[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10755-10761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04609]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 10755]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 65
[Document No. AMS-LPS-16-0002]
RIN 0581-AD29
Removal of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Requirements for
Beef and Pork Muscle Cuts, Ground Beef, and Ground Pork
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)
regulations to remove muscle cut beef and pork, and ground beef and
pork from mandatory COOL requirements. The COOL regulations are issued
pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Act). The Agency is
issuing this rule to conform with amendments to the Act contained in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Henderson, Director, COOL
Division, AMS, USDA by telephone on 202/720-4486 or via email at
[email protected]; or Erin Morris, Associate Administrator, AMS, USDA,
by telephone on 202/690-4024, or via email at:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 amended the Act to remove
muscle cut beef and pork, and ground beef and pork from COOL
requirements in order to bring the United States into compliance with
its international trade obligations. The Agency is issuing this rule to
conform to these amendments.
Background
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Farm Bill)
(Pub. L. 107-171), the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (2002
Appropriations) (Pub. L. 107-206), and the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-234) amended the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) to
require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of
covered commodities. Covered commodities included muscle cuts of beef
(including veal), lamb, chicken, goat, and pork; ground beef, ground
lamb, ground chicken, ground goat, and ground pork; wild and farm-
raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities;
macadamia nuts; pecans; ginseng; and peanuts. AMS published a final
rule for all covered commodities on January 15, 2009 (74 FR 2658),
which took effect on March 16, 2009. On May 23, 2013, AMS issued a
final rule to amend the country of origin labeling provisions for
muscle cut covered commodities (78 FR 31367). The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) amended the Act to remove
mandatory COOL requirements for muscle cut beef and pork, and ground
beef and pork. The Agency is issuing this rule to conform to these
statutory amendments.
Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question
Under this final rule, beef and pork muscle cuts and ground beef
and pork are removed from the list of covered commodities subject to
the COOL regulation. Accordingly, changes have been made to the
relevant Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections, including
definitions, country of origin notification, and recordkeeping.
Costs and Benefits
The estimated economic benefits associated with this final rule,
previously assessed as costs, are likely to be significant. The
estimated benefits for producers, processors, wholesalers, and
retailers of previously covered beef and pork products are difficult to
assess, as they are essentially the converse of the costs attributed to
the 2009/2013 rules.. However, the benefits from incremental cost
savings are likely to be less than the cumulative impact of these
rules, $1.8 billion, as affected firms have adjusted their operations
to accommodate COOL requirements more efficiently since implementation
of the initial COOL measure in 2009, and the amended measure in 2013. A
complete discussion of the cost and benefits can be found under the
Executive Order 12866 section.
Summary of Changes to the COOL Regulations
This rule removes certain mandatory COOL requirements from
retailers (as defined by the law and regulations) and their suppliers.
Retailers are no longer required by the rule to provide country of
origin information for the beef and pork that they sell, and firms that
supply beef and pork to these retailers no longer must provide them
with this information. In addition, firms in the supply chain for beef
and pork are also relieved from the requirements associated with
mandatory COOL, from cattle and hogs downstream to muscle cut and
ground beef and pork sold at covered retail establishments.
Definitions
The definitions of beef (Sec. 65.110), ground beef (Sec. 65.155),
ground pork (Sec. 65.175), and pork (Sec. 65.215) are removed from
the regulation. The definition of the term covered commodity (Sec.
65.135(a)(1) and (2)) is amended to remove references to beef, pork,
ground beef, and ground pork. The definitions of production step (Sec.
65.230), raised (Sec. 65.235) and United States country of origin
(Sec. 65.260(a)) are amended to remove references to beef and pork. In
addition, the definition of a processed food item (Sec. 65.220) is
amended to remove the example of teriyaki flavored pork loin.
Country of Origin Notification
Country of origin notification (Sec. 65.300(h)) is amended to
remove references to ground beef and ground pork.
Recordkeeping
Responsibilities of suppliers (Sec. 65.500(b)(1)) is amended to
remove references to beef, pork, and cattle.
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, if
regulation is
[[Page 10756]]
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule has been designated as an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and,
therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
Regulations must be designed in the most cost-effective manner
possible to obtain the regulatory objective while imposing the least
burden on society. The purpose of this rule is to amend the COOL
regulation to remove beef and pork products from the list of covered
commodities as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
As a result, the rulemaking represents a deregulatory action, and the
logical approach for the economic analysis is to reverse the previous
assessment for those portions of the analysis relating to beef and
pork.
The estimated economic benefits associated with this final rule,
previously assessed as costs, are likely to be significant. The
estimated benefits for producers, processors, wholesalers, and
retailers of previously covered beef and pork products are as much as
$1.8 billion in cost avoidance. However, the benefits from incremental
cost savings are likely to be less than this upper bound, as affected
firms have adjusted their operations to accommodate COOL requirements
more efficiently since implementation of the initial COOL measure in
2009, and the amended measure in 2013.
The costs of this rule are the loss in benefits to consumers who
desired such country of origin information for muscle cut beef and
pork, and ground beef and pork products sold at retail. As discussed in
previous rulemakings, these costs are difficult to determine
quantitatively. The original rulemaking did not estimate a quantitative
value of these preferences but noted their existence. USDA found that
the lack of voluntary country of origin labeling programs, including
labeling for beef and pork products, was evidence that consumers did
not have strong enough preferences to support price premiums sufficient
for firms in the supply chain to recoup the costs of labeling.
Statement of Need
Justification for this final rule is to conform to changes made to
COOL provisions by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. There are
no alternatives to federal regulatory intervention for implementing
this statutory directive.
The COOL provisions of the Act changed federal labeling
requirements to remove muscle cuts of beef and pork and ground beef and
ground pork from the list of covered commodities for the COOL
regulation.
Analysis of Benefits and Costs
The baseline for this analysis is the present state of the affected
industries with mandatory COOL.
Benefits: The benefits of the rule removing beef and pork products
from mandatory COOL are the reduction in costs to those affected
parties associated with meeting the rule requirements. This includes
implementation costs related to capital, labor, and other inputs.
Following the economic analysis from previous rulemaking (74 FR 2658;
78 FR 31367), the overall impact of the cost savings to directly
affected firms will be an increase in economic activity resulting in an
overall net benefit (benefits minus costs) from this rulemaking.
Number of firms and number of establishments affected: This rule is
estimated to directly or indirectly affect approximately 1,027,204
establishments owned by approximately 992,781 firms. Table 1 provides
estimates of the affected firms and establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NASS, USDA. 2012 Census of Agriculture.
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Program, USDA.
Market Agencies Buying on Commission and Dealers. December 2015.
http://gipsa.usda.gov/psp/regulated/dealersBOC_list.pdf.: Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Program, USDA. Registered and
Bonded Market Agencies Selling Livestock on Commission. December
2015. http://gipsa.usda.gov/psp/regulated/SOC_list.pdf.
\4\ NASS, USDA. Livestock Slaughter Annual Summary, April 2015.
\5\ U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 Economic Census. Business and
Industry Subject Series. Sales/Receipt Size of Establishment/Firm.
EC1251SSSZ1. Issued October 2015.
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ AMS, USDA. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act database.
Table 1--Number of Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Firms Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef and Pork
Cattle and Calves \1\............... 913,246 913,246
Hogs and Pigs \2\................... 63,246 63,246
Stockyards, Dealers & Market 4,723 4,723
Agencies \3\.......................
Livestock Processing & Slaughtering 2,629 2,862
\4\................................
Meat & Meat Product Wholesale \5\... 2,162 2,405
General Line Grocery Wholesalers \6\.... 2,271 2,832
Retailers \7\........................... 4,504 37,890
Totals
Producers........................... 976,492 976,492
Handlers, Processors, & Wholesalers. 11,785 12,822
Retailers........................... 4,504 37,890
-------------------------------
Grand Total..................... 992,781 1,027,204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is assumed that all firms and establishments identified in Table
1 will be affected by the rule, although some may not produce or sell
products within the scope of this rule. While this assumption likely
overstates the number of affected firms and establishments, it is
consistent with previous regulatory assessments of COOL. With the
exception of retailers, the number of firms and operations has declined
as compared to the 2009 final rule. Detailed data are not available on
the number of entities categorized by the marketing channels in which
they operate and the specific products that they sell. Such data would
be needed to
[[Page 10757]]
refine the estimates of the entities directly affected by COOL.
Estimation of benefits: The process of determining estimates of
what were previously costs, but are now considered to be benefits
(costs avoided) of this rule have been detailed in both the economic
analyses for the 2009 and 2013 final rules, as well as proposed and
interim rulemaking actions associated with those rules. Details of the
data, sources, and methods underlying the economic analyses are
provided in the previous Final Regulatory Impact Analyses (FRIA), the
Intermediate Regulatory Impact Analysis (IRIA), and the previous
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) under the sections
relating to costs for the beef and pork industries. This section
presents the revised benefits estimates and describes changes made for
this final analysis.
In the 2009 final rule (74 FR 2658), the economic analysis provided
estimates of first-year incremental outlays for directly affected
firms. In addition, the results of a computable general equilibrium
model were included to show the economic impact of the rule 10 years
after the initial implementation. The longer term assessment was
conducted to show that over time the impact of the rule will likely
change as economic agents adapt to the rule. The longer term assessment
also allowed for estimation of impacts of COOL across the U.S. economy.
Table 2 below presents results of the 2009 rule economic analysis
for beef and pork, adjusted for inflation (2015 dollars).\8\ All
impacted entities in the supply chain are included in these values,
from the producer to the processor, wholesaler and retailer. The
second, third and fourth columns show the adjusted estimates of
increased costs for the first year of the rule's implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
Table 2--Estimated Implementation Costs for the 2009 COOL Regulation, in 2015 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Million $)
-----------------------------------------------
Beef Pork Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers....................................................... $335.5 $115.5 $451.0
Intermediaries.................................................. 410.3 111.1 521.4
Retailers....................................................... 631.4 102.3 733.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,377.2 328.9 1,706.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 rule is now at the start of its seventh year of
implementation. The economic analysis for the 2009 rule did not examine
the costs of implementing COOL to affected entities beyond the initial
year. However, it was acknowledged that the first year costs were
likely to be higher than subsequent year costs due to changes in
technology, development of more efficient practices, and greater
familiarity with its implementation. While such cost reductions are
likely, in the absence of detail on subsequent years of implementation
we to assume that removal of beef and pork from COOL regulations
results in a cost savings to affected entities of at most $1.377
billion for the beef sector, $328 million for the pork sector, and a
total of $1.706 billion for both industries combined.
In 2013, an additional rule was promulgated that amended the
requirements regarding labeling of muscle cuts of covered commodities
to provide consumers with more specific information. The economic
assessment for this rule determined the costs of implementation to be
the figures reported in Table 3, adjusted to 2015 dollars. As Table 3
shows, the economic assessment presented low, high, and mid-point
values for estimated outlays.
Table 3--Estimated Implementation Costs for the 2013 COOL Regulation, in 2015 Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-point
Low estimate estimate High estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling--Retail (million $).................................... 17.3 33.5 48.2
Commingling--Beef (million $)................................... 21.5 53.9 86.2
Commingling--Pork (million $)................................... 15.3 38.4 61.5
-----------------------------------------------
Total (million $)........................................... 54.1 125.8 195.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, these costs were estimated for the initial year of
implementation, with the recognition that over time increased
efficiencies would lead to reduced annual costs. However, as with the
2009 rule, the 2013 regulation did not provide cost estimates beyond
the first year. For consistency, we again assume the cost savings for
this third year of the 2013 rule's implementation is equivalent to the
first year, recognizing that it is likely to be an upper limit value.
Assuming the mid-point of the range, removing beef and pork products
from the 2013 COOL regulation would save these industries a total of
roughly $126 million per year in costs.
Withdrawing beef and pork products completely from both the 2009
and the 2013 COOL regulations therefore is expected to save these
industries a combined $1.832 billion. Specifically, this translates
into total cost savings for the industry as $799.7 million saved by
beef producers and intermediaries, $265.0 million saved by pork
producers, and $767.2 million saved by retailers for both beef and pork
covered commodities.
The benefits per firm and per establishment represent industry
averages for aggregated segments of the supply chain. Large firms and
establishments may see greater savings relative to small operations due
to the volume of commodities that they handle
[[Page 10758]]
and the increased complexity of their operations. In addition,
different types of businesses within each segment are likely to benefit
differently. Thus, the range of benefits gained by individual
businesses within each segment is expected to be large, with some firms
seeing greater gains than others.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Some affected entities may not experience net savings. For
example, although this rulemaking will reduce the cost of compliance
activities conducted by firms in the beef and pork supply chain, the
savings may, in some cases, be passed on to others in the supply
chain or consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average benefits, in the form of cost savings per operation for
each of the three types of operations is shown in Table 4. These values
were calculated from Table 1, and total cost savings estimations of
$451.0 million for producers, $613.7 million for intermediaries such as
handlers, processors and wholesalers, and $767.2 million for retailers.
Table 4--Number of Operations and Average Cost Savings per Affected
Entity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost
Type Operations savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers............................... 976,492 $462
Intermediaries.......................... 12,822 47,863
Retailers............................... 37,890 20,248
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Effects on the Economy: As discussed in the 2009 final rule,
the impacts described fall to those directly involved in the
production, distribution, and marketing of covered commodities.
However, they do not represent the net impacts to the United States
economy.
In the 2009 rulemaking, the impact of the regulation on overall
economy was examined using a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model
developed by the USDA's Economic Research Service. Given that this is a
deregulatory action that reduces costs and in the interest of
expediency, the CGE model was not re-estimated with COOL compliance
costs for beef and pork covered commodities removed as economic
``shocks'' to the model. However, reasonable assumptions can be applied
to the earlier results to arrive at approximate estimates of the impact
of this rulemaking action on the broader U.S. economy.
The 2009 economic impact analysis demonstrated that production and
marketing cost increases associated with COOL regulations for covered
commodities ultimately led to reduced output within the covered
industries, in other industries, or both. As a result, the net impact
on the general economy of regulations that increased supply-side costs
for covered commodities was negative.
In the 2009 rule (74 FR 2658), it was determined that the overall
impact on the U.S. economy from that rule (which also included lamb,
chicken, fruits, vegetables, and other commodities) was $234.1 million
in 2015 dollars. The assumptions used in developing this value were
that consumers' preferences for the commodities would not change, and
that the adjustments were made over a 10-year time period. This value
represents the decline in consumer purchasing power as a result of the
initial implementation costs filtering through the economy after 10
years of adjustment.
Because removal of beef and pork from COOL regulations should have
the opposite effect, it is likely that the long-term impact on the
overall economy from withdrawing beef and pork from COOL requirements
would be a reduction in this loss of purchasing power. In the 2009
FRIA, 59 percent of the total initial implementation costs were
attributable to beef and pork. If we assume the same proportion applies
to the CGE model, the reduction in purchasing power to U.S. consumers
attributable to cost increases for beef and pork would be approximately
$138 million after 10 years of adjustment. Conversely, then, removal of
COOL requirements for beef and pork through this rulemaking may result
in an improvement of approximately $138 million in U.S. consumers'
purchasing power after 10 years of adjustment.
Costs: As discussed in previous assessments of COOL regulation, the
expected benefits from implementation of the rule (i.e., the current
regulations) were likely to be negligible and were difficult to
quantify. With this rule removing beef and pork products from COOL,
those consumers who had previously benefited from the information will
now experience a reduction in economic welfare due to the loss of this
information. This reduction in welfare is the cost of exempting beef
and pork from COOL requirements.
COOL provides consumers with information about a credence
attribute. Another credence attribute that consumers sometimes confuse
with COOL is food safety. However, as noted in previous rulemaking
actions, COOL is simply a labeling rule, not a food safety rule. As a
result, there are no costs to consumers from removing COOL requirements
for beef and pork products from a food safety perspective.
Alternatives considered: Section 759 of Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 mandates the withdrawal of beef
and pork muscle cuts, ground beef, and ground pork. This rule would
implement the Act accordingly. The only effective means of achieving
the results mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, is
through rule promulgation.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule has been reviewed under the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The purpose of
RFA is to consider the economic impact of a rule on small businesses
and evaluate alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the
rule without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers that
would restrict their ability to compete in the marketplace. The Agency
believes that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, but this impact will be in the
form of removing regulatory burdens. The Agency has prepared the
following final regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule's likely
economic impact on small businesses pursuant to section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The rule is the direct result of statutory obligations to implement
Section 759 of Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
The intent of this law is to remove muscle cut beef and pork, and
ground beef and pork from a regulation that provides consumers with
information on the country of origin of covered commodities at certain
retail establishments. Specifically, the law withdraws these
commodities from Federal country of origin labeling
[[Page 10759]]
requirements for products sold by retailers subject to COOL.
The objective of the current COOL regulation is to regulate the
activities of covered retailers and their suppliers to enable retailers
to fulfill their statutory and regulatory obligations. COOL requires
retailers to provide country of origin information for all of the
covered commodities that they sell. It also requires all firms that
supply covered commodities to these retailers to provide the retailers
with the information needed to correctly label the covered commodities.
In addition, all other firms in the supply chain for the covered
commodities are potentially affected by the rule because country of
origin information needs to be maintained and transferred along the
entire supply chain. In general, the supply chains for the covered
commodities consist of farms, processors, wholesalers, importers, and
retailers. This rule withdraws muscle cut beef and pork, and ground
beef and pork from the list of covered commodities, and subsequently
withdraws all entities along the supply chain for these commodities
from the requirements of COOL regulation.
Section 604 of the RFA requires the Agency to provide an estimate
of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply. A listing
of the number of entities in the supply chains for each of the covered
commodities can be found in Table 1. However, in the case of this rule,
these entities will benefit from reduced costs, rather than incur
additional costs. Retailers covered by this rule must meet the
definition of a retailer as defined by Perishable Agricultural
Commodities Act of 1930 (PACA). In utilizing this definition, the
number of retailers affected by this rule is considerably smaller than
the total number of retailers nationwide.
Because of the removal from country of origin requirements, COOL
information will no longer be required to be passed along the supply
chain and made available to consumers at the retail level. As a result,
each participant in the supply chain as identified in Table 1 will
benefit from reductions in recordkeeping costs, as well as changes or
modifications to their business practices. It is estimated that
approximately 1,027,000 establishments owned by approximately 993,000
firms will be either directly or indirectly affected by this rule.
This rule potentially will have an impact on all participants in
the supply chain, although the nature and extent of the impact will
depend on the participant's function within the marketing chain. On a
total basis, the economic assessment estimated benefits in the form of
cost savings of up to $451.0 million for producers, $613.7 million for
intermediaries such as handlers, processors and wholesalers, and $767.2
million for retailers for a total of $1.832 billion.
On a per operation basis, the rule likely will have the largest
benefit on intermediaries (handlers, processors, wholesalers, and
importers) and retailers, while the impact on individual producers is
likely to be relatively small. These impacts were shown in Table 6 of
the economic impact analysis.
There are two measures used by the Small Business Administration
(SBA) to identify businesses as small: Sales receipts or number of
employees. In terms of sales, SBA classifies as small those grocery
stores with less than $25 million in annual sales and specialty food
stores with less than $6.5 million in annual sales (13 CFR 121.201).
Warehouse clubs and superstores with less than $25 million in annual
sales are also defined as small. SBA defines as small those
agricultural producers with less than $750,000 in annual sales. Of the
other businesses potentially affected by the rule, SBA classifies as
small those manufacturing firms with less than 500 employees and
wholesalers with less than 100 employees.
Retailers: While there are many potential retail outlets for the
covered commodities, food stores, warehouse clubs, and superstores are
the primary retail outlets for food consumed at home. The number of
retailers subject to the COOL rule is considerably smaller than the
number of food retailers nationwide. There are 4,504 retail firms as
defined by PACA that would be subject to the rule. An estimated 88
percent (3,964 out of 4,504) of the retailers subject to the rule were
reported to be small.
Retailer benefits under this rule are estimated at $767.2 million.
Benefits are estimated at $170,337 per retail firm and $47,863 per
retail establishment. Retailers will save on recordkeeping costs, costs
associated with supplying country of origin information to consumers,
and handling costs.
Wholesalers: Any establishment that supplies retailers with one or
more of the covered commodities will no longer be required to provide
country of origin information to retailers. Of wholesalers potentially
affected by the rule, SBA defines those having less than 100 employees
as small. Importers of covered commodities will also be affected by the
rule and are categorized as wholesalers in the data.
General-line wholesalers were assumed to handle at least one and
possibly all of the covered commodities. As a result, the number of
general-line wholesale businesses was included among entities affected
by the rule. In 2012 there were 2,271 firms in total, and 2,108 firms
had less than 100 employees. Therefore, approximately 93 percent of the
general-line grocery wholesaler can be classified as small businesses.
In addition to general-line wholesalers, there are specialty
wholesalers which deal in certain types of products. According to the
2012 Economic Census, there was a total of 2,162 meat and meat products
wholesalers firms. Of these, 2,043 firms had less than 100 employees,
meaning approximately 95 percent of meat wholesalers were considered
small firms.
The 2012 Economic Census reports that 2,629 livestock processing
and slaughtering firms were in operation. Almost 90 percent or 2,354 of
these firms qualified as small businesses under the SBA definition.
The USDA's Packers and Stockyards Program provides regularly
updated data on the number of livestock buyers, dealers and auction
markets. While this information does not include sales and/or
employment data, it is expected that the large majority of these
entities are small businesses.
It is estimated that intermediaries (importers and domestic
wholesalers, handlers, and processors) would benefit from cost savings
under the rule by approximately $613.7 million, or $52,075 per
intermediary firm and $47,863 per establishment. Wholesalers will save
recordkeeping costs, costs associated with supplying country of origin
and method of production information to retailers, costs associated
with segmenting products by country of origin and method of production,
and additional handling costs.
Producers: Producers of cattle and hogs will be affected because
covered meat commodities are produced from livestock. SBA defines a
small agricultural producer as having annual receipts less than
$750,000. According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, there were
913,246 farms that raised beef cows, and roughly 45,000 were estimated
to have annual receipts greater than $750,000. Thus, about 95 percent
of these beef cattle farms were classified as small businesses
according to the SBA definition. Similarly, an estimated 80 percent of
hog farms were considered small.
At the production level, agricultural producers maintained records
to
[[Page 10760]]
establish country of origin information. This information was conveyed
as the animals and products derived from them moved through the supply
chains. Producer costs included the cost of establishing and
maintaining a recordkeeping system for the country of origin
information, animal or product identification, and labor and training.
The savings benefits for producers are expected to be $451.0 million,
or an estimated $462 per firm.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As noted in more detail above, these savings may be shifted
to others in the supply chain or consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional alternatives considered: Section 604 of the RFA requires
the Agency to describe the steps taken to minimize the significant
economic impact on small entities including a discussion of
alternatives considered. As the effect of this rule is reduced burdens
rather than increased costs on firms, and because there were no
alternatives for implementing the legislation, no alternatives to
lessen the burden of this rule on small businesses were considered.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C 3501-3520)
the information collection provisions contained in this rule were
previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0250.
AMS is publishing a notice and request for comment seeking OMB approval
to revise this information collection in this edition of the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-
to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications,
including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation,
and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has assessed the impact of
this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to
our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal
consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, AMS
will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful
consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications
identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
Executive Order 12988
The contents of this rule were reviewed under Executive Order
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform.'' This rule is not intended to have a
retroactive effect. States and local jurisdictions are preempted from
creating or operating country of origin labeling programs for the
commodities specified in the Act and this regulation. With regard to
other Federal statutes, all labeling claims made in conjunction with
this regulation must be consistent with other applicable Federal
requirements. There are no administrative procedures that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
rule.
Civil Rights Review
AMS considered the potential civil rights implications of this rule
on minorities, women, or persons with disabilities to ensure that no
person or group shall be discriminated against on the basis of race,
color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual
orientation, marital or family status, political beliefs, parental
status, or protected genetic information. This review included persons
that are employees of the entities that are subject to these
regulations. This final rule does not require affected entities to
relocate or alter their operations in ways that could adversely affect
such persons or groups. Further, this rule will not deny any persons or
groups the benefits of the program or subject any persons or groups to
discrimination.
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism.'' This Order directs agencies to construe, in regulations
and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the
statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other
clear evidence to conclude that the Congress intended preemption of
State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the
exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute. This program
is required by the 2002 Farm Bill, as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.
In the January 15, 2009, final rule, the Federalism analysis stated
that to the extent that State country of origin labeling programs
encompass commodities that are not governed by the COOL program, the
States may continue to operate them. It also contained a preemption for
those State country of origin labeling programs that encompass
commodities that are governed by the COOL program. This final rule does
not change the preemption. With regard to consultation with States, as
directed by the Executive Order 13132, AMS previously consulted with
the States that have country of origin labeling programs. AMS has
cooperative agreements with all 50 States to assist in the enforcement
of the COOL program and has communications with the States on a regular
basis.
It is found and determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3) for implementing this final rule on March 2, 2016 without
prior notice and opportunity for comment. This rule has been determined
to be a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.); however, the Agency finds that under 5 U.S.C.
808(2) good cause exists to waive the 60-day delay in the effective
date. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 amended the Act to
remove the requirements for labeling beef and pork to bring the United
States into compliance with its international trade obligations.
Providing notice and seeking comment are impractical, unnecessary, and
contrary to public interest because AMS has no discretion in
implementing the statutory provisions that remove beef and pork from
the COOL regulations. Additionally, on December 7, 2015, the World
Trade Organization (``WTO'') Arbitrators set the maximum permissible
levels of suspension of concessions at Canadian $1.05 billion (US $781
million) annually for Canada and US $228 million annually for Mexico.
The WTO granted Canada and Mexico authorization to suspend concessions
on December 21, 2015. For these same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,
it is found and determined that good cause exists to exempt this rule
from the requirement to delay the effective date. Accordingly, this
rule will be effective on March 2, 2016.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 65
Agricultural commodities, Food labeling, Meat and meat products,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 65 is amended
as follows:
[[Page 10761]]
PART 65--COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF LAMB, CHICKEN, AND GOAT
MEAT, PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, MACADAMIA NUTS, PECANS,
PEANUTS, AND GINSENG
0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.
0
2. Revise the heading for part 65 to read as set forth above.
Sec. Sec. 65.110, 65.155, 65.175, and 65.215 [Removed]
0
3. Remove Sec. Sec. 65.110, 65.155, 65.175, and 65.215.
0
4. Amend Sec. 65.135 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 65.135 Covered commodity.
(a) * * *
(1) Muscle cuts of lamb, chicken, and goat;
(2) Ground lamb, ground chicken, and ground goat;
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 65.220 to read as follows:
Sec. 65.220 Processed food item.
Processed food item means a retail item derived from a covered
commodity that has undergone specific processing resulting in a change
in the character of the covered commodity, or that has been combined
with at least one other covered commodity or other substantive food
component (e.g., chocolate, breading, tomato sauce), except that the
addition of a component (such as water, salt, or sugar) that enhances
or represents a further step in the preparation of the product for
consumption, would not in itself result in a processed food item.
Specific processing that results in a change in the character of the
covered commodity includes cooking (e.g., frying, broiling, grilling,
boiling, steaming, baking, roasting), curing (e.g., salt curing, sugar
curing, drying), smoking (hot or cold), and restructuring (e.g.,
emulsifying and extruding). Examples of items excluded include roasted
peanuts, breaded chicken tenders, and fruit medley.
0
6. Amend Sec. 65.300 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 65.300 Country of origin notification.
* * * * *
(h) Labeling ground lamb, ground goat, and ground chicken. The
declaration for ground lamb, ground goat, and ground chicken covered
commodities shall list all countries of origin contained therein or
that may be reasonably contained therein. In determining what is
considered reasonable, when a raw material from a specific origin is
not in a processor's inventory for more than 60 days, that country
shall no longer be included as a possible country of origin.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 65.500 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 65.500 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Responsibilities of suppliers. (1) Any person engaged in the
business of supplying a covered commodity to a retailer, whether
directly or indirectly, must make available information to the buyer
about the country(ies) of origin of the covered commodity. This
information may be provided either on the product itself, on the master
shipping container, or in a document that accompanies the product
through retail sale. In addition, the supplier of a covered commodity
that is responsible for initiating a country(ies) of origin claim,
which in the case of lamb, chicken, and goat, is the slaughter
facility, must possess records that are necessary to substantiate that
claim for a period of 1 year from the date of the transaction. For that
purpose, packers that slaughter animals that are tagged with an 840
Animal Identification Number device without the presence of any
additional accompanying marking (i.e., ``CAN'' or ``M'') may use that
information as a basis for a U.S. origin claim. Packers that slaughter
animals that are part of another country's recognized official system
(e.g. Canadian official system, Mexico official system) may also rely
on the presence of an official ear tag or other approved device on
which to base their origin claims. Producer affidavits shall also be
considered acceptable records that suppliers may utilize to initiate
origin claims, provided it is made by someone having first-hand
knowledge of the origin of the covered commodity and identifies the
covered commodity unique to the transaction.
* * * * *
Dated: February 26, 2016.
Elanor Starmer,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04609 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P