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

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 231 / Friday, November 29, 1996 / The
                            Regulatory Plan

[[Page 62010]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
To comply with the National Performance Review (NPR) directive to 
achieve regulatory reform, the Department of Agriculture is continuing 
an extremely important project to eliminate unnecessary regulations and 
improve all those remaining by making them easier to understand and 
more user friendly. To date the Department's review and revision effort 
has resulted in actions on over 50 percent of our NPR committment to 
regulatory reform. When the results are fully implemented, the 
Department will have eliminated or reinvented 81 percent of its 
regulatory holdings in the CFR.
Positive changes resulting from regulatory actions proposed as well as 
completed 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 are being 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 is undertaking 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 is also improving the regulations that serve 
rural communities. Several changes are being made in the rural housing 
programs. Nutrition programs are also being 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. The recently enacted Farm Bill, Public Law 104-127, 
has considerable regulatory consequences. This key legislation affects 
most agencies of USDA and will result in the addition of new programs, 
the deletion of others, and modification to still others.
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.
Major Regulatory Priorities
Five agencies are represented in this regulatory plan. They are the 
Farm Service Agency (which includes the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation), the Food and Consumer Service, the Forest Service, the 
Food Safety Inspection Service, and the Rural Business Cooperative 
Development Service.
This document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. A brief comment on 
each of the five agencies appears below, which summarizes the agency 
mission and its key regulatory priorities. The agency summaries are 
followed by the regulatory plan entries.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers farm commodity, 
conservation, commodity purchase, crop insurance, and farm loan 
programs, as prescribed by various statutes, in order to support 
farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring compliance with farm 
conservation and wetland protection requirements and to assist owners 
and operators of farms and ranches to conserve and enhance soil, water, 
and related natural resources.
Priorities: FSA's priorities for 1997 will be to continue to implement 
these programs and to implement the many revisions to the farm program 
regulations that were identified by the President's Regulatory Review 
Initiative. The most significant FSA regulations are those that 
implement crop and commodity programs and farm loans. FSA administers 
commodity loan programs for wheat, rice, grain, sorghum barley, oats, 
oilseeds, tobacco, peanuts, upland and extra long staple cotton and 
sugar. The programs for wheat, feed grains, rice and upland cotton were 
significantly changed by the 1996 Farm Bill, which instituted 
production flexibility contracts in place of the deficiency payments 
and production adjustment of past programs. The contracts removed the 
link between income support payments and farm prices by providing for 
seven annual fixed but declining payments. FSA's farm loan programs 
provide farm ownership, operating, emergency loss and rural youth loans 
to help farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain

[[Page 62011]]

private, commercial credit. While the commodity and farm loan programs 
have significant economic impact, they are driven by specific statutory 
requirements. 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) provides children and 
needy families access to a more healthful diet through its food 
assistance programs and comprehensive nutrition education efforts.
Priorities: In addition to responding to recently enacted provisions 
for welfare reform, FCS has established broad strategic policy goals 
that are enabled and/or supported by the Agency's regulatory agenda. 
These goals include:
 Healthful diets for children through the National School Lunch 
            and Breakfast Program School Meals Initiative for Healthy 
            Children. USDA created and is continuing to develop Team 
            Nutrition, an innovative network of public and private 
            partnerships to promote food choices through schools, 
            families, communities and the media.
 Enhanced food and nutrition security for low-income Americans 
            by providing assistance through the Food Stamp Program, 
            improving program administration to meet the needs of the 
            1990s, including improved program integrity and efficiency, 
            expansion of electronic benefit transfer (EBT), and 
            initiating Team Nutrition concepts into the Food Stamp 
            Program as appropriate to program participants and their 
            communities.
 Improved nutritional status and health of low-income women, 
            infants and children through the WIC Program by further 
            emphasizing nutrition education and healthy infant feeding 
            practices, incorporating Team Nutrition concepts while 
            seeking to enhance program integrity through improved 
            monitoring of vendors and exploration of the use of 
            electronic benefit transfer (EBT).
 Improved nutritional status of low-income, pre-school children 
            through the Child and Adult Care Food Program by expanding 
            technical assistance to day care providers in improving 
            nutritional quality of program meals in relation to the 
            Dietary Guidelines and Recommended Dietary Guidelines, 
            incorporating Team Nutrition concepts and materials to 
            introduce nutrition education to children at an early age, 
            and identifying and encouraging potential sponsors of 
            program services to low-income children.
 Low-income children consume nutritious lunches when school 
            meals are not available. The Summer Food Service Program 
            will be examined in relation to all other FCS food programs 
            and will be included as an extension of the School Meals 
            Initiative for Healthy Children gaining technical 
            assistance for planning nutritious meals and adaptation of 
            Team Nutrition concepts for providing nutrition education 
            in non-school settings.
 Improved quality of food distribution commodities and service 
            in continuing support for agricultural markets with 
            emphasis on more healthful commodities including fruits and 
            vegetables and improved program efficiency through 
            automation, reduced Federal and State inventories and 
            timely deliveries in FCS food distribution programs.
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: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring the Nation's meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, 
wholesome, and properly packaged and labeled.
Priorities: FSIS is carrying out a comprehensive review of its existing 
regulations in light of the July 25, 1996, final rule, ``Pathogen 
Reduction Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 
Systems,'' requiring that official meat and poultry establishments 
develop and implement HACCP, a science-based process control system for 
food safety. Establishments will be responsible for developing and 
implementing HACCP plans incorporating the controls they have 
determined are necessary and appropriate to produce safe products. 
HACCP places the responsibility for food safety firmly on meat and 
poultry establishments, but enables them to tailor their control 
systems to the needs of particular plants and processes and to take 
advantage of the latest technological innovations.
FSIS must revise its existing regulations to be consistent with HACCP 
principles. Many are ``command-and-control'' regulations, prescribing 
the exact means establishments must use to ensure the safety of their 
products. Some specify, for example, precise cooking time-and-
temperature combinations. Further, many of these regulations require 
prior approval of equipment and procedures by FSIS, therefore assigning 
the Agency

[[Page 62012]]

responsibility for the means used by establishments to comply with the 
regulations. As a general matter, command-and-control regulations are 
incompatible with HACCP because they deprive plants of the flexibility 
to innovate and undercut the clear delineation of responsibility for 
food safety. Therefore, to prepare for the implementation of HACCP, 
FSIS is conducting a thorough review of its current regulations and, to 
the maximum extent possible, converting its command-and-control 
regulations to performance standards. Some of the Agency's recent and 
planned initiatives, both to convert command-and-control regulations to 
performance standards and to generally streamline and simplify the 
regulations, follow:
 FSIS has proposed to convert to performance standards the 
            current regulations governing the production of cooked beef 
            products, uncured meat patties, and certain poultry 
            products.
 FSIS has proposed to eliminate prior approval requirements for 
            blueprints, equipment, and most partial-quality control 
            programs used in meat and poultry establishments.
 FSIS has issued a final rule that eliminates unnecessary 
            duplication in the prior labeling approval system.
 FSIS will be proposing to streamline, consolidate, and make 
            consistent with HACCP the rules of practice regarding 
            suspension and withdrawal of inspection.
 FSIS will be seeking comment and information on how to 
            simplify and revise the standards of identity and 
            composition for meat and poultry products in light of 
            Agency budget constraints, as well as changing markets and 
            consumer expectations. FSIS must reform this regulatory 
            program while continuing to prevent economic adulteration 
            or misbranding of meat and poultry products.
 FSIS, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration, 
            will be seeking comment and information on the need for 
            storage and transporation requirements for food capable of 
            supporting the growth of pathonogenic microorganisms.
Rural Business-Cooperative Development Service
Mission: The mission of RBCDS is to enhance the quality of life for all 
rural Americans by providing leadership in building competitive 
businesses and cooperatives that can prosper in the global trading 
marketplace.
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--Food and Consumer Service (FCS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. 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 1997.
Although this rule does not have a direct impact on reducing risks to 
public health, safety, or the environment, it will significantly

[[Page 62013]]

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                                                           06/00/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/00/97
Final Action                                                   03/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         03/00/98
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: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
2. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT CLAIM ESTABLISHMENT AND 
COLLECTION STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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:


The Food and Consumer Service is revising Food Stamp Program 
regulations which cover the establishment and collection of recipient 
claims. This action is the result of the enactment of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) 
and is consistent with the President's regulatory reform effort. In 
addition, this rule revises existing discretionary areas to improve 
claim establishment and effective 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. 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:


In addition to implementing PRWORA, 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. 
The current rule has also 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. In addition, the existing regulations must be changed 
to conform

[[Page 62014]]

with the new legislative requirement. 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.


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                                                           04/00/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/00/97
Final Action                                                   12/00/97
Final Action Effective                                         02/00/98
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
3. 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.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/97
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

[[Page 62015]]

_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
4.  FSP: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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:


 PL 104-193


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271; 7 CFR 272; 7 CFR 273


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, August 22, 1996.


Stat. implementation deadline of 8/22/96 for sec 813, 814, 820, 821, 
837, and 911 of PL 104-193; stat. implementation deadline of 7/1/97 for 
sec 115, and 11/22/96 for sec 824 of PL 104-193.


Abstract:


This rule will implement 12 provisions of the Personal Responsibility 
and work Opportunity Reconcilation Act of 1996. 96-019


Statement of Need:


P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996, amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977, to add 
some new eligibility requirements and disqualifiers, and increase some 
existing penalties for noncompliance with food stamp rules. The new 
law: (1) makes individuals convicted of drug-related felonies 
ineligible for food stamps; (2) doubles the penalties for violating 
food stamp program requirements; (3) permanently disqualifies 
individuals convicted of trafficking in food stamp benefits of $500 or 
more; (4) allows States to disqualify an individual from food stamps if 
the individual is disqualified from another means-tested program for 
failure to perform an action required by that program; (5) makes 
individuals ineligible for 10 years if they misrepresent their identity 
or residence in order to receive multiple food stamp benefits; (6) 
makes fleeing felons and probation and parole violators ineligible for 
the food stamp program; (7) allows states to require food stamp 
recipients to cooperate with child support agencies as a condition of 
food stamp eligibility; (8) allows states to disqualify individuals who 
are in arrears in court-ordered child support payments; (9) limits the 
food stamp participation of most able-bodied adults without dependents 
to three months in a three-year period during times the individual is 
not working or participating in a work program; (10) prohibits an 
increase in food stamp benefits when households' income is reduced 
because of a penalty imposed under a Federal, State, or local means-
tested public assistance program for failure to perform a required 
action; (11) requires States to provide households' addresses, social 
security numbers, or photographs to law enforcement officers to assist 
them in locating fugitive felons or probation or parole violators; and 
(12) prohibits an increase in food stmp benefits when households' 
income is reduced because of a penalty imposed under a Federal, State, 
or local means-tested public assistance program for an act of fraud by 
the individual under the program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


All of the provision of this rule are mandated by P.L. 104-193, ``The 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996.''


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Over 7 years, the provisions are expected to reduce the cost of the 
Food Stamp Program by approximately $5.565 billion.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; Regulatory Impact Analysis 06/00/97


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-AC39
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
5.  FSP: STATE FLEXIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF 
PUBLIC LAW 104-193
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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:


 PL 104-193; PL 104-208; 7 USC 2011 to 2032


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 273.2; 7 CFR 273.4; 7 CFR 273.9(c); 7 CFR 273.9(d); 7 CFR 
273.10(f); 7 CFR 273.11(a); 7 CFR 273.11(c); 7 CFR 273.11(e); 7 CFR 
273.11(j); 7 CFR 273.10(a)


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, August 22, 1996.


For provisions effective upon enactment, the statutory implementation 
date is August 22, 1996.


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement 
14 provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 and one provision of the Omnibus 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. These provisions would 
increase State agency flexibility in processing applications for the 
Food Stamp Program and allow greater use of standard amounts for 
determining deductions and self-employment expenses. The provisions 
would also give State agencies options to issue partial allotments for 
households in treatment centers, count all of the income of an 
ineligible noncitizen in determining the benefits of the rest of the 
household, issue combined allotments to certain expedited service

[[Page 62016]]

households, and certify elderly or disabled households for 24 months. 
Other changes would revise requirements for determining noncitizen 
eligibility and the eligibility and benefits of sponsored noncitizens, 
eliminate the exclusion of certain transitional housing payments and 
State and local energy assistance, exclude the earnings of students 
under 18, and require proration of benefits following any break in 
certification. 96-020


Statement of Need:


This action is required by Pub. L. 104-193 and Pub. L. 104-208.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Summary of the Legal Basis: This rule is required to implement the 
provisions of sections 402, 421, 801, 807, 808, 809, 811, 812, 818, 
827, 828, 830, and 835 of Pub. L. 104-193 and section 552 of Pub. L. 
104-208.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The provision of this rule would reduce Food Stamp Program costs for FY 
1997-2002 by approximately $6,605 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, 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: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC40
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
6.  FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: WORK PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 273.7; 7 CFR 273.22


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule will implement revisions to the Food Stamp Program's 
work and employment and training requirements, as well as new 
provisions for a work supplementation or support program and an 
employment initiative program. 96-025


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/00/97
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Final Action Effective                                         00/00/00
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
Alexandria, VA 22302-1594
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC45
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

7.  FSP: NONDISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


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:


 PL 104-193, sec 803; PL 104-193, sec 804; PL 104-193, sec 805; PL 104-
193, sec 809; PL 104-193, sec 810; PL 104-193, sec 838; PL 104-193, sec 
109; PL 104-193, sec 826


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 273.1; 7 CFR 273.2; 7 CFR 273.8; 7 CFR 273.9; 7 CFR 
273.10


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory.


Statutory Implementation Dates: PL 104-193, sec 809 - 1/1/97; PL 104-
193, sec 803, 805 and 838 - 08/22/96; PL 104-193, sec 804 and 810 - 10/
01/96.


Abstract:


This interim rule amends the Food Stamp Program regulations to 
implement 8 provisions of the Personal Responsibiity and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. These provisions which require 
no interpretation or discretion 1) freeze the minimum allotment at $10; 
2) change the way the maximum allotments are calculated to use 100% of 
the Thrifty Food Plan as opposed to 103%; 3) freeze the standard 
deduction at current level and eliminate the adjustment procedures; 4) 
cap the excess shelter expense deduction; 5) change the household 
composition definition so that children under 22 years of age and 
living with their parents cannot be a separate household; 6) increase 
the time frame from 5 to 7 days for expedited service; 7) set a time 
limit of not more than 90 days for considering the person homeless; and 
8) set the fair market value of vehicles at $4,600 through 9/30/96 and 
raise it to $4,650 effective 10/1/96 and eliminate future adjustments.


Statement of Need:


This action is required by P.L. 104-193.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This rule is required to implement the provisions of sections 109, 803, 
804, 805, 809, 810, 826, and 838 of P.L. 104-193, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.


Alternatives:


None. The provisions are mandated by statute.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule would reduce Food Stamp Program costs for 
FY 1997-2002 by $16.950 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             04/00/97
Final Action                                                   00/00/00
Small Entities Affected:


None

[[Page 62017]]

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-AC41
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCS
8.  IMPROVED TARGETING OF DAY CARE HOME REIMBURSEMENTS IN THE 
CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 226


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, July 1, 1997. Other, Statutory, January 1, 1997.


Other deadline is for interim final rule.


Abstract:


The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (P.L. 104-193) made a significant change in the family day care 
home component of CACFP. Currently, all meals served in family day care 
homes are reimbursed at a single rate by type of meal, without regard 
to the location of the home or the household income of the children 
receiving the meal, with the exception of the day care provider's own 
children who are subject to income eligibility requirements.
Statutory amendments resulting from P.L. 104-193 now require that a 
means test by child or geographic area be used to determine 
reimbursement levels for all meals served in homes. This change is 
intended to target benefits to the needy and is expected to result in a 
Federal budgetary savings of $2.6 billion over a 6-year period (fiscal 
years 1997-2002). The law requires that the Department publish an 
interim regulation to implement these provisions by January 1, 1997, 
with an effective date of July 1, 1997. 96-022


Statement of Need:


Currently, all meals served in family day care homes are reimbursed at 
a single rate, by type of meal, regardless of where the home is located 
or the household income of the children receiving the meal. The only 
exception is that meals served to a provider's own child(ren) are not 
reimbursable unless the provider's household income is at or below 185 
percent of poverty. Thus, only providers submit income eligibility 
applications to their sponsoring organization. As a result of providing 
generous levels of reimbursement for all meals served in day care 
homes, there has been a significant increase in CACFP costs. This 
growth has been especially evident among family day care homes serving 
middle- and upper-income children. By 1986, a study of the CCFP 
conducted for FCS by Abt Associates, Inc., showed that approximately 70 
percent of children then receiving reimbursement for meals served in 
family day care homes would have qualified for ``paid'' meals prior to 
the changes to the law in 1978. (``Paid'' meals are for children from 
households with incomes over 185 percent of poverty.) Led by growth in 
the family day care portion of the CCFP--renamed the CACFP in 1989--
Program expenditures increased from $300 million in 1983 to &1.44 
billion by 1995.
The need to reduce overall Federal expenditures has prompted a review 
of many programs and led to a decision to improve the targeting of 
benefits in the CACFP. To accomplish this targeting, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 
establishes two ``tiers'' of day care homes and reimbursement rates. 
Under the law, tier I homes are those that are located in low-income 
areas or those in which the provider's household income is at or below 
185 percent of the Federal income poverty guidelines. All meals served 
to enrolled children in tier I homes will receive a higher level of 
reimbursement. Tier II homes, in contrast, are those which do not meet 
the location or provider income criteria for a tier I home. The meals 
served in tier II homes are reimbursed at lower rates, unless the 
provider elects to have the sponsor collect free and reduced price 
applications from the households of children enrolled for day care in 
the home. In that case, the meals served to identified income-eligible 
children (i.e., children from households with incomes at or below 185 
percent of the Federal income poverty guidelines) are reimbursed at the 
higher, ``tier I'' rates.


Alternatives:


None. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996 mandates that these changes be implemented on July 1, 1997.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This change is intended to target benefits to the needy and is expected 
to result in a Federal budgetary savings of $2.6 billion over a 6-year 
period (fiscal years 1997-2002). The law requires that the Department 
publish an interim regulation to implement these provisions by January 
1, 1997, with an effective date of July 1, 1997. It also requires that 
the Department conduct a study of the law's impact and report to 
Congress by August 22, 1998.
State agencies and sponsoring organizations of family day care homes 
will have additional administrative burdens as a result of the change, 
especially during the implementation phase. Family day care providers 
will see a reduction in income if they do not serve needy children. It 
should be noted that the financial effects and administrative burden 
flow directly from the new statutory provisions and are only marginally 
affected by any discretionary authority exercised by the Department.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             01/00/97
Final Action                                                   07/00/97
Final Action Effective                                         07/00/97
Small Entities Affected:





Government Levels Affected:





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-AC42

[[Page 62018]]

_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

9. ELIMINATION OF PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT 
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FACILITIES EQUIPMENT, AND CERTAIN PARTIAL 
QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
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.


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. The Agency also 
issues regulations concerning the sanitation conditions under which 
such products are prepared.


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            61 FR 19578                                    05/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/01/96
Comment Period E61 FR 35990                                    09/09/96
Final Action                                                   02/00/97
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
10. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN MEAT PRODUCTS AND POULTRY 
PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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-

[[Page 62019]]

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 probably 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            61 FR 19564                                    05/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/01/96
Comment Period E61 FR 35990                                    09/09/96
Final Action                                                   02/00/97
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 62020]]

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--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

11. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
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:


 16 USC 1600 et seq; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 219


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


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


Statement of Need:


The planned regulatory action is to revise the existing rule at 36 CFR 
Part 219, Subpart A, in order to describe the Agency's overall 
framework for National Forest System resource decisionmaking; to 
incorporate the principles of ecosystem management into resource 
decisionmaking and management; to establish requirements for 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, amendment, and revision of 
forest plans; and to make various other changes intended to clarify and 
simplify the planning process.
The planned regulatory action is needed in order to streamline the 
planning process and update planning procedures and requirements in 
order to respond to the Critique of Land Management Planning, results 
of court decisions, and other information which has become available 
since the existing regulation was promulgated.
The legal basis for the planned regulatory action is the National 
Forest Management Act, which requires that regulations be promulgated. 
This action would revise the existing regulation which was finalized in 
1982.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A cost benefit analysis has been completed. It is anticipated that 
streamlined planning procedures will result in a reduction in the cost 
of amending and revising forest plans relative to the same procedures 
under the existing regulation. In addition, benefits should include 
improved communication and coordination with the public and other 
agencies and governments, better understanding of the planning process, 
improved procedures for resource decisionmaking, and improved on-the-
ground results as those decisions are implemented.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 6508                                     02/15/91
NPRM            60 FR 18886                                    04/13/95
NPRM Comment Per60 FR 36767                                    08/17/95
Final Action                                                   11/00/96
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-Cooperative Service (RBS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

12. 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 subpart A; 7 CFR 4279 subpart A; 7 CFR 4287 subpart B; 7 
CFR 4279 subpart B; 7 CFR 1980 subpart E


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

[[Page 62021]]

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 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 guaranteed of loans made by private 
lenders to rural businesses. The purpose is to improve employment 
opportunities and economic conditions in rural areas. The 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 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.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The only costs that could be anticipated as a result of this 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 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            61 FR 3853                                     02/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/02/96
Final Action                                                   12/00/96
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Kenneth E. Hennings
Loan Specialist
Business Program Servicing Division
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Room 6337 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 690-4100
RIN: 0570-AA09
BILLING CODE 3410-90-F