[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3735-3744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00300]



 ========================================================================
 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. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 3735]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1464

[Docket ID NRCS-2019-0012]
RIN 0578-AA70


Regional Conservation Partnership Program

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Commodity 
Credit Corporation (CCC), United States Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with minor changes, an interim rule 
published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2020. The interim 
rule implemented changes to RCPP that were either necessitated by the 
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and changes 
for administrative streamlining improvements and clarifications. CCC 
amended this interim rule with a technical correction on March 17, 
2020. NRCS received input from 65 commenters who provided 335 comments 
in response to the interim rule. This final rule makes permanent the 
provisions of the interim rule, responds to comments received, and 
makes further adjustments in response to some of the comments received.

DATES: Effective: January 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari Cohen; phone: (202) 720-6037; or 
email: [email protected]. Persons with disabilities who require 
alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target 
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized and amended RCPP. On February 13, 
2020, an interim rule with request for comments was published in the 
Federal Register (85 FR 8131-8145) that added RCPP regulations in 7 CFR 
part 1464 to implement changes made by the 2018 Farm Bill. A technical 
correction was published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2020 (85 
FR 15051-15052). This final rule adopts, with minor changes, the 
interim rule.

Discussion of RCPP (7 CFR part 1464)

    RCPP, implemented under the direction of the Chief of NRCS, 
promotes coordination of NRCS conservation activities with partners 
that offer value-added contributions to address on-farm, watershed, and 
regional natural resource concerns. Through RCPP, NRCS seeks to co-
invest with partners to implement projects that demonstrate innovative 
solutions to conservation challenges and provide measurable 
improvements and outcomes.
    RCPP projects may only be carried out on agricultural or 
nonindustrial private forest land or associated land on which NRCS 
determines an eligible activity would help achieve conservation 
benefits. Eligible conservation activities may be implemented on public 
lands when those activities will benefit eligible lands as determined 
by NRCS and are included in the scope of an approved RCPP project.
    The interim rule:
     Created a new part in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) to acknowledge that RCPP is now a stand-alone program, no longer 
subordinated to its covered programs.
     Identified three contract types for implementation of 
RCPP, including programmatic partnership agreements, program contracts, 
and supplemental agreements.
     Defined terms to address changes made by the 2018 Farm 
Bill, including--
    [cir] Conservation benefits;
    [cir] Eligible activity;
    [cir] Eligible partner;
    [cir] Lead partner;
    [cir] Nonlead partner;
    [cir] Participant;
    [cir] Priority resource concern;
    [cir] Project resource concern;
    [cir] Proposal; and
    [cir] RCPP plan of operations.
     Identified that NRCS may award up to 15 Alternative 
Funding Arrangement (AFA) projects, which rely on partner capacity to 
implement conservation activities.
     Acknowledged the reduction from three funding pools to two 
and directed partners to apply to either the Critical Conservation Area 
(CCA) or State and Multistate funding pool.
     Added provisions requiring all RCPP project partners to 
develop and report on their environmental outcomes.
     Expanded the scope of RCPP by including the authorities of 
the Conservation Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 3831-3835) and the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program (Pub. L. 83-566), 
excluding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, in the definition of 
``covered programs.''
     Expanded the purpose of RCPP to include protection of 
drinking water and ground water on eligible land.
     Allowed partnership agreements to be longer than 5 years 
in certain situations, as determined by NRCS, to further purposes of 
RCPP.
     Allowed partnership agreement renewals for a period not to 
exceed 5 years that in certain situations may be funded through an 
expedited noncompetitive process.
     Allowed a partnership agreement, or a renewal partnership 
agreement, to be extended one time for up to 12 months.
     Required reporting publicly at the time of selection the 
amount of technical assistance (TA) that will be set aside for project 
implementation.
     Acknowledged an obligation to provide guidance for 
partners on how to quantify and report project outcomes, including 
achievement of conservation benefits.

Summary of Comments

    The interim rule 60-day comment period ended May 12, 2020. NRCS 
received 335 comments from 65 commenters in response to the rule. NRCS 
reviewed these 335 comments and categorized and summarized them 
according to the topics identified below. NRCS received comments on a 
wide variety of topics, including several comments of a general nature, 
most of which expressed support, as well as a few comments that were 
not relevant to RCPP or to the RCPP interim rule. The topics that 
generated the greatest response were easements, funding pools, program 
administration, program contracts, and proposals.

[[Page 3736]]

    In this rule, the comments have been organized alphabetically by 
topic. The topics include:
     Adjusted gross income (AGI) waivers;
     Alternative funding arrangements (AFA);
     Availability of program funding (APF);
     Easements;
     Eligibility;
     Funding pools;
     Partner contributions;
     Program administration;
     Program contracts;
     Programmatic partnership agreements;
     Proposals;
     RCPP activity types;
     Renewals; and
     Supplemental agreements.

Adjusted Gross Income Waivers

    Comment: NRCS received comment expressing concern about reporting 
requirements necessary to receive an AGI eligibility determination from 
the Farm Service Agency (FSA). Comment also expressed concern that the 
AGI waiver process may harm the ability of small farms to receive 
conservation assistance and suggested adding more detail on the process 
and criteria for granting AGI waivers.
    Response: AGI eligibility determination processes are not within 
the purview of NRCS or this rulemaking. However, NRCS recently 
published a National Bulletin (NB 440-20-26) which indicated that an 
RCPP lead partner may request a waiver of the applicability of AGI at 
the RCPP project level during the initial Partnership Project Agreement 
(PPA) negotiation only. If granted, producers participating in RCPP 
through individual contracts or agreements will not be required to file 
AGI paperwork or have AGI determinations made by FSA. If the RCPP lead 
partner does not request or receive a project-level waiver of the 
applicability of AGI, a producer may seek a waiver of the AGI 
limitation upon receiving an AGI determination. No changes are made in 
the final rule in response to this issue.

Alternative Funding Arrangements

    Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification that NRCS 
retains administrative responsibility for conservation compliance, AGI, 
and payment limitation determinations, tenant rights, producer appeals, 
civil rights, and other similar responsibilities.
    Additionally, comment requested that NRCS:
     Remove the parenthetical about roads, dams, and irrigation 
facilities used to describe the types of infrastructure upon which an 
AFA could focus;
     Provide guidance on AFA goals;
     Only use AFAs in limited circumstances and apply stringent 
criteria;
     Support AFA irrigation projects and provide incentives for 
projects that would benefit fish and other aquatic species, 
particularly in overallocated basins;
     Administer AFA projects through grant agreements; and
     Expand the indirect costs eligible for reimbursement under 
AFA projects.
    Response: NRCS will define responsibilities in the APF 
announcements and AFA partnership agreements, while still maintaining 
flexibility. NRCS will identify which responsibilities must remain with 
NRCS.
    This final rule removes the parenthetical from Sec.  1464.25. RCPP 
infrastructure projects relate to conservation activities that 
significantly address resource concerns but require greater investment 
than a single producer can make. NRCS's goal for AFA projects is to 
fund proposals that are consistent with RCPP purposes but are more 
effectively and efficiently carried out through lead partner efforts 
than through NRCS's conservation delivery system. AFA criteria are 
published as part of funding announcements when AFA funding is made 
available. AFAs are ``programmatic instruments'' that provide NRCS with 
the ability to balance the flexibility of grants or other agreement 
mechanisms with statutorily mandated responsibilities regarding NRCS 
roles. For all RCPP projects, including AFAs, the statutory limitation 
on administrative costs prohibits use of RCPP funding for a partner's 
indirect costs. Other than removing the parenthetical noted above, 
there are no other changes made in the final rule in response to this 
issue.

Availability of Program Funding (APF)

    Comment: NRCS received comment expressing support for the existing 
APF and requesting that NRCS:
     Clarify its intent to cover project management costs;
     Provide written feedback for projects that are not 
selected; and
     Follow procedures of lead public entities when possible to 
promote efficiency.
    Comment also included request for additional funding and 
flexibility for TA, including TA-only projects or projects focused on 
conservation planning.
    Response: RCPP projects are collaborative, and NRCS works with each 
partner to develop procedural flexibility to help deliver conservation 
assistance effectively in the project area. While partners provide 
significant contribution to project costs, NRCS focuses on the 
technical and financial resources necessary to implement conservation 
activities and covers much of the project costs. For projects that are 
not selected, NRCS provides feedback to partners to help them develop 
more competitive proposals for future submission. NRCS strongly 
supports conservation planning and technical assistance delivery in its 
program implementation efforts, including RCPP, and selects proposals 
that most effectively delivery conservation outcomes. No changes are 
made in the final rule in response to these issues. With respect to TA-
only type projects, the Farm Bill makes clear that all RCPP projects 
are intended to generate conservation benefits and report on 
conservation outcomes, therefore, RCPP should prioritize on-the-ground 
conservation activities plus the TA required to get that conservation 
on the ground. NRCS has an extensive Conservation Technical Assistance 
program that provides such support to its partners.

Easements

Buy-Protect-Sell (BPS) Transactions

    Comment: NRCS received comment related to BPS easement 
transactions, including support for the availability of BPS 
transactions under RCPP and requesting the extension of such 
flexibility to U.S.-held easements. Comment also:
    (a) Recommended that NRCS consider as eligible BPS projects that 
encompass land purchased on an interim basis by State or county 
governments to improve land access by Historically Underserved (HU) 
producers;
    (b) Addressed easement deed terms, recommending that NRCS make the 
minimum deed terms available as soon as possible and provide full 
flexibility in the use of entity-written deed terms; and
    (c) Recommended that the entity match follow ACEP-ALE flexibility, 
which allows a landowner's donation of easement value to constitute all 
of the nonfederal match requirements.
    Response: Based on the ACEP definition, BPS transactions are unique 
transactions that require the transfer of an easement to an eligible 
entity and do not include the United States as the ultimate easement 
holder. ACEP land eligibility is limited to private and

[[Page 3737]]

Tribal lands. In contrast, RCPP land eligibility includes certain 
public lands, and NRCS may allow States and local government agencies 
to enter into a BPS transaction under RCPP. NRCS will announce any 
authorizations for such transactions through an APF.
    NRCS has posted the minimum deed terms to provide a full range of 
options for US-held and entity-held easements. The minimum deed terms 
provide eligible entities with maximum flexibility to use their own 
terms while NRCS ensures that RCPP purposes and requirements are met. 
NRCS will also maintain easement compensation flexibility under the 
final rule. Future APFs will provide information on the best approach 
for leveraging Federal funding and partner efforts.
    No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

U.S.-Held Easement Compensation

    Comment: NRCS received comment about the range of easement types 
available under RCPP, expressing support for the flexibility and 
requesting that NRCS avoid competition between RCPP U.S.-held 
agricultural land easements and other farm protection programs. Comment 
also addressed the easement valuation structure identified in the APF, 
opposing the use of tiered easement compensation based upon level of 
U.S.-held RCPP easement protection. Comment also recommended that NRCS 
consider landowner charitable donation of easement value and landowner 
management activities on an easement as part of the partner's 
contribution.
    Response: The three tiers of compensation paid to landowners 
enrolling in a U.S.-held RCPP easement were established to emphasize 
the partnership nature of RCPP and to ensure that RCPP would not 
compete with other NRCS easement programs. While partner contributions 
are encouraged to compensate landowners fully for enrollment of less 
restrictive easement types, landowner donations of easement value or 
associated management costs cannot be counted as partner contribution. 
Doing so would reduce the incentive for partners to provide assistance 
to producers. For example, when RCPP reimburses a producer for up to 75 
percent of the cost of implementing a conservation practice, the 
remaining 25 percent is the producer's responsibility. If the producer 
solely pays for the 25 percent share, it is not considered a partner 
contribution. A partner contribution only occurs if the partner assists 
the producer with the cost of the practice. NRCS will continue to 
encourage greater partner investment in project success through the 
competitive tiering of easement compensation. No changes are made in 
the final rule in response to these issues.

Eligibility

    Comment: NRCS received comment about land eligibility in general, 
including support for the eligibility of certain public agricultural 
lands and some suggesting expansion of such eligibility to all public 
land. Comment also supported the eligibility of lands owned by non-
governmental organizations, while other comment recommended that 
eligibility be expanded to include forest land under threat from 
grazing by ungulates.\1\ Commenters also expressed appreciation for the 
consistency of land eligibility between the CSP and RCPP interim rules 
and urged NRCS to be flexible in determining whether such land is under 
the ``effective control'' of the producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ungulates are hooved mammals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: NRCS appreciates comments regarding land eligibility with 
respect to lands owned by public and non-governmental entities. The 
RCPP activity type informs whether or not public land or land owned by 
a non-governmental entity is eligible given existing public trust 
protections and related restrictions and the relationship of those 
protections and restrictions to addressing resource concerns. As a 
result, NRCS believes that the current parameters best reflect the 
scope of land eligibility. No changes are made in the final rule in 
response to these issues.

Funding Pools

Critical Conservation Areas

    Comment: NRCS received comments related to Critical Conservation 
Areas (CCAs), including recommending that NRCS:
    (a) Add excess water as a concern for the Mississippi River basin;
    (b) Consolidate the Columbia River basin and the California Bay 
Delta into a single CCA;
    (c) Add water source protection to all eight CCAs;
    (d) Add soil health or soil quality as a priority resource concern 
for all eight CCAs;
    (e) Allow CCA projects to include areas outside of a CCA;
    (f) Continue Conservation Assessment and Ranking Tool (CART) use;
    (g) Expand CCAs to include New England;
    (h) Identify a new CCA focusing on coral reefs in the Pacific 
Islands Areas and the Caribbean Area;
    (i) Identify a new CCA focusing on the Puget Sound;
    (j) Continue the CCA in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
    (k) Update CCAs to cover all 50 states; and
    (l) Clarify that if a proposal is within a CCA it will only receive 
priority if it both achieves conservation benefits and addresses the 
CCA's primary resource concern.
    Response: While lands outside a CCA can influence resource concerns 
within a critical conservation area, NRCS identified CCA boundaries to 
provide clear demarcation. This final rule clarifies that lands outside 
of a CCA are not eligible for proposals or applications in a CCA. The 
regulation is also amended to reflect that NRCS will give priority to 
proposals in CCAs that both (1) achieve conservation benefits and (2) 
address at least one of a CCA's priority resource concerns.
    NRCS appreciates the comments related to CART and suggestions 
regarding RCPP and water resource, soil health, and soil quality. 
Regarding proposed changes to the eight designated CCAs, the Secretary 
identifies CCAs, including whether an existing CCA will be re-
designated. NRCS is working with the Office of the Secretary to 
determine whether the current designation status of CCAs, including the 
re-designation of current CCAs or new CCAs, should be undertaken. No 
changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

Other

    Comment: NRCS received comment related to funding pools that did 
not address CCAs. Comment expressed concern that the National funding 
pool was eliminated and suggested that State Conservationists should be 
the selecting official for the State and Multi-State funding pool.
    Response: The 2018 Farm Bill mandated removal of the National 
funding pool. NRCS provides State Conservationists with advisory 
allocations to guide the State's ranking process. However, the Chief 
makes all final selections. No changes are made in the final rule in 
response to these issues.

Renewals

    Comment: NRCS received support for the renewal process though some 
comment critiqued its competitive nature due to limited funds. Comment 
recommended that a renewal demonstrate the continued need for the 
project and requested that NRCS post renewal criteria prior to 
requesting renewal applications. Comment alternatively recommended 
funding all

[[Page 3738]]

renewal requests that qualify, even if it must be done at a reduced 
rate.
    Response: Renewals of partnership agreements do not compete with 
new proposals, but criteria are needed so that NRCS only renews those 
partnership agreements that represent the best investment of additional 
RCPP resources. To do so, NRCS uses screening questions to determine if 
a project has met or exceeded the original objectives, alongside other 
factors--including available funding and project diversity (geographic 
and type)--to determine which projects will be offered renewal.

Partner Contributions

    Comment: NRCS received comment recommending:
    (a) Increased practice payments to encourage producer participation 
in RCPP projects;
    (b) Clarification that RCPP funding can be stacked with any other 
source of funding;
    (c) Clarification that partners may reduce their contributions if 
NRCS provides an award amount less than the partner's proposal request;
    (d) Landowner donations (for example, related to practice 
implementation) be allowed as partner contributions if they are based 
on verifiable expenses; and
    (e) A flexible structure for partner contributions that match 
overall objectives of individual projects.
    Comment also supported NRCS setting partner contribution goals (for 
example, at least 1:1), allowing partner contribution expenditures 
after award announcement, and the explicit addition of in-kind 
contributions as allowable partner contributions. Comment also 
expressed misplaced concerns that RCPP requires the partner 
contribution match to be made in cash.
    Response: NRCS proportionally reduces expected partner 
contributions when the NRCS award is less than the amount requested, 
unless negotiated differently by the parties. NRCS will not consider 
landowner expenses to be partner contributions because the purpose is 
to stimulate assistance to producers. NRCS will continue to clarify 
contribution requirements in APFs. No changes are made in the final 
rule in response to these issues.

Program Administration

Evaluation Criteria

    Comment: NRCS received comment recommending use of the following 
criteria when evaluating proposals for their conservation impact or 
outcomes, including suggestions that metrics should be used for 
partnership renewals; use of honeybees and other pollinators; use of 
practices to support native vegetation; and implementation of a drought 
contingency plan. Comment also recommended that NRCS:
    (a) Identify selection criteria for partnership agreements, 
including whether there is the availability of alternative funding 
arrangements, in each APF;
    (b) Use a simplified evaluation process;
    (c) Consult with partners on all aspects of distributing RCPP 
financial assistance;
    (d) Utilize fully AFAs;
    (e) Work with local working groups as part of the proposal ranking 
criteria;
    (f) Provide more certainty on reimbursement of real costs of both 
project implementation and proposal development;
    (g) Work with the lead partner to rank and select priority 
projects;
    (h) Involve the lead partner in program contract selection and 
development;
    (i) Provide equal treatment for small, midsize, and large farms;
    (j) Provide an option to forego a public and open enrollment 
process;
    (k) Amend the ``priority resource concern'' definition in Sec.  
1464.3 to highlight soil health as critical to water quality, aquifer 
recharge, carbon sequestration and water retention; and
    (l) Use caution applying ``innovation'' criteria since it is 
difficult to apply to flood damage reduction projects.
    Response: RCPP encourages flexible and streamlined delivery of 
conservation assistance to producers. To maximize its flexibility and 
set it apart from other NRCS programs, evaluation criteria used to 
assess proposals are developed at the APF level. Moving forward, NRCS 
will consider the evaluation criteria proposed by commenters in 
developing APFs and, in doing so, will involve partners, stakeholders, 
and local working groups. Of note, NRCS believes that including 
scientific conclusions about the role of soil health in the definition 
of priority resource concern is not congruent with the concept that 
identifying priority resource concerns depends on the needs of the CCA, 
rather than a broad, national objective. No changes are made in the 
final rule in response to these issues.

General

    Comment: NRCS received comment requesting that NRCS:
    (a) Clarify roles and responsibilities of conservation partners and 
Technical Service Providers (TSPs) from the time of application through 
the implementation phases;
    (b) Simplify the proposal application, ranking, and implementation 
processes (for example, maintain the adjustment of terms option);
    (c) Require in regulation that there be a communication plan 
between NRCS and the lead partner to facilitate the entire RCPP 
project;
    (d) Specify the reporting requirements for both NRCS and RCPP 
partners;
    (e) Clarify when contract type will be determined in the 
application process;
    (f) Provide detail on the documentation and planning of technical 
assistance and contributions;
    (g) Acknowledge source water protection as a goal, and;
    (h) Publish a ``plan for comment'' that outlines how NRCS will 
track and report expenditures towards source water protection.
    Response: NRCS appreciates feedback intended to improve processes 
and delivery. Proposal application questions are specific to each 
funding announcement and are created as part of the funding 
announcement development process. To ensure that projects are feasible 
and meet program goals and objectives, technical experts provide input 
into question development and are involved throughout the evaluation 
and ranking process.
    Programmatic partnership agreements specify the responsibilities 
and expectations of both NRCS and the lead partner from project 
implementation to close. In addition, per Sec.  1464.2, NRCS has 
designated an RCPP coordinator for each State, whose role is to guide 
and assist partners through program implementation. Because the 
existing process provides ample opportunity for communication between 
NRCS and the lead partner, no change is made to the regulation to 
require a communication plan.
    NRCS tracks and documents technical assistance internally. NRCS 
will provide partners a semiannual report that contains the status of 
each pending and obligated contract under each project and an annual 
report describing how NRCS used that fiscal year's TA.
    RCPP funds associated with RCPP producer contracts in a source 
water protection (SWP) area as modeled by the Environmental Protection 
Agency are counted towards the 10 percent of funds that statute 
requires to be utilized for source water protection. This final rule 
adjusted the rule language to incorporate SWP as a priority.

[[Page 3739]]

Historically Underrepresented (HU) Groups

    Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS incorporate 
into the final rule benchmarks related to participation by HU groups to 
reflect the importance and increasing engagement of women who 
participate in RCPP, and to ensure that RCPP does not inadvertently 
favor large landowners. Comment also recommended adding language to 
identify HU groups as a priority in the proposal procedures (Sec.  
1464.20), ranking and proposal selection (Sec.  1464.21), and 
partnership agreement (Sec.  1464.22) sections of the final rule.
    Response: Consistent with the 2018 Farm Bill, NRCS gives priority 
consideration to RCPP proposals that provide outreach to, and 
engagement of, HU groups. (HU groups, as specified in the RCPP 
authorizing legislation, include beginning farmers or ranchers, 
socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, limited resource farmers or 
ranchers, and veteran farmers and ranchers. NRCS has and will continue 
to provide program-specific outreach to HU groups at the national, 
State, and local levels. These efforts are often tailored to the needs 
of the service area, with targeted efforts for HU producers. Gender is 
not a covered HU group, which is specified in the authorizing 
legislation; however, NRCS encourages the participation of all 
producers who are eligible.
    This final rule encourages further HU producer and landowner 
enrollment, including requiring partnership agreements to denote any 
authorizations for higher payment rates, advance payment options, or 
other methods for encouraging HU participation. Changes are made in the 
final rule in response to these issues.

Outcomes Measuring and Reporting

    Comment: NRCS received comment requesting that the rule be updated 
to require partners to assess the conservation progress of their RCPP 
projects ``in a quantified form to the extent practicable.'' Comment 
further recommended the use of existing metrics for outcomes 
measurement, and also suggested that NRCS provide partners with 
geospatial data on new and existing practices to help facilitate 
outcomes measurement and reporting. Additionally, comment expressed 
concern that outcomes activities will further burden already strained 
NRCS staff capacity. Lastly, comment requested dedicated NRCS funding 
for monitoring conservation practices implemented as part of RCPP 
projects.
    Response: The 2018 Farm Bill requires NRCS to gather quantitative 
data regarding conservation benefits, as set forth in the requirements 
of APFs. RCPP lead partners are required, to the extent practicable, to 
report on the conservation environmental outcomes of their projects. 
Reporting on economic, financial, and social outcomes is optional but 
encouraged. NRCS is committed to collaborating with lead partners to 
ensure that their reporting of outcomes help NRCS evaluate the value of 
RCPP investments. No changes are made in the final rule in response to 
these issues.

Payment

    Comment: NRCS received comment suggesting a per-producer payment 
limit of $450,000 under RCPP, consistent with payment limitations under 
EQIP. Comment also suggested that NRCS base payment rates on real, 
local costs using prevailing wages or the regional Consumer Price 
Index.
    Response: Payment limitations, such as those set forth in 7 CFR 
parts 1466 (EQIP) and 1470 (CSP) are established by statute. RCPP does 
not have a statutory payment limitation. NRCS plans to have activity-
level limitations on producer contracts to ensure wider availability of 
funding. These limitations will be identified in partnership agreements 
and posted on NRCS State websites. No changes are made in the final 
rule in response to these issues.

Staff Support

    Comment: NRCS received comment supporting increased NRCS staffing 
to focus on RCPP projects and communicate with partners, including 
strong support for the 2018 Farm Bill's requirement, as reflected in 
the interim rule, that each State identify an RCPP Coordinator.
    Comment emphasized the need for designated program staff (including 
increasing staff where program workload was high) and urged that NRCS 
further support the RCPP State Coordinators by developing job 
descriptions for the new role and providing adequate time needed to 
fulfill the responsibilities. Comment also requested that states 
provide additional local, technical contacts for RCPP projects to 
ensure program goals are achieved and urged process efficiencies that 
allow NRCS technical partners, such as conservation districts, to 
implement projects without incurring NRCS staff time.
    Additionally, NRCS received comment expressing concern about NRCS' 
dependence on partners and TSP, citing insufficient NRCS staffing at 
the state and local levels. Comment also requested that NRCS delegate 
authority to State and regional entities to carry out contract 
deliverables.
    Response: NRCS has designated State RCPP coordinators. NRCS 
appreciates comments expressing concern about NRCS staffing capacity 
and NRCS' ability to meet and customer service needs in States with 
heavy workloads. No changes are made in the final rule in response to 
these issues.

Technical and Software Upgrades

    Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that NRCS involve 
partners in implementing tools such as CART, ensure that all technology 
be in operation prior to accepting applications so that the process 
does not change midstream, and clarify how applicants will be selected 
for different program contract types. Comment additionally recommended 
including a standardized set of application questions and consistent 
reporting requirements, and that these be communicated to potential 
partners earlier in the process. Comment also expressed an interest in 
ensuring CART remain size-neutral.
    Response: NRCS has and will continue to develop and improve our 
business tools, such as CART, including evaluating how to remain size-
neutral. NRCS does not intend to change application procedures over the 
course of an application period, though it will continue to refine the 
process for future application periods. The process for matching an 
applicant with an RCPP contract depends on the nature of the specific 
programmatic agreement. No changes are made in this final rule in 
response to these issues.

Technical Service Providers

    Comment: NRCS received comment about RCPP's use of TSPs, including 
that NRCS do more to encourage the use of TSPs and allow technical 
assistance to be provided by entities other than NRCS-certified TSPs.
    Response: Requirements about delivery of technical services through 
TSPs is covered in 7 CFR part 652. The TSP regulation identifies the 
requirements for a producer to be reimbursed for the cost of hiring a 
TSP to obtain technical services related to an NRCS conservation 
program, including RCPP, and such a TSP must be certified by NRCS. The 
TSP regulation also identifies that NRCS may obtain additional 
assistance in its delivery of technical assistance through a 
procurement contract or cooperative agreements. Since the solicitation

[[Page 3740]]

methods used for those contract or agreement types ensure that NRCS 
obtains assistance from qualified TSPs, the TSP regulations specify 
that such TSPs do not also need to be certified under 7 CFR part 652. 
For more information, visit the NRCS TSP website at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/technical/tsp/. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these 
issues.

Program Contracts

    Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification as to 
whether RCPP contracts can serve to meet existing compliance and 
enforcement requirements. Comment also encouraged separate contracts 
for easements on agricultural land, a focus on co-operators' needs and 
resources rather than program requirements, and that NRCS provide a 
visual depiction as to how the new contracting method will be efficient 
and independent. Comment also expressed support for skipping an 
eligible application on a ranking list if the remaining funding is 
insufficient to fund that application or for other limited 
circumstances that would warrant not selecting applications strictly 
according to rank order.
    Response: Conservation activities funded under RCPP, as with other 
NRCS voluntary conservation programs, can address resource concerns 
that meet a producer's compliance requirements, provided that the 
producer is not under an administrative order or other compulsory 
enforcement process related to the producer's failure to meet those 
requirements. NRCS will provide informational materials to partners 
about the new contracting methods as requested. No changes to the rule 
were needed to address these issues.

Programmatic Partnership Agreements

    Comment: Comment praised approval of salary expenses in PPAs and 
the ability to make selections out of rank order for critical projects. 
Comment also suggested that more clarification is needed in the rule on 
expenses incurred prior to PPA completion, how and when funding will 
become available, how funds for project management can be requested, 
who measures success in TA and FA activities, and how partnerships can 
be terminated.
    Respondents suggested that NRCS should:
    (a) Publicly report on its TA expenditures under PPAs;
    (b) Require lead partners to periodically assess conservation 
benefits;
    (c) Increase PPA length beyond 5 years if needed; and
    (d) Establish that lead partners will be required to follow all 
applicable laws, rules, and guidelines expected of NRCS when awarding 
contracts.
    Response: The RCPP statute specifies the terms for PPAs and no 
change is needed to address agreement duration in this rule. The AFAs 
provide detail as to the ability to receive payment for pre-PPA 
expenses. The terms and conditions associated with terminating a PPA 
are specified in the PPA itself. The regulation addresses the 
consequences should NRCS determine that PPA termination is necessary. 
No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

Proposals

    Comment: NRCS received comment about several aspects of APFs, 
recommending that the RCPP regulation include similar detail as APFs 
regarding proposal requirements and the evaluation process beyond the 
four overarching pillars. Comment also requested language:
    (a) Addressing circumstances under which ``associated'' non-
agricultural lands would be eligible for RCPP;
    (b) Defining ``eligible activities'' more clearly;
    (c) Providing information about the percentages of project funding 
that will be available for FA versus TA; and
    (d) Providing clear guidance on what can and cannot count as direct 
or in-kind partner contribution.
    Further, NRCS received comment:
    (a) Requesting clarity regarding ``innovation'' and 
``flexibility'';
    (b) Identifying that limiting the percentage of funding that can be 
allocated using discretionary prioritization factors would increase 
transparency;
    (c) Requesting that the RCPP Portal be active at the beginning of 
the application process; and
    (d) Recommending language for the regulation to reflect 
conservation benefits as a proposal requirement.
    Response: The funding announcement process and timeline, including 
the application questions and criteria, are published as part of each 
funding announcement. This process provides the greatest program 
flexibility regarding the diversity of partner capabilities, resource 
concerns, and other program goals. The criteria are made public and 
provide transparency about how NRCS is focusing its RCPP 
implementation. The circumstances about eligible activities, associated 
non-agricultural lands, and TA and FA percentages will be addressed in 
upcoming APFs.
    Similarly, APFs include more information about ``innovation,'' 
selection criteria, and weightings as these terms relate to program 
priorities. Establishing funding percentages or limitations in the 
regulation would reduce NRCS's ability to tailor APFs to critical 
resource concerns. In response to comment, this rule revises Sec.  
1464.20(b) to focus proposal priorities on conservation benefits. No 
other changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

RCPP Activity Types

Rental Contract Duration

    Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that RCPP rental 
contracts should be for 10 years, as that is the duration authorized 
under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
    Response: NRCS uses RCPP land rental contracts to focus on short-
term, targeted rental needs in the context of a larger RCPP project, 
unlike the longer-term purpose of CRP rental contracts. RCPP rental 
contracts are focused on actions such as incentivizing adoption of an 
innovative cropping system or to transition to an organic production 
system and thus are short term (3 years). No change was made in 
response to this comment.

Other

    Comment: NRCS received comment covering a variety of RCPP activity 
types. For practice innovation related to land management contracts, 
comment recommended:
    (a) Simplifying the process for adding interim conservation 
practice standards;
    (b) Including practices focused on water recycling, the recycling 
of liquid waste, and the adoption of advanced nutrient recovery 
technology;
    (c) Allowing a flexible fallow program to be eligible; and
    (d) Allowing different practices and approaches to be used in the 
same RCPP project and not limit practices in RCPP project awards.
    For rental contracts, comment recommended:
    (a) Clarifying the availability and eligibility of land-rental 
practices (from CRP), especially for longer contracts and practices;
    (b) Concern about not applying the Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
Program (CREP) authority for riparian buffers;
    (c) Having project partners add a farmer mentor component to 
projects utilizing the short-term land rental option; and
    (d) Clarifying whether the use of CRP authorities (16 U.S.C. 3831-
3835) includes CREP.

[[Page 3741]]

    For easement agreements, comment recommended:
    (a) Expanding the reach of entity-held easements by allowing other 
land, including forested land, wetlands, and riparian areas, as it 
appeared to the commenter that the interim rule decoupled requirements 
specific to NRCS's Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP); and
    (b) Authorizing payments to producers participating in a project 
that addresses water quantity concerns and that would encourage 
conversion from irrigated to dryland farming.
    Comment expressed support for the interim rule's inclusion of 
expanding Public Law 83-566 activities nationwide within RCPP. Finally, 
comment recommended that NRCS continue to allow for greater flexibility 
in RCPP activity types.
    Response: NRCS will maintain the integrity of its RCPP practices to 
ensure wise use of Federal funds while supporting innovation. CREP is a 
component of CRP (administered by FSA), and CREP agreements are 
partnership agreements with state governments. NRCS believes that CREP-
style agreements would be redundant to the RCPP partnership agreement 
and would not aid in meeting RCPP goals efficiently.
    NRCS expanded the availability of both U.S.-held and entity-held 
easements to the full extent of the RCPP land eligibility criteria, and 
therefore the types of easements identified by the comment are already 
available. In addition, the 2018 Farm Bill expanded the availability of 
Public Law 83-566 authority nationwide, and NRCS has entered into PPAs 
that utilize the Public Law 83-566 authority beyond CCAs.
    HFRP land eligibility criteria differs from RCPP criteria. RCPP 
forest land eligibility is limited to non-industrial private forest 
land, while HFRP eligibility encompasses commercial forest land as 
well.
    No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.

Supplemental Agreements

    Comment: Comment expressed support for the addition of supplemental 
agreements to the interim rule and recommended clarifying that NRCS 
consult with the lead partner when entering into a supplemental 
agreement with a non-lead partner and provide fuller discussion and 
clarification of the use of supplemental agreements.
    Response: A supplemental agreement is a flexible vehicle for 
obligating RCPP funding to an eligible partner or third party to carry 
out authorized RCPP activities. Supplemental agreements are used 
generally to award TA funding, to implement watershed or public works 
projects, or to implement an entity-held easement agreement. As a 
condition of supplemental agreement(s), NRCS and a partner may 
negotiate documentation requirements for payment, based on agreement 
deliverables and activities. Supplemental agreements will require 
additional reporting beyond that required of the overall project's lead 
partner. No changes are made in the final rule in response to this 
issue.

Notice and Comment, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Effective Date

    In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) 
requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the 
Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, 
views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, 
except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, 
loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This final rule involves matters 
relating to benefits and therefore is exempt from the APA requirements. 
Further, the regulations to implement the programs of chapter 58 of 
title 16 of the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C. 3846, and the 
administration of those programs, are:
     To be made as an interim rule effective on publication, 
with an opportunity for notice and comment,
     Exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. ch. 
35), and
     To use the authority under 5 U.S.C. 808 related to 
Congressional review and any potential delay in the effective date.
    For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay in 
the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for 
Congressional Review. This rule is a major rule under the Congressional 
Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The authority in 5 U.S.C. 
808 provides that when an agency finds for good cause that notice and 
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
public interest, that the rule may take effect at such time as the 
agency determines. Due to the nature of the rule, the mandatory 
requirements of the 2018 Farm Bill, and the need to implement the 
regulations expeditiously to provide RCPP assistance to producers, NRCS 
and CCC find that full notice and public procedure are contrary to the 
public interest. Therefore, even though this rule is a major rule for 
purposes of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, NRCS and CCC are not 
required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of 
publication to allow for Congressional review. Therefore, this rule is 
effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register. At the 
same time, NRCS and CCC note that this final rule reflects 
consideration of the comments that were provided in response to the 
interim rule.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771, and 13777

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 
direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 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 emphasized the importance 
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of 
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, 
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,'' established a federal 
policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American 
people.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as 
economically significant under Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, 
OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are 
summarized below. The full regulatory impact analysis is available on 
https://www.regulations.gov/.
    Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs,'' requires that in order to manage the private costs 
required to comply with federal regulations for every new significant 
or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be 
offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. This rule 
involves transfer payments and does not rise to the level required to 
comply with Executive Order 13771.
    OMB guidance in M-17-21, dated April 5, 2017, specifies that 
``transfer rules'' are not covered by Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' Transfer rules are 
Federal spending regulatory actions that cause only income transfers 
between taxpayers and program beneficiaries. Therefore, this is 
considered a transfer rule and is not covered by Executive Order 13771.

[[Page 3742]]

Cost Benefit Analysis

    RCPP is a voluntary collaborative program that provides financial 
and technical assistance to partner organizations to help agricultural 
producers plan and implement conservation activities to address natural 
resource concerns on private or Tribal agricultural, nonindustrial 
private forest and certain associated lands. RCPP was first authorized 
by Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill. To date, 375 projects have been 
selected across the U.S. and Puerto Rico leveraging $1 billion in NRCS 
technical and financial assistance with approximately $1.3 billion in 
partner contributions.
    Under the 2014 Farm Bill, conservation activities were undertaken 
through partnership agreements (between NRCS and a lead partner) and 
contracts or agreements with eligible landowners, entities, and 
individuals under one or more covered programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP, HFRP, 
and Pub. L. 83-566). EQIP, CSP, and ACEP each contributed seven percent 
of their annual funding toward RCPP partnership projects. In addition, 
the 2014 Farm Bill provided $100 million annually in direct RCPP 
mandatory funding.
    The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized RCPP with significant changes to 
how RCPP is funded. Specifically, the contributions from ``covered 
programs'' are eliminated as a funding source and ``covered program 
contracts'' are replaced with RCPP contracts and programmatic 
partnership agreements.
    The 2018 Farm Bill repeals the seven percent reserved resources 
from the covered programs, provides $300 million in annual mandatory 
CCC funding, and establishes RCPP standalone contracts. Federal 
transfers under the 2014 Farm Bill totaled slightly more than $1 
billion for FY2014 through 2018, or $200 million on an annual basis. 
The $300 million in mandatory annual funding increases RCPP funding by 
approximately $100 million annually, taking into account the past 
contribution of the ``covered programs'' for fiscal years 2014 through 
2018.
    The 2018 Farm Bill also changed the ``funding pool'' structure by 
streamlining from three pools to two pools and providing 50 percent of 
funds to a CCA pool and 50 percent of funds to a state and multi-state 
pool. It also allows project renewals and creates new programmatic 
authorities and expectations for the administration of agreements with 
partners. In addition, application and renewal processes are simplified 
to encourage participation by both producers and project partners. To 
ensure that only the most successful of projects qualify for renewal on 
a non-competitive basis, NRCS has identified in this rule that a 
partner has met or exceeded the objectives of the original project in 
order to be considered for renewal.
    Estimates of costs, benefits, and transfers of RCPP on an annual 
basis are reported in Table 1. Given a 3 percent discount rate, the 
projected annualized real cost to producers of accessing RCPP is 
$204,258 and the projected annualized real transfers are $289 million. 
Conservation benefits from RCPP are difficult to quantify at a national 
scale but have been described by studies at an individual project or 
watershed or local scale as it relates the different types of 
conservation practices implemented.

     Table 1--RCPP Annual Estimated Costs, Benefits and Transfers a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                          Annual estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs \b\.............................  $204,258.
Benefits..............................  Qualitative.
Transfers.............................  $289,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are discounted at 3 percent to 2019 $ except for the
  participant access cost, which is nominal.
\b\ Imputed cos[t] of applicant time to gain access to RCPP.

    Most of this rule's impact consists of transfer payments from the 
Federal Government to producers or to partners for the benefit of 
producers. The conservation benefits of RCPP financial and technical 
assistance funding delivered to date have been directly comparable to 
that provided by covered programs (EQIP, CSP, ACEP, etc.), and similar 
benefits are expected from RCPP funding under the 2018 Farm Bill.
    Additionally, conservation benefits of partner contributions and 
collaboration in RCPP projects are expected to magnify the benefits of 
RCPP funding over each project's life, offsetting initial delays in 
obligation and implementation. NRCS will discuss methods to quantify 
the incremental benefits obtained from RCPP with lead partners, but due 
to the 5-year life of a typical RCPP project, only limited data are 
available at this time to support this conclusion. Therefore, NRCS and 
partners may use various mechanisms such as modeling to predict long-
term outcomes. Despite these data limitations, RCPP is expected to 
positively affect natural resource concerns--through both the $300 
million in funding provided annually by Congress and by the leverage of 
partner contributions.

Clarity of the Regulation

    Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition 
to the substantive comments NRCS received on the interim rule, NRCS 
invited public comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. 
NRCS has incorporated these recommendations for improvement where 
appropriate. NRCS responses to public comment are described in more 
detail above.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis 
of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to 
publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
because no law requires that a proposed rule be published for this 
rulemaking initiative.

Environmental Review

    The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a 
manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council 
on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NRCS 
regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 650). The 2018 Farm 
Bill requires minor changes to NRCS conservation programs, and there 
are no changes to the basic structure of the programs. The analysis has 
determined that there will not be a significant impact to the human 
environment and as a result, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 
not required to be prepared (40 CFR1501.5 and 1501.6). While OMB has 
designated this rule as ``economically significant'' under Executive 
Order 12866, ``. . . economic or social effects are not intended by 
themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact 
statement'' (40 CFR 1502.16(b)), when not interrelated to natural or 
physical environmental effects. The Environmental Assessment (EA) and 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were available for review and 
comment for 30 days from the date of publication of this interim rule 
in the Federal Register. NRCS considered this input and determined that 
there was not

[[Page 3743]]

any new information provided that was relevant to environmental 
concerns or bore on the proposed action or its impacts that warranted 
an environmental impact statement or revising the current available 
RCPP EA and FONSI.

Executive Order 12372

    Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal 
Programs,'' requires consultation with State and local officials that 
would be directly affected by proposed federal financial assistance. 
The objectives of the Executive order are to foster an 
intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying 
on State and local processes for State and local government 
coordination and review of proposed federal financial assistance and 
direct federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule 
related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 
24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from 
the scope of Executive Order 12372.

Executive Order 12988

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform.'' This rule will not preempt State or local laws, 
regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable 
conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought 
regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal 
provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted, consistent with 7 
U.S.C. 6912(e).

Executive Order 13132

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, 
``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule do not have any 
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as 
required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, 
consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

    This 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 USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact 
of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not 
have significant Tribal implications that require Tribal consultations. 
Moreover, OTR states that NRCS has adhered to the spirit and intent of 
Executive Order 13175. Tribal consultation for this rule was included 
in the two 2018 Farm Bill Tribal consultation held on May 1, 2019, at 
the National Museum of the American Indian, in Washington, DC, and on 
June 26-28, 2019, in Sparks, NV. For the May 1, 2019, Tribal 
consultation, the portion of the Tribal consultation relative to this 
rule was conducted by Bill Northey, USDA Under Secretary for the Farm 
Production and Conservation mission area, as part of the Title II 
session. There were no specific comments from Tribes on the RCPP rule 
during the Tribal consultation. If a tribe requests additional 
consultation, NRCS will work with OTR to ensure that meaningful 
consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications 
identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by legislation.
    Separate from Tribal consultation, communication and outreach 
efforts are in place to assure that all producers, including Tribes (or 
their members), are provided information about the regulation changes. 
Specifically, NRCS obtains input through Tribal Conservation Advisory 
Councils. A Tribal Conservation Advisory Council may be an existing 
Tribal committee or department and may also constitute an association 
of member Tribes organized to provide direct consultation to NRCS at 
the State, regional, and national levels to provide input on NRCS 
rules, policies, programs, and impacts on Tribes. Tribal Conservation 
Advisory Councils provide a venue for agency leaders to gather input on 
Tribal interests. Additionally, NRCS held discussions subsequent to the 
interim rule publication with Indian Tribes and Tribal entities to 
continue discussions about the 2018 Farm Bill conservation programs 
implementation, obtain input about how to improve Tribal and Tribal 
member access to NRCS conservation assistance, and make any appropriate 
adjustments to the regulations that will foster such improved access.

Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 
104-4), requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal Governments or the 
private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, 
including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with 
federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal Governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies 
to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost-effective or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This 
rule contains no federal mandates, as defined under Title II of UMRA, 
for State, local, and Tribal Governments or the private sector. 
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA.

Federal Assistance Programs

    The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Programs in 
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies:
    10.932--Regional Conservation Partnership Program.

E-Government Act Compliance

    NRCS and CCC are 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 services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1464

    Agricultural operations, Conservation payments, Conservation 
practices, Eligible activities, Environmental credits, Forestry 
management, Natural resources, Resource concern, Soil and water 
conservation, Wildlife.

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 1464, which was 
published at 85 FR 8131 on February 13, 2020, including the technical 
correction published at 85 FR 15051 on March 17, 2020, is adopted as a 
final rule with the following changes:

PART 1464--REGIONAL CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 1464 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3871 et seq.

[[Page 3744]]


0
2. In Sec.  1464.3, amend the definition of ``Priority resource 
concern'' by revising paragraphs (1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  1464.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Priority resource concern * * *
    (1) Water quality improvement, including source water protection, 
through measures such as reducing erosion, promoting sediment control, 
or addressing nutrient management activities affecting large bodies of 
water of regional, national, or international significance;
    (2) Water quantity improvement, including protection or improvement 
relating to:
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  1464.20 revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) as follows:


Sec.  1464.20  Proposal procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The scope of the proposed project, including one or more 
conservation benefits that the project must achieve;
    (2) A plan for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on progress 
made toward achieving the project's conservation objectives;
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  1464.21 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(5), removing the word ``or'' and add the word 
``and'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(7), removing the word ``or'';
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(8) as paragraph (b)(9);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (b)(8); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(4).
    The additions read as follows.


Sec.  1464.21  Ranking consideration and proposal selection.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) To a significant extent involve--
    (i) Historically underserved producers;
    (ii) A community-based organization comprising, representing, or 
exclusively working with historically underserved producers;
    (iii) Developing an innovative conservation approach or technology 
specifically targeting historically underserved producers' unique needs 
and limitations; or
    (iv) An 1890 or 1994 land grant institution (7 U.S.C. 3222 et 
seq.), Hispanic-serving institution (20 U.S.C. 1101a), or other 
minority-serving institution, such as an historically Black college or 
university (20 U.S.C. 1061), a tribally controlled college or 
university (25 U.S.C. 1801), or Asian American and Pacific Islander-
serving institution (20 U.S.C. 1059g); or
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Lands outside of a CCA are not eligible for consideration under 
the CCA funding pool, even where such land may influence resource 
concerns within the CCA.

0
5. Amend Sec.  1464.22 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(11) and (12) as paragraphs (d)(12) and 
(13);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d)(11).
    The addition reads as set forth below.


Sec.  1464.22  Partnership agreements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (11) Provide a detailed description of how the lead partner will 
facilitate participation of historically underserved producers 
(including through advance payment options, increased payment rates, 
outreach activities, or other methods for increasing participation by 
historically underserved producers) if the proposal received increased 
ranking priority as described in Sec.  1464.21(b)(8);
* * * * *


Sec.  1464.25  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  1466.25 amend paragraph (b)(2) by removing the 
parenthetical phrase ``(such as roads, dams, and irrigation 
facilities)''.

0
7. In Sec.  1464.30, add paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  1464.30  Application for program contracts and selecting 
applications for funding.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Lands outside of a CCA are not eligible for applications in the 
CCA, even where conservation efforts on such land may influence 
resource concerns within the CCA.

Kevin Norton,
Acting Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Robert Stephenson,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2021-00300 Filed 1-12-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P