Methodology and Formulas for Allocation of Loan and Grant Program Funds, 15052-15058 [2014-05491]
Download as PDF
15052
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/
MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed
appropriate because the industry would
like the modified regulation to be in
place prior to the 2014–15 production
year, which begins September 1, 2014.
This regulation would need to be in
effect before the production year to
allow handlers to install auto-sampling
equipment prior to harvest. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
Dated: Feb. 28, 2014.
Rex A. Barnes,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983
AGENCY:
Marketing agreements and orders,
Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW
MEXICO
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 983 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 983.150 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 983.150
Aflatoxin regulations.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Samples for testing. Prior to
testing, each handler shall cause a
representative sample to be drawn from
each lot (‘‘lot samples’’) of sufficient
weight to comply with Tables 1 and 2
of this section.
(i) At premises with mechanical
sampling equipment (auto-samplers)
approved by the USDA Federal-State
Inspection Service, samples shall be
drawn by the handler in a manner
acceptable to the Committee and the
USDA Federal-State Inspection Service.
(ii) At premises without mechanical
sampling equipment, sampling shall be
conducted by or under the supervision
of an inspector, or as approved under an
alternative USDA-recognized inspection
program.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
[FR Doc. 2014–05834 Filed 3–17–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 1940
RIN 0570–AA30
Methodology and Formulas for
Allocation of Loan and Grant Program
Funds
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural
Utilities Service, and Farm Service
Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
The Rural BusinessCooperative Service (RBS) is proposing
to amend its regulations found in 7 CFR
part 1940, subpart L for allocating
program funds to its State Offices. RBS
is proposing to amend 7 CFR part 1940,
subpart L to add three programs—the
Rural Energy for America Program, the
Value-Added Producer Grant program,
and the Intermediary Relending
Program. In addition, RBS is proposing
revisions to its state allocation formulae
for existing programs within 7 CFR part
1940, subpart L to account for changes
in data reported by the U.S. Bureau of
the Census’ decennial Census. RBS is
also proposing to make various other
changes including: revising the weight
percentages associated with each of the
allocation criteria; providing flexibility
in determining when not to make state
allocations for a program; restricting the
use of the transition formula and
changing the limitations on how much
program funds can change when the
transition formula is used; adding
provisions for making state allocation
for other RBS programs, including new
ones; and providing consistency, where
necessary, in the allocation of RBS
program funds to State Offices.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 19, 2014 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on
this rule by any of the following
methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments via
the U.S. Postal Service to the Branch
Chief, Regulations and Paperwork
Management Branch, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0742.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Submit
written comments via Federal Express
Mail, or other courier service requiring
a street address, to the Branch Chief,
Regulations and Paperwork
Management Branch, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 300 7th Street SW., 7th
Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
All written comments will be
available for public inspection during
regular work hours at the 300 7th Street
SW., 7th Floor address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chad Parker, Deputy Admininstrator
Business Programs, Rural BusinessCooperative Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, STOP 3220, 1400
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–3225; email:
chad.parker@wdc.usda.gov; telephone
(202) 720–7558.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, Classification
This rule has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Programs Affected
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program numbers for the
programs affected by this action are
10.352, Value-Added Producer Grant
Program; 10.767, Intermediary
Relending Program; 10.768, Business
and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program;
10.769, Rural Business Enterprise Grant
Program; 10.773, Rural Business
Opportunity Grant Program, 10.868,
Rural Energy for America Program.
Executive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Consultation
This action is not subject to the
provisions of Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental
consultation with state and local
officials.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. The Agency has
determined that this rule meets the
applicable standards provided in
section 3 of the Executive Order.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, (1) all state and local laws
and regulations that are in conflict with
this rule will be preempted; (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to the
rule; and (3) administrative appeal
procedures, if any, must be exhausted
before litigation against the Department
or its agencies may be initiated, in
accordance with the regulations of the
National Appeals Division of USDA at
7 CFR part 11.
Environmental Impact Statement
This document has been reviewed in
accordance with 7 CFR part 1940,
subpart G, ‘‘Environmental Program.’’
Rural Development has determined that
this action does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and,
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an
Environmental Impact Statement is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
This executive order imposes
requirements on Rural Development in
the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications or preempt
tribal laws. Rural Development has
determined that the proposed rule does
not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either
the relationship or the distribution of
powers and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Thus, this proposed rule is not subject
to the requirements of Executive Order
13175. If interested, please direct Tribal
Consultation inquiries and comments to
Rural Development’s Native American
Coordinator at aian@wdc.usda.gov or
(720) 544–2911.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule.
This rule contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995) 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 Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995.
E-Government Act Compliance
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RBS proposes to amend its regulations
for allocating program funds among its
State Offices. This action is necessary to
provide a regulatory basis for allocating
funds for the Rural Energy for America
Program, the Value-Added Producer
Grant program, and the Intermediary
Relending Program. In addition, because
of changes to the reporting of data by
the Census Bureau, RBS needs to use an
alternative data source for
unemployment rates. Other changes are
being proposed to:
• Allow RBS to not allocate funds to
states if RBS determines that it is in the
Federal Government’s best financial
interests not to make state allocations;
• adjust the application of the
transition allocation formula;
• address making state allocations for
RBS programs that are not specifically
identified in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart
L;
• provide consistency among RBS
programs; and
• remove unnecessary text.
Under section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Agency certifies that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the
action will not affect a significant
number of small entities as defined by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601). RBS made this determination
based on the fact that this action only
impacts internal Agency procedures for
determining how much of available
program funds are allocated to each
state. Small entities will not be
impacted to a greater extent than large
entities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The policies contained in this rule do
not have any substantial direct effect on
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Nor does this
proposed rule impose substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
governments. Therefore, consultation
with states is not required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
Rural Development is committed to
complying with the E-Government Act,
to promote the use of the Internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizens to access Government
information and services electronically.
Background
Discussion of Changes
A. Addition of New Programs
As discussed below, RBS is proposing
to add three new programs to 7 CFR part
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15053
1940, subpart L. The inclusion of a
specific program within 7 CFR part
1940, subpart L does not mean that RBS
is bound to make state allocations for
that program each fiscal year. The
current rule allows, and the proposed
rule continues to allow, RBS to not
make state allocations for a particular
program in any fiscal year when funds
allocated to a program are insufficient.
Thus, for example, including the ValueAdded Producer Grant program does not
mean that RBS will allocate program
funds to the States each fiscal year.
1. Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP). RBS is proposing to add a new
section to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L,
to address allocating REAP funds for
renewable energy system projects and
energy efficiency improvement projects
to its State Offices. (Note: This proposed
addition does not apply to renewable
energy system feasibility study grants,
the energy audit grants, or the
renewable energy development
assistance grants.) The proposed
sections are essentially identical to
those currently included for the other
RBS programs (i.e., Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loans, Rural
Business Enterprise Grants, and Rural
Business Opportunity Grants). The key
consideration for REAP is the criteria to
use in the formula for making state
allocations.
RBS determined that the first two
criteria used for the other RBS programs
are also appropriate for REAP. These
two criteria are:
• State’s percentage of national rural
population
• State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level
The third criterion currently used is
the State’s percentage of national
nonmetropolitan unemployment. This
criterion is appropriate for programs
where job creation is a primary goal.
Projects funded under REAP, however,
are designed primarily to help
agricultural producers and rural small
businesses lower their energy costs
either through the implementation of
energy efficiency improvements or the
purchase of renewable energy systems.
While job creation is important to all of
its programs, RBS has determined that
a more appropriate criterion for REAP
would be associated with energy,
especially those areas of the country
facing high energy costs.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is
proposing to use data published by the
Energy Information Administration.
These data include estimate of energy
production, consumption, prices, and
expenditures broken down by energy
source and sector. The multi-
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15054
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
dimensional completeness of the data
allows users to make comparisons
across states, energy sources, sectors,
and time. The data include primary
energy of coal, natural gas and
petroleum, biomass, and retail
electricity. The value for these energy
sources are reported in dollars per
British thermal unit (Btu). The value
provides a total energy cost on a statewide basis.
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following
weight factors for these three critiera,
which in part reflect the Agency’s
priority on addressing persistent
poverty in rural America:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for energy costs.
2. Value-Added Producer Grant
(VAPG) Program. RBS is proposing to
add a new section to 7 CFR part 1940,
subpart L, to address allocating the
VAPG general funds to its State Offices.
This allocation of VAPG general funds
to State Offices does not include
allocation of VAPG set-aside funds to
State Offices. The proposed sections are
essentially identical to those currently
included for the other RBS programs
(i.e., Business and Industry Guaranteed
Loans, Rural Business Enterprise Grants,
and Rural Business Opportunity
Grants). The key consideration for
VAPG is the criteria to use in the
formula for making state allocations.
The focus of VAPG is to provide
producers with funds to add value to
their products. RBS determined that two
of the three criteria used for the other
RBS programs are also appropriate for
VAPG. These two criteria are:
• State’s percentage of national rural
population
• State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level
The third criterion currently used is
the State’s percentage of national
nonmetrolpolitan unemployment. This
criterion is appropriate for programs
where job creation is a primary goal.
While job creation is important to all of
its programs, RBS has determined that
a more appropriate criterion for VAPG
would be associated with the state’s
percentage of farms.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is
proposing to use data published by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The data provides a detailed picture of
U.S. farms and ranches and the people
who operate them. It is the only source
of uniform, comprehensive agriculture
data for every state and county in the
United States. The USDA data provides
the most accurate number of farms
within a state.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following
weight factors for these three criteria,
which in part reflect the Agency’s
priority on addressing persistent
poverty in rural America:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for number of farms.
3. Intermediary Relending Program
(IRP). The goals of the IRP are
essentially the same as for the Business
and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan
program, Rural Business Entreprise
Grant (RBEG) program, and Rural
Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG)
program. Therefore, RBS is proposing to
allocate IRP funds to the states using the
same criteria and formula used for these
three other RBS programs.
B. Data Sources for Weighting Criteria
RBS has implemented the existing
formulae using data provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Beginning with the
2010 decennial Census, income/poverty
data and unemployment data are no
longer included in the decennial
Census. Because of this change, RBS
needs to update and clarify the data
sources for the current criteria.
1. State’s percentage of national rural
population (rural population). RBS is
proposing to clearly identify that the
data source for this criterion is the U.S.
Bureau of Census’ decennial Census,
which RBS has been using.
2. State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level (poverty). After examining
several alternative data sources, RBS
determined that income data published
by the Bureau of the Census in the
American Community Survey (ACS), as
found in the 5-year survey component
of the ACS, provides the best source of
data for estimates of state-level income
and poverty data, even though such are
no longer being published in the
decennial Census. RBS is also aware
that the ACS may at some point in the
future be replaced or discontinued. For
these reasons, RBS is proposing to use
‘‘the most recent 5-year survey of the
American Community Survey (ACS) or
other Census Bureau data if needed’’ to
indicate the source of the data to be
used.
3. State’s percentage of national
nonmetropolitan unemployment
(unemployment). RBS also examined
several alternative data sources for
unemployment data and determined
that unemployment data published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides
the best source of data for estimates of
state-level unemployment rates and for
unemployment rates in rural or nonmetropolitan areas. Therefore, RBS is
proposing to use the ‘‘most recent
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Bureau of Labor Statistics data’’ as the
data source for unemployment.
C. Criteria weight factors
Currently, the criteria used to make
state allocations are assigned the
following weight factors to the three
‘‘traditional’’ criteria of rural
population, rural poverty, and rural
unemployemt:
• 50 percent for rural population;
• 25 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for unemployment.
While these weight factors have well
served the Agency’s priorities in the
past, RBS is proposing to revise the
basic weight factors for the ‘‘traditional’’
three criteria to reflect a greater
emphasis of the Agency’s priority to
address persistent poverty in rural
America. Specifically, RBS is proposing
the following new weight factors:
• 25 percent for rural population;
• 50 percent for poverty; and
• 25 percent for unemployment.
The proposed changes would reduce
the rural population weight factor from
50 to 25 percent and increase the
poverty weight factor from 25 to 50
percent. The Agency is not proposing
any change to the unemployment
weight factor.
As noted earlier, RBS is proposing
this same distribution of weight factors
for the REAP and VAPG programs, with
50 percent factor for poverty and 25
percent factors for the other two
weighting criteria for those two
programs.
D. Not Making State Allocations
The current regulations allow RBS to
not allocate a program’s funding to the
states when funding in a particular
fiscal year is insufficient. RBS is
proposing to add a second condition
such that RBS may elect not to allocate
a program’s funds to States in a
particular fiscal year if RBS determines
that it is in the Federal Government’s
best financial interests not to make state
allocations. RBS is proposing this new
condition to provide administrative
flexibility and to account for time and
availability of RBS resources.
E.Transition Formula
The purpose of the transition formula
is to reduce the impact of a large change
to any one state’s allocation when new
decennial Census data are used. Under
the proposed rule, except for rural
population (which would still be
changed every 10 years based on the
decennial Census), the state allocation
formulae would be rerun every year
reflecting new yearly data for the other
two criteria. As a result, RBS does not
expect a large change to any one state’s
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
15055
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
allocation as a result of applying the
formulae each year. Therefore, RBS is
proposing that the transition formula
would not be used except in instances
when RBS revises the weight factors for
a program’s criteria. RBS notes that,
under the current regulation found in
the Code of Federal Regulations, the
transition formula only applies to the
RBEG program; it does not apply to the
B&I Guaranteed Loan program and the
RBOG program.
RBS is also proposing revising the
amount by which a state’s funding can
change when the transition formula is
applied. Currently, the regulation limits
the amount a state’s funding can change
to either plus or minus 15 percent over
the previous year’s allocation amount.
RBS is proposing to make two changes
to when the transition formula is
applied.
1. RBS is proposing to eliminate the
restriction on how much a state’s
allocation can increase over the
previous year’s allocation. Currently,
when the allocation formula is applied,
a state’s allocation cannot increase more
than 15 percent over its previous year’s
allocation for that program. RBS has
decided that, if a state’s condition has
changed significantly enough as to
warrant an increase in allocation, then
there should be no limit on how much
of an increase that state can receive.
2. RBS is proposing to keep a
restriction on how much a state’s
allocation can decrease from one year to
the next, but to limit the decrease to 10
percent. This allows a ‘‘softer’’ landing
for those states receiving a reduction in
allocation.
F. Other Existing RBS Programs and
Newly Authorized Programs
As proposed, the revised 7 CFR part
1490, subpart L addresses six RBS
programs for which RBS intends to
make state allocations of each programs’
funds. There are other existing RBS
programs that are administered at the
National Office level, but for which RBS
does not intend, at this time, to make
state allocations. However, it is possible
that RBS may decide in the future to
make state allocations for an existing
program not currently included in 7
CFR 1940, subpart L. In addition, as
new legislation is passed, RBS may be
required to develop new programs, as
occurred with the passage of the 2008
Farm Bill. For such newly authorized
programs, RBS may determine that
allocating the program’s funds to the
states is appropriate.
RBS is proposing to add a new section
to address these situations. As
proposed, RBS will first determine
whether or not one of the three formulae
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
in proposed § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or
§ 1940.590 is appropriate for the
program.
1. If RBS determines that one of the
three formulae in these section matches,
or closely matches, the purposes of the
‘‘new’’ program, RBS will publish a
Federal Register notice informing the
public as to which formula RBS will use
for making state allocations for the
program.
2. If RBS determines that none of the
three state allocation procedures is
appropriate for the ‘‘new’’ program, RBS
will identify and publish a preliminary
allocation formula via the Federal
Register. RBS will then use that
preliminary formula to begin making
immediate state allocation. RBS will
then identify a new allocation formula
and associated administrative
requirements for incorporation into 7
CFR 1940, subpart L via a proposed rule
published in the Federal Register for
public comment. Until the new
allocation formula is finalized, the
Agency will continue to use the
preliminary allocation formula.
G. Miscellaneous
RBS is also proposing to make the
changes to consolidate similar
programs, create consistency between
the programs, and remove text that is
administrative in nature.
1. Consolidation. RBS is proposing to
consolidate the B&I Guaranteed Loan
program, the RBEG program, and the
RBOG program into one section,
because they use the same criteria for
making state allocations. The IRP will
also be included in this same section.
2. Base allocations. RBS is proposing
to include the following in the
provisions for base allocations:
‘‘Jurisdictions receiving administrative
allocations do not receive base
allocations.’’ The current provisions for
RBEG and RBOG do not contain this
text, but it is applicable to both
programs.
3. Administrative allocations. RBS is
proposing to include the following in
the provisions for administrative
allocations: ‘‘Jurisdictions receiving
formula allocations do not receive
administrative allocations.’’ The current
provisions for RBEG do not contain this
text, but it is applicable to the program.
In addition, the administrative
allocations provisions would now apply
to the RBOG program.
4. Reserve. RBS is proposing to
remove the following text from the
provisions that affect the B&I
Guaranteed Loan program because it is
unnecessary for and unrelated to the
implementation of the allocation:
‘‘States may request reserve funds from
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the B&I reserve when all of the state
allocation has been obligated or will be
obligated to the project for which the
request is made.’’
5. Pooling of funds. RBS is proposing
to revise these provisions to point to the
general provisions for pooling and
removing all other text, which was not
necessary. The changes are not
substantive.
6. Availability of the allocation. RBS
is proposing to remove the following
text from the B&I Guaranteed Loan
program provisions because it is
unnecessary for and unrelated to the
implementation of the allocation:
‘‘There is a 6-day waiting period from
the time project funds are reserved to
the time they are obligated.’’
RBS is proposing to remove the
following text from the RBEG program
provisions because it is only
explanatory in nature and is
unnecessary in determining how
allocations are made: ‘‘The allocation of
funds is made available for States to
obligate on an annual basis although the
Office of Management and Budget
apportions funds to the Agency on a
quarterly basis.’’
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1940
Administrative practice and
procedure, Agriculture, Allocations,
Grant programs—Housing and
community development, Loan
programs—Agriculture, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, we propose to amend chapter
XVIII, title 7, of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
CHAPTER XVIII—RURAL HOUSING, RURAL
BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE,
RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, AND FARM
SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 1940—GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 1940
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42
U.S.C. 1480.
Subpart L—Methodology and
Formulas for Allocation of Loan and
Grant Program Funds
2. The Table of Contents is amended
to read as follows:
■
Sec.
*
*
*
*
*
1940.588 Business and Industry Guaranteed
and Direct Loans, Rural Business
Enterprise Grants, Rural Business
Opportunity Grants, and Intermediary
Relending Program.
1940.589 Rural Energy for America
Program.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
15056
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
1940.590 Value-Added Producer Grant
Program.
1940.593 Other Rural Business-Cooperative
Service Programs.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 1940.588 is revised to read
as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1940.588 Business and Industry
Guaranteed and Direct Loans, Rural
Business Enterprise Grants, Rural Business
Opportunity Grants, and Intermediary
Relending Program.
The Agency will allocate funds to the
States each Federal fiscal year for the
programs identified in this section using
the procedures specified in paragraph
(a) of this section. If the Agency
determines that it will not allocate
funds to the States for a program
identified in this section in a particular
Federal fiscal year, the Agency will
announce this decision in a notice
published in the Federal Register. The
conditions under which the Agency will
not allocate a program’s funds to the
States are identified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to
the States. Each Federal fiscal year, the
Agency will use the amount available to
the program and the procedures
identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(10) of this section to determine the
amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will
make the allocation calculation each
Federal fiscal year.
(1) Amount available for allocations.
See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source
and weight. See § 1940.552(b) of this
subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic
formula are:
(A) State’s percentage of national rural
population.
(B) State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level.
(C) State’s percentage of national
nonmetropolitan unemployment.
(ii) The data sources for each of the
criteria identified in paragraph (a) of
this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent
decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5year survey of the American Community
Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau
data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent
Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a
specific weight factor according to its
relevance in determining need. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
percentage representing each criterion is
multiplied by the weight factor and
summed to arrive at State Factor (SF).
The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency
may elect to use different weight factors
than those identified in this paragraph
by publishing a timely notice in the
Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) × 25 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) × 50 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) × 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as
necessary, each criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each
year. In making these recalculations, the
Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1
of the fiscal year for which the Agency
is making state allocations. Each
criterion’s value determined at the
beginning of a fiscal year for a program
will be used for that entire fiscal year,
regardless of when that fiscal year’s
funding becomes available for the
program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See
§ 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition
provisions specified in § 1940.552(d) of
this subpart apply to the programs
identified in this section except as
follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used
only when the weight factors identified
in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is
used, there will be no upper limitation
on the amount that a State’s allocation
can increase over its previous year’s
allocation and the maximum percentage
that funding will be allowed to decrease
for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year’s allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See § 1940.552(e)
of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving
administrative allocations do not
receive base allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See
§ 1940.552(f) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving formula
allocations do not receive initial
administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See § 1940.552(g) of this
subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See § 1940.552(h)
of this subpart.
(9) Availability of allocation. See
§ 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
(10) Suballocation by the State
Director. Suballocation by the State
Director is authorized for each program
covered by this section.
(b) Conditions for not allocating
program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate
program funds to the States whenever
one of the conditions identified in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section
occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to
a program identified in this section are
insufficient, as provided for in
§ 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is
in the best financial interest of the
Federal Government not to make a State
allocation for any program identified in
this section and that the exercise of this
determination is not in conflict with
applicable law.
■ 4. Section 1940.589 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1940.589
Program.
Rural Energy for America
The Agency will allocate funds to the
States each Federal fiscal year for
renewable energy system and energy
efficiency improvement projects under
the Rural Energy for America Program
(REAP) using the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. If the
Agency determines that it will not
allocate funds to the States for REAP in
a particular Federal fiscal year, the
Agency will announce this decision in
a notice published in the Federal
Register. The conditions under which
the Agency will not allocate the
program’s funds to the States are
identified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to
the States. Each Federal fiscal year, the
Agency will use the amount available to
the program and the procedures
identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(10) of this section to determine the
amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will
make this calculation each Federal fiscal
year.
(1) Amount available for allocations.
See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source,
and weight. See § 1940.552(b) of this
subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic
formula are:
(A) State’s percentage of national rural
population.
(B) State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level.
(C) State’s percentage of energy cost.
(ii) The data sources for each of the
criteria identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)
of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent
decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5year survey of the American Community
Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau
data if needed.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(C) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent
U.S. Energy Information Administration
data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a
specific weight factor according to its
relevance in determining need. The
percentage representing each criterion is
multiplied by the weight factor and
summed to arrive at State Factor (SF).
The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency
may elect to use different weight factors
than those identified in this paragraph
by publishing a timely notice in the
Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) × 25 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) × 50 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) × 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as
necessary, each criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each
year. In making these recalculations, the
Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1
of the fiscal year for which the Agency
is making state allocations. Each
criterion’s value determined at the
beginning of a fiscal year for a program
will be used for that entire fiscal year,
regardless of when that fiscal year’s
funding becomes available for the
program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See
§ 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition
provisions specified in § 1940.552(d) of
this subpart apply to the program(s)
identified in this section except as
follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used
only when the weight factors identified
in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is
used, there will be no upper limitation
on the amount that a State’s allocation
can increase over its previous year’s
allocation and the maximum percentage
that funding will be allowed to decrease
for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year’s allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See § 1940.552(e)
of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving
administrative allocations do not
receive base allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See
§ 1940.552(f) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving formula
allocations do not receive initial
administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See § 1940.552(g) of this
subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See § 1940.552(h)
of this subpart.
(9) Availability of the allocation. See
§ 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
(10) Suballocation by the State
Director. Suballocation by the State
Director is authorized for this program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
(b) Conditions for not allocating
program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate REAP
program funds to the States whenever
one of the conditions identified in
paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section
occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to
REAP are insufficient, as provided for in
§ 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is
in the best financial interest of the
Federal Government not to make a State
allocation for REAP and that the
exercise of this determination is not in
conflict with applicable law.
■ 5. Section 1940.590 is added to read
as follows:
§ 1940.590
Program.
Value-Added Producer Grant
The Agency will allocate the general
funds to the States each Federal fiscal
year for the Value-Added Producer
Grant (VAPG) program using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. If the Agency determines
that it will not allocate funds to the
States for the VAPG program in a
particular Federal fiscal year, the
Agency will announce this decision in
a notice published in the Federal
Register. The conditions under which
the Agency will not allocate the
program’s funds to the States are
identified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to
the States. Each Federal fiscal year, the
Agency will use the amount available to
the program and the procedures
identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(10) of this section to determine the
amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will
make this calculation each Federal fiscal
year.
(1) Amount available for allocations.
See § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source,
and weight. See § 1940.552(b) of this
subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic
formula are:
(A) State’s percentage of national rural
population.
(B) State’s percentage of national rural
population with incomes below the
poverty level.
(C) State’s percentage of total farms.
(ii) The data sources for each of the
criteria identified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)
of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most recent
decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most recent 5year survey of the American Community
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15057
Survey (ACS) or other Census Bureau
data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most recent
U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a
specific weight factor according to its
relevance in determining need. The
percentage representing each criterion is
multiplied by the weight factor and
summed to arrive at State Factor (SF).
The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency
may elect to use different weight factors
than those identified in this paragraph
by publishing a timely notice in the
Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) × 25 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) × 50 percent)
+ (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) × 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as
necessary, each criterion specified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each
year. In making these recalculations, the
Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1
of the fiscal year for which the Agency
is making state allocations. Each
criterion’s value determined at the
beginning of a fiscal year for a program
will be used for that entire fiscal year,
regardless of when that fiscal year’s
funding becomes available for the
program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See
§ 1940.552(c) of this subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition
provisions specified in § 1940.552(d) of
this subpart apply to the program(s)
identified in this section except as
follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used
only when the weight factors identified
in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is
used, there will be no upper limitation
on the amount that a State’s allocation
can increase over its previous year’s
allocation and the maximum percentage
that funding will be allowed to decrease
for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year’s allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See § 1940.552(e)
of this subpart. Jurisdictions receiving
administrative allocations do not
receive base allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See
§ 1940.552(f) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving formula
allocations do not receive initial
administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See § 1940.552(g) of this
subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See § 1940.552(h)
of this subpart.
(9) Availability of the allocation. See
§ 1940.552(i) of this subpart.
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
15058
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(10) Suballocation by the State
Director. Suballocation by the State
Director is authorized for this program.
(b) Conditions for not allocating
program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate VAPG
program funds to the States whenever
one of the conditions identified in
paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section
occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to
VAPG are insufficient, as provided for
in § 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is
in the best financial interest of the
Federal Government not to make a State
allocation for VAPG and that the
exercise of this determination is not in
conflict with applicable law.
■ 6. Section 1940.593 is revised to read
as follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1940.593 Other Rural BusinessCooperative Service Programs.
If the Agency determines that it is in
the best interest of the Federal
government to allocate funds to States
for existing RBS programs other than
those identified in §§ 1940.588 through
1940.590 of this subpart and for
programs new to RBS (e.g., through new
legislation), the Agency will use the
process identified in paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
(a) If the Agency determines that one
of the State allocation procedures in
§ 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 is
appropriate for the program, the Agency
will publish a Federal Register notice
identifying the program and which State
allocation procedure will be used for the
program.
(b) If the Agency determines that none
of the procedures specified in
§ 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590 is
appropriate for the program, the Agency
will implement the following steps:
(1) The Agency will either develop a
preliminary state allocation formula and
administrative procedures specific to
the requirements of the new program or
use whichever of the three procedures
in § 1940.588, § 1940.589, or § 1940.590
the Agency determines most closely
matches the purpose of the program.
The Agency will publish in the Federal
Register the state allocation formula and
adminstrative procedures that it will use
initially for the new program.
(2) The Agency will develop a state
allocation formula and administrative
provisions specific to the new program
and publish them as a proposed rule
change to this part in the Federal
Register for public comment.
(3) Until the program’s state allocation
formula and administrative
requirements are finalized, the Agency
will use the preliminary state allocation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:26 Mar 17, 2014
Jkt 232001
formula established under paragraph
(b)(1) of this section to make state
allocations and administer the new
program.
Dated: March 4, 2014.
Doug O’Brien,
Deputy Under Secretary, Rural Development.
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Michael Scuse,
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–05491 Filed 3–17–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: five_
lamp_types@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0013]
Energy Conservation Program: Data
Collection and Comparison With
Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp
Types
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is informing the public of
its collection of shipment data and
creation of spreadsheet models to
provide comparisons between actual
and benchmark estimate unit sales of
five lamp types (i.e., rough service
lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way
incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen
general service incandescent lamps, and
shatter-resistant lamps) that are
currently exempt from energy
conservation standards. As the actual
sales do not exceed the forecasted
estimate by 100 percent for any lamp
type (i.e., the threshold triggering a
rulemaking for an energy conservation
standard for that lamp type has not been
exceeded), DOE has determined that no
regulatory action is necessary at this
time. However, DOE will continue to
track sales data for these exempted
lamps. Relating to this activity, DOE has
prepared, and is making available on its
Web site, a spreadsheet showing the
comparisons of anticipated versus
actual sales, as well as the model used
to generate the original sales estimates.
The spreadsheet is available online:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/product.aspx/
productid/63.
DATES: As of March 18, 2014, the DOE
has determined that no regulatory action
is necessary at this time.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Background
II. Definitions
A. Rough Service Lamps
B. Vibration Service Lamps
C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps
D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service
Incandescent Lamps
E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps
III. Comparison Methodology
IV. Comparison Results
A. Rough Service Lamps
B. Vibration Service Lamps
C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps
D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service
Incandescent Lamps
E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps
V. Conclusion
I. Background
The Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub.
L. 110–140) was enacted on December
19, 2007. Among the requirements of
subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of
title III of EISA 2007 were provisions
directing DOE to collect, analyze, and
monitor unit sales of five lamp types
(i.e., rough service lamps, vibration
service lamps, 3-way incandescent
lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen general
service incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps). In relevant part,
section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007
amended section 325(l) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA) by adding paragraph (4)(B),
which generally directs DOE, in
consultation with the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA), to:
(1) collect unit sales data for each of the
five lamp types for calendar years 1990
through 2006 in order to determine the
historical growth rate for each lamp
type; and (2) construct a model for each
of the five lamp types based on
coincident economic indicators that
closely match the historical annual
growth rates of each lamp type to
provide a neutral comparison
benchmark estimate of future unit sales.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) Section
321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 also amends
section 325(l) of EPCA by adding
paragraph (4)(C), which, in relevant
E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM
18MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15052-15058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 1940
RIN 0570-AA30
Methodology and Formulas for Allocation of Loan and Grant Program
Funds
AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service,
Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) is proposing to
amend its regulations found in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L for
allocating program funds to its State Offices. RBS is proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to add three programs--the Rural
Energy for America Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and
the Intermediary Relending Program. In addition, RBS is proposing
revisions to its state allocation formulae for existing programs within
7 CFR part 1940, subpart L to account for changes in data reported by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census' decennial Census. RBS is also proposing
to make various other changes including: revising the weight
percentages associated with each of the allocation criteria; providing
flexibility in determining when not to make state allocations for a
program; restricting the use of the transition formula and changing the
limitations on how much program funds can change when the transition
formula is used; adding provisions for making state allocation for
other RBS programs, including new ones; and providing consistency,
where necessary, in the allocation of RBS program funds to State
Offices.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 19, 2014 to
be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on this rule by any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Submit written comments via the U.S. Postal Service
to the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-0742.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Submit written comments via Federal
Express Mail, or other courier service requiring a street address, to
the Branch Chief, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor, Washington,
DC 20024.
All written comments will be available for public inspection during
regular work hours at the 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor address listed
above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Parker, Deputy Admininstrator
Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, STOP 3220, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20250-3225; email: chad.parker@wdc.usda.gov; telephone (202) 720-7558.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, Classification
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Programs Affected
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program numbers for the
programs affected by this action are 10.352, Value-Added Producer Grant
Program; 10.767, Intermediary Relending Program; 10.768, Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loan Program; 10.769, Rural Business Enterprise
Grant Program; 10.773, Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program,
10.868, Rural Energy for America Program.
Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation
This action is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and
local officials.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets
the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order.
[[Page 15053]]
Additionally, (1) all state and local laws and regulations that are in
conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect
will be given to the rule; and (3) administrative appeal procedures, if
any, must be exhausted before litigation against the Department or its
agencies may be initiated, in accordance with the regulations of the
National Appeals Division of USDA at 7 CFR part 11.
Environmental Impact Statement
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940,
subpart G, ``Environmental Program.'' Rural Development has determined
that this action does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) 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
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
action will not affect a significant number of small entities as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). RBS made this
determination based on the fact that this action only impacts internal
Agency procedures for determining how much of available program funds
are allocated to each state. Small entities will not be impacted to a
greater extent than large entities.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial
direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this
proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and
local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or
preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the proposed
rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
Executive Order 13175. If interested, please direct Tribal Consultation
inquiries and comments to Rural Development's Native American
Coordinator at aian@wdc.usda.gov or (720) 544-2911.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule.
E-Government Act Compliance
Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government
Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information
technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizens to access
Government information and services electronically.
Background
RBS proposes to amend its regulations for allocating program funds
among its State Offices. This action is necessary to provide a
regulatory basis for allocating funds for the Rural Energy for America
Program, the Value-Added Producer Grant program, and the Intermediary
Relending Program. In addition, because of changes to the reporting of
data by the Census Bureau, RBS needs to use an alternative data source
for unemployment rates. Other changes are being proposed to:
Allow RBS to not allocate funds to states if RBS
determines that it is in the Federal Government's best financial
interests not to make state allocations;
adjust the application of the transition allocation
formula;
address making state allocations for RBS programs that are
not specifically identified in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L;
provide consistency among RBS programs; and
remove unnecessary text.
Discussion of Changes
A. Addition of New Programs
As discussed below, RBS is proposing to add three new programs to 7
CFR part 1940, subpart L. The inclusion of a specific program within 7
CFR part 1940, subpart L does not mean that RBS is bound to make state
allocations for that program each fiscal year. The current rule allows,
and the proposed rule continues to allow, RBS to not make state
allocations for a particular program in any fiscal year when funds
allocated to a program are insufficient. Thus, for example, including
the Value-Added Producer Grant program does not mean that RBS will
allocate program funds to the States each fiscal year.
1. Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). RBS is proposing to add
a new section to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L, to address allocating REAP
funds for renewable energy system projects and energy efficiency
improvement projects to its State Offices. (Note: This proposed
addition does not apply to renewable energy system feasibility study
grants, the energy audit grants, or the renewable energy development
assistance grants.) The proposed sections are essentially identical to
those currently included for the other RBS programs (i.e., Business and
Industry Guaranteed Loans, Rural Business Enterprise Grants, and Rural
Business Opportunity Grants). The key consideration for REAP is the
criteria to use in the formula for making state allocations.
RBS determined that the first two criteria used for the other RBS
programs are also appropriate for REAP. These two criteria are:
State's percentage of national rural population
State's percentage of national rural population with
incomes below the poverty level
The third criterion currently used is the State's percentage of
national nonmetropolitan unemployment. This criterion is appropriate
for programs where job creation is a primary goal. Projects funded
under REAP, however, are designed primarily to help agricultural
producers and rural small businesses lower their energy costs either
through the implementation of energy efficiency improvements or the
purchase of renewable energy systems. While job creation is important
to all of its programs, RBS has determined that a more appropriate
criterion for REAP would be associated with energy, especially those
areas of the country facing high energy costs.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is proposing to use data
published by the Energy Information Administration. These data include
estimate of energy production, consumption, prices, and expenditures
broken down by energy source and sector. The multi-
[[Page 15054]]
dimensional completeness of the data allows users to make comparisons
across states, energy sources, sectors, and time. The data include
primary energy of coal, natural gas and petroleum, biomass, and retail
electricity. The value for these energy sources are reported in dollars
per British thermal unit (Btu). The value provides a total energy cost
on a state-wide basis.
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following weight factors for these
three critiera, which in part reflect the Agency's priority on
addressing persistent poverty in rural America:
25 percent for rural population;
50 percent for poverty; and
25 percent for energy costs.
2. Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Program. RBS is proposing to
add a new section to 7 CFR part 1940, subpart L, to address allocating
the VAPG general funds to its State Offices. This allocation of VAPG
general funds to State Offices does not include allocation of VAPG set-
aside funds to State Offices. The proposed sections are essentially
identical to those currently included for the other RBS programs (i.e.,
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans, Rural Business Enterprise
Grants, and Rural Business Opportunity Grants). The key consideration
for VAPG is the criteria to use in the formula for making state
allocations.
The focus of VAPG is to provide producers with funds to add value
to their products. RBS determined that two of the three criteria used
for the other RBS programs are also appropriate for VAPG. These two
criteria are:
State's percentage of national rural population
State's percentage of national rural population with
incomes below the poverty level
The third criterion currently used is the State's percentage of
national nonmetrolpolitan unemployment. This criterion is appropriate
for programs where job creation is a primary goal. While job creation
is important to all of its programs, RBS has determined that a more
appropriate criterion for VAPG would be associated with the state's
percentage of farms.
For the reasons stated above, RBS is proposing to use data
published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The data
provides a detailed picture of U.S. farms and ranches and the people
who operate them. It is the only source of uniform, comprehensive
agriculture data for every state and county in the United States. The
USDA data provides the most accurate number of farms within a state.
Lastly, RBS is proposing the following weight factors for these
three criteria, which in part reflect the Agency's priority on
addressing persistent poverty in rural America:
25 percent for rural population;
50 percent for poverty; and
25 percent for number of farms.
3. Intermediary Relending Program (IRP). The goals of the IRP are
essentially the same as for the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed
Loan program, Rural Business Entreprise Grant (RBEG) program, and Rural
Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) program. Therefore, RBS is proposing
to allocate IRP funds to the states using the same criteria and formula
used for these three other RBS programs.
B. Data Sources for Weighting Criteria
RBS has implemented the existing formulae using data provided by
the U.S. Census Bureau. Beginning with the 2010 decennial Census,
income/poverty data and unemployment data are no longer included in the
decennial Census. Because of this change, RBS needs to update and
clarify the data sources for the current criteria.
1. State's percentage of national rural population (rural
population). RBS is proposing to clearly identify that the data source
for this criterion is the U.S. Bureau of Census' decennial Census,
which RBS has been using.
2. State's percentage of national rural population with incomes
below the poverty level (poverty). After examining several alternative
data sources, RBS determined that income data published by the Bureau
of the Census in the American Community Survey (ACS), as found in the
5-year survey component of the ACS, provides the best source of data
for estimates of state-level income and poverty data, even though such
are no longer being published in the decennial Census. RBS is also
aware that the ACS may at some point in the future be replaced or
discontinued. For these reasons, RBS is proposing to use ``the most
recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other
Census Bureau data if needed'' to indicate the source of the data to be
used.
3. State's percentage of national nonmetropolitan unemployment
(unemployment). RBS also examined several alternative data sources for
unemployment data and determined that unemployment data published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the best source of data for
estimates of state-level unemployment rates and for unemployment rates
in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Therefore, RBS is proposing to use
the ``most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data'' as the data source
for unemployment.
C. Criteria weight factors
Currently, the criteria used to make state allocations are assigned
the following weight factors to the three ``traditional'' criteria of
rural population, rural poverty, and rural unemployemt:
50 percent for rural population;
25 percent for poverty; and
25 percent for unemployment.
While these weight factors have well served the Agency's priorities
in the past, RBS is proposing to revise the basic weight factors for
the ``traditional'' three criteria to reflect a greater emphasis of the
Agency's priority to address persistent poverty in rural America.
Specifically, RBS is proposing the following new weight factors:
25 percent for rural population;
50 percent for poverty; and
25 percent for unemployment.
The proposed changes would reduce the rural population weight
factor from 50 to 25 percent and increase the poverty weight factor
from 25 to 50 percent. The Agency is not proposing any change to the
unemployment weight factor.
As noted earlier, RBS is proposing this same distribution of weight
factors for the REAP and VAPG programs, with 50 percent factor for
poverty and 25 percent factors for the other two weighting criteria for
those two programs.
D. Not Making State Allocations
The current regulations allow RBS to not allocate a program's
funding to the states when funding in a particular fiscal year is
insufficient. RBS is proposing to add a second condition such that RBS
may elect not to allocate a program's funds to States in a particular
fiscal year if RBS determines that it is in the Federal Government's
best financial interests not to make state allocations. RBS is
proposing this new condition to provide administrative flexibility and
to account for time and availability of RBS resources.
E.Transition Formula
The purpose of the transition formula is to reduce the impact of a
large change to any one state's allocation when new decennial Census
data are used. Under the proposed rule, except for rural population
(which would still be changed every 10 years based on the decennial
Census), the state allocation formulae would be rerun every year
reflecting new yearly data for the other two criteria. As a result, RBS
does not expect a large change to any one state's
[[Page 15055]]
allocation as a result of applying the formulae each year. Therefore,
RBS is proposing that the transition formula would not be used except
in instances when RBS revises the weight factors for a program's
criteria. RBS notes that, under the current regulation found in the
Code of Federal Regulations, the transition formula only applies to the
RBEG program; it does not apply to the B&I Guaranteed Loan program and
the RBOG program.
RBS is also proposing revising the amount by which a state's
funding can change when the transition formula is applied. Currently,
the regulation limits the amount a state's funding can change to either
plus or minus 15 percent over the previous year's allocation amount.
RBS is proposing to make two changes to when the transition formula is
applied.
1. RBS is proposing to eliminate the restriction on how much a
state's allocation can increase over the previous year's allocation.
Currently, when the allocation formula is applied, a state's allocation
cannot increase more than 15 percent over its previous year's
allocation for that program. RBS has decided that, if a state's
condition has changed significantly enough as to warrant an increase in
allocation, then there should be no limit on how much of an increase
that state can receive.
2. RBS is proposing to keep a restriction on how much a state's
allocation can decrease from one year to the next, but to limit the
decrease to 10 percent. This allows a ``softer'' landing for those
states receiving a reduction in allocation.
F. Other Existing RBS Programs and Newly Authorized Programs
As proposed, the revised 7 CFR part 1490, subpart L addresses six
RBS programs for which RBS intends to make state allocations of each
programs' funds. There are other existing RBS programs that are
administered at the National Office level, but for which RBS does not
intend, at this time, to make state allocations. However, it is
possible that RBS may decide in the future to make state allocations
for an existing program not currently included in 7 CFR 1940, subpart
L. In addition, as new legislation is passed, RBS may be required to
develop new programs, as occurred with the passage of the 2008 Farm
Bill. For such newly authorized programs, RBS may determine that
allocating the program's funds to the states is appropriate.
RBS is proposing to add a new section to address these situations.
As proposed, RBS will first determine whether or not one of the three
formulae in proposed Sec. 1940.588, Sec. 1940.589, or Sec. 1940.590
is appropriate for the program.
1. If RBS determines that one of the three formulae in these
section matches, or closely matches, the purposes of the ``new''
program, RBS will publish a Federal Register notice informing the
public as to which formula RBS will use for making state allocations
for the program.
2. If RBS determines that none of the three state allocation
procedures is appropriate for the ``new'' program, RBS will identify
and publish a preliminary allocation formula via the Federal Register.
RBS will then use that preliminary formula to begin making immediate
state allocation. RBS will then identify a new allocation formula and
associated administrative requirements for incorporation into 7 CFR
1940, subpart L via a proposed rule published in the Federal Register
for public comment. Until the new allocation formula is finalized, the
Agency will continue to use the preliminary allocation formula.
G. Miscellaneous
RBS is also proposing to make the changes to consolidate similar
programs, create consistency between the programs, and remove text that
is administrative in nature.
1. Consolidation. RBS is proposing to consolidate the B&I
Guaranteed Loan program, the RBEG program, and the RBOG program into
one section, because they use the same criteria for making state
allocations. The IRP will also be included in this same section.
2. Base allocations. RBS is proposing to include the following in
the provisions for base allocations: ``Jurisdictions receiving
administrative allocations do not receive base allocations.'' The
current provisions for RBEG and RBOG do not contain this text, but it
is applicable to both programs.
3. Administrative allocations. RBS is proposing to include the
following in the provisions for administrative allocations:
``Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive
administrative allocations.'' The current provisions for RBEG do not
contain this text, but it is applicable to the program. In addition,
the administrative allocations provisions would now apply to the RBOG
program.
4. Reserve. RBS is proposing to remove the following text from the
provisions that affect the B&I Guaranteed Loan program because it is
unnecessary for and unrelated to the implementation of the allocation:
``States may request reserve funds from the B&I reserve when all of the
state allocation has been obligated or will be obligated to the project
for which the request is made.''
5. Pooling of funds. RBS is proposing to revise these provisions to
point to the general provisions for pooling and removing all other
text, which was not necessary. The changes are not substantive.
6. Availability of the allocation. RBS is proposing to remove the
following text from the B&I Guaranteed Loan program provisions because
it is unnecessary for and unrelated to the implementation of the
allocation: ``There is a 6-day waiting period from the time project
funds are reserved to the time they are obligated.''
RBS is proposing to remove the following text from the RBEG program
provisions because it is only explanatory in nature and is unnecessary
in determining how allocations are made: ``The allocation of funds is
made available for States to obligate on an annual basis although the
Office of Management and Budget apportions funds to the Agency on a
quarterly basis.''
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1940
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Allocations,
Grant programs--Housing and community development, Loan programs--
Agriculture, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend
chapter XVIII, title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
CHAPTER XVIII--RURAL HOUSING, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE, RURAL
UTILITIES SERVICE, AND FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PART 1940--GENERAL
0
1. The authority citation for part 1940 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
Subpart L--Methodology and Formulas for Allocation of Loan and
Grant Program Funds
0
2. The Table of Contents is amended to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
1940.588 Business and Industry Guaranteed and Direct Loans, Rural
Business Enterprise Grants, Rural Business Opportunity Grants, and
Intermediary Relending Program.
1940.589 Rural Energy for America Program.
[[Page 15056]]
1940.590 Value-Added Producer Grant Program.
1940.593 Other Rural Business-Cooperative Service Programs.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 1940.588 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1940.588 Business and Industry Guaranteed and Direct Loans,
Rural Business Enterprise Grants, Rural Business Opportunity Grants,
and Intermediary Relending Program.
The Agency will allocate funds to the States each Federal fiscal
year for the programs identified in this section using the procedures
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the Agency determines
that it will not allocate funds to the States for a program identified
in this section in a particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will
announce this decision in a notice published in the Federal Register.
The conditions under which the Agency will not allocate a program's
funds to the States are identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to the States. Each Federal
fiscal year, the Agency will use the amount available to the program
and the procedures identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(10) of
this section to determine the amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will make the allocation calculation
each Federal fiscal year.
(1) Amount available for allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(a) of this
subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source and weight. See Sec.
1940.552(b) of this subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes
below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of national nonmetropolitan unemployment.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in
paragraph (a) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most
recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most
recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other
Census Bureau data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most
recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according
to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each
criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at
State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to
use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by
publishing a timely notice in the Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) x 25 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) x
50 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) x 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making
these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which
the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value
determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used
for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's
funding becomes available for the program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(c) of this
subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition provisions specified in
Sec. 1940.552(d) of this subpart apply to the programs identified in
this section except as follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight
factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper
limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over
its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding
will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year's allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(e) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving administrative allocations do not receive base
allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(f) of this
subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive
initial administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See Sec. 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See Sec. 1940.552(h) of this subpart.
(9) Availability of allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(i) of this
subpart.
(10) Suballocation by the State Director. Suballocation by the
State Director is authorized for each program covered by this section.
(b) Conditions for not allocating program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate program funds to the States whenever
one of the conditions identified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this
section occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to a program identified in
this section are insufficient, as provided for in Sec. 1940.552(a) of
this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest
of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for any
program identified in this section and that the exercise of this
determination is not in conflict with applicable law.
0
4. Section 1940.589 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1940.589 Rural Energy for America Program.
The Agency will allocate funds to the States each Federal fiscal
year for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement
projects under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the Agency
determines that it will not allocate funds to the States for REAP in a
particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will announce this decision
in a notice published in the Federal Register. The conditions under
which the Agency will not allocate the program's funds to the States
are identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to the States. Each Federal
fiscal year, the Agency will use the amount available to the program
and the procedures identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(10) of
this section to determine the amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will make this calculation each Federal
fiscal year.
(1) Amount available for allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(a) of this
subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source, and weight. See Sec.
1940.552(b) of this subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes
below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of energy cost.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most
recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most
recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other
Census Bureau data if needed.
[[Page 15057]]
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most
recent U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according
to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each
criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at
State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to
use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by
publishing a timely notice in the Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) x 25 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) x
50 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) x 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making
these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which
the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value
determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used
for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's
funding becomes available for the program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(c) of this
subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition provisions specified in
Sec. 1940.552(d) of this subpart apply to the program(s) identified in
this section except as follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight
factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper
limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over
its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding
will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year's allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(e) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving administrative allocations do not receive base
allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(f) of this
subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive
initial administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See Sec. 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See Sec. 1940.552(h) of this subpart.
(9) Availability of the allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(i) of this
subpart.
(10) Suballocation by the State Director. Suballocation by the
State Director is authorized for this program.
(b) Conditions for not allocating program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate REAP program funds to the States
whenever one of the conditions identified in paragraphs (b)(1) or
(b)(2) of this section occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to REAP are insufficient, as
provided for in Sec. 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest
of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for REAP and
that the exercise of this determination is not in conflict with
applicable law.
0
5. Section 1940.590 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1940.590 Value-Added Producer Grant Program.
The Agency will allocate the general funds to the States each
Federal fiscal year for the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program
using the procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If the
Agency determines that it will not allocate funds to the States for the
VAPG program in a particular Federal fiscal year, the Agency will
announce this decision in a notice published in the Federal Register.
The conditions under which the Agency will not allocate the program's
funds to the States are identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) Procedures for allocating funds to the States. Each Federal
fiscal year, the Agency will use the amount available to the program
and the procedures identified in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(10) of
this section to determine the amount of program funds to allocate to
each of the States. The Agency will make this calculation each Federal
fiscal year.
(1) Amount available for allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(a) of this
subpart.
(2) Basic formula criteria, data source, and weight. See Sec.
1940.552(b) of this subpart.
(i) The criteria used in the basic formula are:
(A) State's percentage of national rural population.
(B) State's percentage of national rural population with incomes
below the poverty level.
(C) State's percentage of total farms.
(ii) The data sources for each of the criteria identified in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are:
(A) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), the most
recent decennial Census data.
(B) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B), the most
recent 5-year survey of the American Community Survey (ACS) or other
Census Bureau data if needed.
(C) For the criterion specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C), the most
recent U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
(iii) Each criterion is assigned a specific weight factor according
to its relevance in determining need. The percentage representing each
criterion is multiplied by the weight factor and summed to arrive at
State Factor (SF). The SF cannot exceed 0.05. The Agency may elect to
use different weight factors than those identified in this paragraph by
publishing a timely notice in the Federal Register.
SF = (criterion (a)(2)(i)(A) x 25 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(B) x
50 percent) + (criterion (a)(2)(i)(C) x 25 percent)
(iv) The Agency will recalculate, as necessary, each criterion
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section each year. In making
these recalculations, the Agency will use the most recent data
available to the Agency as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which
the Agency is making state allocations. Each criterion's value
determined at the beginning of a fiscal year for a program will be used
for that entire fiscal year, regardless of when that fiscal year's
funding becomes available for the program.
(3) Basic formula allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(c) of this
subpart.
(4) Transition formula. The transition provisions specified in
Sec. 1940.552(d) of this subpart apply to the program(s) identified in
this section except as follows:
(i) The transition formula will be used only when the weight
factors identified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
modified; and
(ii) When the transition formula is used, there will be no upper
limitation on the amount that a State's allocation can increase over
its previous year's allocation and the maximum percentage that funding
will be allowed to decrease for a State will be 10 percent from its
previous year's allocation.
(5) Base allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(e) of this subpart.
Jurisdictions receiving administrative allocations do not receive base
allocations.
(6) Administrative allocations. See Sec. 1940.552(f) of this
subpart. Jurisdictions receiving formula allocations do not receive
initial administrative allocations.
(7) Reserve. See Sec. 1940.552(g) of this subpart.
(8) Pooling of funds. See Sec. 1940.552(h) of this subpart.
(9) Availability of the allocation. See Sec. 1940.552(i) of this
subpart.
[[Page 15058]]
(10) Suballocation by the State Director. Suballocation by the
State Director is authorized for this program.
(b) Conditions for not allocating program funds to the States. The
Agency may elect to not allocate VAPG program funds to the States
whenever one of the conditions identified in paragraphs (b)(1) or
(b)(2) of this section occurs.
(1) Funds allocated in a fiscal year to VAPG are insufficient, as
provided for in Sec. 1940.552(a) of this subpart.
(2) The Agency determines that it is in the best financial interest
of the Federal Government not to make a State allocation for VAPG and
that the exercise of this determination is not in conflict with
applicable law.
0
6. Section 1940.593 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1940.593 Other Rural Business-Cooperative Service Programs.
If the Agency determines that it is in the best interest of the
Federal government to allocate funds to States for existing RBS
programs other than those identified in Sec. Sec. 1940.588 through
1940.590 of this subpart and for programs new to RBS (e.g., through new
legislation), the Agency will use the process identified in paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section.
(a) If the Agency determines that one of the State allocation
procedures in Sec. 1940.588, Sec. 1940.589, or Sec. 1940.590 is
appropriate for the program, the Agency will publish a Federal Register
notice identifying the program and which State allocation procedure
will be used for the program.
(b) If the Agency determines that none of the procedures specified
in Sec. 1940.588, Sec. 1940.589, or Sec. 1940.590 is appropriate for
the program, the Agency will implement the following steps:
(1) The Agency will either develop a preliminary state allocation
formula and administrative procedures specific to the requirements of
the new program or use whichever of the three procedures in Sec.
1940.588, Sec. 1940.589, or Sec. 1940.590 the Agency determines most
closely matches the purpose of the program. The Agency will publish in
the Federal Register the state allocation formula and adminstrative
procedures that it will use initially for the new program.
(2) The Agency will develop a state allocation formula and
administrative provisions specific to the new program and publish them
as a proposed rule change to this part in the Federal Register for
public comment.
(3) Until the program's state allocation formula and administrative
requirements are finalized, the Agency will use the preliminary state
allocation formula established under paragraph (b)(1) of this section
to make state allocations and administer the new program.
Dated: March 4, 2014.
Doug O'Brien,
Deputy Under Secretary, Rural Development.
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Michael Scuse,
Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-05491 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P