[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Agriculture Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Description of Regulatory Priorities
Major Goal and Missions
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embarked on a major 
streamlining and reinvention program as an outgrowth of the National 
Performance Review (NPR). The most prominent NPR recommendation, which 
also defines our major goal, is to: ``Reorganize the Department of 
Agriculture to better accomplish its mission, streamline its field 
structure, and improve service to its customers.'' Secretary Mike Espy 
has further directed that this goal be accomplished in an environment 
that empowers and challenges the USDA career staff to produce the 
highest level of efficiency and service to the American public in 
general and the rural and farming community in particular. To achieve 
our goal, the Secretary has submitted to the Congress a proposal for a 
major restructuring and streamlining of the USDA which has four key 
objectives: (1) Refocus and simplify the USDA's headquarters structure, 
(2) improve accountability and service to customers by reforming USDA 
management control systems (including procedures for the development 
and review of regulations), (3) reform the USDA field structure, and 
(4) reduce costs. Under the proposal, the agencies of the Department 
would be reengineered around six basic missions which would create a 
streamlined and revitalized department. These missions are:

 Service to farmers and ranchers;
 Community and economic development in rural areas;
 Food, nutrition, and consumer services;
 Conservation programs:
 Food quality and service; and
 Research, education and economics.
When Congressional action on the restructuring proposal is complete, 
the USDA will realign its regulatory holdings in the Code of Federal 
Regulations and take the other actions necessary to bring our 
regulatory procedures in line with the restructuring.
The Role of Regulations
The programs of the Department are diverse and far-reaching, as are the 
regulations that attend their delivery. Regulations codify how the 
Department will conduct its business including the specifics of access 
to and eligibility for USDA programs. Regulations also specify the 
behavior of State and local Governments, private industry, businesses, 
and individuals necessary to comply with their provisions. The 
diversity in purpose and outreach of our programs contributes 
significantly to the USDA being at or near the top of Departments which 
produce the largest number of regulations annually. They range from 
nutrition standards for the school lunch program, to natural resource 
and environmental measures governing National Forest usage and soil 
conservation, to regulations protecting American agribusiness (the 
largest dollar value contributor to exports) from the ravages of 
domestic or foreign plant or animal pestilence, and extend from farm to 
supermarket to ensure the safety, quality, and availability of the 
Nation's food supply. Many regulations function in a dynamic 
environment which requires their periodic modification. The factors 
determining various entitlement, eligibility, and administrative 
criteria often change from year to year. Therefore, many significant 
regulations must be revised annually to reflect changes in economic and 
market benchmarks. Almost all legislation that affects USDA programs 
has accompanying regulatory needs, often with a significant impact. Two 
current examples are a bill before the Congress to reform crop 
insurance and the upcoming 1995 Farm Bill. The crop insurance bill will 
require broader farmer participation in the program, and by reducing 
non-insurance disaster payments, lower the overall cost of indemnifying 
farmers for crop losses. Further, the Congress enacts a new ``Farm 
Bill'' every five years, and 1995 marks the start of the next five-year 
cycle. This seminal legislation affects most agencies of the USDA and 
results in the addition of new programs, the deletion of others and 
modification to still others. While the specifics of these bills are 
not presently known, their passage will have considerable regulatory 
consequences.
Administration Guidance--USDA Response
In developing and implementing regulations the Department has been 
guided by the regulatory principles and philosophy set forth by the 
President in Executive Order No. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.'' As prescribed in the Order, the USDA is committed to 
``promulgate only those regulations that are required by law, are 
necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling 
public need.'' When considering a rulemaking action, the USDA will 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, 
including the alternative of not regulating, if allowed by law. Our 
analysis will consider the costs and benefits of both quantifiable and 
qualitative measures, and opt for approaches that maximize net 
benefits.
The following are examples of USDA response mechanisms that have been 
undertaken as a result of regulation improvement guidance found in 
Presidential directives, the ``Accompanying Report Of The National 
Performance Review, Improving Regulatory Systems,'' and OMB/OIRA 
instructions:

 Simplified Review Procedures--The process for developing new 
            regulations in USDA is being thoroughly reviewed to 
            identify and implement streamlining opportunities. There is 
            already in place a procedure that provides for expedited 
            review of ``not significant'' regulations. The Department 
            has also worked cooperatively with OMB to improve the 
            coordination of classification and clearance activities. 
            Simple interactive procedures have been developed and 
            communication has been excellent. The USDA is also 
            exploring opportunities to apply innovative rulemaking 
            approaches. To this end, the Animal Plant and Health 
            Inspection Service is conducting a reinvention laboratory 
            to improve the timeliness of regulations by streamlining 
            the legal review and concurrence process.
 Improved Impact Statements--With respect to ``significant 
            regulations,'' the USDA is working to strengthen the impact 
            analyses which support these regulations. For instance, the 
            impact statement supporting the recently announced School 
            Meals Initiative involved a cooperative effort between 
            Executive Operations staff, the Economic Research Service, 
            and the Food and Nutrition Service to identify and quantify 
            the considerable body of analysis needed to fully represent 
            the impact of this rule on dietary habits, program delivery 
            considerations, and economic impacts on agricultural 
            markets. The resulting impact statement provided an 
            authoritative analysis for this important regulation. Of 
            even greater importance is that the regulation itself will 
            make a major contribution to the health and nutrition of 
            school children all over the country.
 Reduced Paperwork Burdens--The Department is reviewing its 
            existing regulations with an eye toward reducing paperwork 
            and other regulatory burdens wherever possible. One of the 
            USDA's largest agencies, the Agricultural Stabilization and 
            Conservation Service (ASCS), has conducted a comprehensive 
            regulatory review and identified changes in its procedures 
            and forms which will greatly reduce the complexity and 
            paperwork imposed on participants in its programs. In a 
            related project, but not limited to just paperwork, all the 
            agencies of the USDA have completed a review of existing 
            significant regulations to identify opportunities to do 
            away with unneeded regulations and/or modify others to 
            reduce complexity and improve efficiency and customer 
            services.
 Fewer Internal Regulations--Executive Order 12861 directs that 
            all internal agency regulations be reduced by 50% over a 3-
            year period. A reduction in overall regulations will aid in 
            streamlining work throughout USDA and ease reporting 
            burdens within the Department. USDA has developed an 
            implementation plan and performance measures for achieving 
            the 50% reduction. Progress reports will be submitted to 
            OMB in September 1994 and 1995, with a final report in 
            September of 1996.
 Consensus-Based Rulemaking--In compliance with the President's 
            request to explore non-traditional means of rulemaking, 
            USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is 
            conducting an important regulation regarding marine mammal 
            health and safety using the negotiated rulemaking 
            technique.
 Interagency Consultation--Regulations can often be improved by 
            the involvement of other agencies. A recent final rule 
            regarding the data requirements of the Farmland Protection 
            Act was distributed for review. Several agencies offered 
            suggestions to reduce workload by describing more precisely 
            how lands subject to the Act should be defined and 
            identified. There were also suggestions for improving the 
            interagency consultation process. A series of meetings was 
            facilitated by OMB which allowed the parties involved to 
            air their concerns and negotiate approaches to resolving 
            disagreements.
 Improving Regulatory Tools--The Department participates in the 
            four subgroups that have spun off of the parent Regulatory 
            Working Group; viz., Simplification, Electronic Rulemaking, 
            Cost Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment. Procedures are 
            being established for the Departmental representatives on 
            the various working groups to communicate and coordinate 
            with each other and to disseminate information from their 
            meetings to interested parties throughout the Department.
Major Regulatory Priorities
In 1993, ten of the 43 USDA agencies accounted for 523 of 540 Federal 
Register entries. There are five agencies represented in this 
Regulatory Plan. They are the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, Farmers Home Administration, Food and Nutrition Service, 
Forest Service, and Food Safety and Inspection Service. Last year their 
published rules constituted 37 percent of the Department's regulatory 
output.
This document presents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in E.O. 12866. A brief comment on each of the 
five agencies appears below which summarizes the agency mission and its 
key regulatory priorities. A summary is also included for the 
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, which is a major 
publisher of commodity regulations. While ASCS regulations are very 
significant, they are largely formula driven, and for that reason have 
not been presented with the Plan entries. The agency summaries are 
followed by the Regulatory Plan entries.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: Few government agencies have a more pervasive influence on the 
public than the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The FSIS is 
responsible for ensuring that the Nation's meat and poultry supply is 
safe, wholesome, unadulterated and properly packaged and labeled.
Priorities: Consistent with the President's call for a regulatory 
system that works for the people and protects and improves their health 
and safety, FSIS has undertaken a thorough review of existing 
regulations to identify changes that could be taken to improve the food 
safety of the meat and poultry supply, make available new production 
technologies and provide more complete information to consumers. The 
review has resulted in regulatory actions, such as mandatory safe-
handling labels; processing procedures and cooking instructions for 
cooked, uncured meat patties; the use of organic sprays on beef, lamb, 
and pork; and the use of nutritional labeling on meat and poultry 
products.
A particularly significant regulation presented in the 1994 Regulatory 
Plan is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
initiative. HACCP is an internationally recognized process control 
system to prevent problems from occurring during the course of 
production as opposed to after the product is produced. This rule would 
amend the meat and poultry inspection regulations to mandate the use of 
HACCP systems to ensure that production processes are in control and 
producing safe and unadulterated product. The development of this rule 
has benefitted from public input in the form of an FSIS-sponsored HACCP 
roundtable attended by scientists, public health officials, consumer 
group representatives, inspectors, industry representatives, and 
farmers.
Another significant FSIS rulemaking action would simultaneously benefit 
public health and safety and simplify poultry inspection by replacing 
the several existing poultry inspection systems with a single, 
standardized, industry-wide inspection system. Also planned is a 
regulation that would eliminate duplication in the prior labeling 
approval system, contributing to greater efficiency in government 
services. The alternatives being considered would eliminate millions of 
dollars in direct labeling costs without compromising the accuracy and 
amount of information provided to the consumer.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
protects U.S. animal and plant resources from destructive diseases and 
pests, and ensures humane care and treatment of animals. The agency's 
programs address both domestic prevention and eradication programs as 
well as inspection and quarantine services at U.S. ports of entry to 
prevent the introduction of foreign or exotic diseases or pests.
Priorities: The top regulatory priorities of APHIS will be: to 
establish comprehensive regulations for the importation of 
nonindigenous species, to establish updated and specific standards for 
the humane care and treatment of captive marine mammals. The 
regulations on nonindigenous species will help prevent the introduction 
of harmful plant pests. The marine mammal regulations, which are being 
developed through the negotiated rulemaking process, support the 
President's directive to widen the application of that rulemaking 
technique. Lastly, APHIS is supporting the Vice President's National 
Performance Review through the conduct of a ``reinvention laboratory'' 
to simplify rulemaking.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service (FS) is the stewardship of 
the U.S. National Forests. Major activities include; conservation and 
resource protection, public recreation, forestry research, and resource 
management.
Priorities: The President's environmental program includes efforts to 
incorporate the principles of ecosystem management in natural resource 
decisionmaking on the National Forests. In support of that effort, 
proposed regulations will be published governing the amendment, 
revision, and implementation of forest land management plans. 
Significantly, the regulation will also streamline the planning process 
and update planning procedures and requirements in order to reflect 
court decisions and the agency's experience gained with the first 
generation of forest plans.
Other regulatory actions will be taken which deal with specific 
resource management issues. These include: policy and guidelines 
addressing below-cost timber sale programs on individual national 
forests; a revision and expansion of current regulations governing the 
export of Federal timber or the substitution of Federal timber for 
private timber which is exported, as required by the Forest Resources 
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990; the establishment of a 
new system for determining grazing fees in the Western States and 
revision of the National Forest System rangeland management regulations 
to place greater emphasis on stewardship of the rangeland resource; 
finally, the regulations governing noncommercial group use and 
distribution of printed material on National Forest System lands will 
be revised.
Farmers Home Administration
Mission: The mission of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)/Rural 
Development Administration (RDA) involves the administration and 
delivery of a broad range of loan, grant, and technical assistance 
programs for the benefit of individual rural residents, communities, 
businesses, and other entities for farm, housing and rural development 
purposes. The provisions of FmHA/RDA programs, such as eligibility 
requirements, loan and grant uses, targeting requirements, and loan 
servicing benefits, tend to be specified in authorizing legislation; 
therefore, there is limited discretion in the promulgation of 
regulations. However, FmHA/RDA is actively reviewing its regulations 
for opportunities to reduce the paperwork burden on program 
participants, streamlining operations, and providing better controls to 
avoid waste, fraud and abuse.
Priority: The significant regulation appearing in this plan results 
from a comprehensive review of the single family housing program. Major 
changes in the rule are being proposed to improve and simplify the 
administration of the program. These changes include: providing more 
flexibility with regard to size and amenity restrictions for direct 
loans, use of income ratios instead of a family budget for determining 
repayment ability, changes to the interest credit calculation method to 
base any subsidy on a family's percentile of area median income, and 
changes in the method of selecting and processing applications. This 
latter initiative focuses on the NPR theme of better ``customer 
service'' by setting up a separate fund at the State level for priority 
applicants. Applications of families in hardship situations would be 
given expedited handling.
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: The mission of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is to 
administer domestic food assistance programs which provide access to a 
more nutritious diet for persons with low income and encourage better 
eating habits among all Americans, particularly the Nation's children.
Priorities: FNS has established four policy and programmatic goals for 
the coming year which are enabled and/or supported by the seven 
regulatory actions in this Plan and by other regulations under 
development. These goals include:

 Integrate greater emphasis on nutrition and nutrition 
            education into each of the domestic food programs as part 
            of the Administration's plan for promoting the health of 
            all Americans, particularly the Nation's children, and as a 
            corollary to the President's Health Care Reform initiative. 
            The Plan contains a rule to implement nutrition objectives 
            for school meals.
 Improve the efficiency and integrity of the food assistance 
            programs. An example of program simplification and 
            administrative improvement would be implementation of 
            electronic benefit transfer.
 In decisions relating to procedural requirements for FNS 
            programs, particularly regulations, opportunities will be 
            explored to reduce burden on program operators and 
            recipients, while maintaining program integrity and 
            achieving program objectives.
 In support of the President's welfare reform initiative, FNS 
            will seek means to increase the similarity and coordination 
            among domestic food assistance programs, as well as among 
            the means tested programs administered by other Departments 
            and the States.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Mission: The mission of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 
Service (ASCS) is prescribed by various statutes which require the 
agency to: operate commodity programs to support commodity prices and 
the incomes of producers in a manner that will provide producers 
flexibility to respond to changing market conditions, maintain adequate 
carry-over stocks of vital commodities, maintain an agricultural 
resource base and protect the environment through voluntary 
conservation programs, and to facilitate the orderly marketing and 
distribution of certain commodities through Commodity Credit 
Corporation operations. These goals are addressed through various means 
including loans, purchases, deficiency payments, conservation 
compliance, and production adjustment programs.
Priorities: The most significant ASCS regulations are those which 
implement crop and commodity programs. Such regulations are adjusted 
annually to reflect changes required by statutory formula and/or 
commodity market conditions. These recurring rulemaking actions will 
implement 1995-crop price and income support and production adjustment 
programs for wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, extra-long staple 
cotton, and rice. Other crop regulations will include a price support 
program for oilseeds, a poundage quota and price support program for 
peanuts, and a marketing quota and price support program for tobacco. 
While these crop programs have significant economic impact, they are 
driven by statute and very specific program level setting formulae. 
Therefore, they are noted here to acknowledge their significance in the 
overall USDA regulatory plan, but are not further listed in the body of 
the plan which appears below.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
1. ANIMAL WELFARE--STANDARDS FOR MARINE MAMMALS
Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2131 to 2159


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department regulates the treatment of certain marine mammals under 
the Animal Welfare Act. The present standards for treatment of these 
animals have been in effect for over 9 years. During this time, 
advances have been made and new information has been developed with 
regard to the housing and care of marine mammals. The Department has 
given notice of its review of the present standards to determine what 
revisions or additions might be necessary, and has requested comments 
on appropriate specific standards for treatment of marine mammals. The 
Department is conducting negotiated rulemaking and developing proposed 
changes to the regulations.


Statement of Need:


In accordance with the Secretary's authority under the Animal Welfare 
Act (the Act), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will 
revise the animal welfare regulations to establish updated standards 
for the care of marine mammals. The Department will use negotiated 
rulemaking. Areas to be discussed during the rulemaking process will 
include but not be limited to, space requirements, transportation, 
``swim-with-the-dolphins programs,'' noise levels, water temperatures 
and quality, recordkeeping, feeding, and solitary confinement of marine 
mammals. It will be conducted in consultation with the Department of 
Commerce. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate 
standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, 
housing, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by 
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate 
handlers. Under the Act, the Department established standards in 1979 
for marine mammals used for research or exhibition purposes. These 
standards were amended in 1984. During the 10 years since the standards 
were amended, advances have been made, new information has been 
developed, and new concepts have been implemented with regard to the 
housing and care of marine mammals.


Alternatives:


Options for standards will be discussed during the rulemaking process. 
This approach will enable affected parties and other interest groups to 
reach a consensus on updated standards prior to publication of a 
proposed rule. An alternative of making no changes to the regulations 
would not take advantage of advances made and new information available 
regarding the care of marine mammals.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of the proposed regulatory changes will be dependent on which 
alternatives are determined during the rulemaking process to be most 
appropriate. The benefits, consisting primarily of the achievement of a 
socially optimal level of animal welfare, will not be easily 
measurable.


Risks:


The animal welfare regulations are not intended to reduce ``risk'' in 
the usual sense. The primary risk involved is that, in the absence of 
regulatory requirements, entities might not achieve a socially optimal 
level of animal welfare in their activities.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 39458                                    07/23/93
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/06/93
NPRM                                                           00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Agency Contact:
Dr. Richard Crawford
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Room 554, Federal Building
6505 Belcrest Road
Hyattsville, MD 20782
301 436-4981
RIN: 0579-AA59
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
2. INTRODUCTION OF NONINDIGENOUS ORGANISMS
Legal Authority:


 7 USC 150aa to 150jj; 7 USC 151 to 167; 7 USC 1622n; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 335


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The scope of the Federal plant pest regulation in 7 CFR 330.200 and the 
noxious weed regulations in 7 CFR 360 is limited to the importation and 
interstate movement of recognized plant pests and noxious weeds; the 
importation and interstate movement of nonindigenous organisms not 
known to present a plant-pest risk, as well as the release of such 
organisms into the environment, are not addressed. We believe that 
APHIS must supplement its current regulations to prevent or minimize 
the potential problems presented by the introduction (importation, 
interstate movement, and the release into the environment) of 
nonindigenous organisms whose plant-pest status is unknown. The 
proposed regulations would allow APHIS to examine nonindigenous 
organisms proposed for introduction, evaluate their plant-pest risk, 
and, if necessary, assign conditions to their introduction in order to 
prevent plant-pest dissemination.


Statement of Need:


The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is developing 
comprehensive regulations to govern the introduction (importation, 
interstate movement, and release into the environment) of certain 
nonindigenous organisms.


The scope of the plant pest regulations in 7 CFR 330.200 is limited to 
the movement of known plant pests; the movement of nonindigenous 
organisms not known to present a plant pest risk, as well as the 
release of such organisms into the environment, are not addressed. A 
recent report on nonindigenous species that was prepared by the U.S. 
Congress's Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), ``Harmful Non-
Indigenous Species in the United States'' (OTA-F-565, Washington, DC; 
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993) (referred to below as 
the OTA report), recommends that APHIS more closely examine any 
proposed introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release 
into the environment) into the United States of a nonindigenous 
organism.


As U.S. Agriculture's ``first line of defense,'' APHIS will supplement 
its current regulations to prevent or minimize the potential problems 
presented by the introduction of nonindigenous organisms whose plant 
pest status is unknown. Therefore, we are developing comprehensive 
regulations to govern the introduction of nonindigenous organisms that 
we have reason to believe may be plant pests or may result in the 
introduction or dissemination of plant pests.


Alternatives:


A ``no-action'' alternative would continue the current process of 
reviewing all requests for permits to introduce organisms under the 
plant pest regulations in 7 CFR 330.200. This alternative would 
continue to ignore the movement of nonindigenous organisms whose plant 
pest status is unknown or the release of such organisms into the 
environment.


We are also considering revisions to the plant pest regulations in 7 
CFR 330.200 to make them better suited to reviewing requests to 
introduce nonindigenous organisms. Under this alternative, we may need 
to retain specific regulations for the movement of known plant pests 
and add specific provisions for the release into the environment of 
organisms whose plant pest status is unknown. We will ensure that the 
regulations do not result in confusion on the part of permit 
applicants.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The applicants for permits to introduce nonindigenous organisms have 
been researchers, scientists, private businesses, and agricultural 
producers. Approximately two-thirds of all applicants have been 
nonprofit entities. Most of the applicants are considered to be small 
entities.


We anticipate that the costs of preparing a permit application for the 
majority of the nonindigenous organisms covered by the proposed 
regulations would be negligible because most, if not all, of the data 
that we would require would already be known to the applicant. We 
anticipate developing regulations that will enable all permit 
applications to realize time and cost savings as a result of the 
clearly defined data requirements and a streamlined review process.


Risks:


The risks associated with the introduction of nonindigenous organisms 
were discussed in the OTA report mentioned above, which cited losses in 
the billions of dollars that can be attributed to the negative effects 
of certain nonindigenous organisms. Despite APHIS's enforcement of 
existing regulations that govern known plant pests, some nonindigenous 
organisms that have been deliberately introduced into the United States 
may have become plant pests following their introduction. APHIS hopes 
to mitigate such risks by adopting new regulations designed to allow 
the thorough screening of nonindigenous organisms proposed for entry 
into the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
Dr. Matthew H. Royer
Chief Operations Officer
BATS, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Room 626, Federal Building
6505 Belcrest Road
Hyattsville, MD 20782
301 436-8896
RIN: 0579-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
3. SECTION 502 RURAL HOUSING LOAN POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND 
AUTHORIZATIONS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1480; 7 CFR 2.23; 7 CFR 2.70; 7 USC 1989; 7 USC 301


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 1944 subpart A; 7 CFR 1910 subpart A; 7 CFR 1965 subpart C; 7 
CFR 1951 subpart G; 7 CFR 1944 subpart J; 7 CFR 1924 subpart C; 7 CFR 
1930 subpart C; 7 CFR 1941 subpart A; 7 CFR 1944 subpart D; 7 CFR 1944 
subpart N; 7 CFR 1951 subpart M; 7 CFR 1951 subpart S; 7 CFR 1955 
subpart B


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will make major revisions on single family housing loan 
making regulation including elimination of housing restrictions and new 
concepts of modest housing, revised method of granting interest credit, 
use of ratios for determining repayment ability, changes in application 
processing and changes in maximum loan limits.


Statement of Need:


Proposed changes to this regulation are necessary to make the 
instruction more customer friendly, to conform the direct Rural Housing 
program with the Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan program and industry 
standards, and to reduce the Agency's subsidy budget authority. The 
existing interest credit formula provides no incentive for the 
applicant to purchase less costly housing since loan payments are 
virtually the same, regardless of the loan amount. Likewise, the 
current formula virtually provides availability of interest credit 
assistance for the life of the loan and existing FmHA borrowers are 
often reluctant to graduate to other credit while their note payment is 
reduced due to interest credit subsidy. The four primary initiatives 
contained in this proposal are: (1) Size and Amenity Restrictions 
Lessened. Proposal is to use 85 percent of the dollar limitations on 
FmHA Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans (``HUD caps'') for the direct loan 
program, rather than a laundry list of allowed and disallowed amenities 
when determining ``modest'' housing in an area and the maximum amount 
of the loan. Exceptions are incorporated to allow for higher ``caps'' 
where needed. (2) Use of Income Ratios Instead of a Family Budget for 
Determining Repayment Ability. This approach is more in line with 
industry standards and is in conformance with the Guaranteed Rural 
Housing Program. Exceptions are incorporated for the use of a budget 
under certain circumstances. (3) Changes to Interest Credit Calculation 
Method: Subsidy to be Based on Family's Percentile of Area Median 
Income. An interest credit table would be structured to tie the rate of 
interest paid by the borrower to the relationship of the borrower's 
income to median income. The interest rate for very-low-income 
borrowers would not exceed 1 percent. As household income rises, the 
borrower's interest rate would also rise until eventually the full note 
rate is reached. Existing FmHA borrowers will also receive assistance 
under the new system, but increases to the monthly principal and 
interest payment will be limited to 10 percent per year until the full 
note rate is reached. A study conducted by the Agency indicates that 94 
percent of existing FmHA borrowers will continue to qualify for 
interest credit under the proposed method. Exceptions have been 
incorporated to provide additional subsidy in high-cost areas when it 
is difficult to obtain less costly housing. (4) Changes to Method of 
Selecting and Processing Applications--Separate Fund for Priority 
Applications. A separate fund would be maintained by the State Director 
for priority applications, including mutual Self-Help housing, 
servicing loans, refinancing non-FmHA debts, and hardship applications 
from persons living in deficient housing for more than 6 months. The 
proposal will allow refinancing of non-FmHA debts when the debt is not 
delinquent, but it is clear the applicant cannot continue to maintain 
payments for reasons beyond their control; refinancing non-FmHA debts 
on a building site without a dwelling; and provide financing for 
military personnel on active duty. Application processing has been 
streamlined and improved; eligible applicants will be issued a 
Certificate of Eligibility that is good for 90 days; a maximum of two 
extensions may be granted if the applicant is actively pursuing 
locating a home. Time limits have been incorporated regarding 
completion of the real estate appraisal and approval of the loan. 
Interest will be collected from the day of settlement to the end of the 
month; payments will be due on the first of the month.


Alternatives:


Proposed changes to this rule were determined by comparing alternatives 
used by conventional lenders when conducting similar loan programs and 
by consulting with interested groups such as the National Association 
of County Supervisor and County Office Assistants and Clerks, the 
Housing Assistance Council, and the National Association of Home 
Builders. The Agency also published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register soliciting comments on the four 
primary initiatives; comments received were considered and incorporated 
wherever possible. A study was conducted which indicates that 
approximately 94 percent of existing borrowers would continue to 
qualify for interest credit under the proposed method. We will again 
solicit comments and recommendations when the proposed rule is 
published in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We do not anticipate costs connected with proposed changes. Benefits 
include a program which will be more borrower friendly and more in line 
with conventional lending programs, reduced work load in field offices, 
and a reduction of interest credit subsidy by approximately 2.5 points, 
which should reduce the required budget authority by approximately 
$44,500,000. In addition, the revised method of providing interest 
credit assistance should encourage applicants to shop for less costly 
housing, in line with their repayment ability, and will provide an 
incentive for FmHA borrowers to graduate to other credit.


Risks:


There are no known risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 17858                                    04/28/92
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 17858                                    05/28/92
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Chris Goettelmann
Chief
Regulations Analysis and Control Branch
Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
Room 6348 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
202 720-9744
RIN: 0575-AA35
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
4. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
(WIC): FOOD DELIVERY SYSTEMS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1786


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 246


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


A proposed rule addressing WIC Food Delivery Systems was published on 
December 28, 1990. The Department provided a 120-day comment period for 
the proposed rule, which closed on April 29, 1991. Nearly 1,100 
comments were received from a wide variety of sources. Despite the 
degree of preliminary input to the December 28, 1990, proposed rule, 
many of the commenters responding during the formal comment period 
suggested that the Department's food delivery regulations needed to be 
proposed again, rather than proceeding directly to a final rule. In 
addition, several members of Congress requested that the rule be re-
proposed in light of its impact on State agency food delivery systems. 
Therefore, the Department intends to issue a second proposed rule 
addressing WIC food delivery systems and requirements. This second rule 
will address all of the provisions contained in the previous 
rulemaking, but will contain significant modifications to some of the 
proposed provisions, as well as clarifications to several provisions, 
which may not have been clearly understood in the earlier rule. (88-
512)


Statement of Need:


On December 28, 1990, the Department published a proposed rule designed 
primarily to strengthen State agency operations in vendor management 
and related food delivery areas for the WIC Program. This proposal was 
developed with input over several years' time from State agency experts 
in food delivery, and with the full support of and encouragement from 
Congress and the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG). The 
Department provided a 120-day comment period for the proposed rule, 
which closed on April 28, 1991. During this comment period, nearly 
1,100 comments were received from State and local WIC agencies, 
vendors, and associated groups, public interest groups, members of 
Congress, members of the public, and WIC participants.


Despite the degree of preliminary input to the December 28, 1990, 
proposed rule, many of the commenters suggested that the Department's 
food delivery regulations needed to be proposed again, rather than 
proceeding directly to a final rule. In addition, several members of 
Congress requested that the rule be reproposed in light of its impact 
on Stage agency food delivery systems.


The Department has therefore drafted a second proposed rule addressing 
WIC food delivery systems and requirements. This second rule addresses 
all of the provisions contained in the previous rulemaking, and 
contains significant modifications to some of the proposed revisions, 
as well as clarifications to a number of provisions which may not have 
been clearly understood in the earlier rule. A 90-day public comment 
period will be provided with this proposed rule. The Department intends 
to publish a final rule, based on all of the comments received, by the 
middle of fiscal year 1995.


Although this rule does not have a direct impact on reducing risks to 
public health, safety, or the environment, it will significantly 
improve the operation and accountability of the WIC Program nationwide.


Alternatives:


Given the intensive input that has been gathered for the development of 
this rule since it was recommended by the General Accounting Office in 
1986, and the comments that were received pertaining to the first 
proposed version of the rule in December 1990, the Department has 
determined that there are no viable alternatives to the provisions 
included in this reproposal. The alternative of proceeding directly to 
promulgation of a final rule based on the 1990 proposal has been 
rejected by Congress.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of this action include costs due to vendor overcharges and 
costs associated with the proposal. The estimated costs for 
implementation of the proposal include a shift of not more than $2.0 
million in WIC Program Nutrition Services and Administration (NSA) 
funds within the 84 State agencies, partially from reduced requirements 
for management evaluations of local agencies and reduced costs due to 
elimination of representative on-site monitoring. They also include 
$0.5 million in additional costs to vendors to meet the proposed 
minimum training and authorization requirements. It should be noted 
that all the vendors are currently required to participate in some type 
of training and complete an application form for program authorization. 
As such, the estimated $0.5 million in additional costs represents 
those instances where current training and authorization requirements 
are below the level established in the proposal. In these instances, 
vendors may incur costs in attending more frequent training sessions or 
may be required to complete an application form at more frequent 
intervals. The estimated cost does not represent charges to the vendor 
for training or authorization. Rather, the cost represents the 
estimated cost of the vendor's time to participate in the training 
session and to complete the application form.


The gross benefit results from a significant reduction in vendor 
overcharges. A significant net benefit of $37 million is expected, as 
vendor overcharges are estimated at $39.5 million and costs associated 
with the proposal are a maximum of $2.5 million.


Risks:


This rule is intended to reduce and minimize the risk of vendor fraud 
and abuse of the WIC program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            55 FR 53446                                    12/28/90
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/29/91
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/95
Final Action                                                   08/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Sectors Affected:


 None


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2760
RIN: 0584-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
5. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE MICKEY LELAND 
CHILDHOOD HUNGER RELIEF ACT
Legal Authority:


 PL 103-66 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 273.1; 7 CFR 273.2; 7 CFR 273.7; 7 CFR 273.8; 7 CFR 
273.9; 7 CFR 273.10; 7 CFR 273.12; 7 CFR 273.21


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, September 1, 1994.


All provisions must be implemented on 09/01/94.


Abstract:


The proposed rule will (1) exclude certain general assistance vendor 
payments from income; (2) increase the amount of the dependent care 
deduction; (3) require State agencies to establish a statewide limit 
for dependent care reimbursements paid to participants in the Food 
Stamp Employment & Training Program; (4) increase the fair market value 
on vehicles for determining a household's resource limit; (5) exclude 
the value of vehicles from resources that are used by the household to 
transport fuel or water; (6) simplify the ``household'' definition; (7) 
establish eligibility for children who live with their food-stamp-
eligible parents in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation center; (8) 
provide an income exclusion for earnings of elementary and secondary 
school students under 22; and (9) require proration of benefits 
following a break of more than 30 days in certification.


Statement of Need:


Over 85 percent of the benefits provided by Public Law 103-66 would be 
to families with children, primarily through reforming the Federal Food 
Stamp Program. These reforms include: making the Food Stamp Program's 
treatment of dependent care expenses consistent with those in the AFDC 
JOBS program while increasing Federal support for E&T training 
activities for recipients; simplifying the definition of ``household'' 
to remove the burden imposed on relatives who ``double up'' or who take 
in children who might otherwise be placed in foster care; permits 
children living with their parents in residential drug or alcohol 
treatment centers to be eligible for food stamps just like their 
parents; permits the fair market value of vehicles to be indexed to the 
CPI for new cars by fiscal year 1996; and aids families living in 
isolated, rural areas by exempting vehicles they use to carry heating 
fuel or water.


This proposed rule would implement nine provisions from the Mickey 
Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act, Pub. L. 103-66. These provisions 
are:


A. General Assistance Vendor Payments. Section 13915 of Public Law 103-
66 amends section 5(k) of the Food Stamp Act to provide that only those 
general assistance vendor payments for housing assistance (exclusive of 
emergency or utility expenses) are counted.


B. Dependent Care Deduction. Section 13922 of Public Law 103-66 amends 
section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act to change the dependent care 
deduction from the current $160 maximum deduction to $200 a month for 
each dependent child under two (2) years of age and $175 a month for 
each other dependent.


C. Dependent Care Reimbursements. Section 13922 also amends Section 
6(d) of the Food Stamp Act by eliminating the dollar cap on dependent 
care reimbursements to participants in the Food Stamp Employment and 
Training (E&T) Program. The law also instructs State agencies to 
establish a statewide limit on the amount of dependent care costs the 
State will reimburse.


D. Vehicles Needed to Seek and Continue Employment and for Household 
Transportation. Section 13923 of Public Law 103-66 amends Section 
5(g)(2) of the Food Stamp Act by raising the fair market value 
exclusion limit for vehicles in increments from its current amount of 
$4,500. Beginning September 1, 1994, the exclusion will be raised to 
$4,550 and be effective through September 30, 1995. Beginning October 
1, 1995, the exclusion will be raised to $4,600 and be effective 
through September 30, 1996. On October 1, 1996, and on every October 1 
thereafter, the fair market value exclusion limit of vehicles shall be 
adjusted annually, using a base of $5,000, to reflect changes in the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for new cars as 
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The change shall be for 
the 12-month period ending the preceding June 30th, and rounded to the 
nearest $50 until September 30, 1996.


E. Vehicles Necessary to Carry Fuel or Water. Section 13924 of Public 
Law 103-66 amends Section 5(g) of the Food Stamp Act to exclude from 
financial resources the value of a vehicle that is used by a household 
to transport fuel for heating when that fuel or water is the primary 
source for the household.


F. Simplifying the Household Definition for Households with Children 
and Others. Section 13931 amends Section 3(i) of the Food Stamp Act by 
revising the current definition of ``household'' by requiring that 
parents and their children 21 years of age or younger (children that 
are not themselves parents living with their children or married living 
with their spouses) who live together; children under 18 years of age 
who live with and are under the parental control of a person other than 
their parent (with the exception of foster children), together with 
that person; and spouses who live together would continue to be treated 
as a group of individuals who customarily purchase and prepare meals 
together even if they do not do so.


G. Eligibility of Children of Parents Participating in Drug or Alcohol 
Abuse Treatment Programs. Section 13932 of Public Law 103-66 amends 
Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act to provide Food Stamp eligibility to 
children living with their eligible parents in a drug or alcohol 
rehabilitation center.


H. Student Earnings. Sections 13911 of Public Law 103-66 amends section 
5(d) of the Food Stamp Act to exclude the earnings of elementary and 
secondary school students under age 22.


I. Proration of Benefits. Section 13916 of Public Law 103-66 amends 
section 8(c) of the Food Stamp Act to require proration only if a 
household has a break of more than 30 days in certification.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


All provisions of this proposed rule are mandated by Public Law 103-66 
and must be implemented no earlier than September 1, 1994. 
Implementation of Section 13921 (Child Support Payments) must be 
completed no later than October 1, 1995.


Alternatives:


Because of the magnitude of changes mandated by Public Law 103-66, the 
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) held a public hearing on January 20, 
1994, to give advocates, public interest groups, State agencies, and 
the general public the opportunity to comment on these provisions. 
Based on the public hearing, the Department is proposing the following 
alternatives for certain provisions as described below.


Section 13921, Child Support Payments to Nonhousehold Members.


1. Definition of legal obligation. A legal obligation to pay child 
support must be substantiated by a legal document (e.g., court order) 
that would be upheld in a court of law. Any other written agreements, 
such as a written agreement between the child(ren)'s parents or a 
written agreement developed by lawyers representing each party, would 
not be legally binding and could not be upheld in court.


2. Required verification. The Department is proposing regulations 
requiring that household members verify their legal obligation to pay 
child support and that the household members verify the actual paid 
amount of child support payments. The Department is proposing this 
because current data indicate that close to one-half of legally 
obligated child support payments are not paid in full.


3. Reporting requirements. The legislative history provides the 
Department with discretion in establishing reporting requirements that 
will lessen the reporting burdens for the State agencies and food stamp 
households. State agencies cannot be cited for quality control errors 
if the amount of the child support deduction at certification was 
reasonable. The Department intends to propose regulations that are 
consistent with the legislative history.


Section 13922, Improving Access to Employment and Training Activities--
Dependent Care Deduction. Minimizing administrative burdens on State 
agencies: The Department is proposing to allow State agencies to delay 
reducing a household's dependent care deduction whenever a child in the 
household reaches his/her second birthday during the certification 
period. The dependent care deduction will be reduced at the next 
regularly scheduled recertification, which is a more efficient use of 
staff time and resources.


Section 13931, Simplifying the Household Definition for Households with 
Children and Others--Major issues:


1. Definition of parental control for minors living with an adult who 
is not their parent. In previous policy memos, the Department has 
defined ``parental control'' as referring to minors who are financially 
or otherwise dependent on an adult household member who is not their 
parent. The Department is including this definition of ``parental 
control'' in the rule.


2. Minors with children and married minors who are living with an adult 
who is not their parent. The Department is defining ``minor'' as a 
child under 18 years of age. Section 13931 does not address the 
situation where a minor lives with his/her children and an adult or 
where a minor is married and both the minor and his/her spouse live 
with an adult.


Participants at the January 20, 1994, public hearing felt Public Law 
103-66 overlooked the fact that minors do have children and that both 
they and their children may live with an adult who is not the parent of 
the minor. In many instances, minors with children may have their own 
income, such as their own AFDC grant. The consensus of the public 
hearing participants was that a minor with children is not under 
parental control in such a situation. The issue of married minors was 
also raised during the hearing. The consensus of public hearing 
participants was that married minors are not under parental control.


In order to clarify such situations, the Department is proposing that 
minors who are married and living with their spouse are not under 
parental control and must be considered a separate household, if the 
minor and spouse purchase food and prepare meals separately from the 
adult household member. Minors who are living with their own children 
are considered not under parental control and must be considered 
separate households if the minor and his/her children are purchasing 
food and preparing meals separately.


The Department feels the rule furthers the Administration's goal of 
keeping minor children under the supervision of an adult. The rule as 
written would enable a minor living with his/her children or a married 
minor living with his/her spouse to qualify for food stamps according 
to their own, separate circumstances. This would lessen the need for 
the minor to establish his/her own separate residence away from the 
supervision of the adult household member because the income and 
resources of the adult's household would not affect the eligibility or 
benefits of the minor's household.


Moreover, this rule would provide minors living with an adult other 
than a parent to be considered a separate household under the same 
circumstances as children living with their parents.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is estimated that the provisions of this rule will cost $643 million 
between fiscal years 1994 and 1998. The provision simplifying the 
household definition for households with children and others will cost 
approximately $320 million. The provision that increases the fair 
market value of vehicles will cost approximately $142 million. The 
provisions which increase the dependent care deduction and which make 
children of parents participating in drug or alcohol treatment programs 
eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program will each cost $4 
million. The two provisions, which increase dependent care 
reimbursements for participants in the E&T program and which exclude 
from resource consideration vehicles which are needed to carry fuel and 
water, will both cost less than $1 million. The provision excluding 
certain general assistance vendor payments will cost $20 million. The 
provision excluding student earnings will cost $45 million, and the 
proration provision will cost $107 million. Two provisions, dependent 
care deduction and E&T dependent care reimbursements, will be 
coordinated with HHS.


Risks:


Implementation of this proposed rule will reduce the risk to public 
health by making it easier for needy families with children to qualify 
for food stamps. Food stamps help families stretch their food dollars 
so that they can buy a larger amount of nutritious food without 
expending their own personal funds. Better nutrition is cost-effective 
because it helps individuals remain healthy.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2760
RIN: 0584-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
6.  FOOD STAMP PROGRAM RECIPIENT CLAIMS ESTABLISHMENT AND 
RECOVERY OF OVERISSUANCES
Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2011 to 2032


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would improve the establishment and collection of recipient 
claims in the Food Stamp Program. The last significant revision to 
these regulations was in 1983. Subsequent activities, such as 
technological advances and general debt management regulations, have 
rendered many portions of the current rule obsolete. In addition, the 
current rule has been found to place unnecessary burdens on State 
agencies. State agencies are responsible for establishing and 
collecting recipient claims. (94-005)


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to improve the establishment and collection of 
recipient claims. The last significant revision to these regulations 
was in 1983. Subsequent activities, such as technological advances and 
general debt management regulations, have rendered many portions of the 
current rule obsolete. In addition, the current rule has been found to 
place unnecessary burdens on State agencies. State agencies are 
responsible for establishing and collecting recipient claims. This rule 
will address two dimensions of the overissuance problem: establishing 
claims on excess allowances, and recovering overages where possible. 
Data from the food stamp quality control system for 1993, the most 
recent year available, show that overissuances to recipients totaled 
over $1.8 billion, 8.3 percent of the $22.0 billion in total food stamp 
issuances that year. These errors were concentrated in just 18 percent 
of food stamp households, which received an average of almost 50 
percent more than they should have. Claims against recipients are a 
direct means to recover overissuances and, to the extent that 
recipients know that recovery of overissuances will be sought, 
represent a deterrent to households to quietly accept the extra food 
benefits.


Alternatives:


The alternative is not to revise the current rule governing this aspect 
of the Program. This is not plausible. The current rule is not adequate 
to facilitate effective and efficient debt management. The inability of 
State agencies to establish and collect claims has continuously been 
cited as a deficiency by the Department's Office of Inspector General.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Nationwide, as of October 1, 1993, there was over $800 million in 
uncollected recipient claims. Inspector General reports have also noted 
that, in addition to large accounts receivable for established, 
uncollected claims, there are backlogs of hundreds of millions of 
claims that have not yet been established. These unestablished claims 
represent the most current, and typically the most collectable losses 
to the program. Updated regulations which incorporate recent debt 
management rules and technological advances, as well as practical 
suggestions and feedback received from State agencies, should improve 
the establishment and collection of recipient claims in the Food Stamp 
Program. In addition, efforts will be made to increase the degree of 
conformity with claims related issues and procedures currently used in 
other social programs including the Department of Health and Human 
Service's Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program.


Risks:


The tolerance of Program abuse or, even the perception of such, 
undermines the fundamental mission of the Food Stamp Program. The 
efficient and effective establishment and collection of recipient 
claims, which this rulemaking addresses, is essential in ensuring that 
this does not occur.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/95
Final Action                                                   08/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         11/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
7.  COLLECTING FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT CLAIMS FROM FEDERAL INCOME 
TAX REFUNDS AND FEDERAL SALARIES
Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2011 to 2032; 31 USC 3720A; 5 USC 5514; PL 103-66


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 272.2; 7 CFR 273.18


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will implement a collection method for amounts of food 
stamp benefits issued to households in excess of amounts they were were 
entitled to receive. The rule will specify requirements for State 
agency operation of the Federal income tax refund and Federal salary 
offset programs. The primary areas of the rulemaking will be the 
criteria for debts which may be submitted for the two offset programs, 
the requirements for due process notification to debtors and debtor 
appeal rights.


Statement of Need:





This action is needed to improve the collection of claims for 
overissued food stamp benefits due to inadvertent household errors and 
intentional Program violations. As of October 1, 1993, there was 
approximately $800 million of such claims uncollected.


The legal basis for the tax offset program is, first, the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 1984 which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
offset past-due and legally enforceable Federal debts from income tax 
refunds. The second legal basis, the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 
authorizes Federal agencies to deduct debts from an employee's pay when 
a Federal agency determines that such employee owes a debt to the 
Federal government.


This regulatory action will not impact public health, safety or the 
environment.


Alternatives:


The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires that debt records be 
submitted from the responsible Federal agency, and the IRS only 
distributes collections and reports to such agencies. The Department of 
Defense and the U.S. Postal Service maintain employment data of Federal 
employees and have similar requirements. State agencies maintain 
records on individual food stamp recipient claims. Consequently, there 
is no alternative to this rulemaking which will establish policy and 
procedures for State agency operations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs to the Federal Government on an ongoing annual basis we estimate 
at $1.1 million. At this point it is difficult to estimate the ongoing, 
annual collection which tax offset may accomplish. For one reason, 
State agencies are continuing to join the program with a consequent 
increase in collections resulting from that factor alone. For another 
reason, no State agency has been participating long enough for us to 
determine what a year-to-year collection rate might be. We have seen 
that about 25 percent of the dollar value of claims which State 
agencies determine meet the criteria for collection under tax offset 
are collected through a combination of offsets from tax refunds and 
voluntary payments in lieu of such collection. Based on this, 
collections may be in the range of $25 to $50 million annually.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses the risk of leaving a significant debt to the 
Federal government uncollected. As mentioned above, this debt currently 
approaches $800 million. As discussed in relation to anticipated costs 
and benefits, we believe that between $25 million and $50 million of 
this debt could be collected on an annual basis, at least for the 
foreseeable future. The reduction of this debt should positively impact 
similar risks in the agency because of the reduction in the agency's 
overall debt.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/00/94
Final Action                                                   01/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         02/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB89
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
8.  FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: REVISIONS IN RETAIL FOOD STORE 
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND IN ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE AND PROGRAM 
AUTHORIZATION
Legal Authority:


 PL 103-225; 7 USC 2012; 7 USC 2018


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271; 7 CFR 278


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 25, 1994.


Abstract:


This proposed rule sets forth changes required by provisions of the 
Food Stamp Program Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-225, Title II, 
108 Stat. 108-110 (1994). The purpose of this rule is to implement 
these statutory changes to the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended. It 
would revise the definition of ``retail food store'' to conform to the 
statutory changes to require that a firm must meet one of two new 
criteria to qualify for participation in the Food Stamp Program. One 
criterion focuses on the variety of staple foods for home preparation 
and consumption available on a continuous basis, including perishables. 
The second criterion requires that a firm's staple food sales exceed 50 
percent of its total gross sales. This rule also addresses the 
requirement in Public Law 103-225 for new procedures for providing 
periodic notification of eligibility and for reauthorizing 
participating firms.


Statement of Need:


Public Law 103-225 amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977, to make changes 
in eligibility requirements for retail food stores to participate in 
the Food Stamp Program. Prior to enactment of these changes, a retail 
food store qualified to participate in the Food Stamp Program if more 
than 50 percent of its total eligible food sales were in staple foods. 
The new law changes that to 50 percent of its total gross sales in 
staple foods. It also provides another option for stores not meeting 
the new 50 percent rule. Those stores can now qualify if they offer for 
sale, on a continuous basis, a variety of food in each of four 
categories of staple foods. The staple food categories are defined as 
``(1) meat, poultry, or fish; (2) bread or cereals; (3) vegetables or 
fruits; or (4) dairy products.'' This statutory change in eligibility 
will require developing policy definitions for the terms ``continuous 
basis,'' ``variety,'' and ``perishable.''


Alternatives:


None. The new law also requires the Secretary to issue new rules 
providing for the periodic reauthorization of retail food stores and 
wholesale food concerns. This must include providing periodic notice of 
the definitions for ``retail food stores,'' ``staple foods,'' and 
``perishable foods.''


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The legislation requires a report to Congress assessing the impact of 
these changes. This report has been requested to determine the impact 
of Public Law 103-225 on retail food stores. It is expected to be 
completed and presented to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees 
not later than 18 months after enactment (March 25, 1994), which means 
it would be completed by September, 1995.


The report must include data on the (1) number and types of stores 
newly authorized and (2) number and types of stores withdrawn (denied 
authorization/reauthorization) from the Food Stamp Program after 
implementation of the new law. The report must also include a 
description of the procedures used and the adequacy of those procedures 
to determine store eligibility to participate in the Food Stamp Program 
and to authorize and reauthorize stores to participate. Finally, the 
report must assess the adequacy of the guidance provided by the 
Secretary to retail food stores concerning the definitions of ``retail 
food stores'', ``staple foods'' and ``perishables,'' and the 
eligibility criteria for stores to participate in the Food Stamp 
Program.


Risks:


The report to Congress must include an assessment of whether the change 
in the definition of ``retail food store'' has had an adverse effect on 
the integrity of the Food Stamp Program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB90
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
9. CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS: NUTRITION OBJECTIVES FOR SCHOOL MEALS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1758


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


There is scientific consensus that diets high in fat and sodium lead to 
chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. 
Additionally, chronic disease often begins in childhood. The Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans, which is the Federal policy on what makes a 
healthful diet, recommends limiting daily intake of fat, saturated fat 
and sodium. However, the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment report 
shows that most school meals are not in compliance with the Dietary 
Guidelines. This proposal would revise the regulations governing the 
National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program to update 
references on meal requirements to incorporate the most recent 
nutrition information as contained in the Dietary Guidelines. This rule 
would also remove various paperwork burdens and would modify review 
requirements to ensure oversight of the proposed nutrition standards. 
(94-003)


Statement of Need:


This rule would update the current nutrition standards for the National 
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs by incorporating the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans. The Dietary Guidelines reflect medical and 
scientific consensus on proper nutrition as a vital element in disease 
prevention and long-term health promotion. Current standards for 
essential vitamins, minerals and calories would remain and be augmented 
with the quantified standards established in the Dietary Guidelines for 
fat and saturated fat. School meal planners would also be required to 
reduce sodium and cholesterol, increase dietary fiber and continue to 
serve a variety of foods. The rule would also adopt meal planning based 
on analysis of key nutrients (Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or 
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning) in lieu of the current meal 
pattern.


The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study showed that, while school 
lunches currently meet or exceed recommended amounts for vitamins, 
minerals, and calories, lunches fail to meet the limitations for fat 
and saturated fat established by the Dietary Guidelines. Sodium levels 
also were excessive. The Dietary Guidelines stress the importance of 
limiting fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium, and increasing 
dietary fiber as critical factors in disease prevention and the 
promotion of long-term health.


This regulation is part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for 
promoting the health of children and supports the President's Health 
Care Reform priorities in its emphasis on disease prevention through 
applying healthful dietary practices in Federal nutrition programs. In 
recognition of the importance of reinventing and streamlining 
Government programs, this rulemaking would also remove various 
paperwork burdens associated with the school meal programs and would 
modify the review requirements for the National School Lunch Program to 
ensure adequate oversight of the proposed updated nutrition standards.


Alternatives:


None. Reason for Selection of Proposed Alternative: The overriding 
purpose behind this rule is to serve more nutritious and healthful 
meals to school children while maintaining access to the meal programs 
for needy children and enhancing the flexibility of local schools to 
administer the programs. This rulemaking acknowledges the positive role 
school programs must play in establishing childhood eating patterns 
that influence lifelong habits. The Department also considered 
extensive oral testimony presented at four public hearings and meetings 
as well as written comments submitted in response to a notice published 
in the Federal Register on September 13, 1993.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


a. Costs: The average food cost of the sample Nutrient Standard Menu 
Planning (NSMP) menus developed for the assessment was $0.722, which is 
about the same as the average food cost of $0.72 for school meals 
prepared under the current meal pattern system. Two weeks of sample 
menus were developed for elementary and high school students using 
foods and recipes common to the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 
Therefore, even though the costs of labor, equipment and administration 
were not specifically analyzed, the manner in which the sample menus 
were developed provides some confidence that nonfood costs of the NSMP 
sample menus should be similar to those already experienced in NSLP 
operation.


By definition, the average results reported mean that some school 
districts would be expected to experience food costs for the sample 
menus that vary considerably from those reported above. This is not 
different from the current situation because there is already a wide 
range of food costs due to factors such as economies of size, 
geographic variation in delivery and labor costs, and local market 
conditions.


b. Benefits: Menus can be developed under the NSMP system that meet 
nutrient targets at a food cost comparable to that of the current meal 
pattern planning system. The assessment indicates nutritional benefits 
from using the NSMP system. The NSMP menus include an increased use of 
fruits, vegetables and grains that is consistent with the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans and the Food Guide Pyramid issued by USDA and 
the Department of Health and Human Services. The sample menus also 
averaged about 27 percent of food energy from fat and 8 percent of food 
energy from saturated fat, both of which meet the Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans goals of 30 and 10 percent of calories respectively. The 
goal of one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) was met 
for 14 important nutrients, as was the goal for calories. The nutrition 
standards for NSMP also require analysis of cholesterol and sodium, 
although the Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not specify a 
quantitative limit and only recommend moderation in consumption. One-
third of the average daily limit recommended by the National Research 
Council (NRC) was used as a standard for comparison purposes. The 
sodium content of the sample menus exceeded the NRC limit, but still 
represented a 30-40 percent reduction from the school meal average 
found in a recent national study. The same national study found that 
school meals already meet NRC cholesterol recommendations and the 
sample menus provided slightly less. The updated nutritional standards 
in the school nutrition programs from nutrient-based menu planning will 
result in improved eating practices for students that will continue 
into adulthood and should consequently result in long-term health 
benefits.


Risks:


This rulemaking is responding to an array of medical and scientific 
evidence linking improper diet with increased incidence of heart 
disease, strokes and certain cancers. We know with greater certainty 
that children who eat healthful, nutritious meals will grow up to be 
healthy adults. School meals must be updated to reflect this scientific 
and medical consensus. Additionally, school meals must ensure that 
children gain an understanding of the relationship between proper 
nutrition and long-term health and disease prevention.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 30218                                    06/10/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 30218                                    09/08/94
Final Action                                                   05/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         06/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
703 305-2760
RIN: 0584-AB73
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
10. HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS SYSTEMS; PATHOGEN 
REDUCTION INTERVENTIONS; SANITATION; AND MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING 
REQUIREMENTS
Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 308; 9 CFR 310; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 325; 9 CFR 326; 9 
CFR 327; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would require all meat and poultry establishments to 
develop and maintain a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) system. The Agency is also proposing certain pathogen reduction 
interventions in processing operations, which can subsequently be 
incorporated into industry HACCP systems. Interim targets for pathogen 
reduction would be established. Microbiological testing is being 
proposed as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of processing 
interventions and other process controls and to determine whether 
establishments are achieving pathogen reduction targets.


Statement of Need:


The mission of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is to 
ensure that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, and 
accurately labeled. The Agency's goals are to prevent adulteration and 
to reduce the presence of pathogens in meat and poultry products to the 
extent science and technology allows. To achieve greater food safety, 
particularly pathogen reduction, FSIS is proposing to mandate HACCP. In 
order to achieve near-term reduction in pathogens before HACCP is 
implemented, the Agency is also proposing certain pathogen reduction 
interventions in processing operations, which can subsequently be 
incorporated by meat and poultry establishments into a HACCP system. 
Interim targets for pathogen reduction would also be established. 
Microbiological testing is being proposed to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the interventions and other process controls, and to measure whether 
each establishment is meeting interim reduction targets.


Inspected meat and poultry establishments would adopt HACCP systems to 
accomplish and document that their processes are in control and 
producing safe, unadulterated products. The HACCP approach is a 
preventive system of process control that is widely recognized by 
scientific authorities such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
and international organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius, and 
used in the food industry to produce product in compliance with health 
and safety requirements.


The near-term pathogen reduction interventions would require 
establishments to develop and adhere to written sanitation standard 
operating procedures, to apply at least one approved antimicrobial 
treatment to all meat and poultry carcasses, and to assure expeditious 
chilling and temperature control of products. Additionally, the 
industry would begin microbiological testing, both to provide an 
ongoing measure of the general level of process control and to 
demonstrate the required reductions in the incidence of pathogens. FSIS 
will use the data to develop, on a national scale, information on 
pathogen incidence, subsequently using these baseline data to establish 
new pathogen reduction goals.


The pathogen reduction interventions and microbiological testing would 
be near-term interventions that could be implemented shortly after 
promulgation of a final rule. The development of HACCP systems by 
establishments would be phased in over a 4-year period after 
promulgation of a final rule.


Alternatives:


FSIS could continue using current regulations and procedures. NAS 
determined that the meat and poultry inspection programs as currently 
structured are effective in ensuring that healthy animals are 
slaughtered in clean and sanitary environments, and progress has been 
made in reducing the risks to public health from conditions that can be 
observed during inspections and can be evaluated during processing. 
However, NAS also recognized that the current system of organoleptic 
inspection cannot provide the kind of preventive controls that are 
needed to reduce foodborne pathogens. Regulations governing meat and 
poultry must be reformed to target the threat posed to public health by 
pathogens.


FSIS could institute HACCP as a voluntary system rather than a 
mandatory system. There is concern, however, that voluntary 
participation in HACCP may not provide sufficient assurance that all 
meat and poultry products have been produced under controls designed to 
minimize food safety hazards or that adequate procedures have been 
developed to reduce the presence of pathogens.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FSIS is currently analyzing the cost to develop and institute the plans 
and requirements of this proposed rulemaking. FSIS believes that the 
proposal's two-tiered approach of short-term and long-term initiatives 
will reduce the burden of initiating HACCP on the industry by 
permitting a more gradual introduction of process control. Once HACCP 
is instituted, costs to maintain it would be significantly less.


The current annual costs to the economy from foodborne illness 
attributable to pathogens in meat and poultry products are 
approximately $2 billion. FSIS believes that if these regulations are 
required for each process in each establishment, the chance of 
producing adulterated product will be substantially reduced. Further, 
dramatic reductions in the incidence of pathogens will significantly 
reduce foodborne illness. Finally, increased process controls that 
anticipate and prevent problems should decrease the incidence of 
product recalls by establishments.


Risks:


The current system of organoleptic inspection has been an effective way 
of controlling or reducing the risks of eating meat and poultry 
products by ensuring that only healthy animals are slaughtered, 
establishments are clean and sanitary, and the adverse conditions that 
can be observed and evaluated during inspection are remedied. The 
system has also been effective in reducing the presence of chemical 
residues in the food supply. However, the current system of 
organoleptic inspection does not address in a direct and scientific way 
the risks posed by microbiological pathogens that make people sick. 
This gap has created a public health problem that is reflected in the 
level of foodborne illness.


In order to address the risks associated with microbiological 
contamination of meat and poultry products, FSIS is proposing these 
regulations. A system of preventive controls with documentation and 
verification of successful operation should be a critical element of a 
modern risk-based food safety system. When implemented, this system 
will be a powerful tool for targeting and preventing significant 
foodborne hazards, such as those posed by microbiological 
contamination. As part of this effort, FSIS will establish interim 
targets for pathogen reduction. Microbiological testing will be 
conducted by meat and poultry establishments as a means to evaluate the 
effectiveness of processing controls and interventions as well as to 
measure each establishment's progress in meeting targets for pathogen 
reduction. Emphases on improving the control of microbiological hazards 
in raw products in conjunction with process control will dramatically 
reduce foodborne illness associated with meat and poultry products. 
Consumer confidence will be strengthened as a result of the actions 
taken to reduce the risk of foodborne illness associated with consuming 
meat and poultry products.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Paula M. Cohen
Director, Regulations Unit
Policy, Evaluation and Planning Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 3812 South Building
14th & Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20250
202 720-7164
RIN: 0583-AB69
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
11.  ENHANCED POULTRY INSPECTION
Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would amend the poultry products inspection 
regulations to implement a new system of post-mortem inspection for all 
poultry species. The proposed system contains several innovations to 
provide assurances that USDA-inspected and passed poultry products will 
be free of visible contamination and will require the use of approved 
antimicrobial treatments in all official establishments. The proposed 
system would replace all existing systems of poultry post-mortem 
inspection with a single system in which two inspectors would staff 
each poultry processing line and examine carcasses for disease and 
visible contamination. The proposed rule would not mandate a reduction 
in maximum linespeeds. The proposed system would place additional 
responsibility on official establishments to assure that the poultry 
they process is wholesome and free of disease.


Statement of Need:


Under the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended, the Secretary of 
Agriculture carries out an inspection program to ensure that poultry 
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and 
packaged. The Act authorizes the Secretary to promulgate and enforce 
such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out this program.


The Secretary has recently taken steps to further assure the safety of 
poultry utilizing the latest scientific and technological advances and 
based on risk assessment principles. This proposal enhances current 
meat and poultry inspection programs by reducing the sources of 
microbial contamination. The Secretary's program to enhance poultry 
inspection includes a ``zero tolerance'' for fecal matter on raw 
product; the use of approved antimicrobial treatments; inspection 
procedure modifications; and 100 percent reinspection of poultry 
accidentally contaminated during the dressing operation.


This proposal would address all these objectives. FSIS proposes to 
amend the poultry products inspection regulations to implement a new 
system of post-mortem inspection for all poultry species and to require 
the use of approved antimicrobial treatments in all official 
establishments. All poultry processing lines would be staffed by two 
USDA inspectors to check for disease and visible contamination. 
Establishment personnel, positioned before the first USDA inspector, 
would present for inspection only poultry that are free of disease. 
Additionally, they would identify to this inspector all poultry 
requiring off-line trim, salvage or reprocessing. The inspector would 
stop the line for removal of poultry found to be affected by disease or 
other abnormality. Establishment trimmers, positioned between the 
viscera harvest and the final wash, would be responsible for assuring 
that only carcasses that are free of visible fecal contamination are 
presented to the second USDA inspector. This inspector, the on-line/
off-line carcass inspector, would automatically reduce linespeeds upon 
any finding of visible fecal contamination. The inspector would also 
perform 100 percent reinspection of reprocessed poultry. Recordkeeping 
and verification procedures would be required so that establishment 
process control could be assured. Finished product standards would be 
revised to provide a zero tolerance for fecal contamination. Also under 
this proposal, establishments would be required to apply approved 
antimicrobial treatments to poultry before the carcass-chilling 
operation. This requirement could be met by administering, at the final 
wash, an approved chlorine compound in a concentration of 20 to 50 
parts per million.


Alternatives:


FSIS considered two alternatives to this proposal that would meet the 
same objectives as the proposal but involve conducting post-mortem 
inspection after the viscera harvest. The first alternative involves 
detaching the viscera from poultry carcasses prior to inspection and 
depositing the organs on a tray that would move under and parallel to 
the carcass. This arrangement would permit post-mortem inspection after 
the viscera harvest--a potential contamination point--and permit 
simultaneous inspection of viscera and carcass.


Under the second alternative, the current post-mortem inspection 
procedure would be retained, with an additional inspector positioned 
after the viscera harvest but before the final wash.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The annual losses to the economy from foodborne illness in which 
poultry is the vehicle have been estimated at almost $1 billion. 
Reducing the microbial load on raw poultry could help reduce the 
incidence of illness and the associated costs to the economy.


The proposal outlined here would impose a one-time cost on the 
regulated industry of approximately $10 million, primarily for 
installing new inspection stands and for retraining some establishment 
personnel. Some establishments would also have to install enhanced 
lighting to meet regulatory requirements and/or install new equipment 
or make equipment modifications to provide for a chlorine rinse at the 
final wash.


The cost to industry for the first alternative would be approximately 
$140 million for new equipment. In addition, downtime for construction 
and installation could cost the industry as much as $780 million.


However, under the second alternative the Government could incur 
additional personnel costs of approximately $16 million per annum. 
Further, on multi-inspector processing lines, production rates may be 
reduced by 30 to 50 percent, because of limits on the number of birds 
per minute the final inspector could examine. The impact of the slowed 
linespeeds could reach $5.2 billion per year for chickens and turkeys.


Risks:


The proposed regulation will reduce the risks to consumers of foodborne 
disease from consuming poultry.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 35639                                    07/13/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/11/94
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dr. Isabel Arrington
Staff Officer, Inspection Management Program
Inspection Operations
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
202 720-7905
RIN: 0583-AB79
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
12. PRIOR LABEL APPROVAL PROCESS
Legal Authority:


 21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection 
regulations to streamline the labeling process. Alternatives being 
considered would eliminate the need for manufacturers to submit final 
label applications, provided that sketch applications of such labels 
have been approved by the Agency, or expand the types of labels 
eligible for generic approval. This will result in significant savings 
for manufacturers, as well as FSIS, while continuing to provide 
consumers with useful and truthful information on product labels.


Statement of Need:


The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act (PPIA) direct the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain 
meat and poultry inspection programs designed to assure consumers that 
meat and poultry products distributed to them are wholesome, not 
adulterated, and properly labeled.


To assure that meat and poultry products are properly labeled, the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducts a prior labeling approval 
system under which all labels, with minor exceptions, must be approved 
by FSIS prior to their use on federally inspected meat and poultry 
products. To obtain labeling approval, meat and poultry establishments 
must submit draft labels to FSIS for approval, accompanied by an 
application for labeling approval. Minor changes to approved labels 
need not be submitted to FSIS, provided the labeling shows all 
information required by regulation. These modified labels are known as 
``generically approved'' labels.


In the interest of streamlining the prior labeling approval system and 
contributing to greater efficiency in government services, FSIS 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on March 25, 
1992 (57 FR 10300), seeking public comments on two options. Option 1 
was to (1) expand the categories of generically approved labels and (2) 
allow draft (rather than final) labels to be submitted to FSIS. Option 
2 was to eliminate the prior label approval system entirely, replacing 
it with a system already in use at the Food and Drug Administration. In 
that system, the Agency requires that label content standards be met; 
the preapproval of individual labels is not required.


On the basis of responses to the ANPRM, in a document published on 
November 23, 1993 (58 FR 62014), FSIS proposed to expand the categories 
of generically approved labeling, while continuing to consider 
procedures that could eventually eliminate prior labeling approval. 
FSIS is currently evaluating the alternatives to determine the most 
effective means of streamlining this process.


Alternatives:


The following alternatives are being considered: (1) Gradual 
elimination of the prior label approval process; (2) eliminating prior 
label approval immediately.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The final rule could eliminate over $5 million in direct label 
application costs and alleviate the paperwork burden of establishments 
by eliminating the requirement that certain labels be submitted for 
FSIS approval.


Risks:


FSIS recognizes that many detailed labeling requirements are designed 
to stabilize markets, and that the promulgation of nutrition labeling 
requirements has replaced the need for many of the detailed provisions 
now covered under the prior label approval system. Commenters that 
favored option 1 over option 2 indicated less opposition to the 
objectives of option 2 than fear of the kind of instability that could 
ensue if the system were changed in a way that neither allowed adequate 
time for public comment nor for the industry to adjust its resources to 
a new process and to fully understand what its responsibilities would 
be under the new system. FSIS is currently evaluating the options 
considered to determine how best to streamline this process while 
ensuring accurate information is provided to the consumer.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 10300                                    03/25/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/24/92
NPRM            58 FR 62014                                    11/23/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/24/94
Final Action                                                   03/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Cheryl Wade
Director, Food Labeling Division
Regulatory Programs
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
202 254-2590
RIN: 0583-AB50
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
13. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Legal Authority:


 16 USC 1600 et seq; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 219


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will revise the regulations governing forest land and 
resource management planning to reflect agency experience in preparing 
initial forest plans as required by the National Forest Management Act. 
The rule will articulate and clarify the forest planning and 
decisionmaking process, propose ways to streamline plan amendment and 
revision, and, in general, adjust and fine tune the rule and its 
requirements to make the planning process more realistic, meaningful, 
and efficient.


Statement of Need:


The planned regulatory action is to revise the existing rule at 36 CFR 
Part 219, Subpart A, in order to describe the agency's overall 
framework for National Forest System resource decisionmaking; to 
incorporate the principles of ecosystem management into resource 
decisionmaking and management; to establish requirements for 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of 
forest plans; and to make various other changes intended to clarify and 
simplify the planning process.


The planned regulatory action is needed in order to streamline the 
planning process and update planning procedures and requirements in 
order to respond to the Critique of Land Management Planning, results 
of court decisions, and other information which has become available 
since the existing regulation was promulgated.


The legal basis for the planned regulatory action is the National 
Forest Management Act, which requires that regulations be promulgated. 
This action would revise the existing regulation which was finalized in 
1982.


Alternatives:


The changes need could only be addressed through a regulatory change.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Quantified information on the costs and benefits is not available. It 
is anticipated that streamlined planning procedures will result in a 
reduction in the cost of amending and revising forest plans relative to 
the same procedures under the existing regulation. In addition, 
benefits should include improved communication and coordination with 
the public and other agencies and governments, better understanding of 
the planning process, improved procedures for resource decisionmaking, 
and improved on-the-ground results as those decisions are implemented.


Risks:


The planned regulatory action addresses agency planning procedures and 
would not directly address specific risks to public health, safety, or 
the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 6508                                     02/15/91
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington DC 20090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
14. DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST TIMBER; CANCELLATION OF TIMBER SALE 
CONTRACTS
Legal Authority:


 16 USC 551


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 223.40; 36 CFR 223.116


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Current regulations governing cancellation of National Forest timber 
sale contracts do not adequately protect the Government's financial 
interests in the event the Forest Service is forced to cancel contracts 
due to events beyond its control arising from compliance with 
environmental statutes. This rulemaking would remove an unworkable 
compensation of damages formula, remove limits applicable to length of 
contract term, and establish a termination for environmental protection 
clause in timber sale contracts, a standard in most Federal procurement 
contracts.


Statement of Need:


This proposed regulatory action would more realistically allocate the 
risk between the Government and private parties and protect the 
Government from unreasonable or excessive financial claims arising from 
the cancellation of timber sale contracts to comply with environmental 
laws and regulations. This typically occurs in cases where a species is 
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or 
the Department determines that a species is sensitive and likely to be 
listed in the future unless changes in land management are effected.


Alternatives:


The only alternative which was considered was to continue with the 
regulations that are currently found in 36 CFR 223.40 and 223.116, 
which do not limit the government's liability for cancellation of 
timber sale contracts to the out-of-pocket costs incurred by the sale 
operator. The current regulations also require the Government to pay 
the contract holder the difference between the cost of replacement 
timber and the price called for in the sales contract.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is not the Department's policy to prepare and offer timber sales 
which would jeopardize the survival of threatened or endangered 
wildlife species or which would cause a sensitive species to be listed. 
However, as more scientific data is gathered, it is possible that some 
timber sales which were consistent with planning guidance at the time 
they were offered must be canceled in the light of new knowledge. 
During the 1993-1996 period, this may happen with timber sales located 
in the habitat of the Mexican spotted owl, the northern goshawk, the 
marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl. In these situations, the 
difference between the Government's liability under the current 
regulation and its liability calculated using the method in the 
proposed regulation is approximately $300 million.


Risks:


Under existing law, timber sales contracts which jeopardize the 
survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act are 
canceled. Publication of this rule does not affect public safety or the 
environment. It reduces the cost to the Government of taking the 
actions already required to protect the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/00/94
Final Action                                                   04/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 200090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AB21
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
15. 36 CFR PART 222 SUBPART A: MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING USE WITHIN 
RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS
Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1011; 16 USC 472; 16 USC 551; 16 USC 572; 16 USC 580g; 16 USC 
580h; 16 USC 5801; 16 USC 1600 et seq; 31 USC 9701; 43 USC 1901 to 
1903; 43 USC 1751; 43 USC 1752


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 222, subpart A


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking seeks to strengthen management of National Forest 
System rangelands by revising provisions for livestock grazing, 
improving program efficiency, and clarifying regulatory language. This 
rulemaking is being closely coordinated with the Bureau of Land 
Management. It will address a variety of subjects, including ecosystem 
management, livestock management prescriptions, grazing permit 
provisions to promote good stewardship, unauthorized use, grazing 
permit grant policy, minimum permit size, fees for processing charges, 
debarment, and national goals and objectives.


Statement of Need:


This proposed regulation is needed to assist the agency in providing 
for healthy, diverse, sustainable rangeland ecosystems on National 
Forest System lands. Forest Service personnel have reviewed existing 
regulations for rangeland management. This review has identified parts 
of the existing regulation that require revision and clarification, as 
well as parts that are outdated and need to be removed. In addition, 
several issues not covered in the current regulation were identified as 
needing to be addressed in the proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed 
rule revises the National Forest System rangeland management 
regulations to update direction for management of domestic livestock, 
to place greater emphasis on stewardship of the rangeland resource, to 
clarify the link between the livestock grazing permit and forest plans, 
and to clarify the range management planning and decisionmaking 
process. In addition, the Department of Agriculture proposes to improve 
administration of livestock grazing permits and to achieve greater 
consistency between the grazing management regulations of the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 
The proposed rule addresses the context in which plans and decisions 
regarding rangeland management are made to ensure compliance with the 
National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1601(i)) and the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed grazing program changes, an extensive public 
participation process was conducted to help define the issues and 
alternatives. The Secretary of the Interior, with the cooperation of 
the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
Environment, held five Grazing Town Hall meetings in the West during 
the spring of 1993. Thousands attended. The agencies then conducted a 
scoping period between July 13 and October 20, 1993, and solicited 
comments on the advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRMs). A 
total of about 12,600 letters were received on the ANPRMs published by 
the two Departments. These letters included over 56,000 separate 
comments on various aspects of grazing administration and fees. As a 
result of the comments, a decision was made to separate the grazing fee 
and grazing program management provisions into two separate rules. The 
two Departments cooperated in the preparation of a draft environmental 
impact statement (EIS) which evaluates several possible fee systems as 
alternatives to the fee system recommended in the proposed rule. These 
alternatives are documented in the draft EIS which was released for 
public comment on May 13, 1994. After a 120-day comment period on the 
draft EIS, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will 
publish a final EIS that incorporates comments and refines the 
environmental analysis. After the EIS is published, the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and Interior will issue separate records of decision. The 
records of decision and rulemakings are separate because the agencies 
operate under different regulatory authorities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A major component of the proposed rule provides for a framework for 
rangeland planning and decisionmaking. An upcoming challenge to the 
agency is the renewal of approximately 4,500 Forest Service grazing 
permits in 1995. The reissuance of these permits should be consistent 
with the basic statutory requirements and the transitional procedures 
established in the proposed regulation. If this proposed rule is not 
published, the task of permit reissuance and compliance with statutory 
requirements must still be accomplished; this proposed rule provides an 
efficient way to reissue the permits. The estimated incremental cost of 
permit reissuance in fiscal year 1995 consistent with statutory 
requirements as implemented in the rule would be approximately $12.5 
million. The incremental cost of full compliance with the intent of the 
proposed regulation is estimated to be $40.5 million per year for a 3-
year period beginning in fiscal year 1996. The anticipated benefits of 
the regulatory action are healthy, diverse, sustainable rangeland 
ecosystems on National Forest System lands consistent with the 
direction, goals, and objectives of individual National Forest land 
management plans. Another benefit is continued grazing use by thousands 
of family-owned ranches which are dependent on rangelands managed by 
the Forest Service. Finally, the rule makes Forest Service and Bureau 
of Land Management grazing administration more consistent.


Risks:


There are no risks to human health or safety associated with this rule. 
Environmental risks are related to the ability of the agency to 
effectively manage National Forest System rangelands within current 
program objectives, environmental standards, and statutory 
requirements. Failure to promulgate the rule could seriously limit the 
agency's ability to provide healthy and sustainable rangeland 
ecosystems and could threaten the economic stability of dependent 
ranches.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            53 FR 30954                                    08/16/88
NPRM Comment Per53 FR 30954                                    10/17/88
ANPRM           58 FR 43202                                    08/13/93
ANPRM Comment Pe58 FR 43202                                    10/20/93
NPRM - Second   59 FR 22074                                    04/28/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/28/94
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Final Action Effective                                         00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AA35
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
16. LAND USES AND PROHIBITIONS
Legal Authority:


 16 USC 472; 16 USC 551; 16 USC 1134; 16 USC 3210; 30 USC 185; 43 USC 
1740; 43 USC 1761 to 1771


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 251; 36 CFR 261


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


A Federal District Court has ruled that existing regulations 
discriminate against groups who wish to gather on National Forests to 
exercise their first amendment rights of assembly and free speech. The 
proposed rule will seek to remove ambiguities regarding these first-
amendment rights.


The Agency is reviewing the rules of other Federal land managing 
agencies for possible approaches and is considering establishing 
separate rules for authorizing short-term, noncommercial uses of 
National Forests.


There will be no additional costs as a result of the proposed rule 
change. The benefit will be that the Forest Service will be able to 
adequately regulate large-group use of the National Forests in a manner 
that ensures protection of the public health and safety and National 
Forest resources.


Statement of Need:


Laws enacted by Congress charge the Secretary of Agriculture with the 
responsibility to regulate the occupancy and use of National Forest 
System lands. Regulations at 36 CFR part 251 set forth the rules by 
which occupancy and use of National Forest System lands may be 
authorized. These rules have been successfully challenged in court in 
recent years on the grounds that they unduly restrain the 
constitutional rights of assembly and expression for groups wishing to 
gather on National Forest System lands. The challenge is to devise 
rules that reconcile the Secretary's statutory obligation to protect 
the resources on National Forest System lands with the rights of 
citizens to gather on those lands.


Current regulations treat occupancy and use of National Forests for 
noncommercial group events or activities or noncommercial distribution 
of printed material essentially in the same manner as commercial and 
other business-like uses. To comply with court rulings, it is necessary 
to devise rules that distinguish the requirements for obtaining 
authorization of commercial uses from the requirements for obtaining 
authorization of noncommercial uses.


Alternatives:


The only alternative considered was to not rewrite the current rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no significant or measurable social costs associated with 
this final rule. The rule will be primarily procedural and should not 
significantly change Federal costs associated with administering 
occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. There might be some 
marginal diminution in Federal revenues by making explicit that fees 
cannot be charged for noncommercial uses; however, most Forest Service 
units waive such fees now or charge the minimum fee. There should be 
some cost savings from reduced litigation if the rules are deemed to be 
constitutional. However, the uncertainty of legal challenge makes 
calculation of any potential cost savings speculative. There may also 
be some cost savings from increased efficiency in administration of 
these uses under a permit.


Risks:


The primary risks involved are the damage that has been done and that 
could be done to National Forest System lands by the approximately 
1,800 large groups that gather annually on National Forest lands and 
the public health and safety problems associated with these gatherings. 
The rule would eliminate or replace these risks by allowing the agency 
to address these concerns through the permitting process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 26940                                    05/06/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/04/93
Final Action                                                   11/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
17. FEDERAL TIMBER EXPORT AND SUBSTITUTION RESTRICTIONS (COMPREHENSIVE 
REVISION)
Legal Authority:


 16 USC 620 to 620j


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 223, subpart B; 36 CFR 223, subpart C; 36 CFR 223, subpart D; 
36 CFR 223, subpart F; 36 CFR 261, subpart A


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, May 20, 1991.


Abstract:


These rules are necessary to carry out the restrictions placed on the 
export of unprocessed timber from Federal lands and the restrictions on 
the direct and indirect purchasing of Federal logs to be used in 
substitution for the export of unprocessed timber originating from 
private lands. The rules are mandated by the Forest Resources 
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of August 20, 1990. The Act calls 
for various rules to be issued. The agency anticipates several 
rulemakings to achieve implementation of the act. See Agency entry 
0596-AB25 in Part IV of this issue of the Federal Register for related 
rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


As required by the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief 
Act of 1990, the Forest Service is revising and expanding current 
regulations governing export of Federal timber or the substitution of 
Federal timber for private timber which is imported. The Act made 
permanent a provision which had been routinely inserted into Interior 
Appropriations Acts requiring that, with certain exceptions, no 
unprocessed timber could be exported which had been harvested from 
national forests in the contiguous 48 states west of the 100th 
meridian. To ensure that the restriction had the intended effect of 
making more wood resources available for domestic manufacturing 
facilities, the statute also prohibited, with limited exceptions, the 
substitution of Federal timber for exported private timber. To do this, 
the Act restricts anyone from purchasing timber from Federal lands if 
that person had exported timber from private lands within the previous 
24 months. A system of monitoring reports is required to be established 
to track unprocessed timber harvested from the National forests in 
order to ensure compliance.


Alternatives:


There is no reasonable alternative available to resolve the issue.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


If the final rule is not implemented, the Government will not be able 
to implement and enforce the limitations on export and substitution as 
required by 16 U.S.C. 620 to 620j.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru55 FR 48572                                    11/20/90
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   11/20/90
Comprehensive
NPRM 01/29/91 (56 FR 3354)
NPRM Comment Period End 03/15/91
Final Action 11/00/94
Final Action Effective 12/00/94
Limited Scope
NPRM 01/29/91 (56 FR 3375)
NPRM Comment Period End 02/05/91
Final Action 12/00/94
Final Action Effective 12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P. O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AB22
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FS
18. 36 CFR 222 RANGE MANAGEMENT, SUBPART C GRAZING FEES
Legal Authority:


 16 USC 551; 31 USC 483A; 43 USC 1901; EO 12548; 7 USC 1011(c)


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 222.50; 36 CFR 222.51; 36 CFR 222.52


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The rulemaking seeks to address public concern about the level of fees 
charged for livestock grazing on National Forest System lands in the 
Western United States. The current rule will be revised to apply to 
national forests, land utilization projects, and national grasslands 
in: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming; and in addition for grazing on the national grasslands in the 
states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The same fee will be proposed by 
the Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of 
Interior for public domain lands in the same general area.


Statement of Need:


The USDA Forest Service published in the Federal Register on April 28, 
1994, proposed regulations to update the system used to determine the 
fees for grazing livestock on National Forest System lands in the 
Western States. The proposed changes in this regulation are needed to 
obtain a fair and reasonable return to the United States for the 
privilege of grazing privately owned livestock on publicly owned 
rangelands administered by the Forest Service. This proposed rule is in 
keeping with existing statutes that govern grazing fee policy, in 
particular the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701) 
and the interpretation of this law in Office of Management and Budget 
Circular 25 which states ``where federally owned resources or property 
are leased or sold, a fair market value should be obtained.''


Alternatives:


In development of the proposed grazing program changes, an extensive 
public participation process was conducted to help define the issues 
and alternatives. The Secretary of the Interior, with the cooperation 
of the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and 
Environment, held five Grazing Town Hall meetings in the West during 
the spring of 1993. Thousands attended. The agencies then conducted a 
scoping period between July 13 and October 20, 1993 and solicited 
comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). A total 
of about 12,600 letters were received on the ANPRM's published by the 
two Departments. These letters included over 56,000 separate comments 
on various aspects of grazing administrations and fees. As a result of 
the comments, a decision was made to separate the grazing fee and 
grazing program management provisions into two separate rules. The two 
Departments cooperated in the preparation of a draft environmental 
impact statement (EIS) which evaluates several possible fee systems as 
alternatives to the fee system recommended in the proposed rule. These 
alternatives are documented in the draft EIS which was released for 
public comment on May 13, 1994. After a 120-day comment period on the 
draft EIS, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service will 
publish a final EIS that incorporates comments and refines the 
environmental analysis. After the EIS is published, the Secretaries of 
Agriculture and Interior will issue separate records of decision. The 
records of decision and rulemakings are separate because the agencies 
operate under different regulatory authorities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Forest Service presently has a fee system in effect for charging 
permit holders for the use of public lands for the grazing of privately 
owned livestock. To the extent that the proposed rule revises the fee 
system, there are no anticipated additional costs to the agency for 
administering and collecting fees under the proposed rule. Anticipated 
benefits to the government include greater returns to the Federal 
treasury; increased funding for improvement of resource conditions and 
improved management of rangelands through the provisions of the range 
betterment fund as authorized in the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act (43 U.S.C. 1751); and increased level of fee credits which would be 
available for conservation practices within the National Grasslands as 
provided in the proposed regulation for the improvement of rangeland 
conditions.


Risks:


There are no known effects or current risks to public health, safety or 
the environment associated with this proposed regulation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 43202                                    08/13/93
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/20/93
NPRM            59 FR 22094                                    04/28/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/28/94
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Final Action Effective                                         00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; EIS 10/00/94


Additional Information:


This action is closely coordinated with the Bureau of Land Management, 
United States Department of Interior. The Forest Service has joined the 
Bureau of Land Management's environmental impact statement as a 
cooperating agency for the purpose of establishing a new grazing fee. 
The fee will be implemented simultaneously.


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AB42
BILLING CODE 3410-90-F