# [No title available]

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX09-41207

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** December 7, 2009
- **Citation:** 74 FR 64149

## Text

[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 y

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3AX09-41207. Public record. Not legal advice.