable Energy
 USDA priority regulatory actions for the Rural Development 
            mission primarily relate to promulgating relations for 
            programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, including the 
            Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural Micro-
            Entrepreneurship Program. USDA has utilized Notices of 
            Funding Availability implement many of these programs in 
            Fiscal Year 2009. Regulations are needed to maintain them. 
            In addition, USDA needs to finalize the reform of its on-
            going broadband access program through an interim rule that 
            will combine provisions of a proposed rule published in 
            2007 and changes in the program that were authorized in the 
            2008 Farm Bill.
 USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic 
            opportunities to revitalize rural communities through the 
            purchase and use of renewable, environmentally friendly 
            biobased products through its BioPreferred Program 
            (formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred 
            Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate 
            groups of biobased products to receive procurement 
            preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In 
            addition, USDA will finalize a rule establishing the 
            Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Trade Promotion, Market Development, Farm Loans, and Disaster 
Assistance
 USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system 
            through trade promotion, market development, farm income 
            support, disaster assistance, and farm loan programs. In 
            addition to the regulations already implemented, including 
            those pertaining to the eligibility for farm program 
            payments, the Farm Service Agency will issue new 
            regulations implementing disaster assistance programs to 
            compensate agricultural producers for production losses due 
            to natural disasters. Regulations will also be developed to 
            implement conservation loan programs intended to help 
            producers finance the construction of conservation 
            measures.
Other Regulatory Activities
 USDA will work to facilitate a fair, competitive marketplace, 
            support the organic sector, and continue regulatory work to 
            protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and 
            natural resources. USDA will promulgate regulations to 
            enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA 
            will also finalize a rule specifying access to pasture 
            standards for organically raised ruminants. In addition, 
            USDA will amend regulations related to the importation of 
            nursery products and animals and animal products. Further, 
            USDA will propose specific standards for the humane 
            handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
            under the Animal Welfare Act.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information 
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government 
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the E-Government Act, agencies 
across USDA are providing electronic alternatives to their 
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, producers 
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and all other 
documentation online. To facilitate the expansion of electronic 
government, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability 
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all 
USDA agencies. Supporting these efforts are ongoing analyses to 
identify and eliminate redundant data collections and streamline 
collection instructions. The end result of implementing these 
initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to choose 
when and where to conduct business with USDA.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following 
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary 
of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2010:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership 
with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income 
people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a 
manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public 
confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 
2010 regulatory plan supports the goal to ensure that all of

[[Page 64150]]

America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals 
and its three related objectives:
 Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents 
            FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to 
            program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals, 
            commodities) and distributing State administrative funds to 
            support program operations. To advance this objective, FNS 
            plans to finalize rules implementing provisions of the Farm 
            Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to simplify 
            program administration, support work, and improve access to 
            benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
            (SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program. FNS will continue 
            to improve SNAP administration by developing a rule to 
            implement provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
            Act of 2008 that address eligibility, certification, 
            employment, and training issues. An interim rule 
            implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC 
            Reauthorization Act of 2004 to establish automatic 
            eligibility for homeless children for school meals further 
            supports this objective.
 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
            represents FNS's efforts to improve the diets of its 
            clients through nutrition education, and to ensure that 
            program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively 
            improve nutrition for program participants. In support of 
            this objective, FNS plans to propose rules updating the 
            nutrition standards in the school meals programs; implement 
            the SNAP nutrition education provisions of the Food, 
            Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; and establish 
            permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 
            which currently operates in a select number of schools in 
            each State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and 
            the Virgin Islands.
 Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer 
            Service. This objective represents FNS's ongoing commitment 
            to maximize the accuracy of benefits issued, maximize the 
            efficiency and effectiveness of program operations, and 
            minimize participant and vendor fraud. In support of this 
            objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and 
            Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special 
            Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
            Children Program (WIC) to improve program management and 
            prevent vendor fraud. FNS will also finalize a rule to 
            improve the SNAP quality control process and propose a rule 
            to improve the SNAP retailer sanction process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish products in 
interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and 
properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based 
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish 
products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS 
continues to review its existing authorities and regulations to 
streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove 
regulations that are inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and 
critical control point (HACCP) regulations, and to ensure that it can 
address emerging food safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two 
agencies' jurisdictions over various food products. Following are some 
of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In March 2009, FSIS published a final 
rule requiring that all cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled at 
any time before slaughter, including those that become non-ambulatory 
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and 
properly disposed of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS inspection 
personnel determined, on case by-case basis, the disposition of cattle 
that became non-ambulatory disabled after they had passed ante-mortem 
inspection. The final rule removed the provision for case-by-case 
determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
Country of Origin Labeling. In March 2009, FSIS affirmed its August 
2008 interim final rule requiring country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of 
any meat or poultry product that is a ``covered commodity'' as defined 
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the regulations set out 
in AMS's January 2009 final rule on mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling (COOL).
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. The 2008 Farm Bill, made several 
amendments to statutes administered by FSIS and gave the Agency other 
instructions. As a result, FSIS is developing new regulations to 
implement: mandatory inspection for catfish; a program for interstate 
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products; and recall 
procedure and process control reassessment requirements for inspected 
establishments.
 Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to 
            implement 2008 Farm Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. L. 
            110-246, Sec. 11016) to make catfish amenable to the FMIA. 
            The regulations will define ``catfish'' and the scope of 
            coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments that 
            process catfish and catfish products. The regulations will 
            take into account the conditions under which the catfish 
            are raised and transported to a processing establishment.
 Interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry 
            products. FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new 
            voluntary Federal-State cooperative inspection program 
            under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer 
            employees would be eligible to ship meat and poultry 
            products in interstate commerce. State-inspected 
            establishments selected to participate in this program 
            would be required to comply with all Federal standards 
            under the FMIA and the PPIA. These establishments would 
            receive inspection services from State inspection personnel 
            that have been trained and certified to assist with 
            enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 
            produced under the program that have been inspected and 
            passed by selected State inspection personnel would bear a 
            Federal mark of inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 Farm 
            Bill provides for the interstate shipment of State-
            inspected meat and poultry products from selected 
            establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate 
            implementing regulations no later than 18 months from the 
            date of its enactment.
 Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements 
            for Inspected Establishments. FSIS is proposing regulations 
            that will implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 Farm Bill on 
            notification, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements 
            for inspected establishments. This section amends the FMIA 
            and PPIA to require establishments that are subject to 
            inspection under these Acts to promptly notify the Agency 
            when an adulterated or misbranded product received by or 
            originating from the

[[Page 64151]]

            establishment has entered into commerce. Section 11017 also 
            requires establishments subject to inspection under the 
            FMIA and PPIA to prepare and maintain current procedures 
            for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the 
            establishment and document each reassessment of the 
            establishment's process control plans.
 Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS is 
            planning to propose requirements for federally inspected 
            egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems 
            and sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency 
            will be proposing pathogen reduction performance standards 
            for egg products. Further, the Agency will be proposing to 
            remove requirements for FSIS approval of egg-product plant 
            drawings, specifications, and equipment before their use, 
            and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of 
            labeling for egg products.
 Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS Public Health Information 
            System. To support its food safety inspection activities, 
            FSIS is developing the Public Health Information System 
            (PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, will 
            replace many of the Agency's current systems and automate 
            many business processes. Among the many other services it 
            will provide, PHIS will automate and streamline the export 
            and import application and certification processes. To 
            facilitate the implementation of these PHIS applications, 
            FSIS will propose to amend the meat, poultry products, and 
            egg products inspection regulations to provide for 
            electronic export and import application and certification 
            processes as alternatives to the current paper-based 
            systems for these certifications. The new electronic system 
            will enable the Agency to process an establishment's 
            application for export certification, verify that the 
            establishment and product meet the application and 
            certification requirements, approve the application, and 
            process the export certificate. The Agency is proposing the 
            export application and certification service as a 
            reimbursable service under Agricultural Marketing Act 
            authority.
 Rulemaking to support control of Escherichia coli O157:H7. 
            FSIS will propose to require that any business that grinds 
            or chops raw beef products, including products that are 
            ground or chopped at the request of an individual consumer, 
            keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all 
            transactions involved in the business that are subject to 
            the FMIA. These records, such as grinding logs, provide 
            critical information about how, when, and where ground 
            product was prepared, shipped, received, stored, and 
            handled, and are essential to illness outbreak 
            investigations, recalls, and other public health activities 
            that FSIS conducts. Businesses that will be required to 
            comply with this proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected 
            establishments and retail facilities that grind or chop raw 
            beef products, including beef manufacturing trimmings 
            derived from cattle not slaughtered on site at the official 
            establishment or retail store. An FSIS-inspected 
            establishment that grinds or chops raw beef products 
            derived from cattle slaughtered at that same establishment 
            will be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
Other Planned Initiatives:
Performance Standards for Ready-to-Eat Products. FSIS plans to finalize 
a February 2001 proposed rule to establish food safety performance 
standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry 
products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that 
are not ready-to-eat. The proposal also contained provisions addressing 
post-lethality contamination of RTE products with Listeria 
monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule 
requiring establishments to prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of 
RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the effectiveness of this 
interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject of a regulatory 
reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed its economic 
analysis of the interim final rule in response to this recommendation 
and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to reduce the 
information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS is also 
planning further action with respect to other elements of its 2001 
proposal on performance standards for processed meat and poultry 
products, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in 
processed products.
FSIS plans to propose to amend the poultry products inspection 
regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment sorts 
the carcasses for defects, and the Agency verifies that the system is 
under control and producing safe and wholesome product. The Agency 
would propose to adopt performance standards, designed to ensure that 
the establishments are carrying out slaughter, dressing, and chilling 
operations in a manner that ensures no significant growth of pathogens.
The chilling performance standard would replace the requirement for 
ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below 
within certain time limits according to the weight of the dressed 
carcasses. Poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering, 
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no 
significant growth of pathogens.
FSIS is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration in an 
effort to rationalize the division of food protection responsibilities 
between the two agencies and eliminate confusion over which agency has 
jurisdiction over which kinds of products. The agencies are taking an 
approach that involves considering how the meat or poultry ingredients 
contribute to the characteristics and basic identity of food products. 
Thus, FSIS plans to propose amending its regulations to exclude from 
its jurisdiction cheese and cheese products prepared with less than 50 
percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less 
than 50 percent meat or poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases 
and reaction/process flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad 
dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry. FSIS also 
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and closed-face meat 
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the Agency's jurisdiction.
FSIS Small Business Implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small 
businesses. Some of the regulations listed above substantially affect 
small businesses. Some rulemakings can benefit small businesses. For 
example, the rule on interstate shipment of State-inspected products 
will open interstate markets to some small State-inspected 
establishments that previously could only sell their products within 
State boundaries.
FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical 
training, access to food safety experts, and information resources 
(such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various 
topics) in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. 
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and 
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and

[[Page 64152]]

operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural 
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their 
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small 
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide 
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS 
employees.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing 
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, 
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the 
government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains 
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and 
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS priority items for the next year include a rulemaking 
required as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm Bill and a final rule 
for the National Organic Program.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import Assessments). The 
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA 
to create a national producer program for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers 
fund this self-help program through a mandatory assessment on all milk 
produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially. Dairy 
farmers administer the national program through the National Dairy 
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).
The 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include producers in Alaska, 
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay an assessment of $0.15 per 
hundredweight of milk production. Imported dairy products will be 
assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of fluid milk equivalent. AMS 
published proposed regulations establishing the program in the May 19, 
2009, Federal Register. The proposal had a 30-day comment period. 
Comments received for this rule are currently under review. AMS expects 
to publish a final rule early next year.
Access to Pasture. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of the 
public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on the 
relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and grazing 
land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on access to 
pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an animal's 
stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a uniform 
requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. AMS published a proposed rule 
with a request for comment on October 24, 2008. The comment period 
ended December 23, 2008. AMS received over 80,000 comments. Due to the 
high volume of comments received, final action on this rule is not 
expected before December 2009.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of 
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to 
prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the United 
States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication 
programs for pests and diseases in this country. These activities 
enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to 
the national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts 
programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work to 
revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable 
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the 
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its 
regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for planting) to better 
address plant health risks associated with propagative material. APHIS 
also plans to propose standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal Welfare 
Act.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, 
oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and 
competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and 
American agriculture.
Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work that will finalize its August, 
2007 proposed rule regarding the records that live poultry dealers must 
furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and 
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The requirements contained in 
the final rule are intended to help both poultry growers and live 
poultry dealers by providing the growers with more information about 
the poultry growing arrangement at an earlier stage.
In addition, GIPSA intends to propose a rule that will define practices 
or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive, and/
or that represent the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and growers can 
fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise related to 
livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being proposed in 
accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by the Packers 
and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of Sections 11005 
and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) mission is to stabilize farm 
income; to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve 
and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources; to provide 
credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily 
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources; and to help farm 
operations recover from the effects of disaster, as prescribed by 
various statutes.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 2009 will be to continue implementing 
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 
2008, governs Federal farm programs through the 2012. New regulatory 
actions include:
 Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of 
            standing disaster assistance programs, including a new 
            revenue based program for supplemental agricultural 
            disaster assistance. These programs require completely new 
            regulations and revision of existing program regulations.
 Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In addition, the 2008 Farm 
            Bill adds a new biomass crop assistance program that 
            supports the Administration's energy initiative to 
            accelerate the investment in and production of biofuels. 
            The program will provide financial assistance to 
            agricultural and forest land owners and operators

[[Page 64153]]

            to establish and produce eligible crops, including woody 
            biomass, for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection, 
            harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material 
            for use in a biomass conversion facility.
 Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires changes 
            to farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency 
            loans, including expanding to include socially 
            disadvantaged farmers, increasing loan limits, loan size, 
            funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers 
            to commercial credit. In addition, it establishes a new 
            direct and guaranteed loan program to assist farmers in 
            implementing conservation practices. FSA will develop and 
            issue the regulations and make program funds available to 
            eligible clientele in as timely a manner as possible.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is 
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private 
land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural 
resources.
Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities for FY 2010 will be to finalize 
the rules promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm 
Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs USDA conservation 
programs through 2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and proposed 
rulemakings pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, and received public comment 
for each of the regulations. In order to provide certainty and clarity 
for NRCS program participants, NRCS will address the public comments in 
final rulemaking and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments 
in response to those comments.
Among the programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation 
Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
represent a significant public investment in environmental improvement 
and stewardship. The 2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and expanded 
several other financial assistance and conservation easement programs, 
including the Agricultural Management Assistance program, the Farm and 
Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the 
Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Regional Equity provisions, the 
State Technical Committee, the Technical Service Provider Assistance 
Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program.
During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated an interim final rule to identify 
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1970 to streamline delivery of projects funded by the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans to finalize the Categorical 
Exclusion rule in response to public comments. Finally, NRCS intends to 
promulgate a program for its ACES program to provide consistency with 
how ACES is used by other agencies.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is 
the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business 
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the 
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and 
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve 
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial 
resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private 
credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served 
areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, 
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 
corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies. The mission of 
Cooperative Program of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the 
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for 
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
Priorities: RBS's priority for 2009 will be to fully implement the 2008 
Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for Section 9003 
(Biorefinery Assistance Program), Section 9004 (Repowering Assistance 
Program) Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for Advanced Biofuels) and 
Section 6022 (Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program). The Agency 
has been administering Sections 9003 and 9004 through the use of 
various Notices (Notices of Funds Availability and Contract Proposal), 
rather than regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 (Rural Energy for 
America Program) will be made to incorporate Energy Audits and 
Renewable Energy Development Assistance and Feasibility Studies for 
Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant purposes, as well as other Farm 
Bill changes to the Section 9007 program. In addition, regulations for 
the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be revised to 
reflect Farm Bill provisions relating to locally or regionally produced 
agricultural food products. These rules will be developed to minimize 
program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing program 
delivery and Agency oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: To improve the quality of life in rural America by providing 
investment capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities 
telecommunications, electric and water and waste disposal 
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities; 
municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies; 
public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit, 
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private 
partnership which is forged between RUS and these industries results in 
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates 
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' priority in 2010 is fulfilling the President's goal of 
bringing affordable broadband to all rural Americans by continuing to 
develop a final rule for the Broadband Loan Program, which was 
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 
107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) and subsequently amended by the 2008 Farm 
Bill. In May 2007, RUS published a proposed rule to improve the focus 
and strengthen the financial stability of the program that was being 
administered under regulations developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before 
this proposed rule could be finalized the 2008 Farm Bill became law, 
significantly changing the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan 
Program. Consequently, RUS now plans to publish an interim rule that 
will combine the provisions of the proposed rule with the changes made 
by the 2008 Farm Bill.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act 
expanded RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new 
authority to make grants to facilitate broadband deployment in rural 
areas. RUS has been tasked with the time sensitive priority of 
developing the regulation for this new authority. The Agency will, 
however, also continue to develop a final rule for the Broadband 
Program based upon change include in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that

[[Page 64154]]

USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the 
needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with laws and mandates; 
and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Priorities: In July 2009, USDA's Departmental Administration published 
the proposed rule to establish a program to label eligible products 
made from biobased feedstocks. As part of this rulemaking, USDA will be 
accepting public comments through September 2009 on how to implement a 
program that promotes the purchase of products made from agricultural 
and forestry feedstocks. Once the public comment period is closed, USDA 
will finalize the labeling regulation to allow manufacturers and 
vendors of biobased products to display the label on their packaging 
and marketing materials. Once completed, this regulation will implement 
a section of the 2008 Farm Bill and will promote alternative uses of 
agriculture and forest materials.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed 
costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts 
of its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing 
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type 
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. In addition, aggregation 
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as 
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious 
foods; higher levels of food safety; and increased quality of life 
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and 
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot 
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For 
2010, the Department's focus on Farm Bill and other regulations will be 
to implement the changes in such a way as to provide benefits while 
minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program 
participants.
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ACCESS TO PASTURE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 6501 et seq


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by the Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS). Under the NOP, AMS established national 
standards for the production and handling of organically produced 
agricultural products. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of 
the public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on 
the relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and 
grazing land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on 
access to pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an 
animal's stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a 
uniform requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. Comments received as a result 
of the proposed rule will assist in determining the Agency's next steps 
in rulemaking on this issue.


Statement of Need:


AMS has determined that current regulations regarding access to pasture 
and the contribution of grazing to the diet of organically raised 
livestock lack sufficient specificity and clarity to enable AMS to 
efficiently administer the Program. Organic System Plans (OSPs) dealing 
with livestock management reflect different application of existing 
regulations and interpretations of requirements across Accredited 
Certifying Agents (ACAs). AMS has received 11 complaints requesting 
enforcement actions for alleged violations of the pasture provisions of 
the NOP livestock standards.


Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 2005, the National Organic 
Standards Board (NOSB) made six recommendations regarding access to the 
outdoors for livestock, pasture, and conditions for temporary 
confinement of animals. The NOSB process for the development of 
recommendations consists of: (1) identification of a need by members of 
the public, the NOSB, or the NOP; (2) development of a draft NOSB 
recommendation; (3) public meeting notice published by the NOP on its 
website and in the Federal Register; (4) solicitation of public 
comments on the recommendation through regulations.gov and at the 
NOSB's public meetings; (5) finalization of the recommendation; (6) 
NOSB approval of the recommendation; and (7) NOSB referral to the 
Secretary for the Secretary's consideration and any appropriate action 
(e.g., rulemaking, policy development, guidance).


In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP published an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 19131) seeking input on the role of 
pasture in the NOP regulations and what parts of the NOP regulations 
should be amended to address the role of pasture in organic livestock 
management.


More than 80,500 comments were received on the ANPRM. Support for 
strict standards and greater detail on the role of pasture in organic 
livestock production was nearly unanimous with just 28 of the comments 
opposing changes to the pasture requirements. Organic consumers have 
clearly stated in comments that they expect organic ruminants to graze 
pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their Dry Matter Intake 
(DMI) needs from grazing. Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments were 
received from consumers requesting regulations that would clearly 
establish grazing as a primary source of nourishment. Approximately 
80,250 of these comments were in a modified form letter. Many of these 
consumers requested that grazing account for at least 30 percent of the 
ruminant's DMI needs.


AMS published a proposed rule with a request for comment on October 24, 
2008. The comment period ended December 23, 2008. AMS received more 
than 80,000 comments. Due to the high volume of comments received, 
final action on this rule is not expected before December 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The NOP is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. seq.). The AMS 
administers the NOP. Under the NOP, AMS oversees national standards for 
the production and handling of organically produced agricultural 
products. This action is being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP 
livestock production regulations have sufficient specificity and 
clarity to enable AMS and accredited certifying agents to efficiently 
administer the NOP

[[Page 64155]]

and to facilitate and improve compliance and enforcement. This action 
is also intended to satisfy consumer expectations that ruminant 
livestock animals graze pastures during the growing season.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes to 
the existing regulations; (2) adopt a reduced pasturing period, such as 
the 120-day minimum period recommended by the NOSB and some commenters; 
or (3) adopt a three ruminants per acre stocking rate measure as 
suggested by some commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


This action will increase the cost of production for producers who 
currently do not pasture their animals and those producers who do not 
manage their pastures at a sufficient level to provide at least 30 
percent DMI. For organic slaughter stock producers, an increase in 
costs might result in a greater volume of slaughter animals, at least 
in the short term, entering the market driving down prices. Longer term 
these increased costs could result in increased consumer prices unless 
the increased costs are off set by reductions in other costs of 
production. Other costs of production that could be expected to go down 
are costs associated with producer harvest and purchase of feed and the 
cost of herd health.


Benefits:


This final rule brings uniformity in application to the livestock 
regulations; especially as they relate to the pasturing of ruminants. 
This uniformity will create equitable, consistent, performance 
standards for all ruminant livestock producers. Producers who currently 
operate based on grazing will perceive a benefit because these 
producers claim an economic disadvantage in competing with livestock 
operations that do not provide pasture. This proposed rule would also 
bring uniformity in application to the livestock regulations. This 
uniformity in application will allow the ACAs and AMS to administer the 
livestock regulations in a way that reflects consumer preferences 
regarding the production of organic livestock and their products. 
Commenters have clearly stated that they expect organic ruminants to 
graze pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their dry matter 
needs from grazing. Because of this, it is crucial that consumer 
expectations are met. This proposed rulemaking is intended to reflect 
consumer expectations and producer perspectives. This action makes 
clear what access to pasture means under the NOP.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/06                    71 FR 19131
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/12/06
NPRM                            10/24/08                    73 FR 63583
NPRM Comment Period End         12/23/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--AMS



2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL RULE ON 
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1150


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, Assessments on imported dairy 
products must be implemented by deadline.


With the passage of Section 1507 in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act 
was amended to apply certain assessments to Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 2008 
Farm Bill authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement 
the mandatory dairy import assessment without providing a notice and 
comment period. However, due to the interest of affected parties a 
notice and comment period was provided.


Abstract:


The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and to reduce 
milk surpluses. The program functions to strengthen the dairy 
industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding 
domestic and foreign consumption of fluid milk and dairy products. 
Amendments to the Order are pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. 
The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that the Order be amended to implement an 
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research. 
The 2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cent 
per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products 
imported into the United States. Additionally, in accordance with the 
2008 Farm Bill, the term ``United States'' is the Dairy Act is amended 
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico. Producers in these areas will be assessed 15 cents per 
hundredweight for all milk produced and marketed.


Statement of Need:


In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23359) proposed rule (National 
Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Proposed Rule on Amendments to 
the Order), AMS received 189 timely comments from consumers, dairy 
producers, foreign governments, importers, exporters, manufacturers, 
members of Congress, trade associations, and other interested parties.


The comments covered a wide range of topics, including 39 in opposition 
to the proposal and 150 in support of the proposal. Opponents of the 
proposal expressed concern over the lack of a referendum requirement 
among those affected; default assessment rates; lack of ability to no 
longer promote State-branded dairy products; lack of importer 
organizations eligible to become a Qualified Program; disputed the 
cost-benefit analysis for

[[Page 64156]]

importers and producers; and cited unreasonable importer paperwork and 
record keeping burdens.


Proponents of the proposal expressed support for an expedited 
implementation of the dairy import assessment; cited the enhanced 
benefits both domestic producers and importers will receive as a result 
of implementation; recommended new Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes; 
use of a default assessment rate; recommended regular reporting of the 
products and assessments on imports; and all thresholds for compliance 
with U.S. trade obligations have been met.


AMS plans to issue a final rule implementing the dairy import 
assessment in the near future. In response to the comments received and 
after consultation with USTR, AMS is addressing, in the final rule, 
referenda, alternative assessment rates, and compliance and enforcement 
activity. All remaining changes are miscellaneous and minor in nature 
in order to clarify regulatory text.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program) is 
authorized under the authorized under the provisions of the Dairy 
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514), and the 
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). The Dairy 
Programs unit of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day--to--day 
oversight responsibilities for the National Program.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based 
on the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Assessments to dairy producers under the Order are relatively small 
compared to producer revenue. If dairy producers in Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had paid 
assessments of $0.15 per hundredweight of milk marketed in 2007, it is 
estimated that $1.1 million would have been paid. This is about 0.6 
percent of the $192 million total value of milk produced and marketed 
in these areas.


Benefits to producers in these areas are assumed to be similar to those 
benefits received by producers of other U.S. geographical regions. 
Cornell University has conducted an independent economic analysis of 
the Program that is included in the annual report to Congress. Cornell 
determined that from 1998 through 2007, each dollar invested in generic 
dairy marketing by dairy farmers during the period would return between 
$5.52 and $5.94, on average, in net revenue to farmers.


Assessments collected from importers under the National Program will be 
relatively small compared to the value of dairy imports. If importers 
had been assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or equivalent thereof, for 
imported dairy products in 2007 as specified in this rule, it is 
estimated that less than $6.1 million would have been paid. This is 
about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion value of the dairy products 
imported in 2007.


Risks:


If the amendments are not implemented, USDA would be in violation of 
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/19/09                    74 FR 23359
NPRM Comment Period End         06/18/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Whitney Rick
Promotion and Research Branch Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6909
Fax: 202 720-0285
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




3. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 2131 to 2159


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 1 to 3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in 
research.


Statement of Need:


The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the 
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically 
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, 
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the 
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus 
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that 
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred 
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of 
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3 
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
other than those birds bred for use in research.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 
promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane 
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by 
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, 
and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include 
birds that are not bred for use in research.


Alternatives:


To be identified.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 64157]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Gerald Rushin
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0954
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS



4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION OF BOVINES AND BOVINE 
PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC 
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation 
of bovines and bovine products. Under this rulemaking, countries would 
be classified as either negligible risk, controlled risk, or 
undetermined risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Some 
commodities would be allowed importation into the United States 
regardless of the BSE classification of the country of export. Other 
commodities would be subject to importation restrictions or 
prohibitions based on the type of commodity and the BSE classification 
of the country. The criteria for country classification and commodity 
import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization 
for Animal Health.


Statement of Need:


We are proposing to amend the regulations after conducting a thorough 
review of relevant scientific literature and a comprehensive evaluation 
of the issues and concluding that the proposed changes would continue 
to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States, while 
allowing the importation of additional animals and animal products into 
this country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), 
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to 
prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of any 
pest or disease of livestock.


Alternatives:


We could leave the current bovine regulations unchanged, but 
maintaining the status quo would not provide an opportunity to apply 
the latest scientific evidence to our BSE-related import conditions. 
Another alternative--modifying the BSE regulations related to the 
importation of bovines and bovine-derived products to precisely match 
the OIE guidelines without allowing for modification deemed necessary 
by APHIS--would not allow APHIS to independently interpret the 
scientific literature or reflect current USDA regulations and policies. 
Making no changes to the current regulations that govern the 
importation of cervids and camelids would perpetuate an unnecessary 
constraint on trade in those commodities, because cervids and camelids 
pose an extremely low BSE risk.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


APHIS has concluded that the proposed changes would continue to guard 
against the introduction of BSE into the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Christopher Robinson
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center 
for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 40
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-7837
RIN: 0579-AC68
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




5. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF 
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK 
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 319


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing 
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. 
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation 
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We would allow foreign 
governments to request that a pest risk assessment be conducted for a 
taxon whose importation is not authorized pending risk evaluation. 
After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would conduct 
rulemaking to remove the

[[Page 64158]]

taxon from the proposed category if determined appropriate by the risk 
assessment. We are also proposing to expand the scope of the plants 
regulated in the plants for planting regulations to include non-
vascular plants. These changes would allow us to react more quickly to 
evidence that a taxon of plants for planting may pose a pest risk while 
ensuring that our actions are based on scientific evidence.


Statement of Need:


APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection 
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction 
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of 
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there 
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine 
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting 
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine 
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine 
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of 
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and 
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what 
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such 
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the 
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a 
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United 
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address 
these risks.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation 
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition 
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 7712).


Alternatives:


APHIS has identified one alternative to the approach we are 
considering. We could prohibit the importation of all nursery stock 
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and 
vegetables. This approach would lead to a major interruption in 
international trade and would have significant economic effects on both 
U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of plants for planting.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations 
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of 
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive 
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/23/09                    74 FR 36403
NPRM Comment Period End         10/21/09
Final Rule                      07/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Risk Manager, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AC03
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




6. ENFORCEMENT OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


7 USC 181


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, June 18, 2010.


Abstract:


GIPSA is proposing regulations under the Packers & Stockyards Act, 
1921, that clarify when certain conduct in the livestock and poultry 
industries represents the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality to an undue or 
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed regulations also 
establish criteria GIPSA will consider in determining whether a live 
poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any 
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing 
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over 
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract 
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and whether a live poultry 
dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for 
a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a 
breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry 
growing arrangement or swine production contract. The Farm Bill also 
instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations to ensure that 
producers and growers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate 
in the arbitration process if they so choose.


Statement of Need:


In enacting Title XI of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 
(Farm Bill) (P.L. 110-246), Congress recognized the nature of problems 
encountered in the livestock and poultry industries and amended the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). These amendments established new 
requirements for participants in the livestock and poultry industries 
and required the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to establish 
criteria to consider when determining that certain other conduct is in 
violation of the P&S Act.


The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) 
attempts to enforce the broad prohibitions of the P&S Act have been 
frustrated, in part because it has not previously defined what conduct

[[Page 64159]]

constitutes an unfair practice or the giving of an undue preference or 
advantage. The new regulations that GIPSA is proposing describe and 
clarify conduct that violates the P&S Act and allow for more effective 
and efficient enforcement by GIPSA. They will clarify conditions for 
industry compliance with the P&S Act and provide for a fairer market 
place.


In accordance with the Farm Bill, GIPSA is proposing regulations under 
the P&S Act that would clarify when certain conduct in the livestock 
and poultry industries represents the making or giving of an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage or subjects a person or locality 
to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. These proposed 
regulations also establish criteria that GIPSA will consider in 
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable 
notice to poultry growers of a suspension of the delivery of birds 
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional 
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or 
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and 
whether a packer, swine contractor or live poultry dealer has provided 
a reasonable period of time for a grower or a swine producer to remedy 
a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the growing 
arrangement or production contract.


The Farm Bill also instructed the Secretary to promulgate regulations 
to ensure that poultry growers, swine production contract growers and 
livestock producers are afforded the opportunity to fully participate 
in the arbitration process, if they so choose. We are proposing a 
required format for providing poultry growers, swine production 
contract growers and livestock producers the opportunity to decline the 
use of arbitration in contracts requiring arbitration. We are also 
proposing criteria that we will consider in finding that poultry 
growers, swine production contract growers and livestock producers have 
a meaningful opportunity to participate fully in the arbitration 
process if they voluntarily agree to do so. We will use these criteria 
to assess the overall fairness of the arbitration process.


In addition to proposing regulations in accordance with the Farm Bill, 
GIPSA is proposing regulations that would prohibit certain conduct 
because it is unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive, in 
violation of the P&S Act. These additional proposed regulations are 
promulgated under the authority of Sec.  407 of the P&S Act, and 
complement those required by the Farm Bill to help ensure fair trade 
and competition in the livestock and poultry industries.


These regulations are intended to address the increased use of 
contracting in the marketing and production of livestock and poultry by 
entities under the jurisdiction of the P&S Act, and practices that 
result from the use of market power and alterations in private property 
rights, which violate the spirit and letter of the P&S Act. The effect 
increased contracting has had, and continues to have, on individual 
agricultural producers has significantly changed the industry and the 
rural economy as a whole, making these proposed regulations necessary.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 407 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. 228) provides that the Secretary 
``may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to 
carry out the provisions of this Act.'' Sections 11005 and 11006 of the 
Farm Bill became effective June 18, 2008, and instruct the Secretary to 
promulgate additional regulations as described in this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Farm Bill explicitly directs the Secretary to promulgate certain 
regulations. GIPSA determined that additional regulations are necessary 
to provide notice to all regulated entities of types of practices and 
conduct that GIPSA considers ``unfair'' so that regulated entities are 
fully informed of actions or practices that are considered ``unfair'' 
and therefore, prohibited. Within both the mandatory and discretionary 
regulatory provisions we considered alternative options.


For example, GIPSA considered shorter notice periods in situations when 
a live poultry dealer suspends delivery of birds to a poultry grower. 
These alternatives would not have provided adequate trust and integrity 
in the livestock and poultry markets. Other alternatives may have been 
more restrictive. We considered prohibiting the use of arbitration to 
resolve disputes; however, that option goes against a popular method of 
dispute resolution in other industries and is not in line with the 
spirit of the 2008 Farm Bill. GIPSA believes that this proposed rule 
represents the best option to level the playing field between packers, 
swine contractors, live poultry dealers, and the nation's poultry 
growers, swine production contract growers, or livestock producers for 
the benefit of more efficient marketing and public good.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


Costs are aggregated into three major types: 1) administrative costs, 
which include items such as office work, postage, filing, and copying; 
2) costs of analysis, such as a business conducting a profit-loss 
analysis; and 3) adjustment costs, such as costs related to changing 
business behavior to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation.


Benefits:


Benefits are also aggregated into three major groups: 1) increased 
pricing efficiency; 2) allocation efficiency; and 3) competitive 
efficiency.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AB07
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--GIPSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




7. POULTRY CONTRACTS; INITIATION, PERFORMANCE, AND TERMINATION

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 221

[[Page 64160]]

CFR Citation:


9 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


GIPSA is amending the regulations issued under the Packers and 
Stockyards Act, 1921, regarding the records that live poultry dealers 
must furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and 
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The amendments to the 
regulatlions will require that live poultry dealers timely deliver a 
copy of an offered poultry growing arrangement to growers; include 
information about any Performance Improvement Plan in poultry growing 
arrangements; include provisions for written termination notices in 
poultry growing arrangements; and notwithstanding a confidentiality 
provision, allow growers to discuss the terms of poultry growing 
arrangements with designated individuals.


Statement of Need:


The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 
believes that the failure to disclose certain terms in a poultry 
growing arrangement constitutes an unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive 
practice in violation of section 202 (7 U.S.C. 192) of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act (P&S Act).


Because of vertical integration and high concentration within the 
poultry industry, poultry growers do not realistically have the option 
of negotiating more favorable poultry growing arrangement terms with 
competing live poultry dealers because there may be no other live 
poultry dealers in the poultry grower's immediate geographic area or 
there may be significant differences in equipment requirements among 
live poultry dealers. There is considerable asymmetry of information 
and an imbalance in market power. This final rule will level the 
playing field by requiring that all live poultry dealers adopt fair and 
transparent practices when dealing with poultry growers.


Summary of Legal Basis:


One of GIPSA's primary functions is the enforcement of the P&S Act, (7 
U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (P&S Act). Under authority granted to us by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, GIPSA is authorized (7 U.S.C. 228) to make 
those regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the P&S Act.


Alternatives:


GIPSA collected input on several alternatives like issuing policy 
guidance to GIPSA employees, providing public notice that failure to 
provide growers with additional contract information was an unfair 
practice in violation of Sec.  202 of the P&S Act, or recommending that 
growers seek redress of grievances through civil court action or 
arbitration. GIPSA determined that none of these alternatives will meet 
the needs of poultry growers. We believe, however, that this final rule 
will provide the best means of achieving statutory intent at the lowest 
cost to poultry growers and live poultry dealers.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


The costs to both poultry growers and live poultry dealers are 
negligible, as the rule does not impose significant additional 
requirements that increase actions that the poultry grower and the live 
poultry dealer must enact; they merely affect the timeliness of those 
actions. In some cases, the final rule requires that the poultry grower 
and the live poultry dealer commit to writing terms and conditions that 
are already in effect, but do not mandate what those terms and 
conditions must be. Thus, the only additional cost is the cost of 
producing and transmitting the printed document.


Benefits:


Collectively, the regulatory provisions in the final rule mitigate 
potential asymmetries of information between poultry growers and the 
live poultry dealers, which will lead to better decisions on the terms 
of compensation and reduce the potential for the expression of anti-
competitive market power. The provisions achieve this primarily by 
improving the quality and timeliness of information to growers, and to 
some extent to live poultry dealers as well. Benefits should accrue to 
poultry growers from an enhanced basis for making the decision as to 
whether to enter into a growout contract, and from additional time 
available to make plans for any necessary adjustments in those 
instances when the poultry grower is subject to a contract termination. 
Net social welfare will benefit from improved accuracy in the value 
(pricing) decisions involved in transactions between poultry growers 
and live poultry dealers as they negotiate contract terms.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/01/07                    72 FR 41952
NPRM Comment Period End         10/30/07
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
H. Tess Butler
Regulatory Liaison
Department of Agriculture
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7486
Fax: 202 690-2173
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0580-AA98
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




8. ELIGIBILITY, CERTIFICATION, AND EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROVISIONS 
OF THE FOOD, CONSERVATION AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246; PL 104-121


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement 
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public 
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and

[[Page 64161]]

certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment 
and training. In addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP 
regulations throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from 
the Food Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes 
as mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these 
provisions was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is 
also proposing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to 
provide State agencies options that are currently available only 
through waivers. These provisions would allow State agencies to average 
student work hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-
to-face interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule would impact the 
associated paperwork burdens. (08-006)


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to implement 
provisions from the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public 
Law 110-246) (FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of 
SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment and training. In 
addition, this proposed rule would revise the SNAP regulations 
throughout 7 CFR Part 273 to change the program name from the Food 
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as 
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions 
was October 1, 2008. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also proposing 
2 discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide State agencies 
options that are currently available only through waivers. These 
provisions would allow State agencies to average student work hours and 
to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews. FNS 
anticipates that this rule would impact the associated paperwork 
burdens.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246) and 7 
CFR Part 273.


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs have not been determined; however, it is anticipated 
that this rule would impact the associated paperwork burdens.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD87
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



9. SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: FARM BILL OF 2008 
RETAILER SANCTIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 276


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm 
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food 
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and 
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that 
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules. 
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty 
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to 
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil 
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates 
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six 
months.


In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule proposes to 
provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized retailer or 
wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits 
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are 
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT 
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by 
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted 
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear 
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an 
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for 
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent 
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP 
participation.


Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional administrative 
retail violations and the associated sanction that would be imposed 
against the retail food store for committing the violation. For 
instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale food 
stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual EBT 
card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify the 
specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are found 
to be in violation. (08-007)


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule would implement provisions under Section 4132 of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, also referred to as the Farm 
Bill of 2008. Under Section 4132, the Department of Agriculture's Food 
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is provided with greater authority and 
flexibility when sanctioning retail or wholesale food stores that 
violate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules. 
Specifically, the Department is authorized to assess a civil penalty 
and to disqualify a retail or wholesale food store authorized to 
participate in SNAP. Previously, the Department could assess a civil 
penalty or disqualification, but not both. Section 4132 also eliminates 
the minimum disqualification period which was previously set at six 
months. In addition to implementing statutory provisions, this rule 
proposes to provide a clear administrative penalty when an authorized 
retailer or

[[Page 64162]]

wholesale food store redeems a SNAP participant's Program benefits 
without the knowledge of the participant. All Program benefits are 
issued through the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system. The EBT 
system establishes data that may be used to identify fraud committed by 
retail food stores. While stealing Program benefits could be prosecuted 
under current statute, Program regulations do not provide a clear 
penalty for these thefts. The proposed rule would establish an 
administrative penalty for such thefts equivalent to the penalty for 
trafficking in Program benefits, which is the permanent 
disqualification of a retailer or wholesale food store from SNAP 
participation. Finally, the Department proposes to identify additional 
administrative retail violations and the associated sanction that would 
be imposed against the retail food store for committing the violation. 
For instance, to maintain integrity, FNS requires retail and wholesale 
food stores to key enter EBT card data in the presence of the actual 
EBT card. The proposed rule would codify this requirement and identify 
the specific sanction that would be imposed if retail food stores are 
found to be in violation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-246).


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs are undetermined at this time until more research is 
conducted.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Additional Information:


Note: This RIN replaces the previously issued RIN 0584-AD78.


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD88
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



10.  FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; National School Lunch Act 
(NSLA); 42 U.S.C. 1769(a)


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 211


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National 
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a 
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding.


This proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently 
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the 
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements 
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State 
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and 
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The 
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding 
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.


In addition, the proposed rule would establish oversight activity and 
reporting and record keeping requirements that are not included in FFVP 
statutory requirements. Implementation of this rule is not expected to 
result in expenses for program operators because they receive funding 
to cover food purchases and administrative costs. (09-007)


Statement of Need:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended the National 
School Lunch Act (NSLA) to add section 19, the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program (FFVP). Section 19 establishes the FFVP as a 
permanent national program in a select number of schools in each State, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Schools in all States must apply annually for FFVP funding. This 
proposed rule would implement statutory requirements currently 
established through program policy and guidance for operators at the 
State and local level. The proposed rule would set forth requirements 
detailed in the statute for school selection and participation, State 
agency outreach to needy schools, the yearly application process, and 
the funding and allocation processes for schools and States. The 
proposed rule would also include the statutory per student funding 
range and the requirement for a program evaluation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 19, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. National School 
Lunch Act (NSLA). 42 U.S.C. 1769(a).


Alternatives:


Because this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements set 
forth by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 by adding 
section 19, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), to the 
National School Lunch Act, alternatives to this process are not known 
or being pursued at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Implementation of this rule is not expected to result in expenses for 
program operators because they receive funding to cover food purchases 
and administrative costs.


Risks:


No risks by implementing this proposed rule have been identified at 
this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            04/00/10
Final Action                    12/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64163]]

Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD96
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




11. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM 
INTEGRITY

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1766; PL 103-448; PL 104-193; PL 105-336


CFR Citation:


7 CFR Part 226


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State 
and Federal program reviews and from audits and investigations 
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule revises: State 
agency criteria for approving and renewing institution applications; 
program training and other operating requirements for child care 
institutions and facilities; and State and institution-level monitoring 
requirements. This rule also includes changes that are required by the 
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (Pub. L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).


The changes are designed to improve program operations and monitoring 
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline 
and simplify program requirements for State agencies and institutions. 
(95-024)


Statement of Need:


In recent years, State and Federal program reviews have found numerous 
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in some instances, fraud, by child 
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed 
weaknesses in management controls over program operations and examples 
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay 
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of 
program funds for non-program expenditures; and improper meal 
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to mis-categorized or 
incomplete income eligibility statements. In addition, audits and 
investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have 
raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of financial and 
administrative controls in CACFP. Based on its findings, OIG 
recommended changes to CACFP review requirements and management 
controls.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Some of the changes proposed in the rule are discretionary changes 
being made in response to deficiencies found in program reviews and OIG 
audits. Other changes codify statutory changes made by the Healthy 
Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-448), the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub. 
L. 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336).


Alternatives:


In developing the proposal, the Agency considered various alternatives 
to minimize burden on State agencies and institutions while ensuring 
effective program operation. Key areas in which alternatives were 
considered include State agency reviews of institutions and sponsoring 
organization oversight of day care homes.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial 
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect 
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and 
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the 
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted 
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are 
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those changes which 
would affect institutions and facilities will not, in the aggregate, 
have a significant economic impact.


Data on CACFP integrity is limited, despite numerous OIG reports on 
individual institutions and facilities that have been deficient in 
CACFP management. While program reviews and OIG reports clearly 
illustrate that there are weaknesses in parts of the program 
regulations and that there have been weaknesses in oversight, neither 
program reviews, OIG reports, nor any other data sources illustrate the 
prevalence and magnitude of CACFP fraud and abuse. This lack of 
information precludes USDA from estimating the amount of money lost due 
to fraud and abuse or the reduction in fraud and abuse the changes in 
this rule will realize.


Risks:


Operating under interim rules puts State agencies and institutions at 
risk of implementing Program provisions subject to change in a final 
rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/12/00                    65 FR 55103
NPRM Comment Period End         12/11/00
Interim Final Rule              06/27/02                    67 FR 43448
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   07/29/02
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          12/24/02
Interim Final Rule              09/01/04                    69 FR 53502
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/01/04
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          09/01/05
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.

[[Page 64164]]

Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



13. QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule finalizes the interim rule ``Non-Discretionary Quality 
Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (published 
October 16, 2003 at 68 FR 59519) and the proposed rule ``Discretionary 
Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' 
(published September 23, 2005 at 70 FR 55776).


The following quality control (QC) provisions required by sections 4118 
and 4119 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (title 
IV of Pub. L. 107-171) and contained in the interim rule are 
implemented by this final rule:


1) Timeframes for completing quality control reviews;


2) Timeframes for completing the arbitration process;


3) Timeframes for determining final error rates;


4) The threshold for potential sanctions and time period for sanctions;


5) The calculation of State error rates;


6) The formula for determining States' liability amounts;


7) Sanction notification and method of payment; and


8) Corrective action plans.


The following provisions required by sections 4118 and 4119 and 
additional policy and technical changes, and contained in the proposed 
rule, are implemented by this final rule.

[[Page 64165]]

Legislative changes based on or required by sections 4118 and 4119:


1) Eliminate enhanced funding;


2) Establish timeframes for completing individual quality control 
reviews; and


3) Establish procedures for adjusting liability determinations 
following appeal decisions.


Policy and technical changes:


1) Require State agency QC reviewers to attempt to complete review when 
a household refuses to cooperate;


2) Mandate FNS validation of negative sample for purposes of high 
performance bonuses;


3) Revise procedures for conducting negative case reviews;


4) Revise timeframes for household penalties for refusal to cooperate 
with State and Federal QC reviews;


5) Revise procedures for QC reviews of demonstration and SSA processed 
cases;


6) Eliminate requirement to report differences resulting from Federal 
information exchange systems (FIX) errors;


7) Eliminate references to integrated QC; and


8) Update definitions section to remove out-dated definitions. (02-014)


Statement of Need:


The rule is needed to implement the food stamp quality control 
provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security 
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.


Alternatives:


This rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has no 
discretion in implementing the time frames for completing quality 
control reviews, the arbitration process, and determining the final 
error rates; the threshold for potential sanctions and the time period 
for the sanctions; the calculation for State error rates; the formula 
for determining liability amounts; the sanction notification; method of 
payment for liabilities; corrective action planning, and the 
elimination of enhanced funding. These provisions were effective for 
the fiscal year 2003 quality control review period and must have been 
implemented by FNS and State agencies during fiscal year 2003. This 
rule also deals in part with discretionary changes to the quality 
control system resulting from Public Law 107-171. The provision 
addressing results of appeals is required to be regulated by Public Law 
107-171. The remaining changes amend existing regulations and are 
required to make technical changes resulting from these changes or to 
update policy consistent with current requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on 
benefit levels or administrative costs.


Risks:


The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans 
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States 
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is 
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will 
significantly revise the system for determining State agency 
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              10/16/03                    68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   12/15/03
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/14/04
NPRM                            09/23/05                    70 FR 55776
NPRM Comment Period End         12/22/05
Final Action                    03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD37
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS



14. DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF CHILDREN IN FOOD STAMP HOUSEHOLDS AND 
CERTIFICATION OF HOMELESS, MIGRANT, AND RUNAWAY CHILDREN FOR FREE MEALS 
IN THE NSLP, SBP, AND SMP

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 108-265, sec 104


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 245


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining Eligibility for Free 
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, will be amended to 
establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free meals and free 
milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as defined by the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway served by grant 
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or (3) migratory as 
defined in section 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. The rule also requires phase-in of mandatory direct certification 
for children who are members of households receiving food stamps and 
continues discretionary direct certification for other categorically 
eligible children. (04-018)


Statement of Need:


The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
concerning direct certification are intended to improve program access, 
reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy of the delivery of free meal 
benefits. This regulation will implement the statutory changes and 
provide State agencies and local educational agencies with the policies 
and procedures to conduct mandatory and discretionary direct 
certification.


Summary of Legal Basis:


These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law 
108-265.


Alternatives:


FNS will be working closely with State agencies to implement the 
changes made by this regulation and will be

[[Page 64166]]

developing extensive guidance materials in conjunction with our 
cooperators.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely, 
and will improve program access of eligible school children.


Risks:


This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to 
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and 
other agencies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule              02/00/10
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          05/00/10
Final Action                    05/00/11

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State


Agency Contact:
James F. Herbert
Regulatory Review Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
10th Floor
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2572
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




15. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


21 USC 1031 to 1056


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR 
590.411; 9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 CFR 591; . . .


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require 
egg products plants and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to 
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that 
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. FSIS is 
proposing to amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by 
removing current requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg 
products plant drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their 
use in official plants. The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior 
label approval system for egg products. This proposal will not 
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate 
non-regulatory outreach efforts for shell egg packers that will provide 
information intended to help them to safely process shell eggs intended 
for human consumption or further processing.


Statement of Need:


The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort 
to improve FSIS' shell egg and egg products food safety regulations, 
better define the roles of Government and the regulated industry, 
encourage innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and make the egg 
products regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat 
and poultry products regulations. FSIS also is taking these actions in 
light of changing inspection priorities and recent findings of 
Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.


This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act 
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate 
by the Congress or a Federal court.


Alternatives:


A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is conducting a cost-
benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic impacts of several 
alternatives on the public, egg products industry, and FSIS. These 
alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) requiring 
all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and implement 
written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a 
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of the 
current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements. The 
team will consider the effects of a uniform, across-the-board standard 
for all egg products; a performance standard based on the relative risk 
of different classes of egg products; and a performance standard based 
on the relative risks to public health of different production 
processes.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to 
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry 
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required 
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan 
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee 
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of 
reduction sought and on the classes of product, product formulations, 
or processes.


Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration may 
change because the two agencies share responsibility for inspection and 
oversight of the egg industry and a common farm-to-table approach for 
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and 
local governments are not likely to be affected.


Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to 
export eggs and egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S. 
system. FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when 
this proposal becomes effective.


This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small 
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal 
would be the approximately 80 federally inspected egg products plants, 
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business 
Administration criteria. If

[[Page 64167]]

necessary, FSIS will develop compliance guides to assist these small 
firms in implementing the proposed requirements.


Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include: 
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved 
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings 
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a 
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific 
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the 
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each alternative.


Human health benefits from this rulemaking are likely to be small 
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of 
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that 
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it 
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of 
foodborne illness.


The preliminary anticipated annualized costs of the proposed action are 
approximately $7.0 million. The preliminary anticipated benefits of the 
proposed action are approximately $90.0 million per year.


Risks:


FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further 
reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The development of 
a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard for egg 
products, replacing command-and-control regulations, will remove 
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives for, 
innovation to improve the safety of egg products.


To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking on 
the public, an intra-Agency group of scientific and technical experts 
is conducting a risk management analysis. The group has been charged 
with identifying the lethality requirement sufficient to ensure the 
safety of egg products and the alternative methods for implementing the 
requirement. FSIS has developed new risk assessments for SE in eggs and 
for Salmonella spp. in liquid egg products to evaluate the risk 
associated with the regulatory alternatives.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            06/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Victoria Levine
Program Analyst, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



16. PRIOR LABELING APPROVAL SYSTEM: GENERIC LABEL APPROVAL

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 451 to 470; 21 USC 601 to 695


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will continue an effort initiated several years ago by 
amending FSIS' regulations to expand the types of labeling that are 
generically approved. FSIS plans to propose that the submission of 
labeling for approval prior to use be limited to certain types of 
labeling, as specified in the regulations. In addition, FSIS plans to 
reorganize and amend the regulations by consolidating the nutrition 
labeling rules that currently are stated separately for meat and 
poultry products (in part 317, subpart B, and part 381, subpart Y, 
respectively) and by amending their provisions to set out clearly 
various circumstances under which these products are misbranded.


Statement of Need:


Expanding the types of labeling that are generically approved would 
permit Agency personnel to focus their resources on evaluating only 
those claims or special statements that have health and safety or 
economic implications. This would essentially eliminate the time needed 
for FSIS personnel to evaluate labeling features and allocate more time 
for staff to work on other duties and responsibilities. A major 
advantage of this proposal is that it is consistent with FSIS' current 
regulatory approach, which separates industry and Agency 
responsibilities.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
451 et seq.).


Alternatives:


FSIS considered several options. The first was to expand the types of 
labeling that would be generically approved and consolidate into one 
part, all of the labeling regulations applicable to products regulated 
under the FMIA and PPIA and the policies currently contained in FSIS 
Directive 7220.1, Revision 3. The second option FSIS considered was to 
consolidate only the meat and poultry regulations that are similar and 
to expand the types of generically approved labeling that can be 
applied by Federal and certified foreign establishments. The third 
option and the one favored by FSIS was to amend the prior labeling 
approval system in an incremental three-phase approach.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rule would permit the Agency to realize an estimated cost 
savings of $670,000 over 10 years. The proposed rule would be 
beneficial because it would streamline the generic labeling process, 
while imposing no additional cost burden on establishments. Consumers 
would benefit because industry would have the ability to introduce 
products into the marketplace more quickly.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            08/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64168]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Jeff Canavan
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
5601 Sunnyside Ave
Beltsville, MD 20705-4576
Phone: 301 504-0878
Fax: 301-504-0872
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC59
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



17. CHANGES TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS 
CONTAINING MEAT AND POULTRY

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


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


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 303.1; 9 CFR 381.15


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) have concluded that a clearer approach to 
determining jurisdiction over meat and poultry products is possible. 
This approach involves considering the contribution of the meat or 
poultry ingredients to the identity of the food. FSIS is proposing to 
amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to 
provide consistency and predictability in the regulatory jurisdiction 
over nine products or product categories. Historically there has been 
confusion about whether these products fall within the jurisdiction of 
FSIS or FDA. These proposed changes would exempt cheese and cheese 
products prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; breads, 
rolls and buns prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry; 
dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases and flavors; pizza with meat or 
poultry; and salad dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or 
poultry from the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
the Poultry Product Inspection Act and would clarify that bagel dogs, 
natural casings, and close faced-sandwiches are subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act.


Statement of Need:


Over the years, FSIS has made decisions about the jurisdiction under 
which food products containing meat or poultry ingredients are produced 
based on the amount of meat or poultry in the product; whether the 
product is represented as a meat or poultry product (that is, whether a 
term that refers to meat or poultry is used on labeling); whether the 
product is perceived by consumers as a product of the meat or poultry 
industries; and whether the product contains poultry or meat from an 
accepted source. With regard to the consumer perception factor, FSIS 
made decisions on a case-by-case basis, mostly in response to 
situations involving determinations for compliance and enforcement. 
Although this case-by-case approach resulted in decisions that made 
sense at the time that they were made, a review in 2004 to 2005 by a 
working group of FSIS and FDA representatives showed that some of the 
decisions do not appear to be fully consistent with other product 
decisions and that the reasoning behind various determinations was not 
fully articulated or supported.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), 
the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), and 
the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1032), and the 
regulations that implement these Acts, FSIS has authority over all meat 
food and poultry products and processed egg products. Under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the regulations that implement 
it, FDA has authority over all foods not under FSIS' jurisdiction, 
including dairy, bread and other grain products, vegetables and other 
produce, and other products, such as seafood.


According to the provisions of the FMIA and PPIA, the Secretary has the 
authority to exempt certain human food products from the definition of 
a meat food product (21 U.S.C. 601(j)) or a poultry product (20 U.S.C. 
454(f)) based on either of two factors: (1) The product contains only a 
relatively small proportion of livestock ingredients or poultry 
ingredients, or (2) the product historically has not been considered by 
consumers as a product of the meat food or poultry industry, and under 
such conditions as he or she may prescribe to ensure that the livestock 
or poultry ingredients are not adulterated and that the products are 
not represented as meat food or poultry products.


Alternatives:


FSIS has considered over the years a number of variations to clarify 
the confusion regarding jurisdiction for these various products.


Alternative 1: Maintain the status quo. Although FSIS has considered 
taking no action at this time, the Agency does not recommend this 
option because of the continued confusion that exists among industry 
and consumers as to jurisdictional coverage for nine categories of 
products.


Alternative 2: Reassess the statutory factors for making jurisdiction 
decision and recommend an amendment. The amendment of the statute would 
be from the historical perception factor because that is the factor, of 
the two statutory factors, that the working group identified as leading 
to the state of confusion about the jurisdiction of certain products 
containing meat or poultry.


Alternative 3: Adopt some of the FDA/FSIS working group's suggested 
approach to making clear and transparent jurisdiction decisions by 
proposing changes to regulations to codify the current policies on 
exempted products.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS estimates that the initial and recurring costs of the rule to 
industry would be approximately $5 million and $7 million, 
respectively. These costs would be attributable to new Sanitation SOP 
and HACCP plan development, as well as to labeling changes and 
training. FSIS would incur $7 million in annual recurring costs 
(salaries and benefits). Establishments coming under FSIS jurisdiction 
also would incur costs for recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and 
annual HACCP plan reassessment.


Benefits to industry would accrue from reduced confusion over Agency 
jurisdiction, which may affect labeling and recordkeeping costs. There 
may be spill-over benefits accruing from changes in consumer behavior. 
Also, there would be improvement in efficiency in use of FDA and FSIS 
resources.

[[Page 64169]]

Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles Gioglio
Labeling and Program Delivery Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Fax: 202 205-3625
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD28
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



18. NEW POULTRY SLAUGHTER INSPECTION

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 451 et seq


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 381.66; 9 CFR 381.67; 9 CFR 381.76; 9 CFR 381.83; 9 CFR 381.91; 9 
CFR 381.94


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing a new inspection system for young poultry slaughter 
establishments that would facilitate public health-based inspection. 
This new system would be available initially only to young chicken 
slaughter establishments. Establishments that slaughter broilers, 
fryers, roasters, and Cornish game hens (as defined in 9 CFR 381.170) 
would be considered as ``young chicken establishments.'' FSIS is also 
proposing to revoke the provisions that allow young chicken slaughter 
establishments to operate under the current Streamlined Inspection 
System (SIS) or the New Line Speed (NELS) Inspection System. The 
proposed rule would establish new performance standards to reduce 
pathogens. FSIS anticipates that this proposed rule would provide the 
framework for action to provide public health-based inspection in all 
establishments that slaughter amenable poultry species.


Under the proposed new system, young chicken slaughter establishments 
would be required to sort chicken carcasses and to conduct other 
activities to ensure that carcasses are not adulterated before they 
enter the chilling tank.


Statement of Need:


Because of the risk to the public health associated with pathogens on 
young chicken carcasses, FSIS is proposing a new inspection system that 
would allow for more effective inspection of young chicken carcasses, 
would allow the Agency to more effectively allocate its resources, 
would encourage industry to more readily use new technology, and would 
include new performance standards to reduce pathogens.


This proposed rule is an example of regulatory reform because it would 
facilitate technological innovation in young chicken slaughter 
establishments. It would likely result in more cost-effective dressing 
of young chickens that are ready to cook or ready for further 
processing. Similarly, it would likely result in more efficient and 
effective use of Agency resources.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Agriculture is charged by the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA--21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) with carrying out a 
mandatory poultry products inspection program. The Act requires post-
mortem inspection of all carcasses of slaughtered poultry subject to 
the Act and such reinspection as deemed necessary (21 U.S.C. 455(b)). 
The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as 
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act (21 U.S.C. 
463(b)). The Agency has tentatively determined that this rule would 
facilitate FSIS post-mortem inspection of young chicken carcasses. The 
proposed new system would likely result in more efficient and effective 
use of Agency resources and in industry innovations.


Alternatives:


FSIS considered the following options in developing this proposal:


1) No action.


2) Propose to implement HACCP-Based Inspection Models Pilot in 
regulations.


3) Propose to establish a mandatory, rather than a voluntary, new 
inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments.


4) Propose standards of identity regulations for young chickens that 
include trim and processing defect criteria and that take into account 
the intended use of the product.


5) Propose a voluntary new inspection system for young chicken 
slaughter establishments and propose standards of identity for whole 
chickens, regardless of the products' intended use.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed performance standards and the implementation of public 
health-based inspection would likely improve the public health. FSIS is 
conducting a risk assessment for this proposed rule to assess the 
likely public health benefits that the implementation of this rule may 
achieve.


Establishments that volunteer for this proposed new inspection system 
alternative would likely need to make capital investments in facilities 
and equipment. They may also need to add labor (trained employees). 
However, one of the beneficial effects of these investments would 
likely be the lowering of the average cost per pound to dress poultry 
properly. Cost savings would likely result because of increased line 
speeds, increased productivity, and increased flexibility to industry. 
The expected lower average unit cost for dressing poultry would likely 
give a marketing advantage to establishments under the new system. 
Consumers would likely benefit from lower retail prices for high 
quality poultry products. The rule would also likely provide 
opportunities for the industry to innovate because of the increased 
flexibility it would allow poultry slaughter establishments. In 
addition, in the public sector, benefits would accrue to FSIS from the 
more effective deployment of FSIS inspection program personnel to 
verify process control based on risk factors at each establishment.


Risks:


Salmonella and other pathogens are present on a substantial portion of 
poultry carcasses inspected by FSIS. Foodborne salmonella cause a large 
number of human illnesses that at times lead to hospitalization and 
even death. There is an apparent relationship between human illness and 
prevalence levels for salmonella in young chicken

[[Page 64170]]

carcasses. FSIS believes that through better allocation of inspection 
resources and the use of performance standards, it would be able to 
reduce the prevalence of salmonella and other pathogens in young 
chickens.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD34
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



20. MANDATORY INSPECTION OF CATFISH AND CATFISH PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 601 et seq PL 110-249, sec 11016


CFR Citation:


9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new)


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 2009, Final regulations NLT 18 months after 
enactment of PL 110-246.


Abstract:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the 
FMIA. Amenable species must be inspected, so this rule will define 
inspection

[[Page 64171]]

requirements for catfish. The regulations will define ``catfish'' and 
the scope of coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments 
that process farm-raised species of catfish and to catfish and catfish 
products. The regulations will take into account the conditions under 
which the catfish are raised and transported to a processing 
establishment.


Statement of Need:


The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 
11016), known as the 2008 Farm Bill, amended the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) to make catfish an amenable species under the 
FMIA. The Farm Bill directs the Department to issue final regulations 
implementing the FMIA amendments not later than 18 months after the 
enactment date (June 18, 2008) of the legislation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


21 U.S.C. 601 to 695 and Public Law 110-246, sec. 11016


Alternatives:


The option of no rulemaking is unavailable. The Agency will consider 
alternative methods of implementation and levels of stringency, and the 
effects on foreign and domestic commerce and on small business 
associated with the alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS anticipates benefits from uniform standards and the more extensive 
and intensive inspection service that FSIS provides (compared with 
current voluntary inspection programs). FSIS would apply requirements 
for imported catfish that would be equivalent to those applying to 
catfish raised and processed in the United States.


Risks:


In preparing regulations on catfish and catfish products, the Agency 
will consider any risks to public health or other pertinent risks 
associated with the production, processing, and distribution of the 
products. FSIS will determine, through scientific risk assessment 
procedures, the magnitude of the risks associated with catfish and how 
they compare with those associated with other foods in FSIS's 
jurisdiction.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
William Milton
Assistant Office of Catfish Inspection Programs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5735
Fax: 202 690-1742
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD36
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



21.  ELECTRONIC FOREIGN IMPORT CERTIFICATES AND SANITATION 
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS) REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL IMPORT 
ESTABLISHMENTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470);; Egg Products 
Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 304.3; 9 CFR 327.2, 327.4, ; 9 CFR 381.196, 391.197, 381.198;; 9 
CFR 590.915, 590.920


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing to amend meat, poultry, and egg products regulations 
to provide for the electronic submission of import product and 
establishment applications and certificates and delete the 
``streamlined'' inspection procedures for Canadian product. In 
addition, FSIS is amending its regulations to require Sanitation 
Standard Operating Procedures (Sanitation SOPs) in official import 
inspection establishments.


Statement of Need:


FSIS is proposing these regulations to provide for the electronic 
submission of import product and establishment certificates to allow 
the electronic interchange and transmission of data to Agency's 
computer-based Public Health Information System (PHIS), which is 
currently under development. Providing an electronic format for 
imported certificates will enable the government-to-government exchange 
of data between FSIS and foreign customs and inspection authorities. 
Sanitation SOPs are written procedures that are developed and 
implemented by establishments to prevent direct contamination or 
adulteration of meat or poultry products. Sanitation SOPs are required 
at official (domestic) establishments. Current regulations are 
ambiguous concerning Sanitation SOP requirements for official import 
inspection establishments. FSIS is proposing to require that official 
import inspection establishments comply with the Sanitation SOPs 
regulations to eliminate that ambiguity and ensure that products do not 
become contaminated as they enter this country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA)(21 
U.S.C. 1031-1056) and the regulations that implement these Acts.


Alternatives:


The electronic processing of import certifications is voluntary, 
therefore, importers still have the option of using the current paper-
based system. The Agency is proposing to require that official import 
inspection establishments adopt Sanitation SOPs to prevent direct 
contamination or adulteration of product. Therefore, no alternatives 
were considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The opportunity cost of not amending the regulations would hinder the 
Agency's implementation of PHIS. The amendments that provide for the 
electronic interchange of data are voluntary, so establishments will 
not take them on unless the benefits outweigh the costs. It has been 
the Agency's expectation that official import establishments will 
maintain Sanitation SOPs, this proposed rule codifies that expectation. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment on sanitation requirements will have 
no costs to the industry. The proposed rule will facilitate FSIS's use 
of the PHIS system, enabling the electronic transmission, issuance, and 
authorization of imported product data. The PHIS will enable FSIS 
import inspection personnel to

[[Page 64172]]

verify and authorize shipments using electronic data, reducing 
inspector workload. The electronic exchange of certificate data will 
help to reduce the fraudulent alteration or reproduction of 
certificates. The Agency estimates that the electronic processing of 
import certificates will reduce the data-entry time for import 
inspectors, by 50 to 60 percent.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD39
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



22.  ELECTRONIC EXPORT APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION AS A 
REIMBURSABLE SERVICE AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL 
EXPORT INSPECTION MARKS, DEVICES, AND CERTIFICATES

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695); Poultry 
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470); Egg Products 
Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031-1056)


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1. 322.2, ; 9 CFR 381.104, 381.105, 381.106; 9 
CFR 590; 9 CFR 350.3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the 
meat, poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide an 
electronic export application and certification process that will be 
available as an alternative to the paper-based application and 
certification method currently in use. The electronic export 
application and certification process will be available as a 
reimbursable inspection service. FSIS is also proposing to provide 
establishments that export meat, poultry, and egg products with 
flexibility in the official export inspection marks, and devices used 
and how the products are marked for export.


Statement of Need:


FSIS is proposing these regulations to implement the Public Health 
Information System (PHIS), a computer-based inspection information 
system currently under development. The PHIS will include automation of 
the export application and certification process. The current export 
application and certification regulations provide only for a paper-
based process, this proposed rule will amend the regulations to provide 
for the electronic process. Additionally, this rule is needed to 
provide this automated services as a reimbursable certification service 
charged to the exporter.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The authorities for this proposed rule are: the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601-695), the Poultry Products Inspection Act 
(PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451-470), the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 
U.S.C. 1031-1056), and the regulations that implement these Acts. FSIS 
is proposing the electronic export application and certification 
process as a reimbursable service under the Agricultural Marketing Act 
7 U.S.C. 1622(h), that provides the Secretary of Agriculture with the 
authority to: ``inspect, certify, and identify the class, quality, 
quantity, and condition of agricultural products when shipped or 
received in interstate commerce, under such rules and regulations as 
the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe, including assessment and 
collection of such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be 
to cover the cost of the service rendered, to the end that agricultural 
products may be marketed to the best advantage, that trading may be 
facilitated, and that consumers may be able to obtain the quality 
product which they desire.''


Alternatives:


The electronic processing of export applications and certifications is 
being proposed as a voluntary service, therefore, exporters have the 
option of continuing to use the current paper-based system. Therefore, 
no alternatives were considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS estimates that it will take inspection personnel 1 hour to process 
an electronic application and issue an electronic certificate. Based on 
a workload of accessing and processing an estimated 350,000 
applications/certificates per year, at a base time rate of $49.93 per 
hour, the cost of recouping the inspector's labor costs for 2009 would 
be $17.4 million. The amount charged to the exporter depends upon the 
number of electronic applications submitted. The use of the electronic 
export application and certificate system is voluntary. Therefore, 
exporters will not use this service unless the benefits outweigh the 
cost. The electronic export application and certificate process will 
reduce and expedite industry workload by eliminating the physical 
handling and processing of paperwork. The electronic exchange of export 
information between the U.S. and foreign governments will help reduce 
the fraudulent alternation or reproduction of certificates. The 
electronic system will process the applications and certificates will 
permit exporters to move their products faster, thereby increasing the 
amount of revenues received at a faster rate. The electronic system 
will provide a streamlined and integrated method of processing export 
applications and certificates.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No

[[Page 64173]]

Government Levels Affected:


None


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Agency Contact:
Clark Danford
Director, International Policy Division, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9824
RIN: 0583-AD41
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




23. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND 
POULTRY PRODUCTS; CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES IN READY-TO-EAT 
MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS

Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards 
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry 
products, and measures, including testing, to control Listeria 
monocytogenes in RTE products. The performance standards spell out the 
objective level of pathogen reduction that establishments must meet 
during their operations in order to produce safe products but allow the 
use of customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than 
those prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety 
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility 
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures 
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can 
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance 
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in 
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.


Statement of Need:


Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some ready-to-eat products 
for the presence of pathogens prior to distribution, there are no 
specific regulatory pathogen reduction requirements for most of these 
products. The proposed performance standards are necessary to help 
ensure the safety of these products; give establishments the incentive 
and flexibility to adopt innovative, science-based food safety 
processing procedures and controls; and provide objective, measurable 
standards that can be verified by Agency oversight.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the 
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in commerce. The regulations, along with FSIS 
inspection programs, are designed to ensure that meat and poultry 
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and 
packaged.


Alternatives:


As an alternative to all of the proposed requirements, FSIS considered 
taking no action. As alternatives to the proposed performance standard 
requirements, FSIS considered end-product testing and requiring ``use-
by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat products.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Benefits are expected to result from fewer contaminated products 
entering commercial food distribution channels as a result of improved 
sanitation and process controls and in-plant verification. FSIS 
believes that the benefits of the rule would exceed the total costs of 
implementing its provisions. FSIS currently estimates net benefits from 
the 2003 interim final rule at $470 to $575 million, with annual 
recurring costs at $150.4 million, if FSIS discounts the capital cost 
at 7%. FSIS is continuing to analyze the potential impact of the other 
provisions of the proposal.


The other main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality 
performance standards for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 and 
stabilization performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must 
meet when producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of 
these requirements would be associated with one-time process 
performance validation in the first year of implementation of the rule 
and with revision of HACCP plans. Benefits are expected to result from 
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with 
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process 
verification and sanitation. Consequently, there will be fewer cases of 
foodborne illness.


Risks:


Before FSIS published the proposed rule, FDA and FSIS had estimated 
that each year L. monocytogenes caused 2,540 cases of foodborne 
illness, including 500 fatalities. The Agencies estimated that about 
65.3 percent of these cases, or 1660 cases and 322 deaths per year, 
were attributable to RTE meat and poultry products. The analysis of the 
interim final rule on control of L. monocytogenes conservatively 
estimated that implementation of the rule would lead to an annual 
reduction of 27.3 deaths and 136.7 illnesses at the median. FSIS is 
continuing to analyze data on production volume and Listeria controls 
in the RTE meat and poultry products industry and is using the FSIS 
risk assessment model for L. monocytogenes to determine the likely risk 
reduction effects of the rule. Preliminary results indicate that the 
risk reductions being achieved are substantially greater than those 
estimated in the analysis of the interim rule.


FSIS is also analyzing the potential risk reductions that might be 
achieved by implementing the lethality and stabilization performance 
standards for products that would be subject to the proposed rule. The 
risk reductions to be achieved by the proposed rule and that are being 
achieved by the interim rule are intended to contribute to the Agency's 
public health protection effort.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            02/27/01                    66 FR 12590

[[Page 64174]]

NPRM Comment Period End         05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period 
    Extended                    07/03/01                    66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End         09/10/01
Interim Final Rule              06/06/03                    68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule 
    Effective                   10/06/03
Interim Final Rule 
    Comment Period End          01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period 
    Reopened                    03/24/05                    70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End         05/09/05
Affirmation of Interim 
    Final Rule                  03/00/10
Final Action                    08/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program 
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS



24. FEDERAL-STATE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT COOPERATIVE INSPECTION PROGRAM

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246 (section 11015)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 18, 2009.


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new voluntary Federal-
State cooperative inspection program under which State-inspected 
establishments with 25 or fewer employees would be eligible to ship 
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. State-inspected 
establishments selected to participate in this program would be 
required to comply with all Federal standards under the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). 
These establishments would receive inspection services from State 
inspection personnel that have been trained and certified to assist 
with enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 
produced under the program that have been inspected and passed by 
selected State-inspection personnel would bear a Federal mark of 
inspection. FSIS is proposing these regulations in response to the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, enacted on June 18, 2008 (the 2008 
Farm Bill). Section 11015 of 2008 Farm Bill provides for the interstate 
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry product from selected 
establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate implementing 
regulations no later than 18 months from the date of its enactment


Statement of Need:


This action is needed to implement a new Federal-State cooperative 
program that will permit certain State-inspected establishments to ship 
meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Inspection services 
for establishments selected to participate in the program will be 
provided by state inspection personnel that have been trained and 
certified in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) Meat and poultry 
products produced by establishments selected to participate in the 
program will bear a Federal mark of inspection.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This action is authorized under section 11015 of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) (PL-110-246). 
Section 11015 amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 
601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 
451, et seq.) to establish an optional Federal-State cooperative 
program under which State-inspected establishments would be permitted 
to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. The law 
requires that FSIS promulgate implementing regulations no later than 18 
months after the date of enactment.


Alternatives:


1. No action: FSIS did not consider the alternative of no action 
because section 11015 of the 2008 Farm Bill requires that it promulgate 
regulations to implement the new Federal-State cooperative program. The 
Agency did consider alternatives on how to implement the new program.


2. Limit participation in the program to state-inspected establishments 
with 25 or fewer employees on average: Under the law, state-inspected 
establishments that have 25 or fewer employees on average are permitted 
to participate in the program. The law also provides that FSIS may 
select establishments that employ more than 25 but fewer than 35 
employees on average as of June 18, 2008 (the date of enactment) to 
participate in the program. Under the law, if these establishments 
employ more than 25 employees on average 3 years after FSIS promulgates 
implementing regulations, they are required to transition to a Federal 
establishment. FSIS rejected the option of limiting the program to 
establishment that employ 25 or fewer employees on average to give 
additional small establishments the opportunity to participate in the 
program and ship their meat of poultry products in interstate commerce.


3. Permit establishments with 25 to 35 employees on average as of June 
18, 2008, to participate in the program. FSIS chose the option of 
permitting these establishments to be selected to participate in the 
program to give additional small establishments the opportunity to ship 
their meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Under this 
option, FSIS will develop a procedure to transition any establishment 
that employs more than 25 people on average to a Federal establishment. 
Establishments that employee 24 to 35 employees on average as of June 
18, 2008, would be subject to the transition procedure beginning on the 
date three years after the Agency promulgates implementing regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FSIS is analyzing the costs of this proposed rule to industry, FSIS, 
State and local governments, small entities, and foreign countries. 
Participation in the new Federal-State cooperative program will be 
optional. Thus, the costs and benefits associated with the proposed 
rule will depend on the number of States and establishments that chose 
to participate. Very small and certain small establishments State-

[[Page 64175]]

inspected establishments that are selected to participate in the 
program are likely to benefit from the program because they will be 
permitted sell their products to consumers in other States and foreign 
countries.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            09/16/09                    74 FR 47648
NPRM Comment Period End         11/16/09
Final Action                    09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Federalism:


 This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.


Agency Contact:
Rachel Edelstein
Director, Policy Issuances Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0399
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------




25. RURAL ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY INITIATIVE--SECTION 9009

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Secretary shall establish a Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency 
Initiative (grant program) to provide financial assistance for the 
purpose of enabling eligible rural communities to substantially 
increase the energy self-sufficiency of the eligible rural communities.


Business Programs has the primary role in program implementation and 
will work in consultation with the Forest Service on Community Wood 
Energy Program. The Forest Service has operated a program in the past 
to assist rural school systems in the use of alternative fuels for 
heating physical plants. Their expertise will assist Rural Development 
in promulgating a valuable program, well suited to the needs of rural 
communities.


Statement of Need:


This is a new grant program authorized by the Farm Bill. The purpose of 
Section 9009, Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative, is to provide 
financial assistance to enable eligible rural communities to 
substantially increase the energy self-sufficiency.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative was authorized by the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $5 
million annually in discretionary funding through 2012, but no funds 
have been made available to date.


Alternatives:


An alternative would be to publish a proposed rule without an Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Farm Bill currently does not clearly 
define eligible rural communities or what eligible entities can apply 
on behalf of an eligible community. There are no maximum or minimum 
grant amounts set in this program. Additionally, the Farm Bill does not 
include any scoring requirements to determine who would receive a grant 
under the program. There are other program components not defined in 
the statute. Because of the limited discretionary funding for this 
program, scoring requirements would need to be determined based on 
extremely focused parameters. A determination would need to be made as 
to the size of the average project, particularly when you are 
considering a community submitting an application to develop and 
install an integrated renewable energy system. The program will need to 
clearly define an eligible rural community and what type of applicants 
would be eligible.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the notice. Other costs 
would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the rule. 
The Agency is confident that the regulations will contain sufficient 
safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and 
would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants 
considering applying for assistance under this program. Benefits 
accruing to the publishing of an advance notice would enable the Agency 
to use the public comments to develop a more focused proposed rule.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           12/00/09
NPRM                            07/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         09/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Local


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Anthony Ashby
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-0661
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA77

[[Page 64176]]

_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




26. GRANTS FOR EXPANSION OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS 
WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS--SECTION 6023

Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This is a new program created by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act 
of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The purpose of the section is to provide 
grants to nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment 
opportunities for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.


Statement of Need:


There is no existing program regulation. USDA Rural Business-
Cooperative Service (RBS) is promulgating regulations to implement 
section 6023. The regulation will provide assistance, which includes 
grants to nonprofit organizations or consortium of nonprofit 
organization that have a significant focus on serving the needs of 
individuals with disabilities. Assistance will be awarded on a 
competitive basis. Regulatory implementation may include certain 
existing requirements identified in 7 CFR for civil rights 
requirements, grant servicing requirements, and so forth.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals with 
Disabilities in Rural Areas is authorized by the Food, Conservation and 
Energy Act of 2008. The purpose of the section is to provide grants to 
nonprofit organizations to expand and enhance employment opportunities 
for individuals with disabilities in rural areas.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives to issuing a proposed regulation in order to 
allow the public opportunity to provide comments on the program 
requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulation will contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a 
benefit to the Agency as well as organizations who utilize the program.


Risks:


None noted.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         03/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Federalism:


 Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Andrew Jermolowicz
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3250
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20250-3250
Phone: 202 720-8460
Fax: 202-720-4641
RIN: 0570-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



27. BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 9003

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of section 9003 is to assist in the development of new and 
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels. 
Advanced biofuels are fuels derived from renewable biomass other than 
corn kernel starch. The program will increase energy independence, 
promote resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and 
forestry products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in 
rural economies. Assistance includes grants and guaranteed loans. 
Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis. Eligible entities 
include individuals, entities, Indians tribes, units of State or local 
governments, farm cooperatives, farmer cooperative organizations, 
association of agricultural producers, National Laboratories, 
institutions of higher learning, rural electric cooperatives, public 
power entities, or a consortium of any of the entities. Regulatory 
implementation may include certain requirements identified in existing 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service regulations for the Business and 
Industry Guaranteed Loan and the Rural Energy for America programs.


Statement of Need:


The program will increase energy independence, promote resource 
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products, 
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. The 
program was originally announced in the Federal Register as an Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 20, 2008.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Biorefinery Assistance program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $75,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009 and $245,000,000 in mandatory funding for 
2010, till expended. Additionally, the 2008 Farm Bill provided an 
authorization to appropriate up to $150,000,000 in discretionary 
funding for each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides 
loan guarantees for the development, construction and retrofitting of 
commercial-scale biorefineries, and grants to help pay for the 
development and construction costs of demonstration-scale 
biorefineries. The purpose is to assist in the development of new and 
emerging technologies for the development of advanced biofuels.

[[Page 64177]]

Alternatives:


A Notice of Funding Availability was published in the Federal Register 
on November 20, 2008, to implement the program for fiscal year 2009. 
Permanent regulation need to be implemented to provide funding in 2010 
and further clarify of the program


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other 
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the 
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain 
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed 
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential 
applicants considering applying for payments under this program. 
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify 
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity 
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional 
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to 
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic 
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as 
the ownership criteria.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           11/20/08                    73 FR 70542
ANPRM Comment Period End        01/20/09
NPRM                            01/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William C. Smith
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3224
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 205-0903
Fax: 202 720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA73
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



28. RURAL BUSINESS RE-POWERING ASSISTANCE--SECTION 9004

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed action will encourage biorefineries existing at the time 
the 2008 Farm Bill became law to replace fossil fuels used to produce 
heat or power used in their operation by making payments for 
installation of new systems that use renewable biomass and/or new 
production of energy from renewable biomass.


Payments may be made under section 9004 to any biorefinery that meets 
the requirements of this section for a period determined by the 
Secretary. The Secretary shall determine the amount of payments to be 
made after considering factors addressing fossil fuel offsets and the 
cost effectiveness of renewable biomass systems.


Statement of Need:


The new regulations for the program will clarify the application 
process and definitively provide rules and regulation regarding the 
payment process. These changes are essential to clarify for 
verification and measurement of the energy produced which is the basis 
for eighty percent of payments under this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Repowering Assistance program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and, Energy Act of 2008, which made available $35,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 
was published on June 12, 2009, making $20 million available and $35 
million will be available in 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill also authorizes 
$15,000,000 in discretionary funding to be appropriated for each fiscal 
year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for the payments to 
provide incentives to biorefineries to use renewable biomass for heat 
and or power. The purpose is to reduce the dependence of biofuel 
producers on fossil fuels and to develop renewable biomass as an 
alternative energy source. The proposed new regulations are an 
administrative, rather than legislative, initiative.


Alternatives:


Other than issuing a NOFA with the possibility that all funds available 
for this program would be obligated, there is no alternative to issuing 
a proposed regulation. The proposed regulation provides an opportunity 
for public comments on aspects of the program such as level of 
payments, geographical eligibility, time frame of prospective payments 
and ownership criteria.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be benefit 
to the agency as well as potential applicants considering applying for 
payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the publishing from a 
proposed rule would be attributable to the opportunity of public 
comments which are believed to improve program payment target levels 
and shed light on the associated needs and applicants. Publication and 
refinement of measurement and verification protocols used in making 
payments is expected as result of comments and experience gained from 
initiating the program.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64178]]

Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Frederick Petok
Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 690-0784
Fax: 202 720-2213
RIN: 0570-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



29. RURAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS FOR PAYMENTS FOR THE BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR 
ADVANCED BIOFUELS--SECTION 9005

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-234


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels directs the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make payments to eligible producers to support and 
ensure an expanding production of advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels 
are defined as `fuel derived from renewable biomass other than corn 
kernel starch' in The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The 
program will increase energy independence, promote resource 
conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products, 
create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural economies. To 
receive a payment, an eligible producer shall enter into a contract 
with the Secretary of Agriculture for production of advanced biofuels. 
The basis for payments under this program are the quantity and duration 
of production of biofuel produced by an eligible producer, the net 
nonrenewable energy content of the advanced biofuel, and other 
appropriate factors as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.


Statement of Need:


The new regulations for the program known as the Bioenergy Program for 
Advanced Biofuels will clarify the application process, eligibility, 
payment formula's and eligible products and provide substantive rules 
and regulation regarding the payment process. These regulations are 
essential to allow for verification and measurement of the advanced 
biofuel development promoted by this program.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels program was authorized by 
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made mandatory 
funding available of $55,000,000 in for fiscal year (FY) 2009, 
$55,000,000 in FY 2010, $85,000,000 in FY 2011 and $105,000,000 in FY 
2012. A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) was published on June 12, 
2009 and that made $35 million available in 2009. The remaining $20 
million will be available in 2010 in addition to $55 million for 2010, 
included in the Farm Bill. An additional $25,000,000 in discretionary 
funding is authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year 2009 
through 2012 may be made available. The program provides for the 
payments to support and ensure expanding the production of advanced 
biofuels.


Alternatives:


A NOFA was published in June 2009 for immediate program implementation. 
Permanent regulations are required to provide funding for 2010.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is anticipated that there will be costs directly attributable to the 
contractor, which is assisting with drafting the proposed rule. Other 
costs would be internal costs associated with the promulgation of the 
proposed rule. The Agency is confident that the regulations contain 
sufficient safeguards to mitigate any risk associated with a proposed 
rule and would be a benefit to the agency as well as potential 
applicants considering applying for payments under this program. 
Benefits accruing to the publishing of a proposed rule would clarify 
the process, payments, eligibility and understanding of any ambiguity 
conveyed in the initial announcement of the program. Additional 
benefits stem from the ability of the public and interested parties to 
comment on program and consider issues concerning the geographic 
location and demographic composition of locatable projects as well as 
the ownership criteria.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diane Berger
Loan/Grant Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 260-1508
Fax: 202-720-6003
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS



30. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM--SECTION 9007

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 4280-B; 7 CFR 4280-D


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (section 9006 of the 
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA)) is being 
replaced with a new program titled the Rural Energy for America Program 
(REAP), section 9007 of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
The new program will provide grants for energy audits and renewable 
energy development assistance; and financial assistance for energy 
efficiency improvements and renewable energy

[[Page 64179]]

systems. The program will increase energy independence, promote 
resource conservation, diversify markets for agricultural and forestry 
products, create jobs, and enhance economic development in rural 
economies. Eligible entities based on the sub-program of the sub-
section include units of State, tribal, or local government; land grant 
or other institutions of higher education; rural electric cooperatives 
or public power entities; agricultural producers; rural small 
businesses; and any similar entity as determined by the Secretary. The 
bill directs that at least 20 percent of funds be used for grants of up 
to $20,000 each. The bill merges the energy audit program and the 
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements programs.


The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) intends to publish a 
proposed rule to implement changes to RD Instruction 4280-B and the 
Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development Assistance grant 
regulations in RD Instruction 4280-C. The changes will incorporate 
provisions from the Farm Bill and other initiatives intended to enhance 
program delivery and Agency oversight.


Statement of Need:


Changes are needed to the regulation for the program known as the Rural 
Energy for America Program (REAP), due to the changes required by the 
2008 Farm Bill. The program was previously called the Renewable Energy 
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvement program and was created by 
the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition to the change in the title of the 
program, several regulatory changes are needed for REAP as outlined 
above. These changes are required to comply with current statutes. The 
program was implemented utilizing a notice of funding availability in 
FY 2009. Permanent regulation is required to implement the program in 
2010.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Rural Energy for America program was authorized by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which made available $55,000,000 
in mandatory funding for 2009, $60,000,000 mandatory funding for 2010, 
$70,000,000 mandatory funding for 2011 and 2012. The Farm Bill 
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 in discretionary funding for 
each fiscal year 2009 through 2012. The program provides for grants and 
guaranteed loan for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency 
improvements, and grants for feasibility studies and energy audit and 
renewable energy development assistance. The purpose of the program is 
to reduce the energy consumption and increase renewable energy 
production. The regulations are an administrative and a legislative 
initiative.


Alternatives:


There is no alternative to issuing a proposed regulation, which allows 
the public an opportunity to provide comments on the program 
requirements. Permanent regulations are required to provide funding in 
2010.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The only costs, aside from contractor costs, are internal costs 
associated with the promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency is 
confident that the regulations contain sufficient safeguards to 
mitigate any risk associated with a proposed rule and would be a 
benefit to the agency as well as potential applicants considering 
applying for payments under this program. Benefits accruing to the 
publishing from a proposed rule would be attributable to the 
opportunity of public comments which are believed to improve program 
implementation and impact.


Risks:


The proposed action does not mitigate risk to the public health or 
safety or to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            03/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         05/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Kelley Oehler
Deputy Loan Specialist
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3225
Phone: 202 720-6819
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA76
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--RBS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




31. RURAL MICROENTREPRENEUR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--SECTION 6022

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 110-246


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) includes 
Section 6022 establishing the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 
Program (RMAP). The Act mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture 
establish a program to make loans and grants to support 
microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of rural 
microenterprises. The Act further mandates that entities will use funds 
borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than $50,000 to 
rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the Agency will make 
grants to provide business based training and technical assistance; and 
that the Agency will provide funding to improve the capacity of rural 
Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs) to provide services to 
rural microenterprise clients.


Upon enactment of the Act, a committee was formed to discuss policy, 
implementation, and processes needed to move the program forward. In 
mid-January, 2009 a listening forum was held at USDA. The object of the 
listening forum was to allow public comment regarding the statute and 
to obtain opinions regarding the implementation of the program. The 
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Business Programs is currently 
preparing a proposed rule with an anticipated publication date of late 
December 2009. The proposed rule is based on verbiage in the statute, 
comments made at the listening forum, research of similar-but not the 
same- types of programs within USDA and at other agencies, and the 
experience of the writers, one of whom worked in or managed Federal

[[Page 64180]]

microentrepreneurship programs for 13 years. The goal of the proposed 
rule is to obtain public comment, revise the rule accordingly, and 
ensure a sound program. Comments received from the proposed rule will 
be used as a basis for publication of a final rule which is anticipated 
for the spring of 2010.


The proposed rule will include instructions for the management of loan 
and grant programming and for the management of the ultimate recipient 
microloan portfolio. Any organization receiving a loan under the 
program will be expected to capitalize a revolving loan fund which will 
make loans of $50,000 or less to ultimate recipients. Any organization 
that receives a loan will also be automatically eligible to receive a 
grant so that it may provide an integrated program of micro-level 
lending coupled with business based training and technical assistance 
for its microborrowers. Grants will also be provided to build the 
capacity of rural MDOs so that they may improve their operations and 
services for the end users, or so that they may improve the operational 
capacity of other MDOs to provide services to end users.


This program will require a complete new set of regulations.


Statement of Need:


The new regulation for the program will be user friendly and responsive 
to industry comments. Publication of the proposed rule is crucial to 
program implementation. The program will directly create new 
businesses, assist with the expansion of existing microbusinesses (for 
purposes of this program, a microenterprise is a rural business that 
employs 10 or fewer Full Time Employees (FTE)), create jobs, increase 
the flow of tax dollars to rural communities, and add lasting value in 
terms of rural community impact.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The RMAP was authorized by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 
2008. The Act establishes the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance 
Program and mandates that the new program will make loans and grants to 
support microentrepreneurs in the development and ongoing success of 
rural microenterprises. It further mandates that entities will use 
funds borrowed from the Agency to make microloans of not more than 
$50,000 to rural microenterprises for eligible purposes; that the 
Agency will make grants to provide business based training and 
technical assistance; and that the Agency will provide funding to 
improve the capacity of rural MDOs to provide services to rural 
microenterprise clients.


The purpose of the program is to increase access to capital and 
business based training in rural areas for rural business owners and 
potential business owners at the start up and micro levels.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule process is our only current route for implementation. 
Funding for the initial four years (2009-2012) of the program is 
mandatory and FY2009 funding will be expendable in FY2010. The proposed 
rule will allow the Agency to use both years' funding in the inaugural 
year of program implementation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


Initial costs include the cost of the listening conference; staff time; 
and the cost of the regulation writing contractor that works in close 
concert with staff.


Ongoing costs include a minimal increase of one FTE, and space for 
same, at the National Office level. The state offices are not currently 
under consideration for more FTEs as a result of this program.


Other costs will/do include the cost of automation of distribution of 
funding, loan servicing, grant servicing, repayment systems, and 
oversight systems. The assigned office (Specialty Programs Division) 
has been working with the Information Technology (IT) offices to 
implement the program through RULSS which is the newer generation of 
agency automation systems and is the most flexible in terms of meeting 
the needs of the statute. Finally, Training will be required for field 
staff.


Cost Mitigation--To mitigate implementation costs the proposed rule has 
considered existing programs to ensure that implementation will be less 
process based and more results driven when compared to other programs. 
Automated processes will help ensure efficiency. Use of existing field 
staff will keep new FTEs to a minimum.


Benefits:


The initial benefits to program implementation include the addition of 
a small rural business lending program that increases access to Rural 
Development programming by adding to the starting end of the business 
financing continuum of services. The program allows Rural Development 
to open its doors to rural clients at the very beginning level of the 
business start-up and initial growth phases, and provide assistance to 
businesses that are often too small to be considered viable for a bank 
loan. The long term benefits to program implementation include long 
term availability of this new pathway to assist rural start-up 
businesses; increased access to business capital in rural areas, at a 
grass roots level, and often to pre-bankable ultimate recipients; 
expansion of business opportunities in rural areas; increased tax flow 
as businesses become profitable; increased job creation and rural job 
retention as new and existing microbusinesses sprout and grow; support 
of micro level entities producing organic food product, locally grown 
food product, and locally manufactured goods for intra and interstate 
export; service industry growth; increased opportunity for rural youth; 
and legal immigrants; and increased exposure of Rural Development 
funding programs to the target constituency.


Mandatory funding is set at $4 million for FY2009; $4 million for 
FY2010; $4 million for FY2011; and $3 million for FY2012. The statute 
authorizes up to $40 million per year for each of the years in addition 
to mandatory funding.


Risks:


Program risks include making of loans and grants to multiple types of 
entities for multiple purposes with a singular goal; ability to select 
appropriately capable lending and training entities; reliance on 
selected entities for sound microloan underwriting and appropriate 
portfolio management; and availability of enough grant funding for 
ongoing technical assistance in the out years. We anticipate mitigating 
these risks via sound regulatory guidance, appropriate training, and 
clear communication of expectations to selected participants. Further, 
the statute is based in part on a successful non-USDA program of a 
similar nature with which many of the stakeholders and selected 
participants will be familiar providing this agency with a level of 
confidence.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            10/07/09                    74 FR 51714
NPRM Comment Period End         11/23/09
Final Rule                      02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64181]]

Small Entities Affected:


 Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jody Raskind
Director, Specialty Lenders Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
STOP 3225
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3224
Phone: 202 690-1400
Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected]
RIN: 0570-AA71
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S`