[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45984-45992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16698]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 45984]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1220 and 1260

[No. AMS-LPS-13-0083]
RIN 0581-AD49


Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef 
Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State 
Assessments to the National Program; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the Soybean Promotion, 
Research, and Consumer Information Order (Soybean Order) and the Beef 
Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) to add provisions allowing 
soybean and beef producers to request, under certain circumstances, 
that their assessments paid to a State board or council authorized 
under their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. 
The proposed rule also would make technical amendments to the Beef 
Order.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 13, 2016. 
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information 
collection burden that would result from this proposal must be received 
by September 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on 
the Internet at www.regulations.gov or to Kevin Studer; Research and 
Promotion Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program; Agricultural 
Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2608-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; or fax to (202) 720-1125. All 
comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page 
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for 
public inspection at the above office during regular business hours.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), send comments 
regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to minimize the 
burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology, or any other aspect of this collection 
of information to the above address. Comments concerning the 
information collection under the PRA should also be sent to the Desk 
Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
    Please be advised that all comments submitted in response to this 
notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the 
public on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Also, the 
identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be 
made public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Studer, Research and Promotion 
Division, at (202) 253-2380, fax (202) 720-1125, or by email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review 
process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.

Executive Order 13175

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has assessed the impact of 
this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would 
not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal 
consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests 
consultation, AMS will work with the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 
Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is 
provided where changes, additions, and modifications are identified in 
this proposed rule.

Soybean Order

    The Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act 
(Soybean Act) (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides that administrative 
proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. 
Under section 1971 of the Soybean Act, a person subject to the Soybean 
Order may file a petition with USDA stating that the Soybean Order, any 
provision of the Soybean Order, or any obligation imposed in connection 
with the Soybean Order, is not in accordance with the law and request a 
modification of the Soybean Order or an exemption from the Soybean 
Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the 
petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Soybean 
Act provides that district courts of the United States in any district 
in which such person is an inhabitant, or has their principal place of 
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, if 
a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of 
the entry of the ruling.
    Further, section 1974 of the Soybean Act provides, with certain 
exceptions, that nothing in the Soybean Act may be construed to preempt 
or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion, research, 
consumer information, or industry information organized under the laws 
of the United States or any State. One exception in the Soybean Act 
concerns assessments collected by Qualified State Soybean Boards 
(QSSBs). The exception provides that to ensure adequate funding of the 
operations of QSSBs under the Soybean Act, no State law or regulation 
may limit or have the effect of limiting the full amount of assessments 
that a QSSB in that State may collect, and which is authorized to be 
credited under the Soybean Act. Another exception concerns certain 
referenda conducted during specified periods by a State relating to the 
continuation of a QSSB or State soybean assessment.

Beef Order

    Section 11 of the Beef Research and Promotion Act of 1985 (Beef 
Act) (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911) provides that nothing in the Beef Act may be 
construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef 
promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or 
any State.

[[Page 45985]]

Background and Proposed Action

Soybean Order Amendments

    The Soybean Act and the Soybean Order issued thereunder authorize 
the collection of an assessment from soybean producers of one-half of 
one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans, 
processed soybeans, or soybean products. In most cases, these 
assessments are collected by QSSBs that retain up to half of the 
assessments as authorized by the Soybean Act. The QSSBs as defined 
under Section 1967 (14) of the Soybean Act will forward the remainder 
to the United Soybean Board (Soybean Board), which administers the 
national soybean checkoff program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 1967(14) of the Soybean Act states:
    (14) QUALIFIED STATE SOYBEAN BOARD. The term ``qualified State 
soybean board'' means a State soybean promotion entity that is 
authorized by State law. If no such entity exists in a State, the 
term ``qualified State soybean board'' means a soybean producer-
governed entity)--(A) that is organized and operating within a 
State; (B) that receives voluntary contributions and conducts 
soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry 
information programs; and (C) that meets criteria established by the 
Board as approved by the Secretary relating to the qualifications of 
such entity to perform duties under the order and is recognized by 
the Board as the soybean promotion and research entity within the 
State.
    Likewise, 7 CFR 1220.122 of the Soybean Order states:
    The term Qualified State Soybean Board means a State soybean 
promotion entity that is authorized by State law and elects to be 
the Qualified State Soybean Board for the State in which it operates 
pursuant to Sec.  1220.228(a)(1). If no such entity exists in a 
State, the term Qualified State Soybean Board means a soybean 
producer-governed entity--
    (a) That is organized and operating within a State; (b) That 
receives voluntary contributions and conducts soybean promotion, 
research, consumer information, or industry information programs; 
and (c) That meets the criteria, established by the Board and 
approved by the Secretary, relating to the qualifications of such 
entity to perform its duties under this part as determined by the 
Board, and is certified by the Board under Sec.  1220.228(a)(2), 
with the approval of the Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original Soybean Order, which became effective July 9, 1991, 
mandated that all producers marketing soybeans pay an assessment of 
one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market price of the 
market price of soybeans sold. The original Soybean Order contained a 
provision in Sec.  1220.228(b)(5)(i), which required QSSBs that were 
authorized or required to pay refunds to producers to certify to the 
Soybean Board that they would honor any request from a producer for a 
refund from the QSSB by forwarding to the Soybean Board those 
contributions for which the producer received a credit, pursuant to 
Sec.  1220.223(a)(3). In other words, this section implicitly 
authorized refunds by the QSSB if State law allowed or required the 
QSSB to pay refunds; it further directed that the producer receive a 
credit for those refunds, with the amount sent to the Soybean Board.
    Refunds under the soybean program were discontinued on October 1, 
1995, after the Secretary determined through a producer poll that 
continuation of refunds was not favored by a majority of producers. In 
late 1995, 7 CFR 1220.228(b)(5)(i) was removed as part of rulemaking to 
eliminate obsolete regulatory language. However, this action had an 
unintended effect of inadvertently allowing QSSBs to retain a portion 
of the assessment even if not required by State law, under any 
circumstances.
    In States where payments to a QSSB are not required by State law, 
the opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full federal 
assessment to the Soybean Board is already AMS' current policy; this 
rule is intended to formalize the policy. Therefore, AMS proposes 
adding provisions that remedy the removal of the original refund 
language. A new provision would be added to the Soybean Order to (i) 
require producers in States where refunds are authorized to forward 
that refund to the Soybean Board and (ii) provide an opportunity for a 
refund if the QSSB is not authorized by State statute but is organized 
and operating within a State and is certified by the Soybean Board, as 
provided by Sec.  1220.228(a)(2). AMS proposes to require that the form 
must be postmarked by the 30th day of the month following the month the 
soybeans were sold. Assessments would not be able to be retroactively 
redirected from the QSSB to the Soybean Board. Likewise, AMS proposes 
to require that the QSSB must respond by the last day of the month 
following the month in which the OMB-approved QSSB-1 form was received.
    Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a 
producer is required by the Soybean Act to pay an assessment of one-
half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans, 
processed soybeans, or soybean products. Several States have additional 
producer assessments, mandated by State statutes that are collected in 
addition to the assessment required by the Soybean Act as set forth in 
the chart provided. If a QSSB offers a producer refund under a State 
statute, the QSSB can only refund to the producer any State assessment 
collected in excess of the assessment that the producer is required to 
pay under the Soybean Act. AMS proposes that the portion of the 
assessment compelled by the Soybean Act that the QSSB would normally 
keep can be redirected to the national program by the producer if State 
law allows.
Examples
     A soybean producer in California pays an assessment for a 
soybean sale. The assessment is collected by a certified Western Region 
Soybean Board, which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the 
Soybean Board. California has no State law requiring a California 
assessment, so the California producer may request that the 50% of the 
assessment amount retained by the Western Region Soybean Board be 
redirected to the Soybean Board.
     A soybean producer in Iowa pays an assessment for a 
soybean sale. The assessment is collected by Iowa Soybean Promotion 
Board, which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean 
Board. Iowa has a State law with a refund provision, so the Iowa 
producer may request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by 
the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.
     A soybean producer in Virginia pays an assessment for a 
soybean sale. The assessment is collected by the Virginia Soybean Board 
which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. 
Virginia has a State law with no refund provision, so the Virginia 
soybean producer may not request that the 50% of the assessment amount 
retained by the Virginia Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean 
Board.

Beef Order Amendments

    Similarly, the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) 
and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) issued 
thereunder authorize the collection of an assessment from cattle 
producers of $1.00 per head of cattle sold. In most cases, these 
assessments are collected by Qualified State Beef Councils (QSBCs) that 
retain up to one-half of the assessments as authorized by the Beef Act. 
The QSBCs, as defined under Section 3(14) of the Beef Act, are required 
to forward the remainder to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research 
Board (Beef Board), which administers the national beef checkoff 
program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 3(14) of the Beef Act states that ``the term 
``qualified State beef council'' means a beef promotion entity that 
is authorized by State statute or is organized and operating within 
a State, that receives voluntary contributions and conducts beef 
promotion, research, and consumer information programs, and that is 
recognized by the Board as the beef promotion entity within such 
State.'' Likewise, 7 CFR 1260.115 of the Beef Order states 
``Qualified State beef council means a beef promotion entity that is 
authorized by State statute or a beef promotion entity organized and 
operating within a State that receives voluntary assessments or 
contributions; conducts beef promotion, research, and consumer and 
industry information programs; and that is certified by the Board 
pursuant to this subpart as the beef promotion entity in such 
State.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 45986]]

    The original Beef Order, which became effective July 18, 1986, 
mandated that all producers owning and marketing cattle pay an 
assessment of $1.00 per head of cattle, to be collected each time 
cattle are sold. The original Beef Order contained a provision in Sec.  
1260.181(b)(5), which required QSBCs that were authorized or required 
by State law to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Beef Board 
that they would honor any request from a producer for a refund from the 
QSBC by forwarding to the Beef Board those contributions for which the 
producer received a credit, pursuant to Sec.  1260.172(a)(3). In other 
words, this section authorized refunds by the QSBC if State law allowed 
or required the QSBC to pay refunds; it further directed that the 
producer receive a credit for those refunds, with the amount redirected 
to the Beef Board.
    In a May 10, 1988, referendum conducted by the Secretary, cattle 
producers and importers voted to institute mandatory assessments. In 
late 1995, 7 CFR 1260.181(b)(5) was removed as part of rulemaking to 
eliminate obsolete regulatory language. However, this action had an 
unintended effect of inadvertently allowing QSBCs to retain a portion 
of the $1.00-per-head assessment even if not required by State law, 
under any circumstances. Therefore, AMS proposes adding provisions that 
would remedy the removal of the original language in Sec.  
1260.181(b)(5).
    Furthermore, while the Beef Act and Beef Order authorize QSBCs to 
retain up to 50 cents per head of cattle assessed, neither the Beef Act 
nor the Beef Order require producers to contribute a portion of the 
$1.00-per-head assessment to a QSBC. Thus, unless State statutes 
require the collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in 
the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or require producers to 
contribute a portion of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the 
State beef council, producers may be able to choose not to contribute 
up to 50 cents per head of the federal assessment to their QSBC. While 
the original Beef Order did not address the specific situation that 
allows producers to choose not to contribute up to 50 cents per head of 
the federal assessment to a QSBC, AMS proposes to address this in the 
new language. A new provision would be added to the Beef Order to (i) 
require QSBCs in States where refunds to producers of the $1.00-per-
head assessment collected per the Beef Act and Beef Order are 
authorized by State statute to forward that refund to the Beef Board, 
and (ii) provide an opportunity for producers to choose to direct the 
full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board in States 
where State law does not require the collection of the $1.00-per-head 
assessment set forth in the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or in 
States where State statutes do not require producers to contribute a 
portion of the $1.00-per head federal assessment to the State beef 
council. In States where payments to a QSBC are not required by State 
law, the opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full $1.00-
per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board is already AMS' current 
policy; this rule is intended to formalize the policy. As QSBCs are 
responsible for collecting assessments on cattle sold in or originating 
in their State (Sec.  1260.172(a)(5) and Sec.  1260.181(b)(3)), 
producers who are allowed refunds under State statutes and choose to 
redirect the full $1.00-per-head assessment to Beef Board must submit 
to the QSBC a written request on an approved request form. AMS proposes 
to require that the form must be postmarked by the 15th day of the 
month following the month the cattle were sold. Assessments would not 
be able to be retroactively redirected from the QSBC to the Beef Board, 
and QSBCs would be required to respond to such requests within 60 days.
    Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a 
producer is required by the Beef Act to pay an assessment of $1.00 on 
each head of cattle sold. Several States have additional producer 
assessments, mandated by State statutes, that are collected in addition 
to the $1.00-per-head assessment required by the Beef Act. If a QSBC 
offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSBC can only 
refund to the producer any State assessment collected in addition to 
the $1.00-per-head assessment that the producer is required to pay 
under the Beef Act. AMS proposes that the portion of the $1.00-per-head 
federal assessment that the QSBC would normally keep under Sec.  
1260.181(b)(4) can be redirected to the national program by the 
producer if State law allows.

Examples

     A producer in Kansas pays the $1.00 federal assessment for 
a cattle sale. The Kansas Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and 
forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Since there is no Kansas law 
compelling producers to contribute to the Kansas Beef Council, the 
producer may request that the $0.50 of the original $1.00 assessment be 
redirected to the Beef Board.
     A producer in Colorado pays $1.00 in assessments for a 
cattle sale. The Colorado Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and 
forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Colorado State law requires an 
assessment but allows a refund. The producer may request that the $0.50 
cents of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board.
     A producer in California pays $1.00 in assessments for a 
cattle sale. The California Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, 
and forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. California law compels the 
collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment and does not provide for a 
refund. The producer may not request the California Beef Council to 
redirect any portion of the $0.50 to the Beef Board.
     A producer in Idaho pays the $1.00-per-head federal 
assessment plus the $0.50-per-head State-mandated assessment for a 
cattle sale. The Idaho Beef Council collects $1.50, keeps $1.00, and 
forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. The producer requests a refund of all 
funds paid to the Idaho Beef Council. The Idaho Beef Council may refund 
the $0.50-per-head State assessment to the producer, but the producer 
is required to pay $1.00 under the Beef Act. Since Idaho State law only 
compels an assessment of $0.50, which is refundable, the producer may 
request the Idaho Beef Council to redirect the remaining $0.50 of the 
$1.00 retained from the original $1.00-per-head federal assessment to 
the Beef Board.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator of the AMS 
has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and 
has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose 
of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject 
to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly 
burdened.

Soybean Industry

    USDA's Farm Service Agency estimates that there are 569,998 soybean 
producers subject to the Soybean Order. This estimate comes from 
including all soybean producers engaged in the production of soybeans 
in the previous 2 years. The majority of producers subject to the 
Soybean Order are small

[[Page 45987]]

businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA defines small agricultural 
producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
    This proposed rule imposes no new burden on the soybean industry. 
It would provide soybean producers, under certain circumstances, the 
option of requesting that their assessments paid to a State board be 
directed to the national program.
    However, the proposed rule could result in decreased assessment 
funds for some QSSBs, depending on whether a State statute is in place, 
whether refund provisions are included, and whether the producer 
chooses to exercise the refund provision.

                                  Potential Financial Impact on QSSBs by State
                                           [Current as of 05/01/2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Amount of national
                                                                                                  assessment
                                                                                               retained by state
             State \1\                   State law requirement            Refund option             (50% of
                                                                                                assessments due
                                                                                              under Soybean Act)
                                                                                                 \2\ (FY 2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................  Statute establishes $0.02 per  Yes.....................            $445,917
                                      bushel maximum assessment;
                                      regulations establish $0.01
                                      per bushel maximum
                                      assessment.
Arizona \4\........................  5% of the annual gross sales   No......................  ..................
                                      dollar value maximum annual
                                      assessment.
Arkansas...........................  $0.02 per bushel; 0.25% of     Yes, on both............           3,946,583
                                      net market price during
                                      continuance of federal
                                      program.
California \4\.....................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Colorado \4\.......................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Connecticut \3\....................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Delaware...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes (under general                   245,921
                                                                     promotion statute).
Georgia............................  0.05 per bushel..............  No......................             195,398
Idaho \4\..........................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Illinois...........................  Statute establishes \1/2\ of   Yes.....................          13,941,988
                                      1% of the net market price
                                      of soybeans produced and
                                      sold.
Indiana............................  None beyond federal..........  Yes.....................           7,855,049
Iowa...............................  If national assessment         Yes.....................          12,788,353
                                      collection, 0.25% of net
                                      market price; if not, 0.5%
                                      of net market price.
Kansas.............................  Statute sets maximum at 0.5%   Yes, provided refund               3,415,025
                                      of net market price while      amount is $5 or more.
                                      federal program effective;
                                      regulation sets assessment
                                      at 20 mills ($0.02) per
                                      bushel as State default
                                      assessment.
Kentucky...........................  0.25% of net market price per  Yes.....................           2,148,849
                                      bushel on all soybeans
                                      marketed within Kentucky.
Louisiana..........................  0.01 per bushel on all         Yes.....................           2,131,537
                                      soybeans grown in Louisiana.
Maine \3\..........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
Maryland...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes.....................             588,195
Massachusetts \3\..................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Michigan...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes, for funds left over           2,329,254
                                                                     at close of marketing
                                                                     season.
Minnesota..........................  General statute sets maximum   Yes.....................           8,151,802
                                      at 1% of the market value of
                                      the year's production of
                                      participating producers; MN
                                      Soybean and Research and
                                      Promotion Council sets
                                      assessment at 0.5%.
Mississippi........................  0.01 per bushel..............  Yes.....................           2,955,549
Missouri...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes.....................           6,419,003
Montana \4\........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
Nebraska...........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................           6,952,254
Nevada \4\.........................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
New Hampshire \3\..................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
New Jersey.........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................             110,113
New Mexico \4\.....................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
New York...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes, but left to                     254,297
                                                                     discretion of
                                                                     commissioner.
North Carolina.....................  None beyond federal..........  Yes, if assessment                 1,768,352
                                                                     enacted.
North Dakota.......................  0.5% of sale value...........  No......................           4,913,972
Ohio...............................  None beyond federal; capped    Yes.....................           6,575,663
                                      at 2 cents per bushel if
                                      assessment enacted.
Oklahoma...........................  None beyond federal..........  Yes.....................             279,962
Oregon \4\.........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
Pennsylvania.......................  None beyond federal..........  No......................             618,190
Rhode Island \3\...................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
South Carolina.....................  0.005 per bushel.............  Yes.....................             367,307
South Dakota.......................  0.5% of value of the net       Yes.....................           5,185,112
                                      market price.
Tennessee..........................  0.01 per bushel..............  Yes.....................           1,985,565
Texas..............................  None beyond federal..........  Yes.....................             117,588
Utah \4\...........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................

[[Page 45988]]

 
Vermont \3\........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
Virginia...........................  Statute allows $0.02 per       No......................             645,754
                                      bushel; regulation specifies
                                      $0.01 per bushel.
Washington \4\.....................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
West Virginia \3\..................  None.........................  Not applicable..........  ..................
Wisconsin..........................  Capped by statute at $0.02     Yes.....................           1,838,960
                                      per bushel; actual
                                      assessment determined annual
                                      by board.
Wyoming \4\........................  None beyond federal..........  No......................  ..................
Eastern Region \ 5\................  .............................  ........................              48,391
Western Region \6\.................  .............................  ........................              17,121
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 31 QSSBs. Two represent multiple States.
\2\ Only includes 50 percent of the national assessment that the State retains; does not include State
  assessment revenue derived from an independent State assessment. In addition, the notation--indicates that the
  amount of national assessment retained by the state is a de minimis amount.
\3\ Covered by Eastern Region.
\4\ Covered by Western Region.
\5\ Eastern Region includes Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont,
  and West Virginia.
\6\ ``Western Region includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
  Washington, and Wyoming.

    The information collection requirements on QSSBs are minimal. QSSBs 
are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We 
have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, 
or conflict with this rule.
    Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS has conducted this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and has determined that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small soybean entities. However, we invite comments 
concerning potential effects of this proposed rule.

Beef Industry

    In the February 2013, publication of ``Farms, Land in Farms, and 
Livestock Operations,'' USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service 
(NASS) estimates that the number of operations in the United States 
with cattle in 2012 totaled approximately 915,000, down from 950,000 in 
2009. The majority of these operations that are subject to the Beef 
Order may be classified as small entities. According to the NASS Web 
site ``Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,'' the issues 
released between 2005 and 2013 included ``Livestock Operations'' in the 
title. Beginning in 2014, livestock operations data will be available 
in the Census of Agriculture and most recent data can be referenced 
from Census data. This proposed rule imposes no new burden on the beef 
industry. It would provide beef producers, under certain circumstances, 
the option of requesting that their assessments paid to a State council 
be directed to the national program.
    However, the proposed rule could result in decreased assessment 
funds for some QSBCs, depending on whether a State statute is in place, 
whether refund provisions are included, and whether the producer 
chooses to exercise the refund provision. Currently, a number of States 
are in various stages of establishing or amending State laws regarding 
beef checkoff requirements, so this information is likely to change.

                                  Potential Financial Impact on QSBCs by State
                                           [Current as of 05/06/2016]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Amount of national
                                                                                                  assessment
                                                                                               retained by state
              State \1\                 State law requirement \2\     State refund option?          (50% of
                                                                                                assessments due
                                                                                                under Beef Act)
                                                                                                 \3\ (FY 2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............................  $1.00 per head beyond       Yes......................            $308,618
                                        federal.
Arizona..............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             326,251
Arkansas.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             366,702
California...........................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................           1,810,135
Colorado.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................           1,364,278
Delaware.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................               4,325
Florida..............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................           3,340,762
Georgia..............................  1.00 beyond federal.......  No.......................             270,011
Hawaii...............................  None......................  Not applicable...........              15,623
Idaho................................  0.50 per head beyond        Yes......................             830,548
                                        federal.

[[Page 45989]]

 
Illinois.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             296,718
Indiana..............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             215,364
Iowa.................................  None beyond federal.......  If State assessment                 1,636,842
                                                                    collected, refund
                                                                    available.
Kansas...............................  None......................  Not applicable...........           3,385,185
Kentucky.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             624,147
Louisiana............................  0.50 per head beyond        Yes......................             189,751
                                        federal.
Maine................................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................               1,914
Maryland.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................              43,891
Michigan.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             284,914
Minnesota............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             685,484
Mississippi..........................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             222,968
Missouri.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................           1,160,733
Montana..............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             866,981
Nebraska.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................           3,468,679
Nevada...............................  None......................  Not applicable...........             112,784
New Jersey...........................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................               4,771
New Mexico...........................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................             491,527
New York.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             326,982
North Carolina.......................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             162,782
North Dakota.........................  None beyond federal.......  Yes, when ND Attorney                 534,462
                                                                    General certifies
                                                                    federal law does not
                                                                    preclude.
Ohio.................................  1.00 beyond federal.......  Yes......................             308,689
Oklahoma.............................  None beyond federal.......  Yes......................           1,548,338
Oregon...............................  0.50 beyond federal.......  Yes, for ``incorrect''                427,685
                                                                    assessments.
Pennsylvania.........................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             372,275
South Carolina.......................  None beyond federal.......  Yes, at discretion of                  79,772
                                                                    Commission.
South Dakota.........................  None......................  Not applicable...........           1,422,366
Tennessee............................  0.50 beyond federal.......  Yes......................             405,046
Texas................................  1.00 beyond federal,        Yes......................           4,620,761
                                        effective 10/1/14.
Utah.................................  0.50 beyond federal.......  Yes......................             264,339
Vermont..............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................              50,235
Virginia.............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             366,879
Washington...........................  0.50 beyond federal.......  No.......................             513,601
Wisconsin............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             696,796
Wyoming..............................  None beyond federal.......  No.......................             428,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are seven States without a QSBC. They are Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
  Rhode Island, and West Virginia. In these seven States, the Beef Board collects assessments directly.
\2\ Per head of cattle sold.
\3\ Only includes 50 percent of the national assessment that the State retains; does not include State
  assessment revenue derived from an independent State assessment.

    The information collection requirements on QSBCs are minimal. QSBCs 
are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We 
have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, 
or conflict with this rule.
    Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS has conducted this Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and has determined that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small cattle or beef entities. However, we invite comments 
concerning potential effects of this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are 
imposed by the Soybean and Beef Orders have been approved previously 
under OMB control number 0581-0093. In accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this proposed rule also 
announces that AMS is seeking emergency approval for a new information 
collection request allowing soybean and beef producers, under certain 
circumstances, to request that assessments paid to a QSSB or QSBC be 
redirected to the Soybean Board or Beef Board, respectively. The 
additional burden is optional and is only imposed if a producer wants 
to divert assessments to the national program. According to the Beef 
Board, there have been very few requests from producers seeking 
redirection of assessments to the Beef Board. Additionally, the Soybean 
Board has not reported any requests from producers seeking redirection 
of assessments to the Soybean Board. Therefore, we estimate that 
annually a small number of soybean producers and beef producers might 
submit such a request and estimate that it would take an average of 5 
minutes per person, resulting in an additional burden of 0.83 hour for 
the soybean program and 1.67 hours for the beef program.
    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote 
the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide 
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information 
and

[[Page 45990]]

services, and for other purposes. As with all Federal promotion 
programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce 
information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector 
agencies.
    Title: Redirection of State Soybean and Beef Assessments to the 
National Program.
    OMB Number: 0581-NEW.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Abstract: The information collection requirements are essential to 
carry out this rule.
    The Soybean Act and Order and the Beef Act and Order authorize the 
collection of assessments from soybean and beef producers. In most 
cases, these assessments are collected by QSSBs or QSBCs that retain up 
to half of the assessments. The QSSBs and QSBCs forward the remainder 
to the Soybean Board and Beef Board, which administer the national 
soybean and beef checkoff programs.
    The original Soybean and Beef Orders contained provisions directing 
QSSBs and QSBCs, if authorized or required by State law to pay refunds 
to producers, to honor producer refund requests by forwarding to the 
national Board that portion of such refunds equal to the amount of 
credit received by the producer for contributions to the State 
entities. Amendments to the Soybean and Beef Orders in 1995 to remove 
obsolete language concerning refunds had an unintended consequence, 
inadvertently allowing QSSBs and QSBCs to retain a portion of the 
assessment even if not required by State law, under certain 
circumstances. Therefore, we propose adding provisions that would 
remedy the removal of the original language. New provisions would be 
added to both Orders to (i) require QSSBs and QSBCs in States where 
refunds to producers are authorized by State statutes to forward such 
requested refunds to the national board and (ii) provide an opportunity 
for producers, in States where the State entity is not authorized by 
State statute or State statutes allow, to choose to direct the full 
federal assessment to the national Board.
    An estimated 10 soybean respondents and 20 beef respondents will 
provide information to a QSSB or QSBC to request redirection of 
assessments. The estimated cost of providing the information to the 
QSSB or QSBC by respondents would be $82.17. This total has been 
estimated by multiplying 2.49 total hours required for reporting by 
$33.00, the average mean hourly earnings of various occupations 
involved in keeping this information. Data for computation of this 
hourly rate was obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.
    In turn, QSSBs or QSBCs will respond to those producers with the 
decision and will forward the assessments and records to the Soybean 
Board or Beef Board. The estimated cost of the QSSB or QSBC providing 
the information to producers and the Soybean Board or Beef Board would 
be $82.17. This total has been estimated by multiplying 2.49 total 
hours required for reporting by $33.00, the average mean hourly 
earnings of various occupations involved in keeping this information. 
Data for computation of this hourly rate was obtained from the U.S. 
Department of Labor Statistics.
    The design of the forms has been carefully reviewed, and every 
effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or 
requirements, including efforts to utilize information already 
submitted under other soybean and beef programs administered by the 
USDA and other State programs. In fact, the forms to be used by the 
QSSBs and QSBCs were designed to serve a dual purpose, both for 
informing producers of the outcome of their requests and for forwarding 
assessments and information to the Soybean Board and Beef Board. AMS 
has determined that there is no practical method for collecting the 
required information without the use of these forms. The forms would be 
available from the national boards, QSSBs, and QSBCs. The information 
collection would be used only by authorized QSSB, QSBC, Soybean Board, 
and Beef Board employees and representatives of USDA, including AMS 
staff. Authorized QSSB, QSBC, Soybean Board, and Beef Board employees 
will be the primary users of the information, and AMS will be the 
secondary user.
    The forms require the minimum information necessary to effectively 
carry out producers' wishes to redirect to the national boards the 
portion of the assessments that the State entities would otherwise 
retain. Such information can be supplied without data processing 
equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no 
additional training requirements for individuals filling out the forms 
and remitting assessments to the QSSBs and QSBCs. The forms will be 
simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on 
the person filing the form. The forms are entirely voluntary for 
producers, and QSSBs and QSBCs will only complete their forms as a 
result of producers' requests.
    The form may be submitted at any time, though within the prescribed 
deadlines, so as to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the 
amount of work necessary to complete the forms. In addition, the 
information to be included on these forms is not available from other 
sources because such information relates specifically to individual 
producers who are subject to the provisions of the Soybean or Beef Acts 
and because there is a need to ensure that producers are paying the 
full assessment required by law.
    Therefore, there is no practical method for collecting the 
information without the use of these forms.
    The request for approval of the new information collection is as 
follows:
    (1) Form QSSB-1, Notification to Qualified State Soybean Board of 
intent to redirect assessments to the United Soybean Board.
    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 5 minutes per soybean producer.
    Respondents: Soybean producers in certain States.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent per Year: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.83 hours.
    (2) Form QSBC-1, Notification to Qualified State Beef Council of 
intent to redirect assessments to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and 
Research Board.
    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 5 minutes per cattle producer.
    Respondents: Beef producers in certain States.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent per Year: 1.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1.66 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize 
the burden of the collection of information on those who are to 
respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms 
of information technology.
    A 60-day period is provided to comment on the information 
collection

[[Page 45991]]

burden. Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW and be sent to Kevin 
Studer; Research and Promotion Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed 
Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2608-S, STOP 0249, 
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; or fax to 
(202) 720-1125. All comments received will be available for public 
inspection. All responses to this proposed rule will be summarized and 
included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a 
matter of public record.
    Comments concerning the information collection under the PRA should 
also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 
20503.

Beef Technical Amendments

    In addition, several technical amendments are proposed to update 
information in the Beef Promotion and Research Order and rules and 
regulations:
    Section 1260.181 (b)(4) currently requires QSBCs to remit 
assessments to the Beef Board by the last day of the month in which the 
QSBC received the assessment ``unless the Board determines a different 
date.'' The Beef Board's practice has been to require QSBCs to remit 
assessments by the 15th of the following month. This section would be 
updated to reflect actual practice.
    Section 1260.315 would be amended to reflect the current QSBCs.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 1220

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 
research, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Soybeans and soybean products.

7 CFR Part 1260

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 
research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR 
parts 1220 and 1260 be amended as follows:

PART 1220--SOYBEAN PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER INFORMATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 1220 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301-6311 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

0
2. In Sec.  1220.228, add a new paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1220.228  Qualified State Soybean Boards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    (5) If the entity is authorized or required to pay refunds to 
producers, certify to the Board that any requests from producers for 
such refunds for contributions to it by the producer will be honored by 
forwarding to the Board that portion of such refunds equal to the 
amount of credit received by the producer for contributions pursuant to 
Sec.  1220.223(a)(3). Entities not authorized by State statute but 
organized and operating within a State and certified by the Board 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must provide producers an 
opportunity for a State refund and must forward that refunded portion 
to the Board. Producers receiving a refund from a State entity are 
required to remit that refunded portion to the Board in the manner and 
form required by the Secretary.
* * * * *

PART 1260--BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH

0
3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

0
4. In Sec.  1260.181, revise paragraph (b)(4) and add paragraph (b)(5) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1260.181  Qualified State Beef Councils.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
* * * * *
    (4) Certify to the Board that such organization shall remit to the 
Board assessments paid and remitted to the council, minus authorized 
credits issued to producers pursuant to Sec.  1260.172(a)(3), by the 
15th day of the month following the month in which the assessment was 
remitted to the qualified State beef council unless the Board 
determines a different date for remittance of assessments.
    (5) Redirection of assessments. Qualified State beef councils which 
are authorized or required by State statutes to pay refunds to 
producers must certify to the Board that any requests from producers 
for refunds from the council for contributions to such council by the 
producer will be honored by redirecting to the Board that portion of 
such refunds equal to the amount of credit received by the qualified 
State beef councils. In States where State law does not require the 
collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in the Act (the 
federal assessment) or in States where State statutes do not require 
producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per head federal 
assessment to the State beef council, qualified State beef councils 
must provide an opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full 
$1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Board. The request to redirect 
funds to the Board must be submitted on the appropriate form and 
postmarked by the 15th day of the month following the month the cattle 
were sold. Requests may not be retroactive. Requests to redirect funds 
must be submitted by the producer who paid the assessment.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  1260.312, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1260.312  Remittance to the Cattlemen's Board or Qualified State 
Beef Council.

* * * * *
    (c) Remittances. The remitting person shall remit all assessments 
to the qualified State beef council or its designee, or, if there is no 
qualified State beef council, to the Cattlemen's Board at an address 
designated by the Board, with the report required in paragraph (a) of 
this section not later than the 15th day of the following month. All 
remittances sent to a qualified State beef council or the Cattlemen's 
Board by the remitting persons shall be by check or money order payable 
to the order of the qualified State beef council or the Cattlemen's 
Board. All remittances shall be received subject to collection and 
payment at par.
0
6. Revise Sec.  1260.315 to read as follows:


Sec.  1260.315  Qualified State Beef Councils.

    The following State beef promotion entities have been certified by 
the Board as qualified State beef councils:

Alabama Cattlemen's Association
Arizona Beef Council
Arkansas Beef Council
California Beef Council
Colorado Beef Council
Delaware Beef Advisory Board
Florida Beef Council, Inc.
Georgia Beef Board, Inc.
Hawaii Beef Industry Council
Idaho Beef Council
Illinois Beef Council
Indiana Beef Council
Iowa Beef Cattle Producers Association
Kansas Beef Council
Kentucky Beef Cattle Association
Louisiana Beef Industry Council
Maryland Beef Industry Council

[[Page 45992]]

Michigan Beef Industry Commission
Minnesota Beef Council
Mississippi Beef Council, Inc.
Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc.
Montana Beef Council
Nebraska Beef Council
New Jersey Beef Industry Council
Nevada Beef Council
New Mexico Beef Council
New York Beef Industry Council
North Carolina Cattlemen's Association
North Dakota Beef Commission
Ohio Beef Council
Oklahoma Beef Council
Oregon Beef Council
Pennsylvania Beef Council, Inc.
South Carolina Beef Council
South Dakota Beef Industry Council
Tennessee Beef Industry Council
Texas Beef Council
Utah Beef Council
Vermont Beef Industry Council
Virginia Beef Industry Council
Washington State Beef Commission
Wisconsin Beef Council, Inc.
Wyoming Beef Council

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Elanor Starmer,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16698 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P