, 64149-64181 [X09-41207]

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 233 (Monday, December 7, 2009)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 64149-64181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X09-41207]


[[Page 64149]]




DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)



Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA's regulatory efforts in 2010 will continue to focus on 
implementing the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 
110-246), known as the ``2008 Farm Bill,'' which covers major farm, 
trade, conservation, rural development, energy, nutrition assistance 
and other programs. In addition, USDA will implement regulations that 
will improve program outcomes by achieving the Department's high 
priority goals as well as reducing burden on stakeholders, program 
participants, and small businesses. Important areas of activity include 
the following:
Nutrition Assistance
 As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs, 
            USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve 
            diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight 
            and obesity. In 2010, FNS will continue to promote 
            nutritional knowledge and education while minimizing 
            participant and vendor fraud.
Food Safety
 In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop 
            science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, 
            poultry, egg, and farm-raised catfish products in the least 
            burdensome and most cost-effective manner. Regulations will 
            be revised to address emerging food safety challenges, 
            streamlined to remove excessively prescriptive regulations, 
            and updated to be made consistent with hazard analysis and 
            critical control point principles. To assist small entities 
            to comply with food safety requirements, the Food Safety 
            and Inspection Service will continue to collaborate with 
            other USDA agencies and State partners in the enhanced 
            small business outreach program.
Conservation
 USDA will continue to focus on implementing the conservation 
            programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Over the past 
            year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has 
            promulgated 11 interim and proposed rules and has received 
            public comment on them. In 2010, NRCS will finalize these 
            rules which include the Conservation Stewardship Program 
            and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Promoting Rural Development and Renewable Energy
 USDA priority regulatory actions for the Rural Development 
            mission primarily relate to promulgating relations for 
            programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, including the 
            Title 9 Energy programs and the Rural Micro-
            Entrepreneurship Program. USDA has utilized Notices of 
            Funding Availability implement many of these programs in 
            Fiscal Year 2009. Regulations are needed to maintain them. 
            In addition, USDA needs to finalize the reform of its on-
            going broadband access program through an interim rule that 
            will combine provisions of a proposed rule published in 
            2007 and changes in the program that were authorized in the 
            2008 Farm Bill.
 USDA will continue to promote sustainable economic 
            opportunities to revitalize rural communities through the 
            purchase and use of renewable, environmentally friendly 
            biobased products through its BioPreferred Program 
            (formerly the Federal Biobased Product Preferred 
            Procurement Program). USDA will continue to designate 
            groups of biobased products to receive procurement 
            preference from Federal agencies and contractors. In 
            addition, USDA will finalize a rule establishing the 
            Voluntary Labeling Program for biobased products.
Trade Promotion, Market Development, Farm Loans, and Disaster 
Assistance
 USDA will work to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system 
            through trade promotion, market development, farm income 
            support, disaster assistance, and farm loan programs. In 
            addition to the regulations already implemented, including 
            those pertaining to the eligibility for farm program 
            payments, the Farm Service Agency will issue new 
            regulations implementing disaster assistance programs to 
            compensate agricultural producers for production losses due 
            to natural disasters. Regulations will also be developed to 
            implement conservation loan programs intended to help 
            producers finance the construction of conservation 
            measures.
Other Regulatory Activities
 USDA will work to facilitate a fair, competitive marketplace, 
            support the organic sector, and continue regulatory work to 
            protect the health and value of U.S. agricultural and 
            natural resources. USDA will promulgate regulations to 
            enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. USDA 
            will also finalize a rule specifying access to pasture 
            standards for organically raised ruminants. In addition, 
            USDA will amend regulations related to the importation of 
            nursery products and animals and animal products. Further, 
            USDA will propose specific standards for the humane 
            handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
            under the Animal Welfare Act.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information 
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government 
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the E-Government Act, agencies 
across USDA are providing electronic alternatives to their 
traditionally paper-based customer transactions. As a result, producers 
increasingly have the option to electronically file forms and all other 
documentation online. To facilitate the expansion of electronic 
government, USDA implemented an electronic authentication capability 
that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct business with all 
USDA agencies. Supporting these efforts are ongoing analyses to 
identify and eliminate redundant data collections and streamline 
collection instructions. The end result of implementing these 
initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to choose 
when and where to conduct business with USDA.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The following 
agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with a summary 
of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2010:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership 
with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income 
people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a 
manner that supports American agriculture and inspires public 
confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 
2010 regulatory plan supports the goal to ensure that all of

[[Page 64150]]

America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals 
and its three related objectives:
 Improve Access to Nutritious Food. This objective represents 
            FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to 
            program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals, 
            commodities) and distributing State administrative funds to 
            support program operations. To advance this objective, FNS 
            plans to finalize rules implementing provisions of the Farm 
            Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to simplify 
            program administration, support work, and improve access to 
            benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
            (SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program. FNS will continue 
            to improve SNAP administration by developing a rule to 
            implement provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
            Act of 2008 that address eligibility, certification, 
            employment, and training issues. An interim rule 
            implementing provisions of the Child Nutrition and WIC 
            Reauthorization Act of 2004 to establish automatic 
            eligibility for homeless children for school meals further 
            supports this objective.
 Promote Healthier Eating Habits and Lifestyles. This objective 
            represents FNS's efforts to improve the diets of its 
            clients through nutrition education, and to ensure that 
            program benefits meet appropriate standards to effectively 
            improve nutrition for program participants. In support of 
            this objective, FNS plans to propose rules updating the 
            nutrition standards in the school meals programs; implement 
            the SNAP nutrition education provisions of the Food, 
            Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008; and establish 
            permanent rules for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program 
            which currently operates in a select number of schools in 
            each State, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and 
            the Virgin Islands.
 Improve Nutrition Assistance Program Management and Customer 
            Service. This objective represents FNS's ongoing commitment 
            to maximize the accuracy of benefits issued, maximize the 
            efficiency and effectiveness of program operations, and 
            minimize participant and vendor fraud. In support of this 
            objective, FNS plans to finalize rules in the Child and 
            Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Special 
            Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
            Children Program (WIC) to improve program management and 
            prevent vendor fraud. FNS will also finalize a rule to 
            improve the SNAP quality control process and propose a rule 
            to improve the SNAP retailer sanction process.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish products in 
interstate and foreign commerce are wholesome, not adulterated, and 
properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based 
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, egg, and catfish 
products are wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS 
continues to review its existing authorities and regulations to 
streamline excessively prescriptive regulations, to revise or remove 
regulations that are inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and 
critical control point (HACCP) regulations, and to ensure that it can 
address emerging food safety challenges. FSIS is also working with the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better delineate the two 
agencies' jurisdictions over various food products. Following are some 
of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
Non-ambulatory Disabled Cattle. In March 2009, FSIS published a final 
rule requiring that all cattle that become non-ambulatory disabled at 
any time before slaughter, including those that become non-ambulatory 
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and 
properly disposed of. Under the previous regulations, FSIS inspection 
personnel determined, on case by-case basis, the disposition of cattle 
that became non-ambulatory disabled after they had passed ante-mortem 
inspection. The final rule removed the provision for case-by-case 
determination by FSIS inspection personnel.
Country of Origin Labeling. In March 2009, FSIS affirmed its August 
2008 interim final rule requiring country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of 
any meat or poultry product that is a ``covered commodity'' as defined 
by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the regulations set out 
in AMS's January 2009 final rule on mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling (COOL).
2008 Farm Bill-related Rulemakings. The 2008 Farm Bill, made several 
amendments to statutes administered by FSIS and gave the Agency other 
instructions. As a result, FSIS is developing new regulations to 
implement: mandatory inspection for catfish; a program for interstate 
shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products; and recall 
procedure and process control reassessment requirements for inspected 
establishments.
 Catfish Inspection. FSIS is developing regulations to 
            implement 2008 Farm Bill amendments of the FMIA (in Pub. L. 
            110-246, Sec. 11016) to make catfish amenable to the FMIA. 
            The regulations will define ``catfish'' and the scope of 
            coverage of the regulations to apply to establishments that 
            process catfish and catfish products. The regulations will 
            take into account the conditions under which the catfish 
            are raised and transported to a processing establishment.
 Interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry 
            products. FSIS is proposing regulations to implement a new 
            voluntary Federal-State cooperative inspection program 
            under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer 
            employees would be eligible to ship meat and poultry 
            products in interstate commerce. State-inspected 
            establishments selected to participate in this program 
            would be required to comply with all Federal standards 
            under the FMIA and the PPIA. These establishments would 
            receive inspection services from State inspection personnel 
            that have been trained and certified to assist with 
            enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA. Meat and poultry products 
            produced under the program that have been inspected and 
            passed by selected State inspection personnel would bear a 
            Federal mark of inspection. Section 11015 of the 2008 Farm 
            Bill provides for the interstate shipment of State-
            inspected meat and poultry products from selected 
            establishments and requires that FSIS promulgate 
            implementing regulations no later than 18 months from the 
            date of its enactment.
 Notification, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements 
            for Inspected Establishments. FSIS is proposing regulations 
            that will implement Sec. 11017 of the 2008 Farm Bill on 
            notification, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements 
            for inspected establishments. This section amends the FMIA 
            and PPIA to require establishments that are subject to 
            inspection under these Acts to promptly notify the Agency 
            when an adulterated or misbranded product received by or 
            originating from the

[[Page 64151]]

            establishment has entered into commerce. Section 11017 also 
            requires establishments subject to inspection under the 
            FMIA and PPIA to prepare and maintain current procedures 
            for the recall of all products produced and shipped by the 
            establishment and document each reassessment of the 
            establishment's process control plans.
 Revision of Egg Products Inspection Regulations. FSIS is 
            planning to propose requirements for federally inspected 
            egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems 
            and sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency 
            will be proposing pathogen reduction performance standards 
            for egg products. Further, the Agency will be proposing to 
            remove requirements for FSIS approval of egg-product plant 
            drawings, specifications, and equipment before their use, 
            and to end the system for pre-marketing approval of 
            labeling for egg products.
 Rulemakings in Support of the FSIS Public Health Information 
            System. To support its food safety inspection activities, 
            FSIS is developing the Public Health Information System 
            (PHIS). PHIS, which is user-friendly and Web-based, will 
            replace many of the Agency's current systems and automate 
            many business processes. Among the many other services it 
            will provide, PHIS will automate and streamline the export 
            and import application and certification processes. To 
            facilitate the implementation of these PHIS applications, 
            FSIS will propose to amend the meat, poultry products, and 
            egg products inspection regulations to provide for 
            electronic export and import application and certification 
            processes as alternatives to the current paper-based 
            systems for these certifications. The new electronic system 
            will enable the Agency to process an establishment's 
            application for export certification, verify that the 
            establishment and product meet the application and 
            certification requirements, approve the application, and 
            process the export certificate. The Agency is proposing the 
            export application and certification service as a 
            reimbursable service under Agricultural Marketing Act 
            authority.
 Rulemaking to support control of Escherichia coli O157:H7. 
            FSIS will propose to require that any business that grinds 
            or chops raw beef products, including products that are 
            ground or chopped at the request of an individual consumer, 
            keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all 
            transactions involved in the business that are subject to 
            the FMIA. These records, such as grinding logs, provide 
            critical information about how, when, and where ground 
            product was prepared, shipped, received, stored, and 
            handled, and are essential to illness outbreak 
            investigations, recalls, and other public health activities 
            that FSIS conducts. Businesses that will be required to 
            comply with this proposed rule will be FSIS-inspected 
            establishments and retail facilities that grind or chop raw 
            beef products, including beef manufacturing trimmings 
            derived from cattle not slaughtered on site at the official 
            establishment or retail store. An FSIS-inspected 
            establishment that grinds or chops raw beef products 
            derived from cattle slaughtered at that same establishment 
            will be exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
Other Planned Initiatives:
Performance Standards for Ready-to-Eat Products. FSIS plans to finalize 
a February 2001 proposed rule to establish food safety performance 
standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry 
products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry products that 
are not ready-to-eat. The proposal also contained provisions addressing 
post-lethality contamination of RTE products with Listeria 
monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule 
requiring establishments to prevent L. monocytogenes contamination of 
RTE products. The Agency is evaluating the effectiveness of this 
interim final rule, which in 2004 was the subject of a regulatory 
reform nomination to OMB. FSIS has carefully reviewed its economic 
analysis of the interim final rule in response to this recommendation 
and is planning to adjust provisions of the rule to reduce the 
information collection burden on small businesses. FSIS is also 
planning further action with respect to other elements of its 2001 
proposal on performance standards for processed meat and poultry 
products, based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in 
processed products.
FSIS plans to propose to amend the poultry products inspection 
regulations to put in place a system in which the establishment sorts 
the carcasses for defects, and the Agency verifies that the system is 
under control and producing safe and wholesome product. The Agency 
would propose to adopt performance standards, designed to ensure that 
the establishments are carrying out slaughter, dressing, and chilling 
operations in a manner that ensures no significant growth of pathogens.
The chilling performance standard would replace the requirement for 
ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40 [deg]F or below 
within certain time limits according to the weight of the dressed 
carcasses. Poultry establishments would have to carry out slaughtering, 
dressing, and chilling operations in a manner that ensures no 
significant growth of pathogens.
FSIS is collaborating with the Food and Drug Administration in an 
effort to rationalize the division of food protection responsibilities 
between the two agencies and eliminate confusion over which agency has 
jurisdiction over which kinds of products. The agencies are taking an 
approach that involves considering how the meat or poultry ingredients 
contribute to the characteristics and basic identity of food products. 
Thus, FSIS plans to propose amending its regulations to exclude from 
its jurisdiction cheese and cheese products prepared with less than 50 
percent meat or poultry; breads, rolls, and buns prepared with less 
than 50 percent meat or poultry; dried poultry soup mixes; flavor bases 
and reaction/process flavors; pizza with meat or poultry; and salad 
dressings prepared with less than 50 percent meat or poultry. FSIS also 
plans to clarify that bagel dogs, natural casings, and closed-face meat 
or poultry sandwiches are subject to the Agency's jurisdiction.
FSIS Small Business Implications:
The great majority of businesses regulated by FSIS are small 
businesses. Some of the regulations listed above substantially affect 
small businesses. Some rulemakings can benefit small businesses. For 
example, the rule on interstate shipment of State-inspected products 
will open interstate markets to some small State-inspected 
establishments that previously could only sell their products within 
State boundaries.
FSIS conducts a small business outreach program that provides critical 
training, access to food safety experts, and information resources 
(such as compliance guidance and questions and answers on various 
topics) in forms that are uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. 
The Agency collaborates in this effort with other USDA agencies and 
cooperating State partners. For example, FSIS makes plant owners and

[[Page 64152]]

operators aware of loan programs, available through USDA's Rural 
Business and Cooperative programs, to help them in upgrading their 
facilities. FSIS employees meet proactively with small and very small 
plant operators to learn more about their specific needs and provide 
joint training sessions for small and very small plants and FSIS 
employees.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides marketing 
services to producers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, 
exporters, and consumers of food products. The AMS also manages the 
government's food purchases, supervises food quality grading, maintains 
food quality standards, and supervises the Federal research and 
promotion programs.
Priorities: AMS priority items for the next year include a rulemaking 
required as a result of passage of the 2008 Farm Bill and a final rule 
for the National Organic Program.
Dairy Promotion and Research Program (Dairy Import Assessments). The 
Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) authorized USDA 
to create a national producer program for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products. Dairy farmers 
fund this self-help program through a mandatory assessment on all milk 
produced in the contiguous 48 States and marketed commercially. Dairy 
farmers administer the national program through the National Dairy 
Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board).
The 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include producers in Alaska, 
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico who will pay an assessment of $0.15 per 
hundredweight of milk production. Imported dairy products will be 
assessed at $0.075 per hundredweight of fluid milk equivalent. AMS 
published proposed regulations establishing the program in the May 19, 
2009, Federal Register. The proposal had a 30-day comment period. 
Comments received for this rule are currently under review. AMS expects 
to publish a final rule early next year.
Access to Pasture. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of the 
public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on the 
relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and grazing 
land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on access to 
pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an animal's 
stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a uniform 
requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. AMS published a proposed rule 
with a request for comment on October 24, 2008. The comment period 
ended December 23, 2008. AMS received over 80,000 comments. Due to the 
high volume of comments received, final action on this rule is not 
expected before December 2009.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect the health and value of 
American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to 
prevent the introduction of exotic pests and diseases into the United 
States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication 
programs for pests and diseases in this country. These activities 
enhance agricultural productivity and competitiveness and contribute to 
the national economy and the public health. APHIS also conducts 
programs to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Priorities: With respect to animal health, APHIS is continuing work to 
revise its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) to provide a more comprehensive and universally applicable 
framework for the importation of certain animals and products. In the 
area of plant health, APHIS is in the midst of a revision to its 
regulations for importing nursery stock (plants for planting) to better 
address plant health risks associated with propagative material. APHIS 
also plans to propose standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of birds covered under the Animal Welfare 
Act.
Grain, Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Mission: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, 
oilseeds, and related agricultural products and promotes fair and 
competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and 
American agriculture.
Priorities: GIPSA is continuing work that will finalize its August, 
2007 proposed rule regarding the records that live poultry dealers must 
furnish poultry growers, including requirements for the timing and 
contents of poultry growing arrangements. The requirements contained in 
the final rule are intended to help both poultry growers and live 
poultry dealers by providing the growers with more information about 
the poultry growing arrangement at an earlier stage.
In addition, GIPSA intends to propose a rule that will define practices 
or conduct that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive, and/
or that represent the making or giving of an undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage, and ensure that producers and growers can 
fully participate in any arbitration process that may arise related to 
livestock or poultry contracts. This regulation is being proposed in 
accordance with the authority granted to the Secretary by the Packers 
and Stockyards Act of 1921 and with the requirements of Sections 11005 
and 11006 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency's (FSA) mission is to stabilize farm 
income; to assist owners and operators of farms and ranches to conserve 
and enhance soil, water, and related natural resources; to provide 
credit to new or existing farmers and ranchers who are temporarily 
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources; and to help farm 
operations recover from the effects of disaster, as prescribed by 
various statutes.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 2009 will be to continue implementing 
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 
2008, governs Federal farm programs through the 2012. New regulatory 
actions include:
 Disaster Assistance. The 2008 Farm Bill provides a set of 
            standing disaster assistance programs, including a new 
            revenue based program for supplemental agricultural 
            disaster assistance. These programs require completely new 
            regulations and revision of existing program regulations.
 Biomass Crop Assistance Program. In addition, the 2008 Farm 
            Bill adds a new biomass crop assistance program that 
            supports the Administration's energy initiative to 
            accelerate the investment in and production of biofuels. 
            The program will provide financial assistance to 
            agricultural and forest land owners and operators

[[Page 64153]]

            to establish and produce eligible crops, including woody 
            biomass, for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection, 
            harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material 
            for use in a biomass conversion facility.
 Farm Loan Programs. The 2008 Farm Bill also requires changes 
            to farm operating loans, down payment loans, and emergency 
            loans, including expanding to include socially 
            disadvantaged farmers, increasing loan limits, loan size, 
            funding targets, interest rates, and graduating borrowers 
            to commercial credit. In addition, it establishes a new 
            direct and guaranteed loan program to assist farmers in 
            implementing conservation practices. FSA will develop and 
            issue the regulations and make program funds available to 
            eligible clientele in as timely a manner as possible.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is 
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private 
land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural 
resources.
Priorities: NRCS regulatory priorities for FY 2010 will be to finalize 
the rules promulgated pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2008 Farm 
Bill, which was enacted on June 18, 2008, governs USDA conservation 
programs through 2012. NRCS promulgated 11 interim and proposed 
rulemakings pursuant to the 2008 Farm Bill, and received public comment 
for each of the regulations. In order to provide certainty and clarity 
for NRCS program participants, NRCS will address the public comments in 
final rulemaking and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments 
in response to those comments.
Among the programs authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Conservation 
Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
represent a significant public investment in environmental improvement 
and stewardship. The 2008 Farm Bill also re-authorized and expanded 
several other financial assistance and conservation easement programs, 
including the Agricultural Management Assistance program, the Farm and 
Ranch Lands Protection Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the 
Healthy Forests Reserve Program, the Regional Equity provisions, the 
State Technical Committee, the Technical Service Provider Assistance 
Initiative, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program.
During FY 2009, NRCS promulgated an interim final rule to identify 
Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1970 to streamline delivery of projects funded by the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. NRCS plans to finalize the Categorical 
Exclusion rule in response to public comments. Finally, NRCS intends to 
promulgate a program for its ACES program to provide consistency with 
how ACES is used by other agencies.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Mission: Promoting a dynamic business environment in rural America is 
the goal of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Business 
Programs works in partnership with the private sector and the 
community-based organizations to provide financial assistance and 
business planning, and helps fund projects that create or preserve 
quality jobs and/or promote a clean rural environment. The financial 
resources are often leveraged with those of other public and private 
credit source lenders to meet business and credit needs in under-served 
areas. Recipients of these programs may include individuals, 
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, public bodies, nonprofit 
corporations, Indian tribes, and private companies. The mission of 
Cooperative Program of RBS is to promote understanding and use of the 
cooperative form of business as a viable organizational option for 
marketing and distributing agricultural products.
Priorities: RBS's priority for 2009 will be to fully implement the 2008 
Farm Bill. This includes promulgating regulations for Section 9003 
(Biorefinery Assistance Program), Section 9004 (Repowering Assistance 
Program) Section 9005 (Bioenergy program for Advanced Biofuels) and 
Section 6022 (Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program). The Agency 
has been administering Sections 9003 and 9004 through the use of 
various Notices (Notices of Funds Availability and Contract Proposal), 
rather than regulation. Revisions to Section 9007 (Rural Energy for 
America Program) will be made to incorporate Energy Audits and 
Renewable Energy Development Assistance and Feasibility Studies for 
Rural Energy Systems as eligible grant purposes, as well as other Farm 
Bill changes to the Section 9007 program. In addition, regulations for 
the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program will be revised to 
reflect Farm Bill provisions relating to locally or regionally produced 
agricultural food products. These rules will be developed to minimize 
program complexity and burden on the public while enhancing program 
delivery and Agency oversight.
Rural Utilities Service
Mission: To improve the quality of life in rural America by providing 
investment capital for the deployment of critical rural utilities 
telecommunications, electric and water and waste disposal 
infrastructure. Financial assistance is provided to rural utilities; 
municipalities; commercial corporations; limited liability companies; 
public utility districts; Indian tribes; and cooperative, nonprofit, 
limited-dividend, or mutual associations. The public-private 
partnership which is forged between RUS and these industries results in 
billions of dollars in rural infrastructure development and creates 
thousands of jobs for the American economy.
Priorities: RUS' priority in 2010 is fulfilling the President's goal of 
bringing affordable broadband to all rural Americans by continuing to 
develop a final rule for the Broadband Loan Program, which was 
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 
107-171, (2002 Farm Bill) and subsequently amended by the 2008 Farm 
Bill. In May 2007, RUS published a proposed rule to improve the focus 
and strengthen the financial stability of the program that was being 
administered under regulations developed for the 2002 Farm Bill. Before 
this proposed rule could be finalized the 2008 Farm Bill became law, 
significantly changing the statutory requirements of the Broadband Loan 
Program. Consequently, RUS now plans to publish an interim rule that 
will combine the provisions of the proposed rule with the changes made 
by the 2008 Farm Bill.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The Recovery Act 
expanded RUS's existing authority to make loans and provides new 
authority to make grants to facilitate broadband deployment in rural 
areas. RUS has been tasked with the time sensitive priority of 
developing the regulation for this new authority. The Agency will, 
however, also continue to develop a final rule for the Broadband 
Program based upon change include in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Departmental Administration
Mission: Departmental Administration's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that

[[Page 64154]]

USDA administrative programs, policies, advice and counsel meet the 
needs of USDA program organizations, consistent with laws and mandates; 
and provide safe and efficient facilities and services to customers.
Priorities: In July 2009, USDA's Departmental Administration published 
the proposed rule to establish a program to label eligible products 
made from biobased feedstocks. As part of this rulemaking, USDA will be 
accepting public comments through September 2009 on how to implement a 
program that promotes the purchase of products made from agricultural 
and forestry feedstocks. Once the public comment period is closed, USDA 
will finalize the labeling regulation to allow manufacturers and 
vendors of biobased products to display the label on their packaging 
and marketing materials. Once completed, this regulation will implement 
a section of the 2008 Farm Bill and will promote alternative uses of 
agriculture and forest materials.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
USDA will ensure that its regulations provide benefits that exceed 
costs, but are unable to provide an estimate of the aggregated impacts 
of its regulations. Problems with aggregation arise due to differing 
baselines, data gaps, and inconsistencies in methodology and the type 
of regulatory costs and benefits considered. In addition, aggregation 
omits benefits and costs that cannot be reliably quantified, such as 
improved health resulting from increased access to more nutritious 
foods; higher levels of food safety; and increased quality of life 
derived from investments in rural infrastructure. Some benefits and 
costs associated with rules listed in the Regulatory Plan cannot 
currently be quantified as the rules are still being formulated. For 
2010, the Department's focus on Farm Bill and other regulations will be 
to implement the changes in such a way as to provide benefits while 
minimizing program complexity and regulatory burden for program 
participants.
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: ACCESS TO PASTURE

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 6501 et seq


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Organic Program (NOP) is administered by the Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS). Under the NOP, AMS established national 
standards for the production and handling of organically produced 
agricultural products. Since implementation of the NOP, some members of 
the public have advocated for a more explicit regulatory standard on 
the relationship between livestock, particularly dairy animals, and 
grazing land. They have asserted the current regulatory language on 
access to pasture for ruminants and temporary confinement based on an 
animal's stage of production, when applied together, do not provide a 
uniform requirement for the pasturing of ruminant animals that meet the 
principles underlying an organic management system for livestock and 
livestock products that consumers expect. Comments received as a result 
of the proposed rule will assist in determining the Agency's next steps 
in rulemaking on this issue.


Statement of Need:


AMS has determined that current regulations regarding access to pasture 
and the contribution of grazing to the diet of organically raised 
livestock lack sufficient specificity and clarity to enable AMS to 
efficiently administer the Program. Organic System Plans (OSPs) dealing 
with livestock management reflect different application of existing 
regulations and interpretations of requirements across Accredited 
Certifying Agents (ACAs). AMS has received 11 complaints requesting 
enforcement actions for alleged violations of the pasture provisions of 
the NOP livestock standards.


Furthermore, over the period 1994 to 2005, the National Organic 
Standards Board (NOSB) made six recommendations regarding access to the 
outdoors for livestock, pasture, and conditions for temporary 
confinement of animals. The NOSB process for the development of 
recommendations consists of: (1) identification of a need by members of 
the public, the NOSB, or the NOP; (2) development of a draft NOSB 
recommendation; (3) public meeting notice published by the NOP on its 
website and in the Federal Register; (4) solicitation of public 
comments on the recommendation through regulations.gov and at the 
NOSB's public meetings; (5) finalization of the recommendation; (6) 
NOSB approval of the recommendation; and (7) NOSB referral to the 
Secretary for the Secretary's consideration and any appropriate action 
(e.g., rulemaking, policy development, guidance).


In response, on April 13, 2006, NOP published an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (71 FR 19131) seeking input on the role of 
pasture in the NOP regulations and what parts of the NOP regulations 
should be amended to address the role of pasture in organic livestock 
management.


More than 80,500 comments were received on the ANPRM. Support for 
strict standards and greater detail on the role of pasture in organic 
livestock production was nearly unanimous with just 28 of the comments 
opposing changes to the pasture requirements. Organic consumers have 
clearly stated in comments that they expect organic ruminants to graze 
pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their Dry Matter Intake 
(DMI) needs from grazing. Nearly all of the over 80,500 comments were 
received from consumers requesting regulations that would clearly 
establish grazing as a primary source of nourishment. Approximately 
80,250 of these comments were in a modified form letter. Many of these 
consumers requested that grazing account for at least 30 percent of the 
ruminant's DMI needs.


AMS published a proposed rule with a request for comment on October 24, 
2008. The comment period ended December 23, 2008. AMS received more 
than 80,000 comments. Due to the high volume of comments received, 
final action on this rule is not expected before December 2009.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The NOP is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. section 6501 et. seq.). The AMS 
administers the NOP. Under the NOP, AMS oversees national standards for 
the production and handling of organically produced agricultural 
products. This action is being taken by AMS to ensure that NOP 
livestock production regulations have sufficient specificity and 
clarity to enable AMS and accredited certifying agents to efficiently 
administer the NOP

[[Page 64155]]

and to facilitate and improve compliance and enforcement. This action 
is also intended to satisfy consumer expectations that ruminant 
livestock animals graze pastures during the growing season.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to this proposed rulemaking are to: (1) Make no changes to 
the existing regulations; (2) adopt a reduced pasturing period, such as 
the 120-day minimum period recommended by the NOSB and some commenters; 
or (3) adopt a three ruminants per acre stocking rate measure as 
suggested by some commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs:


This action will increase the cost of production for producers who 
currently do not pasture their animals and those producers who do not 
manage their pastures at a sufficient level to provide at least 30 
percent DMI. For organic slaughter stock producers, an increase in 
costs might result in a greater volume of slaughter animals, at least 
in the short term, entering the market driving down prices. Longer term 
these increased costs could result in increased consumer prices unless 
the increased costs are off set by reductions in other costs of 
production. Other costs of production that could be expected to go down 
are costs associated with producer harvest and purchase of feed and the 
cost of herd health.


Benefits:


This final rule brings uniformity in application to the livestock 
regulations; especially as they relate to the pasturing of ruminants. 
This uniformity will create equitable, consistent, performance 
standards for all ruminant livestock producers. Producers who currently 
operate based on grazing will perceive a benefit because these 
producers claim an economic disadvantage in competing with livestock 
operations that do not provide pasture. This proposed rule would also 
bring uniformity in application to the livestock regulations. This 
uniformity in application will allow the ACAs and AMS to administer the 
livestock regulations in a way that reflects consumer preferences 
regarding the production of organic livestock and their products. 
Commenters have clearly stated that they expect organic ruminants to 
graze pasture and receive not less than 30 percent of their dry matter 
needs from grazing. Because of this, it is crucial that consumer 
expectations are met. This proposed rulemaking is intended to reflect 
consumer expectations and producer perspectives. This action makes 
clear what access to pasture means under the NOP.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                           04/13/06                    71 FR 19131
ANPRM Comment Period End        06/12/06
NPRM                            10/24/08                    73 FR 63583
NPRM Comment Period End         12/23/08
Final Action                    12/00/09

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Local, State


Agency Contact:
Richard H. Mathews
Chief of Standards Development and Review Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: richard.mathews@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--AMS



2. NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM; FINAL RULE ON 
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 4501 to 4514; 7 USC 7401


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 1150


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, September 19, 2008, Assessments on imported dairy 
products must be implemented by deadline.


With the passage of Section 1507 in the 2008 Farm Bill, the Dairy Act 
was amended to apply certain assessments to Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 2008 
Farm Bill authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement 
the mandatory dairy import assessment without providing a notice and 
comment period. However, due to the interest of affected parties a 
notice and comment period was provided.


Abstract:


The Dairy Act authorizes the Order for dairy product promotion, 
research, and nutrition education as part of a comprehensive strategy 
to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products and to reduce 
milk surpluses. The program functions to strengthen the dairy 
industry's position in the marketplace by maintaining and expanding 
domestic and foreign consumption of fluid milk and dairy products. 
Amendments to the Order are pursuant to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills. 
The 2002 Farm Bill mandates that the Order be amended to implement an 
assessment on imported dairy products to fund promotion and research. 
The 2008 Farm Bill specifies a mandatory assessment rate of 7.5-cent 
per hundredweight of milk, or equivalent thereof, on dairy products 
imported into the United States. Additionally, in accordance with the 
2008 Farm Bill, the term ``United States'' is the Dairy Act is amended 
to mean all States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico. Producers in these areas will be assessed 15 cents per 
hundredweight for all milk produced and marketed.


Statement of Need:


In response to the May 19, 2009 (74 FR 23359) proposed rule (National 
Dairy Promotion and Research Program; Proposed Rule on Amendments to 
the Order), AMS received 189 timely comments from consumers, dairy 
producers, foreign governments, importers, exporters, manufacturers, 
members of Congress, trade associations, and other interested parties.


The comments covered a wide range of topics, including 39 in opposition 
to the proposal and 150 in support of the proposal. Opponents of the 
proposal expressed concern over the lack of a referendum requirement 
among those affected; default assessment rates; lack of ability to no 
longer promote State-branded dairy products; lack of importer 
organizations eligible to become a Qualified Program; disputed the 
cost-benefit analysis for

[[Page 64156]]

importers and producers; and cited unreasonable importer paperwork and 
record keeping burdens.


Proponents of the proposal expressed support for an expedited 
implementation of the dairy import assessment; cited the enhanced 
benefits both domestic producers and importers will receive as a result 
of implementation; recommended new Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes; 
use of a default assessment rate; recommended regular reporting of the 
products and assessments on imports; and all thresholds for compliance 
with U.S. trade obligations have been met.


AMS plans to issue a final rule implementing the dairy import 
assessment in the near future. In response to the comments received and 
after consultation with USTR, AMS is addressing, in the final rule, 
referenda, alternative assessment rates, and compliance and enforcement 
activity. All remaining changes are miscellaneous and minor in nature 
in order to clarify regulatory text.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program (National Program) is 
authorized under the authorized under the provisions of the Dairy 
Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514), and the 
Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR Part 1150). The Dairy 
Programs unit of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has day--to--day 
oversight responsibilities for the National Program.


Alternatives:


There are no alternatives, as this rulemaking is a matter of law based 
on the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Assessments to dairy producers under the Order are relatively small 
compared to producer revenue. If dairy producers in Alaska, Hawaii, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had paid 
assessments of $0.15 per hundredweight of milk marketed in 2007, it is 
estimated that $1.1 million would have been paid. This is about 0.6 
percent of the $192 million total value of milk produced and marketed 
in these areas.


Benefits to producers in these areas are assumed to be similar to those 
benefits received by producers of other U.S. geographical regions. 
Cornell University has conducted an independent economic analysis of 
the Program that is included in the annual report to Congress. Cornell 
determined that from 1998 through 2007, each dollar invested in generic 
dairy marketing by dairy farmers during the period would return between 
$5.52 and $5.94, on average, in net revenue to farmers.


Assessments collected from importers under the National Program will be 
relatively small compared to the value of dairy imports. If importers 
had been assessed $0.075 per hundredweight, or equivalent thereof, for 
imported dairy products in 2007 as specified in this rule, it is 
estimated that less than $6.1 million would have been paid. This is 
about 0.3 percent of the $2.4 billion value of the dairy products 
imported in 2007.


Risks:


If the amendments are not implemented, USDA would be in violation of 
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            05/19/09                    74 FR 23359
NPRM Comment Period End         06/18/09
Final Action                    02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Whitney Rick
Promotion and Research Branch Chief
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-6909
Fax: 202 720-0285
Email: whitney.rick@usda.gov
RIN: 0581-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------




3. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 2131 to 2159


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 1 to 3


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in 
research.


Statement of Need:


The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the 
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically 
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, 
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the 
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus 
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that 
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred 
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of 
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3 
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds 
other than those birds bred for use in research.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 
promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane 
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by 
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, 
and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include 
birds that are not bred for use in research.


Alternatives:


To be identified.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


To be determined.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            01/00/10
NPRM Comment Period End         04/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 64157]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Gerald Rushin
Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-0954
RIN: 0579-AC02
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS



4. BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY; IMPORTATION OF BOVINES AND BOVINE 
PRODUCTS

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 1622; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8301 to 8317; 21 USC 
136 and 136a; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 92 to 96; 9 CFR 98


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation 
of bovines and bovine products. Under this rulemaking, countries would 
be classified as either negligible risk, controlled risk, or 
undetermined risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Some 
commodities would be allowed importation into the United States 
regardless of the BSE classification of the country of export. Other 
commodities would be subject to importation restrictions or 
prohibitions based on the type of commodity and the BSE classification 
of the country. The criteria for country classification and commodity 
import would be closely aligned with those of the World Organization 
for Animal Health.


Statement of Need:


We are proposing to amend the regulations after conducting a thorough 
review of relevant scientific literature and a comprehensive evaluation 
of the issues and concluding that the proposed changes would continue 
to guard against the introduction of BSE into the United States, while 
allowing the importation of additional animals and animal products into 
this country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), 
the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations to 
prevent the introduction into the United States or dissemination of any 
pest or disease of livestock.


Alternatives:


We could leave the current bovine regulations unchanged, but 
maintaining the status quo would not provide an opportunity to apply 
the latest scientific evidence to our BSE-related import conditions. 
Another alternative--modifying the BSE regulations related to the 
importation of bovines and bovine-derived products to precisely match 
the OIE guidelines without allowing for modification deemed necessary 
by APHIS--would not allow APHIS to independently interpret the 
scientific literature or reflect current USDA regulations and policies. 
Making no changes to the current regulations that govern the 
importation of cervids and camelids would perpetuate an unnecessary 
constraint on trade in those commodities, because cervids and camelids 
pose an extremely low BSE risk.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


APHIS has concluded that the proposed changes would continue to guard 
against the introduction of BSE into the United States.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            12/00/09
NPRM Comment Period End         02/00/10

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


International Impacts:


 This regulatory action will be likely to have international trade and 
investment effects, or otherwise be of international interest.


Additional Information:


Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the 
Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.


Agency Contact:
Christopher Robinson
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center 
for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 40
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-7837
RIN: 0579-AC68
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--APHIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------




5. IMPORTATION OF PLANTS FOR PLANTING; ESTABLISHING A NEW CATEGORY OF 
PLANTS FOR PLANTING NOT AUTHORIZED FOR IMPORTATION PENDING RISK 
ASSESSMENT (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 7781 to 7786; 21 USC 136 and 136a


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 319


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would establish a new category in the regulations governing 
the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. 
This category would list taxa of plants for planting whose importation 
is not authorized pending risk assessment. We would allow foreign 
governments to request that a pest risk assessment be conducted for a 
taxon whose importation is not authorized pending risk evaluation. 
After the pest risk assessment was completed, we would conduct 
rulemaking to remove the

[[Page 64158]]

taxon from the proposed category if determined appropriate by the risk 
assessment. We are also proposing to expand the scope of the plants 
regulated in the plants for planting regulations to include non-
vascular plants. These changes would allow us to react more quickly to 
evidence that a taxon of plants for planting may pose a pest risk while 
ensuring that our actions are based on scientific evidence.


Statement of Need:


APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection 
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction 
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of 
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there 
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine 
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting 
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine 
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine 
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of 
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and 
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what 
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such 
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the 
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a 
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United 
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address 
these risks.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation 
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition 
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 U.S.C. 7712).


Alternatives:


APHIS has identified one alternative to the approach we are 
considering. We could prohibit the importation of all nursery stock 
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking, 
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and 
vegetables. This approach would lead to a major interruption in 
international trade and would have significant economic effects on both 
U.S. importers and U.S. consumers of plants for planting.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations 
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of 
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive 
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                            Date                        FR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                            07/23/09                    74 FR 36403
NPRM Comment Period End