[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)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently completed an in-depth 
review of all its regulatory holdings, in compliance with the 
President's March 4, 1995, memorandum, ``Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative.'' Over 14,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) were reviewed, and as a result the Department plans to eliminate 
more than 3,400 pages of obsolete or redundant regulations. In 
addition, over 8,000 pages will be reinvented to ensure greater 
conformity with the President's regulatory priorities. When the results 
of the review are fully implemented the Department will have eliminated 
or reinvented 81 percent of its regulatory holdings in the CFR.
Positive changes resulting from actions proposed by the Department will 
reach into every corner of the country and, both directly and 
indirectly, touch the lives of most Americans. Those programs that 
offer support to specific rural and urban segments of the economy will 
be simplified so that persons who qualify for assistance, or some other 
form of participation, will find less burdensome rules. Yet high 
standards will be set for efficient and effective program management 
that makes the best use of taxpayer dollars. Farmers, ranchers, and 
others involved in U.S. agriculture will find significant changes in 
all aspects of regulations that govern their interaction with the 
Department and its programs. Farm credit, a mainstay of the Nation's 
rural economy, will be significantly streamlined by the merger of 
cumbersome loan-making regulations with forms and certifications 
simplified to facilitate the application process. The Department will 
undertake a number of actions in the regulation of commodities that 
will increase efficiency, improve customer service, reduce intervention 
in markets, and allow States to assume greater responsibility in 
controlling the spread of plant pests or disease. The Department will 
also improve the regulations that serve rural communities. Several 
changes are being proposed in rural housing programs. Nutrition 
programs will also be strengthened, their efficiency improved, and 
their integrity enhanced through regulatory reform. In the area of food 
safety, the Department has undertaken a significant reinvention of all 
policies and relationships with industry and the public. There are 
several important reinvention plans in the natural resources and 
conservation area.
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 that is 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 the list of 
Departments that produce the largest number of regulations annually. 
These regulations 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 
they 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 
Departmental programs has accompanying regulatory needs, often with a 
significant impact. A current example is the pending 1995 Farm Bill now 
before Congress. Congress enacts a new ``Farm Bill'' every 5 years, and 
1995 marks the start of the next 5-year cycle. This key legislation 
affects most agencies of USDA and results in the addition of new 
programs, the deletion of others, and modification to still others. 
Although the specifics of this bill are currently under development, 
its 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 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 Department will assess the costs 
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the 
alternative of not regulating. 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 guidance from 
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs. These examples predate the March 4, 1995, 
initiative:
 Simplified Review Procedures--The process for developing new 
            regulations in USDA has been 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 Department is also 
            exploring opportunities to apply innovative rulemaking 
            approaches.
 Improved Impact Statements--With respect to ``significant 
            regulations,'' the Department is working to strengthen the 
            impact analyses supporting these regulations. For instance, 
            the regulation review process contains a section of 
            guidelines for the preparation of risk assessments and cost 
            benefits analyses. Further, as a result of the recent USDA 
            reorganization, there is now a subcabinet position of Chief 
            Economist, whose responsibilities include supervision of an 
            Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis.
 Reduced Paperwork Burdens--The Department has reviewed its 
            existing regulations with the intention of reducing 
            paperwork burdens wherever possible. As part of an earlier 
            commitment to regulatory reform, the Consolidated Farm 
            Service Agency conducted a comprehensive regulatory review 
            and identified changes in its procedures and forms that 
            will greatly reduce the complexity and paperwork imposed on 
            participants in its programs. Over 200 changes will be 
            implemented, which are estimated to result in a reduction 
            of 2 to 3 million work hours by farm program participants.
 Fewer Internal Regulations--Executive Order 12861 directs that 
            all internal agency regulations be reduced by 50 percent 
            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 percent reduction.
 Consensus-Based Rulemaking--In compliance with the President's 
            request to explore nontraditional means of rulemaking, the 
            Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is 
            utilizing negotiated rulemaking in the development of a 
            regulation concerning marine mammal health and safety.
Major Regulatory Priorities
Six agencies are represented in this regulatory plan. They are the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency (which includes the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation), the Food and Consumer Service, the Forest 
Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, the Rural Housing and 
Community Development Service, and the Rural Business and Community 
Development Service.
This document presents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations, as called for in Executive Order 12866. A brief comment on 
each of the six agencies appears below, which summarizes the agency 
mission and its key regulatory priorities. The agency summaries are 
followed by the Regulatory Plan entries.
Consolidated Farm Service Agency
Mission: The mission of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) is 
prescribed by various statutes that require the agency to (a) 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, (b) protect producers from 
unavoidable losses by providing a program of crop insurance, (c) 
provide credit to improve family farm opportunities, (d) maintain 
adequate carry-over stocks of vital commodities, (e) maintain an 
agricultural resource base and protect the environment through 
voluntary conservation programs, and (f) facilitate the orderly 
marketing and distribution of certain commodities through Commodity 
Credit Corporation operations. These goals are addressed through 
various means including loans and other credit programs, purchases, 
deficiency payments, crop insurance, conservation compliance, and 
production adjustment programs.
Priorities: CFSA's priorities for 1996 will be to implement the 
regulations required by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-354), as 
well as to implement the commodity and other programs as they are 
revised by the 1995 Farm Bill, which has not yet been legislated, and 
to implement the many revisions to the farm program and farm credit 
regulations that were identified by the President's Regulatory Review 
Initiative. The most significant CFSA regulations are those which 
implement commodity programs. Such programs are adjusted annually to 
reflect changes required by statutory formula and/or commodity market 
conditions. These recurring rulemaking actions implement price and 
income support and production adjustment programs for wheat, feed 
grains, upland cotton, extra-long staple cotton, and rice. Other crop 
regulations 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. Although these crop programs have 
significant economic impact they are driven by statute and by 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.
Food and Consumer Service
Mission: The Food and Consumer Service (FCS) administers domestic food 
assistance programs essential to the health and well-being of millions 
of low-income children, working families, and the elderly. These 
programs provide access to a healthful, nutritious diet, encourage 
better eating habits among all Americans, particularly the Nation's 
children, and form a bridge between agriculture and health.
Priorities: FCS has established five broad strategic policy goals that 
are enabled and/or supported by the Agency's regulatory agenda. These 
goals include:
 Improving the nutritional quality of meals served through the 
            National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs by 
            implementing the School Meals Initiative for Healthy 
            Children;
 Reforming the Food Stamp Program to assure access to a 
            nutritious, healthful diet for low-income Americans, 
            through food assistance and nutrition education, while 
            improving the integrity of program operations;
 Integrating nutrition policy within FCS programs to assure a 
            coordinated effort that maximizes resources and delivers 
            consistent, coherent, science-based, consumer-driven 
            messages to the American public;
 Improving the nutritional status and health of low-income 
            women, infants, and children; and
 Reinventing the food distribution program by (a) providing 
            more nutritious commodities and nutrition education 
            programs that are in balance with continued support for 
            agricultural markets, (b) streamlining program 
            administration, and (c) improving customer service and 
            program reputation/acceptance.
In addition, in support of the President's Regulatory Reform 
Initiatives, FCS has conducted a comprehensive, page-by-page review of 
all existing FCS regulations with the objectives of identifying 
regulations that are outdated, eliminating redundant provisions, 
empowering States to set their own procedures for case management and 
customer service, and emphasizing recipient responsibility for 
complying with program requirements. The findings of the review will be 
incorporated into proposed rulemaking for public comment.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to achieve quality land 
management, under the sustainable multiple-use management concept, to 
meet the diverse needs of people. It includes:
 Advocating a conservation ethic in promoting the health, 
            productivity, diversity, and beauty of forests and 
            associated lands;
 Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs, in 
            making decisions;
 Protecting and managing the National Forests and Grasslands so 
            they best demonstrate the sustainable multiple-use 
            management concept;
 Providing technical and financial assistance to State and 
            private forest landowners, encouraging them to practice 
            good stewardship and quality land management in meeting 
            their specific objectives;
 Providing technical and financial assistance to cities and 
            communities to improve their natural environment by 
            planting trees and caring for their forests;
 Providing international technical assistance and scientific 
            exchanges to sustain and enhance global resources and to 
            encourage quality land management;
 Helping States and communities to wisely use the forests to 
            promote rural economic development and a quality rural 
            environment;
 Developing and providing scientific and technical knowledge 
            aimed at improving our capability to protect, manage, and 
            use forests and rangelands; and
 Providing work, training, and education to the unemployed, 
            underemployed, elderly, youth, and disadvantaged, in 
            pursuit of our mission.
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, 
final 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.
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: FSIS is carrying out a comprehensive review of its 
regulatory procedures and requirements and is evaluating which are 
consistent with Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-
based systems, as articulated in FSIS's February 3, 1995, Pathogen 
Reduction/HACCP proposed rule (60 FR 6774). HACCP is an internationally 
recognized process-control system for preventing problems from 
occurring in the course of production rather than after a product is 
produced.
FSIS expects to publish the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule, its 
most significant and far-reaching regulatory undertaking, by the end of 
calendar year 1995. The development of the rule has benefited from 
public participation in a series of meetings, conferences, and hearings 
during the extensive public comment period. The rule will amend the 
meat and poultry products inspection regulations to mandate the use in 
official meat and poultry establishments of HACCP systems.
The regulatory review is needed to enable FSIS to implement the food 
safety regulatory strategy spelled out in the preamble to the February 
3 proposal and to establish a HACCP-oriented inspection system. The 
strategy is aimed at reducing the risk of foodborne illness by assuring 
that appropriate steps are taken in the food production process to 
prevent or reduce the likelihood of food safety hazards. To achieve 
this strategy the Agency must clarify the respective roles of 
Government and industry and place increased reliance on science-based 
performance standards, or food safety goals to be achieved, rather than 
command-and-control requirements that specify, often in great detail, 
the steps to be taken to achieve the goals. The Agency intends thereby 
to induce greater accountability in the regulated industry and 
encourage the adoption of scientific and technological innovations that 
can improve food safety.
The ongoing regulatory review is identifying command-and-control 
regulations that should be eliminated or converted to the science-based 
performance standards necessary for the operation of HACCP programs. 
Among the first significant regulatory changes to emerge from this 
review is the proposed elimination of prior-approval, or approval-
before-use, requirements for blueprints, equipment, and most partial 
quality control programs used in official meat and poultry 
establishments. This proposal would hold establishments accountable for 
meeting performance standards for facilities and equipment. It is also 
intended to encourage establishments to develop and implement quality 
control programs without first seeking FSIS permission to do so and 
without direct Agency guidance in designing these programs.
Another significant regulation is proposing to convert current 
regulations governing the production of cooked beef products, uncured 
meat patties, and certain poultry products into performance standards. 
The proposed performance standards would spell out the objective level 
of performance establishments must meet during their operations in 
order to produce safe products, but allow the use of plant-specific 
processing procedures other than the procedures prescribed in the 
current regulations. By allowing establishments to select or design 
processing systems to meet these performance standards, FSIS hopes to 
spur innovation in the meat and poultry industry.
Finally, FSIS will be issuing a final rule to eliminate duplication in 
the prior labeling approval system, contributing to greater efficiency 
in Government services. The rule eliminates $3 million of direct 
labeling costs without compromising the accuracy and amount of 
information provided to the consumer.
Rural Housing and Community Development Service
Mission: The mission of the Rural Housing and Community Development 
Service (RHCDS) is to improve the quality of life in rural America as 
it provides community facilities, technical assistance, and outreach. 
RHCDS administers the Department's rural housing programs, which 
provide direct loans, loan guarantees, rental assistance payments, and 
grants for low-income families who reside in rural areas. The agency 
also administers the Community Facility Loan Program. RHCDS delivers 
its programs at the local level through an extensive network of county 
and district offices.
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 in 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. The applications of families in hardship situations would 
be given expedited handling.
Rural Business and Community Development Service
Mission: The Rural Business and Community Development Service (RBCDS) 
administers the Department's business programs, including the technical 
assistance and research provided by the former Agricultural Cooperative 
Service. The Business and Industry Loan Guarantees Program involves the 
participation of private lenders, to which the agency offers protection 
against loss, so that these lenders will be willing to extend credit to 
the borrower-client. Other programs, including the Intermediary 
Relending Program and the Rural Economic Development programs involve 
sponsors who borrow from the agency in order to make loans to 
businesses and other organizations for development purposes. The 
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Program offers 
assistance that is subject to repayment once projects become 
successful, allowing more latitude than a conventional loan for risk-
taking.
Priority: Despite decades of investments in infrastructure and business 
development, rural America continues to face many significant 
challenges. Some of the challenges, like the persistence of poverty in 
major parts of the South and in Appalachia, have been with us for a 
long time. Others, such as the loss of jobs and businesses from rural 
economies, are due to changes in the structure of rural economic bases 
and the globalization of competition.
The primary goals of RBCDS regulatory changes are to economize in the 
use of public resources while making the programs more effective at 
rural community economic development and more customer friendly. New or 
revised regulations will generally be shorter, better organized, and 
clearer than the current regulations for the same programs, and program 
requirements will be more flexible.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Housing and Community Development Service (RHCDS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. SECTION 502 RURAL HOUSING LOAN POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND 
AUTHORIZATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1480; 7 USC 1989; 5 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:


The Rural Housing and Community Development Service (RHCDS) published a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 12, 1995, containing four 
primary initiatives:
1. Size and amenity restrictions lessened: The proposal is to use the 
dollar limitations on RHCDS Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans (``HUD 
caps'') for the direct loan program, rather than using a laundry list 
of allowed and disallowed amenities, when determining ``modest'' 
housing in an area and the maximum amount of the loan.
2. Income ratios used for determining repayment ability instead of a 
family budget: This approach is more in line with industry standards 
and is in conformance with the Guaranteed Rural Housing Program.
3. Payment assistance calculation method changed to base subsidy on 
family's percentile of area median income: An equivalent rate 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. Applicant/
borrowers would pay a minimum ``floor'' for principal, interest, taxes, 
and insurance (PITI). The percentages are 22 percent for very low 
income, 24 percent for applicants with income between 50 and 65 percent 
of median income, and 26 percent for those with income between 65 and 
80 percent of median. As household income rises, the borrower's 
interest rate would also rise, until eventually the full note rate is 
reached. A study conducted by the Agency indicates that 94 percent of 
existing RHCDS 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 made to the method of selecting and processing applications-
-maintaining a separate fund for priority applications: A separate fund 
for priority applications would be maintained by the State Director, 
including mutual self-help housing, servicing loans, participation 
loans, refinancing non-RHCDS debts, and hardship applications from 
persons living in deficient housing for more than 6 months. The 
proposal will allow refinancing of non-RHCDS debts when, although the 
debt is not delinquent, it is clear the applicant cannot continue to 
maintain payments for reasons beyond his or her control; and will also 
allow refinancing non-RHCDS debts on a building site without a 
dwelling. 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.
The final rule on these initiatives will also incorporate several 
technical changes contained in a proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on January 6, 1993. These changes include: excluding certain 
payments in determining income eligibility, deleting the requirement 
for a public posting of applicants' names, and requiring applicants to 
submit their Federal income tax returns for certifying their income.


Statement of Need:


Changes to this regulation are necessary to make the instruction more 
customer-friendly, to conform the direct Rural Housing program to the 
Guaranteed Rural Housing Loan program and industry standards, and to 
reduce the Agency's subsidy budget authority.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended.


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 Supervisors 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.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We do not anticipate costs connected with the 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 payment assistance 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 payment assistance should encourage applicants to shop for 
less costly housing, in line with their repayment ability, and will 
provide an incentive for RHCDS 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            60 FR 25629                                    05/12/95
NPRM Comment Per60 FR 25629                                    07/11/95
Final Action    60 FR 55112                                    10/27/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Chris Goettelmann
Chief
Regulations Analysis and Control Branch
Department of Agriculture
Rural Housing and Community Development Service
Room 6348 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9744
RIN: 0575-AA35
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Consumer Service (FCS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

2. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
(WIC): FOOD DELIVERY SYSTEMS
Priority:


Other Significant


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 (55 FR 53446). 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 reproposed 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 of several provisions that 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 State 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 that may not have 
been clearly understood in the earlier rule. A 120-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 1996.
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 87 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. 
The estimated $0.5 million in additional costs therefore 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                                                           03/00/96
Final Action                                                   01/00/97
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/00/96
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 Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2760
RIN: 0584-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
3. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT CLAIM ESTABLISHMENT AND 
COLLECTION STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2011 to 2032


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 272; 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 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 who 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 practical. 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 that 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                                                           03/00/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/00/96
Final Action                                                   08/00/96
Final Action Effective                                         10/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
4. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: REVISIONS IN RETAIL FOOD STORE ELIGIBILITY 
CRITERIA AND IN ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE AND PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION
Priority:


Other Significant


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, Public Law 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. (95-003)


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 require 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).
The report must include data on (a) the number and types of stores 
newly authorized and (b) the 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                                                           02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB90
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

5. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE MICKEY LELAND 
CHILDHOOD HUNGER RELIEF ACT
Priority:


Economically Significant


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 final rule will (a) exclude certain general-assistance vendor 
payments from income; (b) increase the amount of the dependent care 
deduction; (c) require State agencies to establish a statewide limit 
for dependent care reimbursements paid to participants in the Food 
Stamp Employment & Training (E&T) Program; (d) increase the fair market 
value on vehicles for determining a household's resource limit; (e) 
exclude the value of vehicles from resources that are used by the 
household to transport fuel or water; (f) simplify the ``household'' 
definition; (g) establish eligibility for children who live with their 
food-stamp-eligible parents in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation center; 
(h) provide an income exclusion for earnings of elementary and 
secondary school students under 22; and (i) require proration of 
benefits following a break of more than 30 days in certification. (93-
017)


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; permitting 
children living with their parents in residential drug or alcohol 
treatment centers to be eligible for food stamps just like their 
parents; permitting the fair market value of vehicles to be indexed to 
the CPI for new cars by fiscal year 1996; and aiding families living in 
isolated, rural areas by exempting vehicles they use to carry heating 
fuel or water.
This final rule implements nine positions from the Mickey Leland 
Childhood Hunger Relief Act, Public Law 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 will be effective through September 30, 1995. Beginning 
October 1, 1995, the exclusion will be raised to $4,600 and will 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 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 published a proposed rule 
on August 30, 1994. After reviewing comments on the proposed rule, the 
Department evaluated the following alternatives for the final rule.
Section 13922, Improving Access to Employment and Training Activities--
Dependent Care Deduction. Minimizing administrative burdens on State 
agencies: The final rule will 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. This alternative was supported by commenters.
Section 13931, Simplifying the Household Definition for Households with 
Children and Others--Major issue: 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 retaining this definition of ``parental control'' in the 
rule.
Section 13911, Excluding the Income of Elementary and Secondary School 
Students Under Age 22.
In the proposed rule, the Department limited the earned income 
exclusion to elementary and secondary school students who were living 
with their parents or under the parental control of nonparent adults. 
Commenters universally opposed this limitation. Because the Department 
believes that this limitation is supported by both the legislative 
history and the case law on the issue, the Department retained this 
limitation in the final rule.


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 the Department of Health and Human Services.


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            59 FR 44866                                    08/30/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 44866                                    10/31/94
Final Action                                                   12/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2760
RIN: 0584-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

6. PATHOGEN REDUCTION; HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS 
(HACCP) SYSTEMS
Priority:


Economically Significant


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:


On February 3, 1995, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
proposed a rule that would require all meat and poultry establishments 
to develop and maintain Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) systems. It also proposed that these establishments implement 
certain pathogen reduction interventions. The Agency is currently 
reviewing comments received on the proposed rule. In addition, on 
August 11, 1995, the Agency reopened the comment period until October 
31, 1995.


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 that 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 
that is used in the food industry to produce product that is 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, that 
establishments are clean and sanitary, and that 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            60 FR 6774                                     02/03/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/05/95
NPRM Reopening o60 FR 41029eriod                               08/11/95
NPRM Comment Period Extended to                                11/13/95
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Paula M. Cohen
Director, Regulations Development
Policy, Evaluation and Planning Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-7164
Fax: 202 690-4794
RIN: 0583-AB69
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
7.  ELIMINATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES 
EQUIPMENT AND CERTAIN PARTIAL QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
eliminate existing text in the CFR.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 304; 9 CFR 308; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the 
Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations by removing 
current requirements for FSIS approval of facilities and equipment 
prior to their use in official establishments. Establishments would be 
held accountable for meeting existing regulations for facilities and 
equipment and for preventing conditions that would tend to adulterate 
meat, meat food, and poultry products. FSIS is also proposing to end 
its prior approval of most voluntary, plant-operated partial quality 
control (PQC) programs, which are used by establishments to control 
certain kinds of food processing and product characteristics. 
Establishments would be encouraged to develop and implement quality 
control programs without first receiving permission from the Agency to 
do so and without having to rely on Agency guidance in operating them.


Statement of Need:


This action is being taken as part of the continuing Reinventing 
Government initiative to streamline and modernize the meat and poultry 
inspection regulations, to reduce reliance on command-and-control 
regulations in favor of science-based prevention measures and 
performance standards, and to encourage innovations that will improve 
food safety.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to removing requirements for facilities and equipment 
prior approvals include development by FSIS of detailed standards to be 
published in booklets with periodic updates, recognizing industry 
organizations as prior approval authorities, and establishing general 
performance standards similar to FDA-recognized good manufacturing 
practices. FSIS has chosen the option of proposing general performance 
standards. Industry would be free to set up technical assistance 
organizations. For PQC prior approvals, the alternatives to removing 
requirements were market sampling, mandating additional in-plant 
controls, sampling of finished products for chemical analysis, and 
general requirements, and a performance standard option was the one 
chosen.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs of this proposed rulemaking to the Agency and the regulated 
industry would be minimal because the rulemaking would remove 
administrative burdens. Benefits include annual current-dollar cost 
savings or avoidance to FSIS of nearly $3 million and to industry of at 
least $40,000 for blueprint submissions that are no longer required, 
plus additional, substantial uncalculated benefits because there would 
no longer be production delays arising from prior approval of 
facilities, equipment, and PQC programs.


Risks:


This rulemaking could induce reduced health and safety risks to the 
public by providing industry with additional flexibility to innovate, 
which the command-and-control approach of prior-approval regulation has 
not encouraged.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia Stolfa
Associate Deputy Administrator
Science and Technology
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AB93
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
8.  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN MEAT PRODUCTS AND POULTRY 
PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 60 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the 
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations by converting the 
current regulations governing the production of cooked beef products, 
uncured meat patties, and certain poultry products into performance 
standards. The proposed performance standards spell out the objective 
level of performance establishments must meet during their operations 
in order to produce safe products, but allow the use of plant-specific 
processing procedures other than the procedures prescribed in the 
current regulations. All of the provisions in the current regulations 
meet the proposed performance standards. Therefore, establishments 
would not be required to change any current practices in response to 
this proposed rule. The current provisions would remain in the 
regulations as examples of how an establishment might comply with 
proposed performance standards, constituting ``safe harbors.''


Statement of Need:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. Many of these 
regulations employ the command-and-control approach, prescribing a 
precise sequence of steps to be followed when producing food that is 
safe and not adulterated. The command-and-control approach to 
rulemaking has ensured that all establishments are subject to the same 
rules and that no establishment has a technological advantage over 
another. However, this approach has several drawbacks: it can stifle 
innovation in meat and poultry processing technology; it does not 
account for the uniqueness of individual processing procedures and 
needs within different establishments; and, it produces regulations 
that can have a negative economic impact on small businesses. Command-
and-control rulemaking often fails to account for the development of 
innovative processing technologies. By prescribing specific steps 
establishments must take during processing, command-and-control 
regulations often do not allow establishments to employ innovations in 
processing technology that may produce meat and poultry products that 
are as safe as, or even safer than, those produced in accordance with 
the command-and-control regulations. While FSIS endeavors to account 
for technological innovation when rulemaking, new processing 
technologies are developed at a faster pace than the Agency can amend 
the regulations. Also, command-and-control regulations often do not 
account for the uniqueness of individual processing procedures and 
needs within different establishments. FSIS command-and-control 
regulations require all establishments to produce meat and poultry 
products in the same manner. Such prescriptive regulations are 
impractical in many settings. Further, they can have disparate economic 
effects on establishments producing different volumes of the same 
product. By promulgating command-and-control regulations mandating the 
use of specific processes or technologies, FSIS often inadvertently 
imposes significant economic burdens on small businesses. Small 
establishments producing meat and poultry products at low volumes often 
must pay a high cost per product unit when required to employ a 
specific process or technology. Large establishments, however, are able 
to spread the cost of a required process or technology over their 
higher production volumes. While FSIS has attempted to incorporate 
prevailing industry processing practices into its command-and-control 
regulations in order to lessen the economic burden imposed on small 
establishments, many small establishments often find prevailing 
industry processing practices to be impractical and/or expensive. In 
light of these general problems, FSIS is proposing to substitute 
performance standards for the current command-and-control regulations 
governing the production of cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, 
and certain fully and partially cooked poultry products. The proposed 
performance standards spell out the objective level of performance that 
establishments must meet during their operations in order to produce 
safe and nonadulterated products, but allow the use of plant-specific 
processing procedures other than the procedures prescribed in the 
current regulations. Accordingly, establishments could employ 
innovative or unique processing procedures customized to the nature and 
volume of their production, as long as their products meet the proposed 
performance standards for safe, nonadulterated food. Furthermore, all 
of the prescriptive, command-and-control provisions in the current 
regulations governing cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, and 
certain fully and partially cooked poultry products meet the proposed 
standards. Therefore, establishments producing these products would not 
be required to change any current practices in response to this 
proposed rule. By proposing performance standards that may be met 
through adherence to the current regulations, FSIS creates a ``safe 
harbor'' for establishments content with the current regulations and 
mitigates any negative impact this proposal could have on such 
establishments.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce.


Alternatives:


FSIS could maintain the current command-and-control regulations 
governing cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, and certain 
poultry products. However, as explained above, these regulations have 
several drawbacks: they stifle innovation in meat and poultry 
processing technology; they do not account for the uniqueness of 
individual processing procedures and needs within different 
establishments; and, they can have a negative economic impact on small 
businesses.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


By allowing establishments to meet performance standards for cooked 
beef products, uncured meat patties, and certain poultry products by 
means other than those prescribed in the current regulations, FSIS 
hopes to encourage innovation in meat and poultry processing technology 
and allow establishments to customize processes to meet their 
individual needs. Because employing alternative means to meet the 
proposed performance standards would be optional, FSIS concludes that 
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on small or 
large establishments.


Risks:


The proposed performance standards would maintain a level of food 
safety equivalent to that which is ensured by the current regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia F. Stolfa
Associate Deputy, Administrator
Science and Technology
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AB94
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

9.  PRIOR LABEL APPROVAL PROCESS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


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 amends the Federal meat and poultry products inspection 
regulations to streamline the labeling process. Specifically the rule 
expands the types of labeling, authorized for use on meat and poultry 
products, which would not require submittal to the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) for approval prior to use. In addition, the 
rule permits the submission of only sketch labeling, except for 
temporary approvals, in those instances where labeling is required to 
be submitted for approval. This will result in significant savings for 
manufacturers, as well as for 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 (a) expand the categories of generically approved 
labels and (b) 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.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The final rule could eliminate over $3 million in direct label-
application costs and reduce 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. After reviewing the 
comments received and in light of FSIS' ongoing reassessment of its 
labeling policies, FSIS has decided to proceed, at this time, with the 
gradual streamlining and modernization of the prior labeling approval 
system. Therefore, this rule expands the types of labeling that will be 
generically approved, as opposed to eliminating all prior review of 
labels and instituting a system where all labeling would be generically 
approved.


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                                                   10/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         04/00/96
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
Phone: 202 254-2590
RIN: 0583-AB92
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

10. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 Secs. 6 and 15, 90 Stat. 2949, 2952, 2958 (16 U.S.C. 1604, 1613); and 
5 U.S.C. 301.


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR Part 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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


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:


Most of the proposed changes could only be addressed through a 
regulatory change.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule has been estimated to result in savings of 
approximately $61 million over 15 years relative to cost 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            60 FR 18886                                    04/13/95
NPRM Comment Per 60 FR 36767n End                              08/17/95
Final Action                                                   07/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington DC 20090-6090
Phone: 703 235-1488
RIN: 0596-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (RBCDS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

11. RURAL BUSINESS LOAN STREAMLINING
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1989; 42 USC 1480; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 1980; 7 CFR 4279; 7 CFR 4287


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This initiative will create a complete new set of regulations for the 
program of loan guarantees for rural businesses known as the Business 
and Industry Program. The purpose is to streamline both the regulations 
and the program. The new regulations will be much shorter than the 
previous regulations for the program and will be better organized and 
clearer. Program procedures and requirements will be more flexible, 
applications will be simpler, and more reliance will be placed on the 
commercial lender.


Statement of Need:


The new regulation for the program known as the Business and Industry 
Guaranteed loan program will be more user friendly for lenders, 
borrowers, and Agency staff. These changes are essential to allow for 
improved service to the public and for an expanded program with 
increased impact on rural employment, without a corresponding expansion 
in Agency staff. The regulations will be shorter, better organized, and 
more simple and clear. Many documentation requirements will be 
eliminated or consolidated into more convenient formats. Analysis and 
processing responsibilities will be shifted from the National Office to 
field offices and from the Agency to lenders. Eligible uses of the 
program will be expanded.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Business and Industry program was authorized by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972, which amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act. The program provides for the guarantee of loans made 
by private lenders to rural businesses. The purpose is to improve 
employment opportunities and economic conditions in rural areas. The 
proposed new regulations are an administrative, rather than 
legislative, initiative. However, the Senate report on the fiscal year 
1995 Appropriations Act did contain a directive for the department to 
streamline the Business and Industry regulations and application 
procedures, reduce loan application processing time by relying on in-
state resources, allow more management flexibility and decisionmaking 
capacity at the State Office level, and expand eligible loan purposes 
to include recreation and tourism.


Alternatives:


More staff could be devoted to the operation of the Business and 
Industry program, or the volume of program funding and activity could 
be limited to pre-1994 levels. However, if the program is to be 
expanded or maintained at the 1994 or 1995 level, if customer service 
is to be improved, and if staff resources are to be limited in 
accordance with budget and Government reduction goals, streamlining of 
the program is essential. The Agency has utilized the expertise of its 
headquarters staff, task forces of State Office staff, and comments 
from the Office of Inspector General to determine what changes will be 
the most appropriate. Public comments will be taken and considered 
before the changes become final.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The only costs that could be anticipated as a result of this action 
would be potential increased losses on the loans guaranteed. However, 
the Agency is confident that the regulations contain sufficient 
safeguards to mitigate any increased risk and prevent increased losses. 
The streamlining of the regulations for this program will enhance the 
use of the program in improving the prosperity of rural residents 
through financial assistance that increases rural competitiveness, 
facilitates industrial development, and enables rural residents to 
profit from private-sector economic activity. The proposed regulations 
are consistent with the Administration's efforts to streamline 
Government functions, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
Government activities, and be more customer friendly. The size of the 
Business and Industry loan guarantee program has been increased from 
$100 million in fiscal year 1993 to $249 million in fiscal year 1994 
and to $500 million in fiscal year 1995. However, decreasing 
administrative resources dictate that the Agency deliver the increased 
program with a much smaller Federal staff. The new regulations will 
enable the Agency to deliver a much larger program with fewer staff 
resources, and simultaneously meet the objectives of the National 
Performance Review regarding improved customer service, less 
regulation, and streamlined Agency operations.


Risks:


The risk associated with this regulatory initiative is that shifting 
more responsibility from the National Office to field offices and from 
the Agency to the lenders, and providing more flexibility in loan 
structuring and credit quality analysis, could result in more loan 
losses. The Agency believes that the risk has been mitigated. The 
shifting responsibilities will allow the Agency staff to better perform 
their oversight functions. National Office staff will spend more time 
training and monitoring field office staff. Field Office staff will 
spend more time monitoring the performance of lenders. Lenders will be 
able to respond more quickly to troubled loans. Agency staff will 
continue to review the credit quality of proposed loans. However, 
reviewers will begin with the written analysis prepared by the lender 
rather than beginning with a completely new analysis. Lenders will have 
a minimum of 20 percent unguaranteed exposure on almost all loans to 
ensure incentive to consider the credit quality and to properly monitor 
and service the loan. On most loans over $5 million the lender will 
have a minimum of 30 percent unguaranteed exposure. The Agency will 
receive and review periodic financial reports on the borrowers and will 
visit all lenders at least once each year and all borrowers at least 
once every 3 years. No increase in delinquency rates or losses is 
expected as a result of the new regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Chris Goettelmann
Chief
Regulations Analysis and Control Branch
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service
Rm 6348 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-9744
RIN: 0570-AA09
BILLING CODE 3410-90-F