Regional Equity, 63537-63541 [E9-29001]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Employees’ Retirement System, the
agency must provide information
concerning disability retirement. The
agency must be aware of the affirmative
obligations of the provisions of 29 CFR
1614.203, which require reasonable
accommodation of a qualified
individual with a disability.
(g) Agency decision. (1) In arriving at
its decision, the agency will consider
only the reasons specified in the notice
of proposed action and any answer of
the appointee or the appointee’s
representative, or both, made to a
designated official and any medical
documentation reviewed under
paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) The notice must specify in writing
the reasons for the decision and advise
the appointee of any appeal rights under
§ 752.605 of this part. The agency must
deliver the notice of decision to the
appointee on or before the effective date
of the action.
(h) Applications for disability
retirement. Section 831.1204(e) of this
chapter provides that an appointee’s
application for disability retirement
need not delay any other appropriate
personnel action. Section 831.1205 and
§ 844.202 of this chapter set forth the
basis under which an agency must file
an application for disability retirement
on behalf of an appointee.
§ 752.605
Appeal rights.
(a) Under 5 U.S.C. 7543(d), a career
appointee against whom an action is
taken under this subpart is entitled to
appeal to the Merit Systems Protection
Board.
(b) A limited term or limited
emergency appointee who is covered
under § 752.601(c)(2) also may appeal
an action taken under this subpart to the
Merit Systems Protection Board.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
§ 752.606
Agency records.
The agency must maintain copies of,
and will furnish to the Merit Systems
Protection Board and to the appointee
upon his or her request, the following
documents:
(a) Notice of the proposed action;
(b) Appointee’s written reply, if any;
(c) Summary of the appointee’s oral
reply, if any;
(d) Notice of decision; and
(e) Any order effecting the action,
together with any supporting material.
[FR Doc. E9–28995 Filed 12–3–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:09 Dec 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
7 CFR Part 662
RIN 0578–AA44
Regional Equity
AGENCY: Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) is issuing
a final rule on the procedures for
implementing the Regional Equity
provision of section 1241(d) of the Food
Security Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3841(d).
The Regional Equity provision ensures
that each State receives a $15 million
minimum annual aggregate level of
conservation program funding. NRCS
published an interim final rule for
Regional Equity in the Federal Register
on January 13, 2009, with request for
public comment. This final rule
responds to comments received on the
January 13, 2009, interim final rule, and
makes minor adjustments to the
Regional Equity regulation at 7 CFR part
662 in response to these comments.
DATES: Effective December 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Geno Bulzomi, Acting Team Leader,
Program Allocations and Management
Support Team, Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5208
South Building, Washington, DC 20250;
telephone (202) 690–0547; e-mail:
PAMS@wdc.usda.gov, Attention:
Regional Equity.
Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication
(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)
should contact the USDA Target Center
at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and will not be reviewed
by OMB under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this final rule because
NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553,
or any other provision of law, to publish
a notice of final rulemaking with respect
to the subject matter of this rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63537
Civil Rights Assessment
NRCS has determined through a Civil
Rights Impact Analysis that the issuance
of this final rule discloses no
disproportionately adverse impact for
minorities, women, or persons with
disabilities. The data presented
indicates producers who are members of
the historically underserved groups
have participated in NRCS programs at
parity with other producers.
Extrapolating from historical
participation data, it is reasonable to
conclude that NRCS programs,
including Regional Equity, will
continue to be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. Outreach and
communication strategies are in place to
ensure all producers will be provided
the same information to allow them to
make informed compliance decisions
regarding the use of their lands that will
affect their participation in the
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
programs. Regional Equity funding
applies to all persons equally regardless
of their race, color, national origin,
gender, sex, or disability status.
Therefore, the Regional Equity rule
portends no adverse civil rights
implications. Copies of the Civil Rights
Impact Analysis may be obtained from
Geno Bulzomi, Acting Team Leader,
Program Allocations and Management
Support Team, Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5208
South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Environmental Analysis
The Regional Equity final rule
establishes procedures for implementing
this provision at part 662 of this title
and will not directly impact the
environment. This rule falls within the
categories of activities that have been
determined not to have a significant
individual or cumulative effect on the
human environment and are excluded
from the preparation of an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement as set
forth in the USDA National
Environmental Policy Act regulations in
7 CFR part 1b.3. Regional Equity is an
administrative function that relates to
the funding of programs and fund
disbursements. These activities are
categorically excluded based upon 7
CFR 1b.3(a)(1) and 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(2) of
USDA regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 2904 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 Act) requires that implementation
of programs authorized by Title II of the
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
63538
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
2008 Act be made without regard to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, NRCS is
not reporting recordkeeping or
estimated paperwork burden associated
with this rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, requires Federal agencies to
assess the effects of their regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments or the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year.
When such a statement is needed for a
rule, section 205 of UMRA requires
NRCS to prepare a written statement,
including a cost benefit assessment, for
proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal
mandates’’ that may result in such
expenditures for State, local, or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. UMRA generally requires
agencies to consider alternatives and
adopt the more cost effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal
mandates, as defined under Title II of
UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with Executive Order 12988.
The provisions of this rule are not
retroactive. Furthermore, the provisions
of this final rule preempt State and local
laws to the extent such laws are
inconsistent with the rule.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13132
NRCS has considered this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13132,
issued August 4, 1999. NRCS has
determined that the rule conforms to the
Federalism principles set out in this
Executive Order; would not impose any
compliance costs on the States; and
would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
NRCS concludes that this rule does not
have Federalism implications.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
governments. USDA has assessed the
impact of this final rule on Indian Tribal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:09 Dec 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
governments and has concluded that
this final rule will not negatively affect
communities of Indian Tribal
governments. The rule will neither
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Tribal governments, nor
preempt Tribal law.
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and
Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 304 of the
Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law
104–354, USDA classified this final rule
as ‘‘not major.’’
Background
NRCS is issuing a final rule on the
Regional Equity provision,
implementing section 1241(d) of the
Food Security Act of 1985, as amended,
(16 U.S.C. 3841(d)) that requires
minimum annual levels of conservation
program funding to each State. Section
2703 of the 2008 Act amended the
Regional Equity provision by: Increasing
the minimum annual aggregate funding
level from $12 million to $15 million;
establishing new conservation programs
that are subject to the Regional Equity
provision (Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program, Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Initiative, Conservation
Stewardship Program, and Voluntary
Public Access and Habitat Incentive
Program); and requiring consideration of
the respective demand in each Regional
Equity State.
On January 13, 2009, NRCS published
an interim final rule setting forth how
it intended to implement the Regional
Equity provision. Under the Regional
Equity regulation at 7 CFR part 662,
NRCS identifies the States that will not
receive through the normal program
allocation process a minimum aggregate
level of funding of $15 million, known
as ‘‘Regional Equity States,’’ and also
identifies programs that will contribute
funds to meeting this threshold known
as ‘‘contribution programs.’’ NRCS then
establishes program-specific drawing
accounts for each contribution program
sufficient to bring all Regional Equity
States to an allocation of $15 million. A
Regional Equity State can request funds
from the program-specific drawing
accounts after the State has obligated at
least 90 percent of its initial allocation
for that program. The Chief, however,
has the discretion to waive this
requirement to meet the specific need of
a particular program.
This process enables NRCS to monitor
the use of drawing account funds and
ensure that funds are used in the most
effective and timely manner. NRCS used
a similar funding allocation procedure
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in fiscal year (FY) 2008, when some
Regional Equity States were unable to
use all of their Regional Equity funding.
By holding Regional Equity funds in
program-specific drawing accounts,
NRCS reallocated these funds earlier in
the fiscal year than the statutory
April 1 deadline and identified States
that could obligate the funds toward
high-priority needs. NRCS believes this
approach positions the agency to ensure
that program funds are directed to the
highest-ranked applications.
Under the interim final rule, NRCS
identified that it considers the
respective demand in each Regional
Equity State in each program by having
State Conservationists in Regional
Equity States cooperatively determine
the funding opportunity for each State’s
program-specific drawing account. State
Conservationists consult with their
respective State Technical Committees
in evaluating the demand in their State
for funding from the drawing accounts.
In evaluating the demand for Regional
Equity funding opportunities, State
Conservationists consider how
applications address national program
priorities, historic trends in program
interest, and the State’s priority natural
resource concerns. This process enables
additional funds to be allocated in a
way that meets the natural resource
conservation needs of each State’s
producers, meets the demand of each
State’s program needs, and ensures that
States do not receive additional funding
when there is insufficient demand.
Public Comments and Agency Response
NRCS published the Regional Equity
interim final rule on January 13, 2009,
and invited public comment on the rule
as well as on any economic or
environmental impacts that might result
from implementation of the regulation.
The deadline for comments was
March 16, 2009. NRCS received 7
responses containing more than 20
comments.
After consideration of those
comments, as described herein, NRCS is
issuing this final rule to establish
consistency and certainty in
implementation procedures for the
Regional Equity provision.
The Allocation Process
Comment. Although most
respondents were supportive of the
general approach and most of the
specific implementation measures, one
respondent objected to the process of
giving initial threshold allocations
based on a formula allocating shares
across States. The respondent argued
that time is lost by insisting on an initial
allocation of funds to States that cannot
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
spend the full amount, and
recommended that States able to use
larger allocations should get access to
the money well before the end of the
fiscal year.
Response. Regional Equity for all
States is a statutory requirement.
However, NRCS is taking measures, as
detailed above, to ensure that funds are
available in a timely manner to other
States when a Regional Equity State
does not use its available allocation. By
establishing program-specific drawing
accounts for each covered program,
NRCS is able to monitor the use of
drawing account funds, determine early
whether a Regional Equity State is able
to use all its Regional Equity funding,
and reallocate funds in a timely manner
to other States with high-priority needs.
Comment. One respondent submitted
two comments recommending that
NRCS establish a single conservation
drawing account rather than programspecific accounts, thus allowing each
State Conservationist, with input from
the State Technical Committee, to
choose the mix of program funding for
itself as well as to indicate early how
much of a particular program allocation
it would not use. The amount of
program funding ‘‘turned back’’ would
then be credited to the State’s drawing
account.
Response. Currently, NRCS receives a
separate fund apportionment for each
conservation program, which it tracks
and reports separately. NRCS then
allocates funding to the States for each
program through a formula based upon
natural resource and performance
criteria. States work within the programspecific available funding. NRCS is
working to simplify the apportionment
process and allow for better
management of the NRCS workforce.
Comment. Two respondents
expressed explicit support for the
allocation formula process identified
above, but requested that the formulas
include a monitoring and evaluation
component to determine how well State
projects or programs were meeting State
and national priorities, goals, and
objectives.
Response. This comment is not
specific to the Regional Equity
regulation, and thus no change is made
in the Regional Equity final rule. The
allocation formula is not a monitoring
tool, but the formula includes
performance factors including whether
States are meeting national priorities.
Determination of Contribution
Programs
Comment. NRCS received two
responses regarding the discretion given
to the Chief in § 662.2 of the interim
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:09 Dec 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
final rule to determine which potential
conservation programs will be
considered ‘‘contribution programs’’ in
any given year. The respondents
recommended that the Chief’s annual
determination be made ‘‘on the basis of
the respective demand for each program
in Regional Equity States.’’
Response. Since NRCS uses an
allocation formula based upon natural
resource and performance criteria,
Regional Equity allocation
determinations based solely on the
demand for each program would
disproportionately reduce access by
non-Regional Equity States to funding
they earn on the basis of the allocation
formula. Regional Equity States have the
opportunity to work with other Regional
Equity States for the funding that best
addresses their needs, thus increasing
their flexibility in accessing funds. In
exercising discretion with respect to
determining the contribution programs,
the Chief is limited by which programs
have sufficient available funding in any
given year and the fact that some
programs are restricted by legislative
intent (e.g., specific geographic area or
specific resource concern). Moreover,
not all Regional Equity programs are
administered by NRCS. For example,
the Voluntary Access and Habitat
Incentive Program is administered by
the Farm Service Agency.
Comment. In determining ‘‘respective
demand,’’ State Conservationists should
rely on more than the three criteria
detailed in the interim final rule:
program applications and how they
address national program priorities,
historic trends in program interest, and
State priority natural resource concerns
(see § 662.4(c)(2)(i)). In particular, the
respondents identified additional
criteria they believe should be added,
including: (1) The need in each State to
address gaps in participation in specific
programs by Federally recognized
Indian Tribes and socially
disadvantaged and historically
underserved producers; and (2) the
degree to which a State has
implemented initiatives and
demonstrated results with respect to
such populations. The respondents
recommended that these criteria be
applied both in the determination of
respective demand and in the exercise
of the Chief’s discretion in § 662.4(f)
with respect to reallocation decisions.
Response. Regional Equity funds must
be obligated in the same manner as
normal allocations, and thus all policy
and statutory requirements for ensuring
equal access for historically
underserved producers (limited
resource farmers and ranchers,
beginning farmers and ranchers, and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63539
socially disadvantaged producers)
remain in effect. There is no need for
additional criteria for Regional Equity
funds, and thus no change is made in
this rule.
Obligation Threshold
Comment. Two respondents proposed
reducing the 90 percent obligation
threshold in § 662.4(e) of the interim
final rule to 75 percent and giving the
Chief discretion to reduce further the
obligation threshold. Under the interim
final rule, once a Regional Equity State
has obligated 90 percent of its original
allocation, it may request access to its
portion of the Regional Equity drawing
account for that program. However, the
funds are only available until April 1 of
each fiscal year, after which they may be
reallocated at the discretion of the Chief.
The respondents argued that meeting
this 90 percent threshold by April 1 will
be difficult for all programs in years
when the congressional budget process
runs late, and will be difficult for some
programs in any year because of the
particular requirements that some
programs must meet before they can
obligate funds.
Response. The purpose of the high
threshold requirement is for Regional
Equity States to demonstrate their
capacity to obligate their funding.
However, NRCS agrees that for some
programs, this may be a difficult level
of obligation to attain in a timely
manner because of a particular
program’s internal requirements.
Therefore, NRCS amended the language
in § 662.4(e) of this final rule to give the
Chief the ability to waive the threshold
requirement with respect to specific
programs.
April 1 Deadline
Comment. The April 1 deadline
elicited two kinds of comments: (1) A
request that NRCS commit to
reallocating funds in response to State
requests within 60 days after April 1,
and (2) a request for clarification that
the Chief has discretion to extend the
April 1 deadline in order to provide
States with access to the drawing
account even after that date.
Response. The Chief has the
discretion to extend the April 1
deadline, as indicated in the regulation
in § 662.4(e). The Chief may reallocate
funds not obligated, but does not require
such reallocation. NRCS recognizes that
the Federal appropriations process can
be unpredictable and may leave NRCS
unable to provide initial allocations
early in the fiscal year. Thus, NRCS
cannot commit to a firm timeline for the
reallocation of Regional Equity funding.
The Chief has the discretion to extend
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
63540
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the April 1 date to accommodate such
delays in the appropriation process or
other circumstances that might make it
difficult for States to meet the date. In
FY 2009, the Chief extended the
deadline to August 15 when a
continuing resolution left NRCS
uncertain about what the funding levels
would be for various programs. No
further rule change is required.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 662
Administrative practice and
procedure, Agriculture, and Soil
conservation.
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble,
NRCS revises part 662 in chapter VI of
Title 7 of the CFR to read as follows:
PART 662—REGIONAL EQUITY
Sec.
662.1 General.
662.2 Definitions.
662.3 Applicability.
662.4 Regional Equity implementation
procedure.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3841(d).
§ 662.1
General.
This part sets forth the procedures
that NRCS will use to implement the
Regional Equity provision of the Food
Security Act of 1985, 16 U.S.C. 3841(d).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
§ 662.2
Definitions.
The following definitions are
applicable to this part:
Chief means the Chief of NRCS or the
person delegated authority to act on
behalf of the Chief.
Contribution programs means
Regional Equity programs that
contribute funding to Regional Equity
States, as determined by the Chief each
fiscal year, consistent with the
limitations established in 16 U.S.C.
3841(d).
Drawing account means the
aggregated amount of contribution
program funds required to bring all
States to the Regional Equity threshold.
Funding opportunity means the
amount of funding needed to bring a
State to the $15,000,000 Regional Equity
threshold for the aggregate of Regional
Equity programs.
Initial allocation means the amount of
conservation program allocation
funding provided to all States through a
merit-based, natural resource focused
process.
Obligated means a specific binding
agreement, in writing, for the purpose
authorized by law and executed while
the funding is available.
Regional Equity programs mean
conservation programs under Subtitle D
(excluding the Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:09 Dec 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
and the Conservation Security Program)
of the Food Security Act of 1985. These
programs include: Conservation
Stewardship Program, Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program, Grassland
Reserve Program, Environmental
Quality Incentives Program,
Conservation Innovation Grants,
Agricultural Water Enhancement
Program, Conservation of Private
Grazing Land, Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program, Grassroots Source Water
Protection Program, Great Lakes Basin
Program, Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Initiative, and the Voluntary Public
Access and Habitat Incentive Program.
Regional Equity programs will be
aggregated to determine whether a State
meets the $15,000,000 Regional Equity
threshold. However, not all Regional
Equity programs will be considered
contribution programs.
Regional Equity provision means the
statutory requirement to give priority
funding before April 1 for approved
applications for specific programs
within States that have not received a
$15,000,000 aggregate level of funding.
Regional Equity States means any
State not meeting the Regional Equity
threshold of $15,000,000 through the
initial allocation for Regional Equity
programs.
Regional Equity threshold means the
$15,000,000 minimum aggregate amount
of Regional Equity program funds.
Respective demand means the mix of
contribution program funds that each
State Conservationist in a Regional
Equity State requests to fill that State’s
funding opportunity.
State means all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Freely
Associated States.
State Conservationist means the
NRCS employee authorized to
implement Regional Equity programs
and direct and supervise NRCS
activities in a State, the Caribbean Area,
or the Pacific Islands Area.
§ 662.3
Applicability.
The regulation in this part sets forth
the policies and procedures for the
Regional Equity provision as
administered by the NRCS. This
regulation applies to the Regional
Equity programs defined in this part.
The Chief will implement the Regional
Equity provision by identifying
programs that contribute to the
establishment of program-specific
drawing accounts for priority funding in
Regional Equity States.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 662.4 Regional Equity implementation
procedure.
The following procedures will
implement the Regional Equity
provision:
(a) Determine initial allocations.
NRCS will determine initial
conservation program funding levels for
each State through a merit-based,
natural resource focused allocation
process as determined by the Chief.
(b) Determine the funding
opportunity. The combined initial
allocation funding level for Regional
Equity programs, by State, will be
compared to the Regional Equity
threshold to determine each Regional
Equity State’s funding opportunity.
(c) Establish contribution program
fund levels. Subject to availability of
funds, contribution program fund levels
are determined by:
(1) Identifying which programs
contribute funds, as determined by the
Chief, consistent with the limitations
established in 16 U.S.C. 3841(d); and
(2) Each State’s respective demand.
(i) State Conservationists in Regional
Equity States, in consultation with State
Technical Committees, will evaluate
and determine their respective program
demands based on the following
criteria:
(A) Program applications and how
they address national program
priorities;
(B) Historic trends in program
interest; and
(C) State priority natural resource
concerns.
(ii) The State Conservationist’s
identified respective demand will assist
the Chief in determining the
composition of contribution program
funds within the established drawing
account.
(d) Establish the drawing account.
NRCS will establish a drawing account
for each contribution program, as
determined in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this section, and will give
priority before April 1 of each fiscal year
for such funds to be used to fund
applications in Regional Equity States
sufficient to bring each of the Regional
Equity States to the Regional Equity
threshold of $15,000,000.
(e) Access the drawing account. State
Conservationists in Regional Equity
States may request access to that State’s
assigned portion of the drawing account
once that State has obligated at least 90
percent of its initial allocation for that
same program. The Chief may waive the
90 percent threshold requirement for a
specific program in response to specific
program needs.
(f) Re-allocation of funds. The
program-specific drawing accounts for
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 232 / Friday, December 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Regional Equity States will be available
until April 1 of each fiscal year, after
which date the remaining funds may be
re-allocated at the discretion of the
Chief.
Signed this 30th day of November, 2009, in
Washington, DC.
Dave White,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–29001 Filed 12–3–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1207
[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0024; FV–09–706FR]
Potato Research and Promotion Plan;
Assessment Increase
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Potato
Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) to
increase the assessment rate on handlers
and importers of potatoes from 2.5 cents
to 3 cents per hundredweight. This
increase is provided for under the Plan
which is authorized by the Potato
Research and Promotion Act (Act). The
National Potato Promotion Board, which
administers the Plan, recommended this
action to sustain and expand their
promotional, research, advertising and
communications programs.
DATES: Effective: December 7, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Simmons, Marketing
Specialist, Research and Promotion
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 0632, Stop 0244,
Washington, DC 20250–0244; telephone:
(202) 720–9915; or fax: (202) 205–2800;
or e-mail:
Deborah.simmons@ams.usda.gov.
This rule
is issued under the Potato Research and
Promotion Plan [7 CFR part 1207]. The
Plan is authorized under the Potato
Research and Promotion Act [7 U.S.C.
2611–2627]. This rule increases the
assessment rate on handlers and
importers of potatoes from 2.5 cents to
3 cents per hundredweight.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has waived the review process
required by Executive Order 12866 for
this action.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:09 Dec 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This rule is not intended to
have retroactive effect.
The Act allows handlers and
importers subject to the Plan to file a
written petition with the Secretary of
Agriculture (Secretary) if they believe
that the Plan, any provision of the Plan,
or any obligation imposed in connection
with the Plan, is not in accordance with
the law. In any petition, the person may
request a modification of the Plan or an
exemption from the Plan. The petitioner
will have the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. Afterwards, an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will
issue a decision. If the petitioner
disagrees with the ALJ’s ruling, the
petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the
Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling
on behalf of the Secretary. If the
petitioner disagrees with the Secretary’s
ruling, the petitioner may file, within 20
days, an appeal in the U.S. District
Court for the district where the
petitioner resides or conducts business.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.], the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic
impact of this rule on small entities. The
purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory
actions to the scale of businesses subject
to such action in order that small
businesses will not be unduly or
disproportionately burdened.
The Small Business Administration
defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small
agricultural producers as those having
annual receipts of no more than
$750,000 and small agricultural service
firms (handlers and importers) as those
having annual receipts of no more than
$7 million. According to the Board,
there are approximately 1,600 potato
growing operations, 1,143 handlers and
252 importers who are subject to the
provisions of the Plan. According to the
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), data from the 2008 crop year
shows that approximately 395 cwt. of
potatoes were produced per acre. The
2008 grower price published by NASS
was $9.46 per cwt. Thus the value of
potato production per acre in 2008
averaged $3,736.70 (395 times $9.36
cwt). At that average price, a producer
would have to farm over 201 acres to
receive an annual income from potatoes
of $750,000 ($750,000 divided by
$3,736.70 per acre equals 201 acres).
Thus, it can be concluded that most
producers, handlers and importers
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63541
would not be classified as small
businesses under the criteria established
by the SBA.
Producers of less than 5 acres of
potatoes are exempt from this program.
Potato and potato products used for
nonhuman food purposes, other than
seed, are exempt from assessment but
are subject to the disposition of
exempted potatoes provisions of section
1207.515 of the regulations.
Under the current Plan, potato
handlers and importers are required to
pay an assessment of 2.5 cents per
hundredweight. Handlers may collect
assessments from the producer or
deduct assessments from proceeds paid
to the producer on whose potatoes the
assessments are made. No more than
one assessment shall be made on any
potatoes or potato products. Funds
collected by the board shall be used for
research, development, advertising or
promotion of potatoes and potato
products and such other expenses for
the administration, maintenance and
functioning of the Board as may be
authorized by the Secretary. The
assessment at the current 2.5 cents per
hundredweight generates about $10
million in annual revenues. The 2.5
cents per hundredweight assessment
rate was established in August 2006
when the Plan was amended. The Plan
is administered by the Board under U.S.
Department of Agriculture supervision.
According to the Board, additional
revenue is required in order to sustain
and expand the promotional, research,
advertising and communications
programs. The Board approved the
assessment rate increase at its March 13,
2009, meeting. This increase is
consistent with section 1207.342(a) of
the Plan which states that funds to cover
the Board’s expenses shall be acquired
by the levying of assessments upon
handlers and importers as designated in
regulations recommended by the Board
and issued by the Secretary. Such
assessments shall be levied at the rate
fixed by the Secretary which shall not
exceed one-half of one per centum of
the immediate past ten calendar years
United States average price received for
potatoes by growers as reported by the
Department of Agriculture. Currently,
section 1207.510 of the Plan states that
an assessment of 2.5 cents per
hundredweight shall be levied on all
potatoes produced within the 50 states
of the United States and an assessment
rate of 2.5 cents per hundredweight
shall be levied on all tablestock potatoes
imported into the United States for
ultimate consumption by humans and
all seed potatoes. An assessment rate of
2.5 cents per hundredweight shall be
levied on the fresh weight equivalents of
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 232 (Friday, December 4, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63537-63541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29001]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
7 CFR Part 662
RIN 0578-AA44
Regional Equity
AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is issuing a
final rule on the procedures for implementing the Regional Equity
provision of section 1241(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985, 16
U.S.C. 3841(d). The Regional Equity provision ensures that each State
receives a $15 million minimum annual aggregate level of conservation
program funding. NRCS published an interim final rule for Regional
Equity in the Federal Register on January 13, 2009, with request for
public comment. This final rule responds to comments received on the
January 13, 2009, interim final rule, and makes minor adjustments to
the Regional Equity regulation at 7 CFR part 662 in response to these
comments.
DATES: Effective December 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geno Bulzomi, Acting Team Leader,
Program Allocations and Management Support Team, Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Room 5208 South Building, Washington, DC 20250; telephone
(202) 690-0547; e-mail: PAMS@wdc.usda.gov, Attention: Regional Equity.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and will not be reviewed by OMB under Executive
Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this final rule because NRCS is not required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other provision of law, to publish a notice of final
rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Civil Rights Assessment
NRCS has determined through a Civil Rights Impact Analysis that the
issuance of this final rule discloses no disproportionately adverse
impact for minorities, women, or persons with disabilities. The data
presented indicates producers who are members of the historically
underserved groups have participated in NRCS programs at parity with
other producers. Extrapolating from historical participation data, it
is reasonable to conclude that NRCS programs, including Regional
Equity, will continue to be administered in a non-discriminatory
manner. Outreach and communication strategies are in place to ensure
all producers will be provided the same information to allow them to
make informed compliance decisions regarding the use of their lands
that will affect their participation in the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs. Regional Equity funding applies to all persons equally
regardless of their race, color, national origin, gender, sex, or
disability status. Therefore, the Regional Equity rule portends no
adverse civil rights implications. Copies of the Civil Rights Impact
Analysis may be obtained from Geno Bulzomi, Acting Team Leader, Program
Allocations and Management Support Team, Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Room 5208 South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Environmental Analysis
The Regional Equity final rule establishes procedures for
implementing this provision at part 662 of this title and will not
directly impact the environment. This rule falls within the categories
of activities that have been determined not to have a significant
individual or cumulative effect on the human environment and are
excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement as set forth in the USDA National
Environmental Policy Act regulations in 7 CFR part 1b.3. Regional
Equity is an administrative function that relates to the funding of
programs and fund disbursements. These activities are categorically
excluded based upon 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(1) and 7 CFR 1b.3(a)(2) of USDA
regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Section 2904 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 Act) requires that implementation of programs authorized by Title
II of the
[[Page 63538]]
2008 Act be made without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, NRCS is not reporting
recordkeeping or estimated paperwork burden associated with this rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the
private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a
statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of UMRA requires NRCS to
prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit assessment, for
proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
such expenditures for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under Title II
of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private
sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12988. The provisions of this rule are not retroactive.
Furthermore, the provisions of this final rule preempt State and local
laws to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the rule.
Executive Order 13132
NRCS has considered this final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, issued August 4, 1999. NRCS has determined that the rule
conforms to the Federalism principles set out in this Executive Order;
would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
NRCS concludes that this rule does not have Federalism implications.
Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal governments. USDA has assessed the impact of this
final rule on Indian Tribal governments and has concluded that this
final rule will not negatively affect communities of Indian Tribal
governments. The rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 304 of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, Public Law 104-354, USDA classified this
final rule as ``not major.''
Background
NRCS is issuing a final rule on the Regional Equity provision,
implementing section 1241(d) of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 3841(d)) that requires minimum annual levels of
conservation program funding to each State. Section 2703 of the 2008
Act amended the Regional Equity provision by: Increasing the minimum
annual aggregate funding level from $12 million to $15 million;
establishing new conservation programs that are subject to the Regional
Equity provision (Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Initiative, Conservation Stewardship Program, and
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program); and requiring
consideration of the respective demand in each Regional Equity State.
On January 13, 2009, NRCS published an interim final rule setting
forth how it intended to implement the Regional Equity provision. Under
the Regional Equity regulation at 7 CFR part 662, NRCS identifies the
States that will not receive through the normal program allocation
process a minimum aggregate level of funding of $15 million, known as
``Regional Equity States,'' and also identifies programs that will
contribute funds to meeting this threshold known as ``contribution
programs.'' NRCS then establishes program-specific drawing accounts for
each contribution program sufficient to bring all Regional Equity
States to an allocation of $15 million. A Regional Equity State can
request funds from the program-specific drawing accounts after the
State has obligated at least 90 percent of its initial allocation for
that program. The Chief, however, has the discretion to waive this
requirement to meet the specific need of a particular program.
This process enables NRCS to monitor the use of drawing account
funds and ensure that funds are used in the most effective and timely
manner. NRCS used a similar funding allocation procedure in fiscal year
(FY) 2008, when some Regional Equity States were unable to use all of
their Regional Equity funding. By holding Regional Equity funds in
program-specific drawing accounts, NRCS reallocated these funds earlier
in the fiscal year than the statutory April 1 deadline and identified
States that could obligate the funds toward high-priority needs. NRCS
believes this approach positions the agency to ensure that program
funds are directed to the highest-ranked applications.
Under the interim final rule, NRCS identified that it considers the
respective demand in each Regional Equity State in each program by
having State Conservationists in Regional Equity States cooperatively
determine the funding opportunity for each State's program-specific
drawing account. State Conservationists consult with their respective
State Technical Committees in evaluating the demand in their State for
funding from the drawing accounts. In evaluating the demand for
Regional Equity funding opportunities, State Conservationists consider
how applications address national program priorities, historic trends
in program interest, and the State's priority natural resource
concerns. This process enables additional funds to be allocated in a
way that meets the natural resource conservation needs of each State's
producers, meets the demand of each State's program needs, and ensures
that States do not receive additional funding when there is
insufficient demand.
Public Comments and Agency Response
NRCS published the Regional Equity interim final rule on January
13, 2009, and invited public comment on the rule as well as on any
economic or environmental impacts that might result from implementation
of the regulation. The deadline for comments was March 16, 2009. NRCS
received 7 responses containing more than 20 comments.
After consideration of those comments, as described herein, NRCS is
issuing this final rule to establish consistency and certainty in
implementation procedures for the Regional Equity provision.
The Allocation Process
Comment. Although most respondents were supportive of the general
approach and most of the specific implementation measures, one
respondent objected to the process of giving initial threshold
allocations based on a formula allocating shares across States. The
respondent argued that time is lost by insisting on an initial
allocation of funds to States that cannot
[[Page 63539]]
spend the full amount, and recommended that States able to use larger
allocations should get access to the money well before the end of the
fiscal year.
Response. Regional Equity for all States is a statutory
requirement. However, NRCS is taking measures, as detailed above, to
ensure that funds are available in a timely manner to other States when
a Regional Equity State does not use its available allocation. By
establishing program-specific drawing accounts for each covered
program, NRCS is able to monitor the use of drawing account funds,
determine early whether a Regional Equity State is able to use all its
Regional Equity funding, and reallocate funds in a timely manner to
other States with high-priority needs.
Comment. One respondent submitted two comments recommending that
NRCS establish a single conservation drawing account rather than
program-specific accounts, thus allowing each State Conservationist,
with input from the State Technical Committee, to choose the mix of
program funding for itself as well as to indicate early how much of a
particular program allocation it would not use. The amount of program
funding ``turned back'' would then be credited to the State's drawing
account.
Response. Currently, NRCS receives a separate fund apportionment
for each conservation program, which it tracks and reports separately.
NRCS then allocates funding to the States for each program through a
formula based upon natural resource and performance criteria. States
work within the program-specific available funding. NRCS is working to
simplify the apportionment process and allow for better management of
the NRCS workforce.
Comment. Two respondents expressed explicit support for the
allocation formula process identified above, but requested that the
formulas include a monitoring and evaluation component to determine how
well State projects or programs were meeting State and national
priorities, goals, and objectives.
Response. This comment is not specific to the Regional Equity
regulation, and thus no change is made in the Regional Equity final
rule. The allocation formula is not a monitoring tool, but the formula
includes performance factors including whether States are meeting
national priorities.
Determination of Contribution Programs
Comment. NRCS received two responses regarding the discretion given
to the Chief in Sec. 662.2 of the interim final rule to determine
which potential conservation programs will be considered ``contribution
programs'' in any given year. The respondents recommended that the
Chief's annual determination be made ``on the basis of the respective
demand for each program in Regional Equity States.''
Response. Since NRCS uses an allocation formula based upon natural
resource and performance criteria, Regional Equity allocation
determinations based solely on the demand for each program would
disproportionately reduce access by non-Regional Equity States to
funding they earn on the basis of the allocation formula. Regional
Equity States have the opportunity to work with other Regional Equity
States for the funding that best addresses their needs, thus increasing
their flexibility in accessing funds. In exercising discretion with
respect to determining the contribution programs, the Chief is limited
by which programs have sufficient available funding in any given year
and the fact that some programs are restricted by legislative intent
(e.g., specific geographic area or specific resource concern).
Moreover, not all Regional Equity programs are administered by NRCS.
For example, the Voluntary Access and Habitat Incentive Program is
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Comment. In determining ``respective demand,'' State
Conservationists should rely on more than the three criteria detailed
in the interim final rule: program applications and how they address
national program priorities, historic trends in program interest, and
State priority natural resource concerns (see Sec. 662.4(c)(2)(i)). In
particular, the respondents identified additional criteria they believe
should be added, including: (1) The need in each State to address gaps
in participation in specific programs by Federally recognized Indian
Tribes and socially disadvantaged and historically underserved
producers; and (2) the degree to which a State has implemented
initiatives and demonstrated results with respect to such populations.
The respondents recommended that these criteria be applied both in the
determination of respective demand and in the exercise of the Chief's
discretion in Sec. 662.4(f) with respect to reallocation decisions.
Response. Regional Equity funds must be obligated in the same
manner as normal allocations, and thus all policy and statutory
requirements for ensuring equal access for historically underserved
producers (limited resource farmers and ranchers, beginning farmers and
ranchers, and socially disadvantaged producers) remain in effect. There
is no need for additional criteria for Regional Equity funds, and thus
no change is made in this rule.
Obligation Threshold
Comment. Two respondents proposed reducing the 90 percent
obligation threshold in Sec. 662.4(e) of the interim final rule to 75
percent and giving the Chief discretion to reduce further the
obligation threshold. Under the interim final rule, once a Regional
Equity State has obligated 90 percent of its original allocation, it
may request access to its portion of the Regional Equity drawing
account for that program. However, the funds are only available until
April 1 of each fiscal year, after which they may be reallocated at the
discretion of the Chief. The respondents argued that meeting this 90
percent threshold by April 1 will be difficult for all programs in
years when the congressional budget process runs late, and will be
difficult for some programs in any year because of the particular
requirements that some programs must meet before they can obligate
funds.
Response. The purpose of the high threshold requirement is for
Regional Equity States to demonstrate their capacity to obligate their
funding. However, NRCS agrees that for some programs, this may be a
difficult level of obligation to attain in a timely manner because of a
particular program's internal requirements. Therefore, NRCS amended the
language in Sec. 662.4(e) of this final rule to give the Chief the
ability to waive the threshold requirement with respect to specific
programs.
April 1 Deadline
Comment. The April 1 deadline elicited two kinds of comments: (1) A
request that NRCS commit to reallocating funds in response to State
requests within 60 days after April 1, and (2) a request for
clarification that the Chief has discretion to extend the April 1
deadline in order to provide States with access to the drawing account
even after that date.
Response. The Chief has the discretion to extend the April 1
deadline, as indicated in the regulation in Sec. 662.4(e). The Chief
may reallocate funds not obligated, but does not require such
reallocation. NRCS recognizes that the Federal appropriations process
can be unpredictable and may leave NRCS unable to provide initial
allocations early in the fiscal year. Thus, NRCS cannot commit to a
firm timeline for the reallocation of Regional Equity funding. The
Chief has the discretion to extend
[[Page 63540]]
the April 1 date to accommodate such delays in the appropriation
process or other circumstances that might make it difficult for States
to meet the date. In FY 2009, the Chief extended the deadline to August
15 when a continuing resolution left NRCS uncertain about what the
funding levels would be for various programs. No further rule change is
required.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 662
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, and Soil
conservation.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NRCS revises part 662 in
chapter VI of Title 7 of the CFR to read as follows:
PART 662--REGIONAL EQUITY
Sec.
662.1 General.
662.2 Definitions.
662.3 Applicability.
662.4 Regional Equity implementation procedure.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3841(d).
Sec. 662.1 General.
This part sets forth the procedures that NRCS will use to implement
the Regional Equity provision of the Food Security Act of 1985, 16
U.S.C. 3841(d).
Sec. 662.2 Definitions.
The following definitions are applicable to this part:
Chief means the Chief of NRCS or the person delegated authority to
act on behalf of the Chief.
Contribution programs means Regional Equity programs that
contribute funding to Regional Equity States, as determined by the
Chief each fiscal year, consistent with the limitations established in
16 U.S.C. 3841(d).
Drawing account means the aggregated amount of contribution program
funds required to bring all States to the Regional Equity threshold.
Funding opportunity means the amount of funding needed to bring a
State to the $15,000,000 Regional Equity threshold for the aggregate of
Regional Equity programs.
Initial allocation means the amount of conservation program
allocation funding provided to all States through a merit-based,
natural resource focused process.
Obligated means a specific binding agreement, in writing, for the
purpose authorized by law and executed while the funding is available.
Regional Equity programs mean conservation programs under Subtitle
D (excluding the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve
Program, and the Conservation Security Program) of the Food Security
Act of 1985. These programs include: Conservation Stewardship Program,
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, Grassland Reserve Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Innovation
Grants, Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, Conservation of Private
Grazing Land, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, Grassroots Source
Water Protection Program, Great Lakes Basin Program, Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Initiative, and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat
Incentive Program. Regional Equity programs will be aggregated to
determine whether a State meets the $15,000,000 Regional Equity
threshold. However, not all Regional Equity programs will be considered
contribution programs.
Regional Equity provision means the statutory requirement to give
priority funding before April 1 for approved applications for specific
programs within States that have not received a $15,000,000 aggregate
level of funding.
Regional Equity States means any State not meeting the Regional
Equity threshold of $15,000,000 through the initial allocation for
Regional Equity programs.
Regional Equity threshold means the $15,000,000 minimum aggregate
amount of Regional Equity program funds.
Respective demand means the mix of contribution program funds that
each State Conservationist in a Regional Equity State requests to fill
that State's funding opportunity.
State means all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States.
State Conservationist means the NRCS employee authorized to
implement Regional Equity programs and direct and supervise NRCS
activities in a State, the Caribbean Area, or the Pacific Islands Area.
Sec. 662.3 Applicability.
The regulation in this part sets forth the policies and procedures
for the Regional Equity provision as administered by the NRCS. This
regulation applies to the Regional Equity programs defined in this
part. The Chief will implement the Regional Equity provision by
identifying programs that contribute to the establishment of program-
specific drawing accounts for priority funding in Regional Equity
States.
Sec. 662.4 Regional Equity implementation procedure.
The following procedures will implement the Regional Equity
provision:
(a) Determine initial allocations. NRCS will determine initial
conservation program funding levels for each State through a merit-
based, natural resource focused allocation process as determined by the
Chief.
(b) Determine the funding opportunity. The combined initial
allocation funding level for Regional Equity programs, by State, will
be compared to the Regional Equity threshold to determine each Regional
Equity State's funding opportunity.
(c) Establish contribution program fund levels. Subject to
availability of funds, contribution program fund levels are determined
by:
(1) Identifying which programs contribute funds, as determined by
the Chief, consistent with the limitations established in 16 U.S.C.
3841(d); and
(2) Each State's respective demand.
(i) State Conservationists in Regional Equity States, in
consultation with State Technical Committees, will evaluate and
determine their respective program demands based on the following
criteria:
(A) Program applications and how they address national program
priorities;
(B) Historic trends in program interest; and
(C) State priority natural resource concerns.
(ii) The State Conservationist's identified respective demand will
assist the Chief in determining the composition of contribution program
funds within the established drawing account.
(d) Establish the drawing account. NRCS will establish a drawing
account for each contribution program, as determined in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, and will give priority before April
1 of each fiscal year for such funds to be used to fund applications in
Regional Equity States sufficient to bring each of the Regional Equity
States to the Regional Equity threshold of $15,000,000.
(e) Access the drawing account. State Conservationists in Regional
Equity States may request access to that State's assigned portion of
the drawing account once that State has obligated at least 90 percent
of its initial allocation for that same program. The Chief may waive
the 90 percent threshold requirement for a specific program in response
to specific program needs.
(f) Re-allocation of funds. The program-specific drawing accounts
for
[[Page 63541]]
Regional Equity States will be available until April 1 of each fiscal
year, after which date the remaining funds may be re-allocated at the
discretion of the Chief.
Signed this 30th day of November, 2009, in Washington, DC.
Dave White,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. E9-29001 Filed 12-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
