Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; De Minimis Quantity Exemption Threshold, 24583-24595 [2017-10997]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
the Department is issuing this Request
for Information (RFI) seeking public
comment on how best to achieve
meaningful burden reduction while
continuing to achieve the Department’s
regulatory objectives. Second, the
Department has created an email in-box
at Regulatory.Review@hq.doe.gov,
which interested parties can use to
identify to DOE—on a continuing
basis—existing regulations, paperwork
requirements and other regulatory
obligations that can be modified or
repealed, consistent with law. Together,
these steps will help the Department
ensure it acts in a prudent and
financially responsible manner in the
expenditure of funds, from both public
and private sources, and manages
appropriately the costs associated with
private expenditures required for
compliance with DOE regulations.
Request for Information
Pursuant to the Executive Orders, the
Department is, through this request for
information, seeking input and other
assistance, as permitted by law, from
entities significantly affected by
regulations of the Department of Energy,
including State, local, and tribal
governments, small businesses,
consumers, non-governmental
organizations, and manufacturers and
their trade associations. The
Department’s goal is to create a
systematic method for identifying those
existing DOE rules that are obsolete,
unnecessary, unjustified, or simply no
longer make sense.
Consistent with the Department’s
commitment to public participation in
the rulemaking process, the Department
is beginning this process by soliciting
views from the public on how best to
conduct its analysis of existing DOE
rules. It is also seeking views from the
public on specific rules or Department
imposed obligations that should be
altered or eliminated. While the
Department promulgates rules in
accordance with the law and to the best
of its analytic capability, it is difficult to
be certain of the consequences of a rule,
including its costs and benefits, until it
has been tested. Because knowledge
about the full effects of a rule is widely
dispersed in society, members of the
public are likely to have useful
information and perspectives on the
benefits and burdens of existing
requirements and how regulatory
obligations may be updated,
streamlined, revised, or repealed to
better achieve regulatory objectives,
while minimizing regulatory burdens,
consistent with applicable law.
Interested parties may also be wellpositioned to identify those rules that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
are most in need of reform, and, thus,
assist the Department in prioritizing and
properly tailoring its review process. In
short, engaging the public in an open,
transparent process is a crucial first step
in DOE’s review of its existing
regulations.
List of Questions for Commenters
To allow DOE to more effectively
evaluate suggestions, the Department is
requesting comments include:
• Supporting data or other
information such as cost information
• Specific suggestions regarding
repeal, replacement, or modification.
The following list of questions
represents a preliminary attempt by
DOE to identify rules/obligations on
which it should immediately focus. This
non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in
the formulation of comments and is not
intended to restrict the issues that may
be addressed. In addressing these
questions or others, DOE requests that
commenters identify with specificity the
regulation or reporting requirement at
issue, providing legal citation where
available. The Department also requests
that the submitter provide, in as much
detail as possible, an explanation why a
regulation or reporting requirement
should be modified, streamlined, or
repealed, as well as specific suggestions
of ways the Department can do so while
achieving its regulatory objectives.
(1) How can DOE best promote
meaningful regulatory cost reduction
while achieving its regulatory
objectives, and how can it best identify
those rules that might be modified,
streamlined, or repealed?
(2) What factors should DOE consider
in selecting and prioritizing rules and
reporting requirements for reform?
(3) How can DOE best obtain and
consider accurate, objective information
and data about the costs, burdens, and
benefits of existing regulations? Are
there existing sources of data DOE can
use to evaluate the post-promulgation
effects of regulations over time? We
invite interested parties to provide data
that may be in their possession that
documents the costs, burdens, and
benefits of existing requirements.
(4) Are there regulations that simply
make no sense or have become
unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised
and if so what are they? Are there rules
that can simply be repealed without
impairing DOE’s statutory obligations
and, if so, what are they?
(5) Are there rules or reporting
requirements that have become outdated
and, if so, how can they be modernized
to better accomplish their objective?
(6) Are there rules that are still
necessary, but have not operated as well
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24583
as expected such that a modified, or
slightly different approach at lower cost
is justified?
(7) Are there rules of the Department
that unnecessarily obstruct, delay,
curtail, or otherwise impose significant
costs on the siting, permitting,
production, utilization, transmission, or
delivery of energy resources?
(8) Does DOE currently collect
information that it does not need or use
effectively?
(9) Are there regulations, reporting
requirements, or regulatory processes
that are unnecessarily complicated or
could be streamlined to achieve
statutory obligations in more efficient
ways?
(10) Are there rules or reporting
requirements that have been overtaken
by technological developments? Can
new technologies be leveraged to
modify, streamline, or do away with
existing regulatory or reporting
requirements?
(11) Does the methodology and data
used in analyses supporting DOE’s
regulations meet the requirements of the
Information Quality Act?
The Department notes that this RFI is
issued solely for information and
program-planning purposes. While
responses to this RFI do not bind DOE
to any further actions related to the
response, all submissions will be made
publicly available on
www.regulations.gov.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19,
2017.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Chair, Department of Energy Regulatory
Reform Task Force.
[FR Doc. 2017–10866 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1217
[Document Number AMS–SC–16–0066]
Softwood Lumber Research,
Promotion, Consumer Education and
Industry Information Order; De Minimis
Quantity Exemption Threshold
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This action proposes to
establish a de minimis quantity
exemption threshold under the
Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion,
Consumer Education and Industry
Information Order (Order). The Order is
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
24584
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
administered by the Softwood Lumber
Board (Board) with oversight by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). In
response to a 2016 federal district court
decision, USDA conducted a new
analysis to determine a reasonable and
appropriate de minimis threshold.
Based on that analysis contained herein,
this proposal would establish the de
minimis quantity threshold at 15
million board feet (mmbf) and entities
manufacturing (and domestically
shipping) or importing less than 15
mmbf per year would be exempt from
paying assessments under the Order.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments
may be submitted on the Internet at:
https://www.regulations.gov or to the
Promotion and Economics Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room
1406–S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC
20250–0244; facsimile: (202) 205–2800.
All comments should reference the
document number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal
Register and will be made available for
public inspection, including name and
address, if provided, in the above office
during regular business hours or it can
be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen T. Pello, Marketing Specialist,
Promotion and Economics Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA,
P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon,
97004; telephone: (503) 632–8848;
facsimile (503) 632–8852; or electronic
mail: Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal is issued under the Order (7
CFR part 1217). The Order is authorized
under the Commodity Promotion,
Research and Information Act of 1996
(1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411–7425).
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules and promoting
flexibility. This action falls within a
category of regulatory actions that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because
this rule does not meet the definition of
a significant regulatory action it does
not trigger the requirements contained
in Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s
Memorandum titled ‘‘Interim Guidance
Implementing Section 2 of the Executive
Order of January 30, 2017 titled
‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017).
Executive Order 13175
This action has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this proposal would not have
substantial and direct effects on Tribal
governments and would not have
significant Tribal implications.
Executive Order 12988
This proposal has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. Section 524 of
the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides
that it shall not affect or preempt any
other Federal or State law authorizing
promotion or research relating to an
agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7
U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an
order may file a written petition with
USDA stating that an order, any
provision of an order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with an order, is
not established in accordance with the
law, and request a modification of an
order or an exemption from an order.
Any petition filed challenging an order,
any provision of an order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with
an order, shall be filed within two years
after the effective date of an order,
provision, or obligation subject to
challenge in the petition. The petitioner
will have the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will
issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996
Act provides that the district court of
the United States for any district in
which the petitioner resides or conducts
business shall have the jurisdiction to
review a final ruling on the petition, if
the petitioner files a complaint for that
purpose not later than 20 days after the
date of the entry of USDA’s final ruling.
Background
This proposed rule would establish a
de minimis quantity exemption
threshold under the Order. The Order,
codified at 7 CFR part 1217, is
administered by the Board with
oversight by USDA’s Agricultural
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Marketing Service (AMS). In Resolute
Forest Products Inc., v. USDA, et al.
(Resolute), the court found that, on the
basis of the estimates and information
submitted by the government to the
court for review, the selection of 15
mmbf as the de minimis quantity (to be
exempted) under the Order was
arbitrary and capricious and that the
Order was therefore promulgated
unlawfully. The court did not vacate (or
terminate) the Order; the court
remanded the matter to USDA and
program requirements remain in effect.
To address the court’s decision,
USDA conducted a new analysis to
determine a reasonable and appropriate
de minimis quantity exemption. USDA
analyzed various thresholds of
exemption: 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mmbf.
USDA also considered proposing no de
minimis exemption. USDA’s analysis of
the data resulted in a determination that
a de minimis level of 15 mmbf is
reasonable and appropriate. Therefore,
this proposal would establish the de
minimis quantity threshold under the
Order at 15 mmbf.
Authority in the 1996 Act
The 1996 Act authorizes USDA to
establish agricultural commodity
research and promotion orders which
may include a combination of
promotion, research, industry
information, and consumer information
activities funded by mandatory
assessments. These programs are
designed to maintain and expand
markets and uses for agricultural
commodities. As defined under section
513(1)(D) of the 1996 Act, agricultural
commodities include the products of
forestry, which includes softwood
lumber.
The 1996 Act provides for a number
of optional provisions that allow the
tailoring of orders for different
commodities. Section 516 of the 1996
Act provides permissive terms for
orders. Section 516 states that an order
may include an exemption of de
minimis quantities of an agricultural
commodity. Further, section 516(g) of
the 1996 Act provides authority for
other action that is consistent with the
purpose of the statute and necessary to
administer a program.
Overview of the Softwood Lumber
Program
The softwood lumber program took
effect in August 2011 (76 FR 46185) and
assessment collection began in January
2012. Under the Order, assessments are
collected from domestic (U.S.)
manufacturers and importers and are
used by the Board for projects that
promote market growth for softwood
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
lumber products used in single and
multi-family dwellings as well as
commercial construction. The Board is
composed of 19 industry members
(domestic manufacturers and importers)
who are appointed by the Secretary of
Agriculture. The purpose of the program
is to strengthen the position of softwood
lumber in the marketplace, maintain
and expand markets for softwood
lumber, and develop new uses for
softwood lumber within the United
States.
Relevant Order Provisions
Domestic Manufacturers
The term ‘domestic manufacturer’ is
defined in section 1217.8 of the Order
to mean any person who is a first
handler engaged in the manufacturing,
sale and shipment of softwood lumber
in the United States during a fiscal
period and who owns, or shares in the
ownership and risk of loss of
manufacturing of softwood lumber or a
person who is engaged in the business
of manufacturing, or causes to be
manufactured, sold and shipped such
softwood lumber in the United States
beyond personal use. The term does not
include persons who re-manufacture
softwood lumber that has already been
subject to assessment. The term
‘manufacture’ is defined in section
1217.13 of the Order to mean the
process of transforming (or turning)
softwood logs into softwood lumber.
Domestic manufacturers are
essentially sawmills that turn softwood
logs into lumber. A domestic
manufacturer may be a company that is
a single sawmill, or it may be a
company that is composed of multiple
sawmills.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Importers
The term ‘importer’ is defined in
section 1217.11 of the Order to mean
any person who imports softwood
lumber from outside the United States
for sale in the United States as a
principal or as an agent, broker, or
consignee of any person who
manufactures softwood lumber outside
the United States for sale in the United
States, and who is listed in the import
records as the importer of record for
such softwood lumber. Import records
are maintained by the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (Customs or CBP).
Both domestic manufacturers and
importers may be referred to in this
rulemaking as ‘‘entities.’’
Expenses and Assessments
Pursuant to section 1217.50 of the
Order, the Board is authorized to incur
expenses for research and promotion
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
projects as well as administration. The
Board’s expenses are paid by
assessments upon domestic
manufacturers and importers. Pursuant
to section 1217.52(b), and subject to the
exemptions specified in section 1217.53
of the Order, each domestic
manufacturer and importer must pay an
assessment to the Board at the rate of
$0.35 per thousand board feet of
softwood lumber, except that no entity
has to pay an assessment on the first 15
mmbf of softwood lumber otherwise
subject to assessment in a fiscal year.
Domestic manufacturers pay
assessments based on the volume of
softwood lumber shipped within the
United States and importers pay
assessments based on the volume of
softwood lumber imported to the United
States. Pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (j)
in section 1217.52, respectively,
domestic manufacturers and importers
who pay their assessments to the Board
must do so no later than the 30th
calendar day of the month following the
end of the quarter in which the
softwood lumber was shipped or
imported.
Exemptions
Section 1217.53 of the Order
prescribes exemptions from assessment.
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of that section,
the original de minimis quantity
exemption threshold under the Order
was 15 mmbf. Thus, U.S. manufacturers
and importers that domestically ship
and/or import less than 15 mmbf feet
annually have been exempt from paying
assessments. Domestic manufacturers
and importers that ship or import less
than the de minimis quantity of
softwood lumber must apply to the
Board each year for a certificate of
exemption and provide documentation
as appropriate to support their request.
Pursuant to paragraph (b) of section
1217.53 of the Order, domestic
manufacturers and importers that ship
or import 15 mmbf or more annually do
not pay assessments on their first 15
mmbf domestically shipped or
imported. This exemption is intended
for the purpose of creating an equality
amongst those within the industry with
regard to the program’s assessment. Just
as those that manufacture or import
under 15 mmbf do not have to pay
assessments, those at or above this level
may reduce their assessable volume by
15 mmbf.1 For example, an entity that
ships or imports 20 mmbf annually only
has to pay assessments on 5 mmbf of
1 USDA notes that the de minimis level and the
equity exemption are purposefully aligned and any
change in the de minimis would result in a
corresponding modification to the equity
exemption.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24585
softwood lumber. This exemption
creates fairness; it levels the playing
field because all entities, regardless of
size, do not have to pay assessments on
their first 15 mmbf shipped or imported.
For purposes of this document, this
exemption is referred to as the ‘‘equity
exemption.’’ Pursuant to paragraphs (c)
and (d) of section 1217.53, respectively,
exports of softwood lumber from the
United States and organic softwood
lumber are also exempt from
assessment.
Reports and Records
Pursuant to section 1217.70 of the
Order, domestic manufacturers and
importers who pay their assessments
directly to the Board must submit with
their payment a report that specifies the
quantity of softwood lumber
domestically shipped or imported.
Pursuant to section 1217.71 of the
Order, all domestic manufacturers and
importers must maintain books and
records necessary to verify reports for a
period of 2 years beyond the fiscal year
to which they apply, including those
exempt. These records must be made
available during normal business hours
for inspection by Board staff or USDA.
Other Relevant Order Provisions
The original 15 mmbf quantity
exemption threshold is referenced in
other Order provisions. Section 1217.40
specifies that the Board is composed of
domestic manufacturers and importers
who domestically ship or import 15
mmbf or more of softwood lumber
annually. Section 1217.41 of the Order
specifies that persons interested in
serving on the Board must also
domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or
more softwood lumber annually.
Finally, section 1217.101 of the Order
regarding referendum procedures
specifies that eligible domestic
manufacturers and importers that can
vote in referenda must domestically
ship or import 15 mmbf or more of
softwood lumber annually.
Initial Referendum and Summary of
Board Activities
The softwood lumber program was
implemented after notice and comment
rulemaking and a May 2011 referendum
demonstrating strong support for the
program. Pursuant to section 1217.81(a)
of the Order, the program had to pass by
a majority of those voting in the
referendum who also represented a
majority of the volume voted. Sixtyseven percent of the entities who voted,
who together represented 80 percent of
the volume, in the referendum favored
implementation of the program. Entities
that domestically shipped or imported
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
24586
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
15 mmbf or more of softwood lumber
annually were eligible to vote in the
referendum. As previously mentioned,
the program took effect in August 2011
and assessment collection began in
January 2012.
The softwood lumber program has
continued to operate at the 15 mmbf
exemption threshold since its inception.
During these years, the Board has
funded a variety of activities designed to
increase the demand for softwood
lumber. The Board funded a U.S. Tall
Wood Building Prize Competition that
is helping to showcase the benefits of
building tall structures with wood. The
Board also funds research on wood
standards; a communications program,
which includes continuing education
courses for architects and engineers; and
a construction and design program that
provides technical support to architects
and structural engineers about using
wood.
Analysis of the De Minimis Quantity
Under the Softwood Lumber Program
The Secretary has authority under
section 516 of the 1996 Act to exempt
any de minimis quantity of an
agricultural commodity otherwise
covered by an order: ‘‘An order issued
under this subchapter may contain . . .
authority for the Secretary to exempt
from the order any de minimis quantity
of an agricultural commodity otherwise
covered by the order . . . .’’ 7 U.S.C.
7415(a). A de minimis quantity
exemption allows an industry to exempt
from assessment small entities that
could be unduly burdened from an
order’s requirements (i.e., assessment
and quarterly reporting obligations).
Because the 1996 Act does not prescribe
the methodology or formula for
computing a de minimis quantity, the
Secretary has discretion to determine a
reasonable and appropriate quantity and
establish this level through notice and
comment rulemaking. Pursuant to
section 525 of the 1996 Act, 7 U.S.C.
7424, the Secretary may issue such
regulations as may be necessary to carry
out an order.
In evaluating the merits of a de
minimis quantity for the softwood
lumber program, USDA considered
several factors. These factors include:
An estimate of the total quantity of
softwood lumber covered under the
Order (quantity assessed and quantity
exempted); available funding to support
a viable program; free rider
implications; and the impact of program
requirements on entities (above and
below a de minimis threshold). USDA
reviewed such factors in light of all
available data and information to
determine whether a de minimis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
quantity is reasonable. USDA balances
the multiple factors to assess whether
one exemption threshold would work
better than another when the factors are
considered collectively. The analysis
contained herein is based on the current
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand
board feet.2
Estimate of Total Quantity of
Commodity Covered Under the Order
The first factor considered to
determine a de minimis quantity that
would be reasonable for the softwood
lumber program was an examination of
how much of the product covered by the
program would be assessed versus how
much of the product would be
exempted. Issues of fairness and
potential issues related to free riders
may also be of concern. The lower the
de minimis threshold, the greater the
number of entities that would be subject
to assessment under the program. At
some point, a de minimis threshold can
be ‘‘too low’’ whereby the assessment
revenue that would be collected from
very small entities is not worth the
administration and compliance costs of
including them under the order.
Conversely, a higher de minimis
quantity results in fewer entities being
subject to assessment under the order.
This means that a greater number of
entities would benefit from the activities
of the program without paying
assessment as the de minimis level
increases. USDA’s goal is to identify a
level that reasonably balances these
competing issues.
To evaluate the first factor, USDA
estimated the quantity of softwood
lumber that would be assessed versus
the quantity that would be exempt
under a program with de minimis
exemptions at different levels: 10, 15,
20, 25, and 30 mmbf. USDA also
estimated the quantity of softwood
lumber assessed if there were no de
minimis exemption. To accomplish this,
USDA first estimated the volume of
softwood lumber domestically shipped
by domestic manufacturers and the
volume imported by importers.
Volume of Domestic Softwood Lumber
To estimate the volume of domestic
softwood lumber, USDA utilized data
from Forest Economic Advisors, LLC
(FEA), which publishes data on
aggregate softwood lumber shipments in
the U.S. (for the industry as a whole)
and operating capacity by individual
sawmill. A sawmill is a business
operation that converts raw forest
products into lumber. A domestic
2 If the assessment rate changes significantly,
USDA could revisit the de minimis threshold.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
manufacturer can be composed of one
sawmill or multiple sawmills. A
sawmill’s operating capacity is the total
amount of softwood lumber that it could
manufacture (or produce) if it fully
utilized all of its resources (such as
labor and equipment).
FEA is a U.S.-based company that
studies market trends in the forest
products industry in North America.3 In
the absence of a government data
source, USDA identified FEA as a
reputable source in the softwood lumber
industry with data depicting a reliable
and accurate representation of U.S.
sawmills and domestic manufacturers.4
Among the credentials of FEA are
reviews of U.S. Forest Service
publications, and citations in trade
journals such as Canadian Journal of
Forest Research; Biomass and
Bioenergy; Forest Policy and Economics;
and Forest Products Journal.
To USDA’s knowledge, there is no
one, complete source of individual
shipment data for domestic
manufacturers of softwood lumber.
While the Board has shipment data for
domestic manufacturers that pay
assessments (ship 15 mmbf or more
annually), it does not have shipment
data for exempt manufacturers. Thus,
USDA used FEA data to estimate
individual shipments for each
manufacturer. USDA requests comments
specifically on whether there are other
reliable sources that the agency should
consider in its analysis of domestic
manufacturing. All data in this analysis
is for the year 2015, which is the most
recent year for which complete data is
available.
Using FEA data to estimate shipments
of softwood lumber by domestic
manufacturers, USDA found that
domestic shipments totaled 28.754
billion board feet (bbf) in 2015.5
According to FEA, the total number of
domestic manufacturers was 343, which
encompassed 509 total sawmills in the
U.S. Estimated shipments by domestic
manufacturer were calculated by
applying an operating rate of 76 percent
to the capacities of each sawmill listed
in FEA data. The domestic
manufacturers that owned each sawmill
were also identified in the FEA data.
This allowed USDA to assign the
estimated shipments of each sawmill to
3 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/
private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=106682714.
4 The final rule (76 FR 46185; August 2, 2011)
utilized data from the USDA-Forest Service
document ‘‘Profile 2009: Softwood Sawmills in the
United States and Canada.’’ There have been no
recent updates to this publication; therefore, USDA
has instead utilized data from FEA to conduct this
analysis.
5 https://www.getfea.com/data-center.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
24587
sawmills, according to data published
by FEA (see Equation 1 below).
order to estimate shipments by domestic
manufacturer, USDA applied the
sawmill operating rate, as determined in
Equation 1, to the capacities of each
sawmill listed in FEA data. The sum of
these estimated shipments is 28.754 bbf.
The difference between estimated total
shipments (28.754 bbf) and actual total
shipments (31.702 bbf) of softwood
lumber in 2015 is about 9 percent. This
difference represents the actual
capacities of some sawmills being larger
than the estimated sawmill operating
rate of 76 percent.
subject to the same assessment as
domestic product. Section 1217.52(h) of
the Order specifies the categories of
softwood lumber that are assessed under
the program as identified via the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
code. Imported commodities are
assigned codes via the HTS with the
first numbers denoting the heading,
which is a broad description of the
commodity, and the subsequent
numbers denoting the subheadings,
which specify the commodity in greater
detail. A list of softwood lumber
products subject to assessment and their
HTS headings and subheadings are
listed below.7
To estimate imports of softwood
lumber into the U.S. for 2015, USDA
utilized data collected by CBP via the
agency’s Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) database. CBP
disseminates the statistical trade data
that it collects to the U.S. Census
Bureau (Census), which then aggregates
the data and supplies it to USDA’s
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) for
6 Total shipments in the U.S. includes domestic
production for export markets.
7 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(2015): Chapter 44: Wood and Articles of Wood;
Wood Charcoal.
Volume of Imported Softwood Lumber
Pursuant to section 1217.52(g) of the
Order, imports of softwood lumber are
publication on FAS’ Global Agricultural
Trade System (GATS).8 The data
collected by CBP is extensive but may
be subject to nonsampling error.9
8 https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/.
9 The source for this citation is https://
www.census.gov/foreign-trade/guide/
Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
EP30MY17.000 EP30MY17.001
To calculate the sawmill operating
rate, USDA divided total shipments in
the U.S.6 by total capacity of U.S.
USDA recognizes that some sawmills
may operate at a lower or higher rate
than 76 percent; this rate is meant to
serve as a midpoint to estimate the
individual shipments of domestic
manufacturers.
Total U.S. softwood lumber
shipments in Equation 1 above differs
from the total estimated shipments
noted previously and shown later in
Table 1. The reason for this is that the
figure for total U.S. shipments in
Equation 1 represents aggregate
shipments for all sawmills in the U.S. in
2015. The figure shown in Table 1 is the
sum of estimated shipments using the
76 percent sawmill operating rate. In
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
the domestic manufacturer that owned
the sawmill.
24588
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
bbf) for 2015. Using the 12.495 bbf
figure, USDA’s estimate of assessment
revenue for 2015 at the 15 mmbf
exemption threshold was within 3
percent of what the Board recorded for
assessment revenue in 2015. (This is
explained in detail later in this
document.) If USDA used the 15.912 bbf
figure instead, USDA’s estimates for
2015 assessment revenue and the
number of assessed entities would be
inflated. Thus, USDA used the modified
CBP figure of 12.495 bbf in its analysis
as a reasonable estimate of 2015
softwood lumber imports.
The import statistics that result from
aggregation by Census cover ‘‘goods
valued at more than $2,000 per
commodity shipped by individuals and
organizations (including importers and
customs brokers) into the U.S. from
other countries.’’ 12 For this reason, the
total import volume of softwood lumber
that results from using the ACE portal
through CBP differs from that of using
GATS through FAS and Census.
Similar to the import statistics
described above, the aggregated export
statistics cover ‘‘goods valued at more
than $2,500 per commodity shipped by
individuals and organizations
(including exporters, freight forwarders,
and carriers) from the U.S. to other
countries.’’ 13 In conducting this
analysis, USDA relied on aggregate U.S.
export data published by FAS via
GATS.14 Pursuant to section 1217.53(c)
of the Order, U.S. exports of softwood
lumber are not subject to assessment.
While it is possible to subtract exports
in aggregate from total U.S. supply in
order to find U.S. utilization and total
volume assessed under no de minimis
threshold, USDA cannot deduct export
volume by entity because the data is not
publically available. This means that
estimates of assessed volume may be
slightly inflated; however, the impact
would not be significant as total exports
of softwood lumber products in 2015
amounted to 1.562 bbf, which is less
than 4 percent of total U.S. supply.
Using 2015 FEA sawmill capacity
data and the estimated operating rate of
76 percent, Figure 1 below shows the
number of softwood lumber
manufacturers in the U.S. in 2015 by
estimated shipments. As stated
previously, USDA calculated estimated
shipments by applying the estimated
industry-wide 76 percent operating rate
to the sawmill capacity of each
manufacturer.
sec2.html#source. Census states the following on its
Web site: ‘‘Import and export data are a complete
enumeration of documents collected by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and are not subject
to sampling errors. However, while quality
assurance procedures are performed at every stage
of collection, processing, and tabulation, the data
are still subject to several types of nonsampling
errors. The most significant of these include
reporting errors, undocumented shipments,
timeliness, data capture errors, transiting goods,
and underestimation of low-valued transactions.’’
10 Customs data includes quantity of the imported
product and its total value. By dividing value by
quantity, USDA finds a price per thousand board
feet of every import entry, referred to above as a
‘‘computed price.’’ Finding the price for every entry
allows USDA a way to find entries whose quantities
may have been entered incorrectly.
11 A misplaced decimal point in the quantity
imported could cause the quantity of an import to
be much larger than its associated value would
warrant. A larger quantity relative to its value
would result in a price that is much lower than
expected, given other prices in the data. This low
price would indicate that the quantity figure may
have been entered incorrectly. For this reason,
USDA found the minimum per thousand board foot
price according to FEA data and removed the
entries whose computed price was lower.
12 https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/about/
index.html#importstatistics.
13 https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/about/
index.html#exportstatistics.
14 USDA does not currently have access to CBP
U.S. export data with volume and value detailed by
exporting entity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Quantity Assessed and Quantity Exempt
Table 1 shows total U.S. supply of
softwood lumber, which is the sum of
domestic shipments and imports in
2015. As mentioned previously,
shipments per entity were estimated
using the sawmill operating rate shown
in Equation 1. Total shipments in Table
1 represent the sum of shipments by
entity. Imports in Table 1 are the sum
of the imported commodities assigned
the formerly described HTS codes.
Summing domestic shipments and
imported products of softwood lumber
results in a U.S. total supply of 41.249
bbf.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
EP30MY17.002
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
For the purpose of this analysis,
USDA excluded from the CBP data
imports with country of origin listed as
the U.S. because such information
would already be represented in the
domestic shipment data previously
discussed. USDA also summed import
volumes for entities listed as separate
companies, but which are one and the
same. In addition, USDA excluded the
Customs entries for which the computed
price (the quotient of value and
quantity) of the commodity was less
than the lowest reported monthly price
for the year 2015, according to FEA
data.10 The lowest monthly price for a
softwood lumber product recorded by
FEA was $203 per thousand board feet
in December of 2015. USDA excluded
any Customs entry with a computed
price of less than $203 per thousand
board feet to help eliminate potential
data issues associated with misplaced
decimal points.11 This resulted in a
reduction of 17,026 entries and 3.417
bbf in volume from the original data set
that had a total of 247,049 entries and
total volume of 15.912 bbf.
Using this modified CBP data, USDA
estimated the total volume of softwood
lumber imports for 2015 at 12.495 bbf,
which aligns more closely to import
figures published on FAS’ GATS
(13.809 bbf) and used by FEA (13.963
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
24589
480, 960, and 1,920 mmbf for the last six
ranges. There were a large number of
manufacturers with relatively small
estimated shipments. For example, as
the data in Figure 1 show, there were
248 U.S. manufacturers that shipped of
less than 45 mmbf in 2015, which is
more than 72 percent of the total
number of U.S. manufacturers.
Furthermore, of these, almost 67 percent
shipped less than 15 mmbf of softwood
lumber.
USDA considered the impacts of five
different de minimis thresholds on the
softwood lumber industry and program
operations, as well as the impact of
having no de minimis exemption. An
analysis of these different de minimis
exemption levels follows in Tables 2
and 3 in this section, and in Table 4 in
the section of this document titled Free
Rider Implications.
Table 2 shows assessable volume and
revenue at exemption levels of 30, 25,
20, 15 and 10 mmbf, as well as with no
exemptions. The table accounts for both
the de minimis and equity exemptions
under the Order, and an assessment rate
of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
With de minimis and equity
exemptions of 30 mmbf, total assessable
volume would be 32.805 bbf which
would provide $11.482 million in
assessment revenue. At exemptions of
25 mmbf, total assessable volume would
increase by 0.889 bbf, providing an
additional $311,243 in assessment
15 https://www.getfea.com/data-center.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
EP30MY17.003 EP30MY17.004
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
As the graph shows, there were 165
manufacturers with estimated
shipments of less than 15 mmbf in the
U.S. in 2015, almost half of the 344 total
U.S. manufacturers. Of these, 150
manufacturers had shipments of less
than 10 mmbf according to USDA’s
analysis of FEA data.15 The scale on the
x-axis of the graph begins with a range
of 15 mmbf. The ranges then double
each time, with the next covering a
range of 30 mmbf, then 60, 120, 240,
24590
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
than 37 bbf. Assessment revenue ranged
between nearly $11.5 million and about
$13 million. From its inception in 2012,
the softwood lumber program has
operated with assessment revenue
ranging from $10.638 million in 2012 16
to $12.905 million in 2015.17 These
revenue figures represent the total
assessments collected from domestic
entities and importers with the 15 mmbf
de minimis exemption and the 15 mmbf
equity exemption in place. The range of
actual assessment revenue received by
the Board from 2012 to 2015 at de
minimis and equity exemptions of 15
mmbf is similar to the estimates of
assessment revenue collected at de
minimis and equity exemptions of 30,
25, 20, 15, and 10 shown in Table 2.
This is discussed further in the section
titled Funding for a Viable Program.
With no exemptions, total assessable
volume would increase to 41.249 bbf,
providing an additional $1.423 million
in assessment income ($14.437 million
total).
Table 3 below is the inverse of Table
2 in that it shows exempt volume at de
minimis and equity exemptions of 30,
25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf.
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 8
percent of the softwood lumber volume
would be exempt as de minimis and 20
percent would be exempt in total (de
minimis and equity exemptions); at an
exemption of 25 mmbf, 7 percent would
be exempt as de minimis and 18 percent
would be exempt in total; at an
exemption of 20 mmbf, 5 percent would
be exempt as de minimis and 16 percent
would be exempt in total; at an
exemption of 15 mmbf, 4 percent would
be exempt as de minimis and 13 percent
would be exempt in total; and at an
exemption of 10 mmbf, 3 percent would
be exempt as de minimis and 10 percent
would be exempt in total. Thus, the
differences in the percent of softwood
lumber exempt as de minimis at these
different exemption thresholds ranges
from 3 to 8 percent, and the percent
exempt in total ranges from 10 to 20
percent. The percent of volume
assessed, taking into account the de
minimis and equity exemptions, ranges
from 80 to 90 percent at the different
exemption thresholds.
In its analysis, USDA reviewed other
programs with de minimis exemptions
operating under the 1996 Act. There are
ten programs, including softwood
lumber, that are authorized under the
1996 Act. Eight of these ten programs
exempt a de minimis quantity from
assessment, with half currently
exempting between 3 and 11 percent of
total quantity covered by the program as
de minimis. Thus, there is a
demonstrated history of de minimis
exemptions working in other industries.
In reviewing the total volume exempt
under the softwood lumber program
(taking into account both the de
minimis and equity exemptions), the
exemption threshold of 10 mmbf would
exempt 10 percent of total volume,
which is comparable to other programs
and the exemption threshold of 15
mmbf would exempt 13 percent which
is not much higher than other programs.
The higher exemption thresholds of 20
to 30 mmbf exempt a higher total
volume when compared with other
programs.18
Funding for a Viable Program
The second factor used in evaluating
a de minimis threshold for the softwood
lumber program is the available funding
to support a viable program. As shown
in Table 2, assessment revenue would
range from $11.482 million at an
exemption threshold of 30 mmbf to
$14.437 million with no exemption (a
total difference of about $3 million).
Lowering the exemption threshold
creates more revenue for program
activities because a greater volume of
softwood lumber is subject to
assessment. As stated previously,
assessment revenue under the current
softwood lumber program has ranged
from about $10.638 million in 2012 to
$12.905 million in 2015. At this level of
revenue, the current program has seen
success, funding various programs to
increase the use of softwood lumber in
the built environment. The revenues
estimated in Table 2 are comparable to
these levels or higher. Thus, all of the
exemption thresholds analyzed would
generate sufficient revenue for a viable
program.
16 Softwood Lumber Board, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information for the Year Ending
December 31, 2012; Councilor Buchanan Mitchell,
CPAs and Business Advisors; May 30, 2013; p. 12.
17 Letter from E. Albert Weber, CPA, Partner, RSM
US LLC, dated February 22, 2017.
18 USDA’s review of other programs with a de
minimis exemption was done only for the purpose
of comparison, and not to imply that a de minimis
exemption must be within a certain range. The 1996
Act specifies no methodology or formula for
computing a de minimis threshold. A de minimis
threshold must be appropriate for a respective
industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
EP30MY17.005
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
revenue. At exemptions of 20 mmbf,
total assessable volume would increase
by 0.996 bbf, providing an additional
$348,408 in assessment revenue. At
exemptions of 15 mmbf, total assessable
volume would increase by 1.164 bbf,
providing an additional $407,444 in
assessment revenue. At exemptions of
10 mmbf, total assessable volume would
increase by 1.329 bbf, providing an
additional $465,267 in assessment
revenue.
Thus, for all exemption levels
considered, assessable volume ranged
between almost 33 bbf and a little more
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Free Rider Implications
24591
exempt from paying assessments into
the program.
Table 4 below shows the number of
entities (domestic manufacturers and
importers) that would be assessed and
exempt at the exemption thresholds of
30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf.
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 16
percent of domestic manufacturers and
importers would pay assessments while
84 percent would be exempt; at 25
mmbf, 18 percent of entities would pay
assessments while 82 percent would be
exempt; at 20 mmbf, 20 percent would
pay assessments while 80 percent
would be exempt; at 15 mmbf, 24
percent would pay assessments, while
76 percent would be exempt; at 10
mmbf, 27 percent would be pay
assessments while 73 percent would be
exempt. With no exemption, all 1,054
entities, regardless of size, would pay
assessments.
This analysis shows that a small
portion of softwood lumber
manufacturers and importers ship or
import the majority of the volume of
softwood lumber in the industry. Most
domestic manufacturers and importers
ship or import relatively small volumes
of product.
The key to assessing the free rider
implications of a de minimis quantity is
not the number of entities exempt under
a program (as shown in Table 4), but
rather the volume of product exempt (as
shown in Table 3). This is because the
statute authorizes the exemption of a
quantity of a commodity, not a number
of entities. Assessments are based on
volume shipped or imported and not on
the number of entities; assessments are
not paid by entities on a pro rata basis.
At the 30 mmbf exemption level, 84
percent of the number of entities would
be exempt, but only 8 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
At the 25 mmbf exemption level, 82
percent of the number of entities would
be exempt, but only 7 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
At the 20 mmbf exemption level, 80
percent of the number of entities would
be exempt, but only 5 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
At the 15 mmbf exemption level, 76
percent of the number of entities would
be exempt, but only 4 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
At the 10 mmbf exemption level, 73
percent of the number of entities would
be exempt, but only 3 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
With no de minimis, all 1,054 entities
would pay assessment on all 41.249 bbf
volume of softwood lumber.
The equity exemption would reduce
the impact of free riders on the program
because it reduces the assessment
burden on assessment payers. Without
this exemption, assessment payers
would pay more, thereby increasing the
free rider impact. For example, if the
thresholds for de minimis and equity
exemptions were 10 mmbf, Company A
that ships 8 mmbf annually would pay
no assessments, and Company B that
ships 30 mmbf annually would have to
pay assessments on 20 mmbf of
softwood lumber. At an assessment rate
of $0.35 per thousand board feet, this
would compute to $7,000 in
assessments. Without the equity
exemption, Company A would still pay
no assessments but Company B would
have to pay assessments on 30 mmbf.
This would compute to $10,500 in
assessments, which is an additional
burden of $3,500. Thus, the equity
exemption reduces the burden of free
riders on entities funding the program.
It creates fairness because it exempts
from assessment an equal volume from
all entities, regardless of their size.
Thus, based upon this analysis of free
rider implications, any of the exemption
thresholds reviewed would be
reasonable because they would exempt
from 3 to 8 percent of the volume of
softwood lumber as de minimis. The
equity exemption helps to reduce the
free rider impact on the program by
reducing the assessment burden equally
on assessment payers.
Further, generic promotion, research
and information activities for
agricultural commodities play a unique
role in advancing the demand for such
commodities, since such activities
increase the total market for a product
to the benefit of consumers and all
producers. These generic activities can
be of particular benefit to small
producers who lack the resources or
market power to advertise on their own.
As contemplated by the 1996 Act,
generic activities increase the general
market demand for an agricultural
commodity. For small manufacturers
and importers, the benefit of increased
market demand for softwood lumber
would only be as great as their
production capacities. Therefore, while
generic promotion activities are of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
EP30MY17.006
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Another factor used by USDA in
determining a reasonable de minimis
quantity for the softwood lumber
program is consideration of free rider
implications. Under a national research
and promotion program, free riders are
entities that benefit from the research
and promotion activities of the program
without paying assessments. Under this
definition, free riders are the entities
whose shipment or import volume is
below the de minimis level and are
24592
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
particular benefit to small
manufacturers and importers, increased
demand will also disproportionately
benefit large manufacturers and
importers as they will have greater
resources (production capacity) to take
full advantage of that increased demand.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Impact of Program Requirements
The fourth factor analyzed by USDA
in determining a reasonable de minimis
quantity for this program is
consideration of the impact of program
requirements on entities covered under
a research and promotion program. As
previously mentioned, the softwood
lumber Order prescribes assessment and
reporting obligations for domestic
manufacturers and importers of
softwood lumber. Entities that
domestically ship or import at or above
the de minimis threshold must pay
assessments to the Board. The current
assessment rate is $0.35 per thousand
board feet; it can be increased to a
maximum rate of $0.50 per thousand
board feet by notice and comment
rulemaking.
To calculate the impact of the
assessment rate on the revenue of an
assessment payer, the assessment rate is
divided by an average price. Using an
average 2015 price of $330 per thousand
board feet,19 the assessment rate as a
percentage of price could range from
0.106 percent at the current assessment
rate to 0.151 percent at the maximum
assessment rate. This analysis helps
identify the impact of the assessment
rate on the revenues of assessment
payers. At the current assessment rate of
$0.35 per thousand board feet to the
maximum assessment rate of $0.50 per
thousand board feet, assessment payers
would owe between 0.106 percent and
0.151 percent of their revenues,
respectively.
Entities that pay assessments must
also submit a report to the Board each
quarter of the volume of softwood
lumber shipped or imported for the
respective quarter. Further, entities that
ship or import less than the de minimis
threshold must apply to the Board each
year for a certificate of exemption and
provide documentation as appropriate
to support their request. The reporting
and record keeping burdens are detailed
later in this document in the section
titled Paperwork Reduction Act.
Additionally, the Board has
implemented a process under the Order
to help ensure compliance with Order
provisions. Board staff reviews and
analyzes Customs data provided by
19 Random Lengths Publications, Inc.;
www.randomlengths.com.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
USDA to verify import assessments.20
For domestic manufacturers, the Board
conducts periodic mail audits whereby
manufacturers must submit documents
to Board staff to verify assessments paid.
Entities that ship or import less
softwood lumber than the de minimis
threshold and have received a certificate
of exemption from the Board are
relieved of this audit burden.
As shown in Table 4, at an exemption
threshold of 30 mmbf, 172 entities
would pay assessments and 882 would
be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 13 additional
entities would pay assessments and the
number of exempt entities would be
reduced by 13; at 20 mmbf, 30
additional entities would pay
assessments and the number of exempt
entities would be reduced by 30; at 15
mmbf, an additional 40 entities would
pay assessments and the number of
exempt entities would be reduced by 40;
at 10 mmbf, an additional 28 entities
would pay assessments and the number
of exempt entities would be reduced by
28. Thus, as the exemption threshold is
reduced, more entities would be subject
to the Order’s assessment and quarterly
reporting obligation, and the Board’s
mail audit program. Conversely, as the
exemption threshold increases, fewer
entities would have to pay assessments,
submit quarterly reports, and participate
in the Board’s audit program.
Further, a de minimis quantity
exemption helps to reduce compliance
costs under a research and promotion
program. Compliance costs are an
administrative cost to the Board, and
section 1217.50(h) of the softwood
lumber Order limits the Board’s
administrative expenses to 8 percent of
the assessment and other income
received by and available to the Board
for a fiscal year. According to the Board,
for 2015, compliance costs totaled
$226,240 which computes to less than 2
percent of the Board’s assessment
revenue. These compliance costs are
routine and include the amount of time
the Board spends tracking and verifying
assessments paid as well as educating
industry members on program
obligations. The costs of pursuing a
compliance case against an entity that
owes assessments to the Board varies
depending upon the complexity of the
case.
Under the softwood lumber program,
the de minimis threshold exempts the
small manufacturer that, according to
FEA, typically sells into markets that are
specialized or very local. Based on its
knowledge of other research and
promotion programs, USDA estimates
the current cost of an on-site audit of a
single entity at $5,000 or more,
depending upon travel and time
involved. Thus, the cost to pursue a
compliance case against an entity that
shipped less than 10 mmbf, 9 mmbf for
example, would outweigh the revenue
that would be collected from that entity
of $3,150.21 The point at which the
assessment revenue that would be
collected from an entity outweighs the
estimated cost of $5,000 to pursue a
compliance case is an entity with
volume equal to or greater than 14.3
mmbf.22 This level is close to 15 mmbf.
As can be determined from the data in
Table 2, the total additional revenue
that would be collected from exempt
entities that ship or import less than the
15 mmbf de minimis would be $1.888
million. The compliance costs to pursue
these additional payments, however,
would be more than double the sum of
additional assessment revenue that
would be collected.
20 Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding
between USDA and Customs, USDA provides Board
staff raw, unmodified Customs data. Board staff
identifies the data for each importing entity that
should pay assessments, makes modifications as
appropriate, and compares that volume with the
volume for which the importer paid assessments.
21 This figure is computed by multiplying the
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet by
9 mmbf.
22 This figure is computed by dividing the
estimated cost to pursue a compliance case against
an entity of $5,000 by the assessment rate of $0.35
per thousand board feet.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
USDA’s Proposed 15 MMBF De
Minimis Exemption Threshold
Because no de minimis quantity is
specified in the 1996 Act, it is within
the Secretary’s discretion to determine
an appropriate level for each program.
There is no formula or economic
framework that points to a single de
minimis threshold. Thus, USDA
considers a range of quantities that
could be de minimis. Table 3, for
example, shows a range of volumes from
10 to 30 mmbf that could be considered
de minimis under the softwood lumber
Order because they only exempt 3 to 8
percent of the total volume,
respectively, as de minimis. USDA
evaluated these volumes using four
factors—an estimate of the quantity
assessed versus the quantity exempted;
funding to support a viable program;
free rider implications; and the impact
of program requirements. USDA’s goal
is to identify a de minimis quantity that
reasonably balances these factors, and to
assess whether one exemption threshold
would work better than another when
the factors are considered collectively.
Based on the analysis contained
herein, USDA has determined the
following. Exemption thresholds of 10
to 15 mmbf would exempt 10 to 13
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
percent of the total volume of softwood
lumber (taking into account both the de
minimis and equity exemptions). This is
close to the range exempt under other
research and promotion programs.
While all of the exemption thresholds
analyzed would generate sufficient
revenue for a viable program, the
additional revenue that could be
collected if the de minimis level were
reduced much lower than 15 mmbf
would likely not be worth the additional
costs. At this threshold, free rider
implications would be minimal because
only 4 percent of the volume of
softwood lumber would be exempted as
de minimis. Applying both the de
minimis and equity exemptions at 15
mmbf would allow the program to
assess almost 90 percent of the total
volume of softwood lumber.
Further, the program functioned
successfully in 2015 with assessment
revenue of $12.905 million with de
minimis and equity exemptions of 15
mmbf. The Board has conducted
activities at this level of funding that
have helped build demand for softwood
lumber, including a prize competition
for tall wood buildings, research on
wood standards, and an education
program for architects and engineers on
building with wood. An independent
evaluation completed in 2016
concluded that activities of the Board
increased sales of softwood lumber
between 2011 and 2015 by 1.683 bbf or
$596 million. This equates to a return
on investment of $15.55 of additional
sales for every $1 spent on promotion by
the Board.23
Therefore, when considering all of the
factors collectively, USDA has
determined that a de minimis quantity
of 15 mmbf would work better than the
other thresholds reviewed. USDA
concludes that 15 mmbf is a reasonable
de minimis quantity under the softwood
lumber Order. Accordingly, this
proposed rule would establish the de
minimis quantity threshold under the
Order at 15 mmbf. Thus, USDA is not
proposing any amendment to part 1217.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–
612), AMS is required to examine the
impact of this proposed rule on small
entities as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). The
classification of a business as small, as
defined by the SBA, varies by industry.
If a business is defined as ‘‘small’’ by
23 Prime Consulting, Softwood Lumber Board,
Comprehensive Program ROI, 2012–2015, February
2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
SBA size standards, then it is ‘‘eligible
for government programs and
preferences reserved for ‘small business’
concerns.’’ 24 Accordingly, AMS has
considered the economic impact of this
action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit
regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions so
that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened. The SBA
defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small
agricultural producers as those having
annual receipts of no more than
$750,000 and small agricultural service
firms (domestic manufacturers and
importers) as those having annual
receipts of no more than $7.5 million.25
Using an average price of $330 per
thousand board feet, a domestic
manufacturer or importer who ships less
than about 23 mmbf per year would be
considered a small entity for purposes
of the RFA. As shown in Table 4, there
were 1,054 domestic manufacturers and
importers of softwood lumber based on
2015 data. Of these, 864 entities shipped
or imported less than 23 mmbf and
would be considered to be small entities
under the SBA definition. Thus, based
on the $7.5 million threshold, the
majority of domestic manufacturers and
importers of softwood lumber would be
considered small entities for purposes of
the RFA.
This action proposes to establish a de
minimis quantity exemption threshold
under the Order. The Order is
administered by the Board with
oversight by USDA. In response to a
federal district court decision in
Resolute, USDA conducted a new
analysis to determine a reasonable and
appropriate de minimis threshold.
Based on this analysis, this proposal
would establish the de minimis quantity
threshold at 15 mmbf and entities
manufacturing (and domestically
shipping) or importing less than 15
mmbf per year would be exempt from
paying assessments under the Order.
Authority for this action is provided in
sections 516(a)(2), 516(g) and 525 of the
1996 Act.
Regarding the economic impact of the
de minimis exemption, the exemption
24 https://www.sba.gov/contracting/gettingstarted-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-sizestandards/small-business-size-regulations.
25 SBA does have a small business size standard
for ‘‘Sawmills’’ of 500 employees (see https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_
Standards_Table.pdf). Based on USDA’s
understanding of the lumber industry, using this
criteria would be impractical as sawmills often use
contractors rather than employees to operate and,
therefore, many mills would fall under this criteria
while being, in reality, a large business. Therefore,
USDA used agricultural service firm as a more
appropriate criteria for this analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24593
allows the Board to exempt from
assessment small entities that would be
unduly burdened from the program’s
obligations. At the proposed exemption
threshold, small manufacturers and
importers that domestically ship or
import less than 15 mmbf of softwood
lumber would not have to pay
assessments under the program.
Additionally, larger manufacturers
and importers would not have to pay
assessments on the first 15 mmbf of
softwood lumber domestically shipped
or imported each year. This exemption
is intended for the purpose of equity,
whereby all entities who must pay
assessments may reduce their assessable
volume by 15 mmbf. This exemption
benefits smaller manufacturers and
importers whose annual shipments or
imports are above the de minimis
threshold of 15 mmbf. With this
exemption, an entity that ships or
imports a quantity of softwood lumber
equal to the RFA-small business
definition of 23 mmbf, for example,
would only pay assessments on no more
than 8 mmbf of softwood lumber.
As previously stated, to calculate the
impact of the assessment rate on the
revenue of an assessment payer, the
assessment rate is divided by an average
price. Using an average 2015 price of
$330 per thousand board feet, the
assessment rate as a percentage of price
could range from 0.106 percent at the
current assessment rate to 0.151 percent
at the maximum assessment rate. This
analysis helps identify the impact of the
assessment rate on the revenues of
assessment payers. At the current
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand
board feet to the maximum assessment
rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet,
assessment payers would owe between
0.106 percent and 0.151 percent of their
revenues, respectively.
In its analysis of alternatives, USDA
evaluated five different exemption
thresholds—30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf
using 2015 data—accounting for both
the de minimis and equity exemptions,
as well as having no exemptions under
the program. USDA evaluated these
alternatives based on the following
factors: An estimate of quantity of
softwood lumber covered under the
program (quantity assessed and quantity
exempted); available funding to support
a viable program; free rider
implications; and the impact of program
requirements on entities (above and
below a de minimis threshold). USDA
conducted a balancing test among these
factors to assess whether one exemption
threshold works better than another
when the factors are considered
collectively.
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
24594
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
In reviewing the quantity of
assessable versus exempt softwood
lumber at the alternative exemption
thresholds, USDA found that at an
exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, a total
of 32.805 bbf would be assessed with
3.284 bbf, or 8 percent, exempt as de
minimis, plus an additional 5.16 bbf
exempt as equity for 20 percent of total
volume exempt; at 25 mmbf, a total of
33.694 bbf would be assessed with 2.93
bbf, or 7 percent, exempt as de minimis,
plus an additional 4.625 bbf exempt as
equity for 18 percent total volume
exempt; at a threshold of 20 mmbf, a
total of 34.69 bbf would be assessed
with 2.259 bbf, or 5 percent, exempt as
de minimis, plus an additional 4.3 bbf
exempt as equity for 16 percent total
volume exempt; at a threshold of 15
mmbf, a total of 35.854 bbf would be
assessed with 1.57 bbf, or 4 percent,
exempt as de minimis, plus an
additional 3.825 bbf exempt as equity
for 13 percent total volume exempt; at
a threshold of 10 mmbf, a total of 37.183
bbf would be assessed, with 1.236 bbf,
or 3 percent, exempt as de minimis,
plus an additional 2.83 bbf exempt as
equity for 10 percent total volume
exempt; and with no exemptions, a total
of 41.249 bbf would be assessed. In
reviewing the total volume exempt
under the softwood lumber program
(taking into account both the de
minimis and equity exemptions),
thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf exempt
between 10 and 13 percent of the
volume, which is close to the range
exempt under other programs.
In reviewing available funding to
support a viable program at the
alternative exemption thresholds, at an
exemption threshold of 30 mmbf,
estimated assessment revenue is
$11.482 million; at 25 mmbf, estimated
assessment revenue is $11.793 million
(an additional $311,243); at a threshold
of 20 mmbf, estimated assessment
revenue is $12.141 million (an
additional $348,408); at a threshold of
15 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue
is $12.549 million (an additional
$407,444); at a threshold of 10 mmbf,
estimated assessment revenue is
$13.014 million (an additional
$465,267); and with no exemptions,
estimated assessment revenue is
$14.437 million (an additional $1.423
million).
Assessment revenue under the current
softwood lumber program has ranged
from about $10.638 million in 2012 to
$12.905 million in 2015. At this level of
revenue, the current program has seen
success. The revenues reviewed at the
different exemption thresholds are
comparable to these levels or higher.
Thus, all of the exemption thresholds
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
analyzed would generate sufficient
revenue for a viable program.
Regarding free riders, USDA notes
that the key to assessing the free rider
implications of a de minimis quantity is
not the number of entities exempt under
a program but rather the volume of
product exempt. This is because
assessments are based on volume
shipped or imported and not on the
number of entities; assessments are not
paid by entities on a pro rata basis. In
evaluating free rider implications at the
alternative exemption thresholds, at an
exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, 84
percent of the number of entities (or
882) would be exempt but only 8
percent of the volume would be exempt
as de minimis; at a threshold of 25
mmbf, 82 percent of the number of
entities (or 869) would be exempt, but
only 7 percent of the volume would be
exempt as de minimis; at a threshold of
20 mmbf, 80 percent of the number of
entities (or 839) would be exempt, but
only 5 percent of the volume would be
exempt as de minimis; at a threshold of
15 mmbf, 76 percent of the number of
entities (or 799) would be exempt, but
only 4 percent of the volume would be
exempt as de minimis; and at a
threshold of 10 mmbf, 73 percent of the
number of entities (or 771) would be
exempt, but only 3 percent of the
volume would be exempt as de minimis.
In evaluating the impact of the
program’s requirements at the
alternative exemption thresholds,
entities that ship or import at or above
the de minimis threshold must pay
assessments to the Board. Assessment
payers must also submit a report to the
Board each quarter of the volume of
softwood lumber shipped or imported
for the respective quarter. Entities that
ship or import below the de minimis
threshold must apply to the Board each
year for a certificate of exemption and
provide documentation as appropriate
to support their request. The reporting
and recordkeeping requirements are
detailed in the section below titled
Paperwork Reduction Act.
At an exemption threshold of 30
mmbf, 172 entities would pay
assessments and 882 would be exempt;
at 25 mmbf, 185 entities would pay
assessments and 869 would be exempt;
at 20 mmbf, 215 entities would pay
assessments and 839 would be exempt;
at 15 mmbf, 255 entities would pay
assessments and 799 would be exempt;
at 10 mmbf, 283 entities would pay
assessments and 771 would be exempt.
Thus, as the exemption threshold is
reduced, more entities would be subject
to the Order’s assessment and quarterly
reporting obligation.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Further, in considering program
compliance costs, USDA estimates the
cost of an on-site audit of a single entity
at $5,000 or more. Thus, the cost to
pursue a compliance case against an
entity that shipped less than 10 mmbf,
9 mmbf for example, would outweigh
the revenue that would be collected
from that entity of $3,150. Similarly, the
assessment revenue that would be
collected from an entity that shipped
less than 15 mmbf, 12 mmbf for
example, would amount to $4,200. The
benefit of assessing smaller
manufacturers, $3,150 at 9 mmbf and
$4,200 at 12 mmbf, does not outweigh
the cost of pursuing compliance cases
against them at $5,000 per entity. The
point at which the assessment revenue
that would be collected from an entity
outweighs the estimated cost of $5,000
to pursue a compliance case is an entity
with volume equal to or greater than
14.3 mmbf.26 This level is close to 15
mmbf. By this analysis, the selection of
15 mmbf as the de minimis quantity is
reasonable.
Analysis of the 23 mmbf-RFA small
business threshold as a reasonable
option for de minimis shows that 190
entities would be subject to assessment
and 864 entities would be exempt. In
terms of volume, 38.44 bbf would be
assessed, or 93 percent of total volume,
and 2.809 bbf would be exempt, or 7
percent of total volume.
Based upon the analysis contained
herein, any of the exemption threshold
reviewed would be reasonable because
they would exempt from 3 to 8 percent
of the volume of softwood lumber as de
minimis. However, when the total
volume exempt under the softwood
lumber program is considered (taking
into account both the de minimis and
equity exemptions), thresholds of 10 to
15 mmbf exempt between 10 and 13
percent of the volume, which is close to
the range exempt under other programs.
While all of the exemption thresholds
would generate sufficient revenue for a
viable program, the additional revenue
that could be collected if the de minimis
level were reduced much lower than 15
mmbf would likely not be worth the
additional costs. The softwood lumber
program operated successfully since its
inception at an exemption threshold of
15 mmbf.27
26 This figure is computed by dividing the
estimated cost to pursue a compliance case against
an entity of $5,000 by the assessment rate of $0.35
per thousand board feet.
27 An independent evaluation of the softwood
lumber program showed that the activities of the
Board increased sales of softwood lumber between
2011 and 2015 by 1.683 bbf or $596 million. This
equates to a return on investment of $15.55 of
additional sales for every $1 spent on promotion by
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the information collection
and recordkeeping requirements
imposed by the Order have been
approved previously under OMB
control number 0581–0093. This
proposal imposes no additional
reporting and recordkeeping burden on
domestic manufacturer and importers of
softwood lumber. The reporting
requirements pertaining to this
proposed rule are described in the
following paragraphs.
As previously mentioned, pursuant to
section 1217.53(a) of the Order,
domestic manufacturers and importers
who domestically ship or import less
than the de minimis threshold must
apply to the Board each year for a
certificate of exemption and provide
documentation as appropriate to
support their request. The reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 0.25 hours per
domestic manufacturer or importer per
report, or 0.25 hours per year (1 request
per year per exempt entity). This
computes to a total annual burden of
199.75 hours (0.25 hours times 799
exempt entities at the 15 mmbf de
minimis exemption threshold from
Table 4).
Further, pursuant to section 1217.70
of the Order, domestic manufacturers
and importers that ship or import at or
over the de minimis exemption level
and pay their assessments directly to the
Board must submit a shipment/import
report for each quarter when
assessments are due. The reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 0.5 hours per
domestic manufacturer or importer per
report, or 2 hours per year (4 reports per
year times 0.5 hours per report). This
computes to a total annual burden of
510 hours (255 assessed entities (from
Table 4—No. of Assessed Entities at 15
mmbf) at 2 hours each equals 510
hours).
All domestic manufacturers and
importers must also maintain records
sufficient to verify their reports. The
recordkeeping burden for keeping this
information is estimated to average 0.5
hours per record keeper maintaining
such records, or 527 hours (1,054 total
entities assessed (from Table 4—No. of
Assessed Entities at no exemption)
times 0.5 hours).
As with all Federal promotion
programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
the Board. By this metric, the Order to-date has
been effective. USDA therefore finds that 15 mmbf
is a reasonable exemption level for de minimis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not
identified any relevant Federal rules
that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this proposed rule.
USDA 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 citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, USDA
initiated this action in response to a
May 2016 federal court decision in
Resolute. USDA proposes to establish
the de minimis quantity exemption
under the softwood lumber Order as
contained herein.
We have performed this initial RFA
analysis regarding the impact of the
proposed action on small entities and
we invite comments concerning the
potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with and
would effectuate the purposes of the
1996 Act.
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. All written
comments received in response to this
proposed rule by the date specified will
be considered.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1217
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements,
Promotion, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Softwood
lumber.
The authority citation for 7 CFR part
1217 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425; 7 U.S.C.
7401.
Dated: May 23, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–10997 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
24595
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747–400,
747–400F, and 747–8F series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of failure of the fastener
assemblies on the crew access ladder
handrails. This proposed AD would
require replacing the fastener
assemblies. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
SUMMARY:
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster
Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740–5600; telephone 562–797–1717;
Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221. It is also available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–
0499.
DATES:
Examining the AD Docket
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2017–0499; Directorate
Identifier 2016–NM–205–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–
0499; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24583-24595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10997]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1217
[Document Number AMS-SC-16-0066]
Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and
Industry Information Order; De Minimis Quantity Exemption Threshold
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish a de minimis quantity
exemption threshold under the Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion,
Consumer Education and Industry Information Order (Order). The Order is
[[Page 24584]]
administered by the Softwood Lumber Board (Board) with oversight by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In response to a 2016 federal
district court decision, USDA conducted a new analysis to determine a
reasonable and appropriate de minimis threshold. Based on that analysis
contained herein, this proposal would establish the de minimis quantity
threshold at 15 million board feet (mmbf) and entities manufacturing
(and domestically shipping) or importing less than 15 mmbf per year
would be exempt from paying assessments under the Order.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at:
https://www.regulations.gov or to the Promotion and Economics Division,
Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room
1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; facsimile: (202) 205-
2800. All comments should reference the document number and the date
and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection, including name and address, if
provided, in the above office during regular business hours or it can
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen T. Pello, Marketing
Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program,
AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon, 97004; telephone: (503)
632-8848; facsimile (503) 632-8852; or electronic mail:
Maureen.Pello@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under the Order (7
CFR part 1217). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion,
Research and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility.
This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order
12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the
definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the
requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum
titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order
of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs' '' (February 2, 2017).
Executive Order 13175
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposal would not
have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not
have significant Tribal implications.
Executive Order 12988
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section
524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect
or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or
research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject
to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an
order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in
connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the
law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an
order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be
filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision,
or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will
have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA
will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the
district court of the United States for any district in which the
petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to
review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a
complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the
entry of USDA's final ruling.
Background
This proposed rule would establish a de minimis quantity exemption
threshold under the Order. The Order, codified at 7 CFR part 1217, is
administered by the Board with oversight by USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS). In Resolute Forest Products Inc., v. USDA, et
al. (Resolute), the court found that, on the basis of the estimates and
information submitted by the government to the court for review, the
selection of 15 mmbf as the de minimis quantity (to be exempted) under
the Order was arbitrary and capricious and that the Order was therefore
promulgated unlawfully. The court did not vacate (or terminate) the
Order; the court remanded the matter to USDA and program requirements
remain in effect.
To address the court's decision, USDA conducted a new analysis to
determine a reasonable and appropriate de minimis quantity exemption.
USDA analyzed various thresholds of exemption: 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30
mmbf. USDA also considered proposing no de minimis exemption. USDA's
analysis of the data resulted in a determination that a de minimis
level of 15 mmbf is reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, this
proposal would establish the de minimis quantity threshold under the
Order at 15 mmbf.
Authority in the 1996 Act
The 1996 Act authorizes USDA to establish agricultural commodity
research and promotion orders which may include a combination of
promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information
activities funded by mandatory assessments. These programs are designed
to maintain and expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities.
As defined under section 513(1)(D) of the 1996 Act, agricultural
commodities include the products of forestry, which includes softwood
lumber.
The 1996 Act provides for a number of optional provisions that
allow the tailoring of orders for different commodities. Section 516 of
the 1996 Act provides permissive terms for orders. Section 516 states
that an order may include an exemption of de minimis quantities of an
agricultural commodity. Further, section 516(g) of the 1996 Act
provides authority for other action that is consistent with the purpose
of the statute and necessary to administer a program.
Overview of the Softwood Lumber Program
The softwood lumber program took effect in August 2011 (76 FR
46185) and assessment collection began in January 2012. Under the
Order, assessments are collected from domestic (U.S.) manufacturers and
importers and are used by the Board for projects that promote market
growth for softwood
[[Page 24585]]
lumber products used in single and multi-family dwellings as well as
commercial construction. The Board is composed of 19 industry members
(domestic manufacturers and importers) who are appointed by the
Secretary of Agriculture. The purpose of the program is to strengthen
the position of softwood lumber in the marketplace, maintain and expand
markets for softwood lumber, and develop new uses for softwood lumber
within the United States.
Relevant Order Provisions
Domestic Manufacturers
The term `domestic manufacturer' is defined in section 1217.8 of
the Order to mean any person who is a first handler engaged in the
manufacturing, sale and shipment of softwood lumber in the United
States during a fiscal period and who owns, or shares in the ownership
and risk of loss of manufacturing of softwood lumber or a person who is
engaged in the business of manufacturing, or causes to be manufactured,
sold and shipped such softwood lumber in the United States beyond
personal use. The term does not include persons who re-manufacture
softwood lumber that has already been subject to assessment. The term
`manufacture' is defined in section 1217.13 of the Order to mean the
process of transforming (or turning) softwood logs into softwood
lumber.
Domestic manufacturers are essentially sawmills that turn softwood
logs into lumber. A domestic manufacturer may be a company that is a
single sawmill, or it may be a company that is composed of multiple
sawmills.
Importers
The term `importer' is defined in section 1217.11 of the Order to
mean any person who imports softwood lumber from outside the United
States for sale in the United States as a principal or as an agent,
broker, or consignee of any person who manufactures softwood lumber
outside the United States for sale in the United States, and who is
listed in the import records as the importer of record for such
softwood lumber. Import records are maintained by the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (Customs or CBP). Both domestic manufacturers and
importers may be referred to in this rulemaking as ``entities.''
Expenses and Assessments
Pursuant to section 1217.50 of the Order, the Board is authorized
to incur expenses for research and promotion projects as well as
administration. The Board's expenses are paid by assessments upon
domestic manufacturers and importers. Pursuant to section 1217.52(b),
and subject to the exemptions specified in section 1217.53 of the
Order, each domestic manufacturer and importer must pay an assessment
to the Board at the rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet of softwood
lumber, except that no entity has to pay an assessment on the first 15
mmbf of softwood lumber otherwise subject to assessment in a fiscal
year. Domestic manufacturers pay assessments based on the volume of
softwood lumber shipped within the United States and importers pay
assessments based on the volume of softwood lumber imported to the
United States. Pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (j) in section 1217.52,
respectively, domestic manufacturers and importers who pay their
assessments to the Board must do so no later than the 30th calendar day
of the month following the end of the quarter in which the softwood
lumber was shipped or imported.
Exemptions
Section 1217.53 of the Order prescribes exemptions from assessment.
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of that section, the original de minimis
quantity exemption threshold under the Order was 15 mmbf. Thus, U.S.
manufacturers and importers that domestically ship and/or import less
than 15 mmbf feet annually have been exempt from paying assessments.
Domestic manufacturers and importers that ship or import less than the
de minimis quantity of softwood lumber must apply to the Board each
year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as
appropriate to support their request.
Pursuant to paragraph (b) of section 1217.53 of the Order, domestic
manufacturers and importers that ship or import 15 mmbf or more
annually do not pay assessments on their first 15 mmbf domestically
shipped or imported. This exemption is intended for the purpose of
creating an equality amongst those within the industry with regard to
the program's assessment. Just as those that manufacture or import
under 15 mmbf do not have to pay assessments, those at or above this
level may reduce their assessable volume by 15 mmbf.\1\ For example, an
entity that ships or imports 20 mmbf annually only has to pay
assessments on 5 mmbf of softwood lumber. This exemption creates
fairness; it levels the playing field because all entities, regardless
of size, do not have to pay assessments on their first 15 mmbf shipped
or imported. For purposes of this document, this exemption is referred
to as the ``equity exemption.'' Pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of
section 1217.53, respectively, exports of softwood lumber from the
United States and organic softwood lumber are also exempt from
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA notes that the de minimis level and the equity
exemption are purposefully aligned and any change in the de minimis
would result in a corresponding modification to the equity
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports and Records
Pursuant to section 1217.70 of the Order, domestic manufacturers
and importers who pay their assessments directly to the Board must
submit with their payment a report that specifies the quantity of
softwood lumber domestically shipped or imported. Pursuant to section
1217.71 of the Order, all domestic manufacturers and importers must
maintain books and records necessary to verify reports for a period of
2 years beyond the fiscal year to which they apply, including those
exempt. These records must be made available during normal business
hours for inspection by Board staff or USDA.
Other Relevant Order Provisions
The original 15 mmbf quantity exemption threshold is referenced in
other Order provisions. Section 1217.40 specifies that the Board is
composed of domestic manufacturers and importers who domestically ship
or import 15 mmbf or more of softwood lumber annually. Section 1217.41
of the Order specifies that persons interested in serving on the Board
must also domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or more softwood lumber
annually. Finally, section 1217.101 of the Order regarding referendum
procedures specifies that eligible domestic manufacturers and importers
that can vote in referenda must domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or
more of softwood lumber annually.
Initial Referendum and Summary of Board Activities
The softwood lumber program was implemented after notice and
comment rulemaking and a May 2011 referendum demonstrating strong
support for the program. Pursuant to section 1217.81(a) of the Order,
the program had to pass by a majority of those voting in the referendum
who also represented a majority of the volume voted. Sixty-seven
percent of the entities who voted, who together represented 80 percent
of the volume, in the referendum favored implementation of the program.
Entities that domestically shipped or imported
[[Page 24586]]
15 mmbf or more of softwood lumber annually were eligible to vote in
the referendum. As previously mentioned, the program took effect in
August 2011 and assessment collection began in January 2012.
The softwood lumber program has continued to operate at the 15 mmbf
exemption threshold since its inception. During these years, the Board
has funded a variety of activities designed to increase the demand for
softwood lumber. The Board funded a U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize
Competition that is helping to showcase the benefits of building tall
structures with wood. The Board also funds research on wood standards;
a communications program, which includes continuing education courses
for architects and engineers; and a construction and design program
that provides technical support to architects and structural engineers
about using wood.
Analysis of the De Minimis Quantity Under the Softwood Lumber Program
The Secretary has authority under section 516 of the 1996 Act to
exempt any de minimis quantity of an agricultural commodity otherwise
covered by an order: ``An order issued under this subchapter may
contain . . . authority for the Secretary to exempt from the order any
de minimis quantity of an agricultural commodity otherwise covered by
the order . . . .'' 7 U.S.C. 7415(a). A de minimis quantity exemption
allows an industry to exempt from assessment small entities that could
be unduly burdened from an order's requirements (i.e., assessment and
quarterly reporting obligations). Because the 1996 Act does not
prescribe the methodology or formula for computing a de minimis
quantity, the Secretary has discretion to determine a reasonable and
appropriate quantity and establish this level through notice and
comment rulemaking. Pursuant to section 525 of the 1996 Act, 7 U.S.C.
7424, the Secretary may issue such regulations as may be necessary to
carry out an order.
In evaluating the merits of a de minimis quantity for the softwood
lumber program, USDA considered several factors. These factors include:
An estimate of the total quantity of softwood lumber covered under the
Order (quantity assessed and quantity exempted); available funding to
support a viable program; free rider implications; and the impact of
program requirements on entities (above and below a de minimis
threshold). USDA reviewed such factors in light of all available data
and information to determine whether a de minimis quantity is
reasonable. USDA balances the multiple factors to assess whether one
exemption threshold would work better than another when the factors are
considered collectively. The analysis contained herein is based on the
current assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ If the assessment rate changes significantly, USDA could
revisit the de minimis threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Total Quantity of Commodity Covered Under the Order
The first factor considered to determine a de minimis quantity that
would be reasonable for the softwood lumber program was an examination
of how much of the product covered by the program would be assessed
versus how much of the product would be exempted. Issues of fairness
and potential issues related to free riders may also be of concern. The
lower the de minimis threshold, the greater the number of entities that
would be subject to assessment under the program. At some point, a de
minimis threshold can be ``too low'' whereby the assessment revenue
that would be collected from very small entities is not worth the
administration and compliance costs of including them under the order.
Conversely, a higher de minimis quantity results in fewer entities
being subject to assessment under the order. This means that a greater
number of entities would benefit from the activities of the program
without paying assessment as the de minimis level increases. USDA's
goal is to identify a level that reasonably balances these competing
issues.
To evaluate the first factor, USDA estimated the quantity of
softwood lumber that would be assessed versus the quantity that would
be exempt under a program with de minimis exemptions at different
levels: 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mmbf. USDA also estimated the quantity
of softwood lumber assessed if there were no de minimis exemption. To
accomplish this, USDA first estimated the volume of softwood lumber
domestically shipped by domestic manufacturers and the volume imported
by importers.
Volume of Domestic Softwood Lumber
To estimate the volume of domestic softwood lumber, USDA utilized
data from Forest Economic Advisors, LLC (FEA), which publishes data on
aggregate softwood lumber shipments in the U.S. (for the industry as a
whole) and operating capacity by individual sawmill. A sawmill is a
business operation that converts raw forest products into lumber. A
domestic manufacturer can be composed of one sawmill or multiple
sawmills. A sawmill's operating capacity is the total amount of
softwood lumber that it could manufacture (or produce) if it fully
utilized all of its resources (such as labor and equipment).
FEA is a U.S.-based company that studies market trends in the
forest products industry in North America.\3\ In the absence of a
government data source, USDA identified FEA as a reputable source in
the softwood lumber industry with data depicting a reliable and
accurate representation of U.S. sawmills and domestic manufacturers.\4\
Among the credentials of FEA are reviews of U.S. Forest Service
publications, and citations in trade journals such as Canadian Journal
of Forest Research; Biomass and Bioenergy; Forest Policy and Economics;
and Forest Products Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=106682714.
\4\ The final rule (76 FR 46185; August 2, 2011) utilized data
from the USDA-Forest Service document ``Profile 2009: Softwood
Sawmills in the United States and Canada.'' There have been no
recent updates to this publication; therefore, USDA has instead
utilized data from FEA to conduct this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To USDA's knowledge, there is no one, complete source of individual
shipment data for domestic manufacturers of softwood lumber. While the
Board has shipment data for domestic manufacturers that pay assessments
(ship 15 mmbf or more annually), it does not have shipment data for
exempt manufacturers. Thus, USDA used FEA data to estimate individual
shipments for each manufacturer. USDA requests comments specifically on
whether there are other reliable sources that the agency should
consider in its analysis of domestic manufacturing. All data in this
analysis is for the year 2015, which is the most recent year for which
complete data is available.
Using FEA data to estimate shipments of softwood lumber by domestic
manufacturers, USDA found that domestic shipments totaled 28.754
billion board feet (bbf) in 2015.\5\ According to FEA, the total number
of domestic manufacturers was 343, which encompassed 509 total sawmills
in the U.S. Estimated shipments by domestic manufacturer were
calculated by applying an operating rate of 76 percent to the
capacities of each sawmill listed in FEA data. The domestic
manufacturers that owned each sawmill were also identified in the FEA
data. This allowed USDA to assign the estimated shipments of each
sawmill to
[[Page 24587]]
the domestic manufacturer that owned the sawmill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.getfea.com/data-center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the sawmill operating rate, USDA divided total
shipments in the U.S.\6\ by total capacity of U.S. sawmills, according
to data published by FEA (see Equation 1 below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Total shipments in the U.S. includes domestic production for
export markets.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.000
USDA recognizes that some sawmills may operate at a lower or higher
rate than 76 percent; this rate is meant to serve as a midpoint to
estimate the individual shipments of domestic manufacturers.
Total U.S. softwood lumber shipments in Equation 1 above differs
from the total estimated shipments noted previously and shown later in
Table 1. The reason for this is that the figure for total U.S.
shipments in Equation 1 represents aggregate shipments for all sawmills
in the U.S. in 2015. The figure shown in Table 1 is the sum of
estimated shipments using the 76 percent sawmill operating rate. In
order to estimate shipments by domestic manufacturer, USDA applied the
sawmill operating rate, as determined in Equation 1, to the capacities
of each sawmill listed in FEA data. The sum of these estimated
shipments is 28.754 bbf. The difference between estimated total
shipments (28.754 bbf) and actual total shipments (31.702 bbf) of
softwood lumber in 2015 is about 9 percent. This difference represents
the actual capacities of some sawmills being larger than the estimated
sawmill operating rate of 76 percent.
Volume of Imported Softwood Lumber
Pursuant to section 1217.52(g) of the Order, imports of softwood
lumber are subject to the same assessment as domestic product. Section
1217.52(h) of the Order specifies the categories of softwood lumber
that are assessed under the program as identified via the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) code. Imported commodities are assigned codes via
the HTS with the first numbers denoting the heading, which is a broad
description of the commodity, and the subsequent numbers denoting the
subheadings, which specify the commodity in greater detail. A list of
softwood lumber products subject to assessment and their HTS headings
and subheadings are listed below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2015):
Chapter 44: Wood and Articles of Wood; Wood Charcoal.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.001
To estimate imports of softwood lumber into the U.S. for 2015, USDA
utilized data collected by CBP via the agency's Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) database. CBP disseminates the statistical trade data
that it collects to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), which then
aggregates the data and supplies it to USDA's Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) for publication on FAS' Global Agricultural Trade System
(GATS).\8\ The data collected by CBP is extensive but may be subject to
nonsampling error.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/.
\9\ The source for this citation is https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/guide/sec2.html#source. Census states the following on
its Web site: ``Import and export data are a complete enumeration of
documents collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and are
not subject to sampling errors. However, while quality assurance
procedures are performed at every stage of collection, processing,
and tabulation, the data are still subject to several types of
nonsampling errors. The most significant of these include reporting
errors, undocumented shipments, timeliness, data capture errors,
transiting goods, and underestimation of low-valued transactions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24588]]
For the purpose of this analysis, USDA excluded from the CBP data
imports with country of origin listed as the U.S. because such
information would already be represented in the domestic shipment data
previously discussed. USDA also summed import volumes for entities
listed as separate companies, but which are one and the same. In
addition, USDA excluded the Customs entries for which the computed
price (the quotient of value and quantity) of the commodity was less
than the lowest reported monthly price for the year 2015, according to
FEA data.\10\ The lowest monthly price for a softwood lumber product
recorded by FEA was $203 per thousand board feet in December of 2015.
USDA excluded any Customs entry with a computed price of less than $203
per thousand board feet to help eliminate potential data issues
associated with misplaced decimal points.\11\ This resulted in a
reduction of 17,026 entries and 3.417 bbf in volume from the original
data set that had a total of 247,049 entries and total volume of 15.912
bbf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Customs data includes quantity of the imported product and
its total value. By dividing value by quantity, USDA finds a price
per thousand board feet of every import entry, referred to above as
a ``computed price.'' Finding the price for every entry allows USDA
a way to find entries whose quantities may have been entered
incorrectly.
\11\ A misplaced decimal point in the quantity imported could
cause the quantity of an import to be much larger than its
associated value would warrant. A larger quantity relative to its
value would result in a price that is much lower than expected,
given other prices in the data. This low price would indicate that
the quantity figure may have been entered incorrectly. For this
reason, USDA found the minimum per thousand board foot price
according to FEA data and removed the entries whose computed price
was lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using this modified CBP data, USDA estimated the total volume of
softwood lumber imports for 2015 at 12.495 bbf, which aligns more
closely to import figures published on FAS' GATS (13.809 bbf) and used
by FEA (13.963 bbf) for 2015. Using the 12.495 bbf figure, USDA's
estimate of assessment revenue for 2015 at the 15 mmbf exemption
threshold was within 3 percent of what the Board recorded for
assessment revenue in 2015. (This is explained in detail later in this
document.) If USDA used the 15.912 bbf figure instead, USDA's estimates
for 2015 assessment revenue and the number of assessed entities would
be inflated. Thus, USDA used the modified CBP figure of 12.495 bbf in
its analysis as a reasonable estimate of 2015 softwood lumber imports.
The import statistics that result from aggregation by Census cover
``goods valued at more than $2,000 per commodity shipped by individuals
and organizations (including importers and customs brokers) into the
U.S. from other countries.'' \12\ For this reason, the total import
volume of softwood lumber that results from using the ACE portal
through CBP differs from that of using GATS through FAS and Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/about/#importstatistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the import statistics described above, the aggregated
export statistics cover ``goods valued at more than $2,500 per
commodity shipped by individuals and organizations (including
exporters, freight forwarders, and carriers) from the U.S. to other
countries.'' \13\ In conducting this analysis, USDA relied on aggregate
U.S. export data published by FAS via GATS.\14\ Pursuant to section
1217.53(c) of the Order, U.S. exports of softwood lumber are not
subject to assessment. While it is possible to subtract exports in
aggregate from total U.S. supply in order to find U.S. utilization and
total volume assessed under no de minimis threshold, USDA cannot deduct
export volume by entity because the data is not publically available.
This means that estimates of assessed volume may be slightly inflated;
however, the impact would not be significant as total exports of
softwood lumber products in 2015 amounted to 1.562 bbf, which is less
than 4 percent of total U.S. supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/about/#exportstatistics.
\14\ USDA does not currently have access to CBP U.S. export data
with volume and value detailed by exporting entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity Assessed and Quantity Exempt
Table 1 shows total U.S. supply of softwood lumber, which is the
sum of domestic shipments and imports in 2015. As mentioned previously,
shipments per entity were estimated using the sawmill operating rate
shown in Equation 1. Total shipments in Table 1 represent the sum of
shipments by entity. Imports in Table 1 are the sum of the imported
commodities assigned the formerly described HTS codes. Summing domestic
shipments and imported products of softwood lumber results in a U.S.
total supply of 41.249 bbf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.002
Using 2015 FEA sawmill capacity data and the estimated operating
rate of 76 percent, Figure 1 below shows the number of softwood lumber
manufacturers in the U.S. in 2015 by estimated shipments. As stated
previously, USDA calculated estimated shipments by applying the
estimated industry-wide 76 percent operating rate to the sawmill
capacity of each manufacturer.
[[Page 24589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.003
As the graph shows, there were 165 manufacturers with estimated
shipments of less than 15 mmbf in the U.S. in 2015, almost half of the
344 total U.S. manufacturers. Of these, 150 manufacturers had shipments
of less than 10 mmbf according to USDA's analysis of FEA data.\15\ The
scale on the x-axis of the graph begins with a range of 15 mmbf. The
ranges then double each time, with the next covering a range of 30
mmbf, then 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, and 1,920 mmbf for the last six
ranges. There were a large number of manufacturers with relatively
small estimated shipments. For example, as the data in Figure 1 show,
there were 248 U.S. manufacturers that shipped of less than 45 mmbf in
2015, which is more than 72 percent of the total number of U.S.
manufacturers. Furthermore, of these, almost 67 percent shipped less
than 15 mmbf of softwood lumber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.getfea.com/data-center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA considered the impacts of five different de minimis thresholds
on the softwood lumber industry and program operations, as well as the
impact of having no de minimis exemption. An analysis of these
different de minimis exemption levels follows in Tables 2 and 3 in this
section, and in Table 4 in the section of this document titled Free
Rider Implications.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.004
Table 2 shows assessable volume and revenue at exemption levels of
30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf, as well as with no exemptions. The table
accounts for both the de minimis and equity exemptions under the Order,
and an assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
With de minimis and equity exemptions of 30 mmbf, total assessable
volume would be 32.805 bbf which would provide $11.482 million in
assessment revenue. At exemptions of 25 mmbf, total assessable volume
would increase by 0.889 bbf, providing an additional $311,243 in
assessment
[[Page 24590]]
revenue. At exemptions of 20 mmbf, total assessable volume would
increase by 0.996 bbf, providing an additional $348,408 in assessment
revenue. At exemptions of 15 mmbf, total assessable volume would
increase by 1.164 bbf, providing an additional $407,444 in assessment
revenue. At exemptions of 10 mmbf, total assessable volume would
increase by 1.329 bbf, providing an additional $465,267 in assessment
revenue.
Thus, for all exemption levels considered, assessable volume ranged
between almost 33 bbf and a little more than 37 bbf. Assessment revenue
ranged between nearly $11.5 million and about $13 million. From its
inception in 2012, the softwood lumber program has operated with
assessment revenue ranging from $10.638 million in 2012 \16\ to $12.905
million in 2015.\17\ These revenue figures represent the total
assessments collected from domestic entities and importers with the 15
mmbf de minimis exemption and the 15 mmbf equity exemption in place.
The range of actual assessment revenue received by the Board from 2012
to 2015 at de minimis and equity exemptions of 15 mmbf is similar to
the estimates of assessment revenue collected at de minimis and equity
exemptions of 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10 shown in Table 2. This is
discussed further in the section titled Funding for a Viable Program.
With no exemptions, total assessable volume would increase to 41.249
bbf, providing an additional $1.423 million in assessment income
($14.437 million total).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Softwood Lumber Board, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Information for the Year Ending December 31, 2012;
Councilor Buchanan Mitchell, CPAs and Business Advisors; May 30,
2013; p. 12.
\17\ Letter from E. Albert Weber, CPA, Partner, RSM US LLC,
dated February 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below is the inverse of Table 2 in that it shows exempt
volume at de minimis and equity exemptions of 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10
mmbf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.005
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 8 percent of the softwood lumber
volume would be exempt as de minimis and 20 percent would be exempt in
total (de minimis and equity exemptions); at an exemption of 25 mmbf, 7
percent would be exempt as de minimis and 18 percent would be exempt in
total; at an exemption of 20 mmbf, 5 percent would be exempt as de
minimis and 16 percent would be exempt in total; at an exemption of 15
mmbf, 4 percent would be exempt as de minimis and 13 percent would be
exempt in total; and at an exemption of 10 mmbf, 3 percent would be
exempt as de minimis and 10 percent would be exempt in total. Thus, the
differences in the percent of softwood lumber exempt as de minimis at
these different exemption thresholds ranges from 3 to 8 percent, and
the percent exempt in total ranges from 10 to 20 percent. The percent
of volume assessed, taking into account the de minimis and equity
exemptions, ranges from 80 to 90 percent at the different exemption
thresholds.
In its analysis, USDA reviewed other programs with de minimis
exemptions operating under the 1996 Act. There are ten programs,
including softwood lumber, that are authorized under the 1996 Act.
Eight of these ten programs exempt a de minimis quantity from
assessment, with half currently exempting between 3 and 11 percent of
total quantity covered by the program as de minimis. Thus, there is a
demonstrated history of de minimis exemptions working in other
industries. In reviewing the total volume exempt under the softwood
lumber program (taking into account both the de minimis and equity
exemptions), the exemption threshold of 10 mmbf would exempt 10 percent
of total volume, which is comparable to other programs and the
exemption threshold of 15 mmbf would exempt 13 percent which is not
much higher than other programs. The higher exemption thresholds of 20
to 30 mmbf exempt a higher total volume when compared with other
programs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ USDA's review of other programs with a de minimis exemption
was done only for the purpose of comparison, and not to imply that a
de minimis exemption must be within a certain range. The 1996 Act
specifies no methodology or formula for computing a de minimis
threshold. A de minimis threshold must be appropriate for a
respective industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for a Viable Program
The second factor used in evaluating a de minimis threshold for the
softwood lumber program is the available funding to support a viable
program. As shown in Table 2, assessment revenue would range from
$11.482 million at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf to $14.437 million
with no exemption (a total difference of about $3 million). Lowering
the exemption threshold creates more revenue for program activities
because a greater volume of softwood lumber is subject to assessment.
As stated previously, assessment revenue under the current softwood
lumber program has ranged from about $10.638 million in 2012 to $12.905
million in 2015. At this level of revenue, the current program has seen
success, funding various programs to increase the use of softwood
lumber in the built environment. The revenues estimated in Table 2 are
comparable to these levels or higher. Thus, all of the exemption
thresholds analyzed would generate sufficient revenue for a viable
program.
[[Page 24591]]
Free Rider Implications
Another factor used by USDA in determining a reasonable de minimis
quantity for the softwood lumber program is consideration of free rider
implications. Under a national research and promotion program, free
riders are entities that benefit from the research and promotion
activities of the program without paying assessments. Under this
definition, free riders are the entities whose shipment or import
volume is below the de minimis level and are exempt from paying
assessments into the program.
Table 4 below shows the number of entities (domestic manufacturers
and importers) that would be assessed and exempt at the exemption
thresholds of 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY17.006
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 16 percent of domestic
manufacturers and importers would pay assessments while 84 percent
would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 18 percent of entities would pay
assessments while 82 percent would be exempt; at 20 mmbf, 20 percent
would pay assessments while 80 percent would be exempt; at 15 mmbf, 24
percent would pay assessments, while 76 percent would be exempt; at 10
mmbf, 27 percent would be pay assessments while 73 percent would be
exempt. With no exemption, all 1,054 entities, regardless of size,
would pay assessments.
This analysis shows that a small portion of softwood lumber
manufacturers and importers ship or import the majority of the volume
of softwood lumber in the industry. Most domestic manufacturers and
importers ship or import relatively small volumes of product.
The key to assessing the free rider implications of a de minimis
quantity is not the number of entities exempt under a program (as shown
in Table 4), but rather the volume of product exempt (as shown in Table
3). This is because the statute authorizes the exemption of a quantity
of a commodity, not a number of entities. Assessments are based on
volume shipped or imported and not on the number of entities;
assessments are not paid by entities on a pro rata basis. At the 30
mmbf exemption level, 84 percent of the number of entities would be
exempt, but only 8 percent of the volume would be exempt as de minimis.
At the 25 mmbf exemption level, 82 percent of the number of entities
would be exempt, but only 7 percent of the volume would be exempt as de
minimis. At the 20 mmbf exemption level, 80 percent of the number of
entities would be exempt, but only 5 percent of the volume would be
exempt as de minimis. At the 15 mmbf exemption level, 76 percent of the
number of entities would be exempt, but only 4 percent of the volume
would be exempt as de minimis. At the 10 mmbf exemption level, 73
percent of the number of entities would be exempt, but only 3 percent
of the volume would be exempt as de minimis. With no de minimis, all
1,054 entities would pay assessment on all 41.249 bbf volume of
softwood lumber.
The equity exemption would reduce the impact of free riders on the
program because it reduces the assessment burden on assessment payers.
Without this exemption, assessment payers would pay more, thereby
increasing the free rider impact. For example, if the thresholds for de
minimis and equity exemptions were 10 mmbf, Company A that ships 8 mmbf
annually would pay no assessments, and Company B that ships 30 mmbf
annually would have to pay assessments on 20 mmbf of softwood lumber.
At an assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet, this would
compute to $7,000 in assessments. Without the equity exemption, Company
A would still pay no assessments but Company B would have to pay
assessments on 30 mmbf. This would compute to $10,500 in assessments,
which is an additional burden of $3,500. Thus, the equity exemption
reduces the burden of free riders on entities funding the program. It
creates fairness because it exempts from assessment an equal volume
from all entities, regardless of their size.
Thus, based upon this analysis of free rider implications, any of
the exemption thresholds reviewed would be reasonable because they
would exempt from 3 to 8 percent of the volume of softwood lumber as de
minimis. The equity exemption helps to reduce the free rider impact on
the program by reducing the assessment burden equally on assessment
payers.
Further, generic promotion, research and information activities for
agricultural commodities play a unique role in advancing the demand for
such commodities, since such activities increase the total market for a
product to the benefit of consumers and all producers. These generic
activities can be of particular benefit to small producers who lack the
resources or market power to advertise on their own. As contemplated by
the 1996 Act, generic activities increase the general market demand for
an agricultural commodity. For small manufacturers and importers, the
benefit of increased market demand for softwood lumber would only be as
great as their production capacities. Therefore, while generic
promotion activities are of
[[Page 24592]]
particular benefit to small manufacturers and importers, increased
demand will also disproportionately benefit large manufacturers and
importers as they will have greater resources (production capacity) to
take full advantage of that increased demand.
Impact of Program Requirements
The fourth factor analyzed by USDA in determining a reasonable de
minimis quantity for this program is consideration of the impact of
program requirements on entities covered under a research and promotion
program. As previously mentioned, the softwood lumber Order prescribes
assessment and reporting obligations for domestic manufacturers and
importers of softwood lumber. Entities that domestically ship or import
at or above the de minimis threshold must pay assessments to the Board.
The current assessment rate is $0.35 per thousand board feet; it can be
increased to a maximum rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet by notice
and comment rulemaking.
To calculate the impact of the assessment rate on the revenue of an
assessment payer, the assessment rate is divided by an average price.
Using an average 2015 price of $330 per thousand board feet,\19\ the
assessment rate as a percentage of price could range from 0.106 percent
at the current assessment rate to 0.151 percent at the maximum
assessment rate. This analysis helps identify the impact of the
assessment rate on the revenues of assessment payers. At the current
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet to the maximum
assessment rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet, assessment payers
would owe between 0.106 percent and 0.151 percent of their revenues,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Random Lengths Publications, Inc.; www.randomlengths.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities that pay assessments must also submit a report to the
Board each quarter of the volume of softwood lumber shipped or imported
for the respective quarter. Further, entities that ship or import less
than the de minimis threshold must apply to the Board each year for a
certificate of exemption and provide documentation as appropriate to
support their request. The reporting and record keeping burdens are
detailed later in this document in the section titled Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Additionally, the Board has implemented a process under the Order
to help ensure compliance with Order provisions. Board staff reviews
and analyzes Customs data provided by USDA to verify import
assessments.\20\ For domestic manufacturers, the Board conducts
periodic mail audits whereby manufacturers must submit documents to
Board staff to verify assessments paid. Entities that ship or import
less softwood lumber than the de minimis threshold and have received a
certificate of exemption from the Board are relieved of this audit
burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between USDA and
Customs, USDA provides Board staff raw, unmodified Customs data.
Board staff identifies the data for each importing entity that
should pay assessments, makes modifications as appropriate, and
compares that volume with the volume for which the importer paid
assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 4, at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, 172
entities would pay assessments and 882 would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 13
additional entities would pay assessments and the number of exempt
entities would be reduced by 13; at 20 mmbf, 30 additional entities
would pay assessments and the number of exempt entities would be
reduced by 30; at 15 mmbf, an additional 40 entities would pay
assessments and the number of exempt entities would be reduced by 40;
at 10 mmbf, an additional 28 entities would pay assessments and the
number of exempt entities would be reduced by 28. Thus, as the
exemption threshold is reduced, more entities would be subject to the
Order's assessment and quarterly reporting obligation, and the Board's
mail audit program. Conversely, as the exemption threshold increases,
fewer entities would have to pay assessments, submit quarterly reports,
and participate in the Board's audit program.
Further, a de minimis quantity exemption helps to reduce compliance
costs under a research and promotion program. Compliance costs are an
administrative cost to the Board, and section 1217.50(h) of the
softwood lumber Order limits the Board's administrative expenses to 8
percent of the assessment and other income received by and available to
the Board for a fiscal year. According to the Board, for 2015,
compliance costs totaled $226,240 which computes to less than 2 percent
of the Board's assessment revenue. These compliance costs are routine
and include the amount of time the Board spends tracking and verifying
assessments paid as well as educating industry members on program
obligations. The costs of pursuing a compliance case against an entity
that owes assessments to the Board varies depending upon the complexity
of the case.
Under the softwood lumber program, the de minimis threshold exempts
the small manufacturer that, according to FEA, typically sells into
markets that are specialized or very local. Based on its knowledge of
other research and promotion programs, USDA estimates the current cost
of an on-site audit of a single entity at $5,000 or more, depending
upon travel and time involved. Thus, the cost to pursue a compliance
case against an entity that shipped less than 10 mmbf, 9 mmbf for
example, would outweigh the revenue that would be collected from that
entity of $3,150.\21\ The point at which the assessment revenue that
would be collected from an entity outweighs the estimated cost of
$5,000 to pursue a compliance case is an entity with volume equal to or
greater than 14.3 mmbf.\22\ This level is close to 15 mmbf. As can be
determined from the data in Table 2, the total additional revenue that
would be collected from exempt entities that ship or import less than
the 15 mmbf de minimis would be $1.888 million. The compliance costs to
pursue these additional payments, however, would be more than double
the sum of additional assessment revenue that would be collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This figure is computed by multiplying the assessment rate
of $0.35 per thousand board feet by 9 mmbf.
\22\ This figure is computed by dividing the estimated cost to
pursue a compliance case against an entity of $5,000 by the
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA's Proposed 15 MMBF De Minimis Exemption Threshold
Because no de minimis quantity is specified in the 1996 Act, it is
within the Secretary's discretion to determine an appropriate level for
each program. There is no formula or economic framework that points to
a single de minimis threshold. Thus, USDA considers a range of
quantities that could be de minimis. Table 3, for example, shows a
range of volumes from 10 to 30 mmbf that could be considered de minimis
under the softwood lumber Order because they only exempt 3 to 8 percent
of the total volume, respectively, as de minimis. USDA evaluated these
volumes using four factors--an estimate of the quantity assessed versus
the quantity exempted; funding to support a viable program; free rider
implications; and the impact of program requirements. USDA's goal is to
identify a de minimis quantity that reasonably balances these factors,
and to assess whether one exemption threshold would work better than
another when the factors are considered collectively.
Based on the analysis contained herein, USDA has determined the
following. Exemption thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf would exempt 10 to 13
[[Page 24593]]
percent of the total volume of softwood lumber (taking into account
both the de minimis and equity exemptions). This is close to the range
exempt under other research and promotion programs. While all of the
exemption thresholds analyzed would generate sufficient revenue for a
viable program, the additional revenue that could be collected if the
de minimis level were reduced much lower than 15 mmbf would likely not
be worth the additional costs. At this threshold, free rider
implications would be minimal because only 4 percent of the volume of
softwood lumber would be exempted as de minimis. Applying both the de
minimis and equity exemptions at 15 mmbf would allow the program to
assess almost 90 percent of the total volume of softwood lumber.
Further, the program functioned successfully in 2015 with
assessment revenue of $12.905 million with de minimis and equity
exemptions of 15 mmbf. The Board has conducted activities at this level
of funding that have helped build demand for softwood lumber, including
a prize competition for tall wood buildings, research on wood
standards, and an education program for architects and engineers on
building with wood. An independent evaluation completed in 2016
concluded that activities of the Board increased sales of softwood
lumber between 2011 and 2015 by 1.683 bbf or $596 million. This equates
to a return on investment of $15.55 of additional sales for every $1
spent on promotion by the Board.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Prime Consulting, Softwood Lumber Board, Comprehensive
Program ROI, 2012-2015, February 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, when considering all of the factors collectively, USDA
has determined that a de minimis quantity of 15 mmbf would work better
than the other thresholds reviewed. USDA concludes that 15 mmbf is a
reasonable de minimis quantity under the softwood lumber Order.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would establish the de minimis quantity
threshold under the Order at 15 mmbf. Thus, USDA is not proposing any
amendment to part 1217.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C.
601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of this proposed rule
on small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA). The classification of a business as small, as defined by the
SBA, varies by industry. If a business is defined as ``small'' by SBA
size standards, then it is ``eligible for government programs and
preferences reserved for `small business' concerns.'' \24\ Accordingly,
AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/small-business-size-regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be
disproportionately burdened. The SBA defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small
agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than
$750,000 and small agricultural service firms (domestic manufacturers
and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5
million.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ SBA does have a small business size standard for
``Sawmills'' of 500 employees (see https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf). Based on USDA's
understanding of the lumber industry, using this criteria would be
impractical as sawmills often use contractors rather than employees
to operate and, therefore, many mills would fall under this criteria
while being, in reality, a large business. Therefore, USDA used
agricultural service firm as a more appropriate criteria for this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using an average price of $330 per thousand board feet, a domestic
manufacturer or importer who ships less than about 23 mmbf per year
would be considered a small entity for purposes of the RFA. As shown in
Table 4, there were 1,054 domestic manufacturers and importers of
softwood lumber based on 2015 data. Of these, 864 entities shipped or
imported less than 23 mmbf and would be considered to be small entities
under the SBA definition. Thus, based on the $7.5 million threshold,
the majority of domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber
would be considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.
This action proposes to establish a de minimis quantity exemption
threshold under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with
oversight by USDA. In response to a federal district court decision in
Resolute, USDA conducted a new analysis to determine a reasonable and
appropriate de minimis threshold. Based on this analysis, this proposal
would establish the de minimis quantity threshold at 15 mmbf and
entities manufacturing (and domestically shipping) or importing less
than 15 mmbf per year would be exempt from paying assessments under the
Order. Authority for this action is provided in sections 516(a)(2),
516(g) and 525 of the 1996 Act.
Regarding the economic impact of the de minimis exemption, the
exemption allows the Board to exempt from assessment small entities
that would be unduly burdened from the program's obligations. At the
proposed exemption threshold, small manufacturers and importers that
domestically ship or import less than 15 mmbf of softwood lumber would
not have to pay assessments under the program.
Additionally, larger manufacturers and importers would not have to
pay assessments on the first 15 mmbf of softwood lumber domestically
shipped or imported each year. This exemption is intended for the
purpose of equity, whereby all entities who must pay assessments may
reduce their assessable volume by 15 mmbf. This exemption benefits
smaller manufacturers and importers whose annual shipments or imports
are above the de minimis threshold of 15 mmbf. With this exemption, an
entity that ships or imports a quantity of softwood lumber equal to the
RFA-small business definition of 23 mmbf, for example, would only pay
assessments on no more than 8 mmbf of softwood lumber.
As previously stated, to calculate the impact of the assessment
rate on the revenue of an assessment payer, the assessment rate is
divided by an average price. Using an average 2015 price of $330 per
thousand board feet, the assessment rate as a percentage of price could
range from 0.106 percent at the current assessment rate to 0.151
percent at the maximum assessment rate. This analysis helps identify
the impact of the assessment rate on the revenues of assessment payers.
At the current assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet to the
maximum assessment rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet, assessment
payers would owe between 0.106 percent and 0.151 percent of their
revenues, respectively.
In its analysis of alternatives, USDA evaluated five different
exemption thresholds--30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf using 2015 data--
accounting for both the de minimis and equity exemptions, as well as
having no exemptions under the program. USDA evaluated these
alternatives based on the following factors: An estimate of quantity of
softwood lumber covered under the program (quantity assessed and
quantity exempted); available funding to support a viable program; free
rider implications; and the impact of program requirements on entities
(above and below a de minimis threshold). USDA conducted a balancing
test among these factors to assess whether one exemption threshold
works better than another when the factors are considered collectively.
[[Page 24594]]
In reviewing the quantity of assessable versus exempt softwood
lumber at the alternative exemption thresholds, USDA found that at an
exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, a total of 32.805 bbf would be assessed
with 3.284 bbf, or 8 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional
5.16 bbf exempt as equity for 20 percent of total volume exempt; at 25
mmbf, a total of 33.694 bbf would be assessed with 2.93 bbf, or 7
percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 4.625 bbf exempt as
equity for 18 percent total volume exempt; at a threshold of 20 mmbf, a
total of 34.69 bbf would be assessed with 2.259 bbf, or 5 percent,
exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 4.3 bbf exempt as equity for
16 percent total volume exempt; at a threshold of 15 mmbf, a total of
35.854 bbf would be assessed with 1.57 bbf, or 4 percent, exempt as de
minimis, plus an additional 3.825 bbf exempt as equity for 13 percent
total volume exempt; at a threshold of 10 mmbf, a total of 37.183 bbf
would be assessed, with 1.236 bbf, or 3 percent, exempt as de minimis,
plus an additional 2.83 bbf exempt as equity for 10 percent total
volume exempt; and with no exemptions, a total of 41.249 bbf would be
assessed. In reviewing the total volume exempt under the softwood
lumber program (taking into account both the de minimis and equity
exemptions), thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf exempt between 10 and 13
percent of the volume, which is close to the range exempt under other
programs.
In reviewing available funding to support a viable program at the
alternative exemption thresholds, at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf,
estimated assessment revenue is $11.482 million; at 25 mmbf, estimated
assessment revenue is $11.793 million (an additional $311,243); at a
threshold of 20 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $12.141 million
(an additional $348,408); at a threshold of 15 mmbf, estimated
assessment revenue is $12.549 million (an additional $407,444); at a
threshold of 10 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $13.014 million
(an additional $465,267); and with no exemptions, estimated assessment
revenue is $14.437 million (an additional $1.423 million).
Assessment revenue under the current softwood lumber program has
ranged from about $10.638 million in 2012 to $12.905 million in 2015.
At this level of revenue, the current program has seen success. The
revenues reviewed at the different exemption thresholds are comparable
to these levels or higher. Thus, all of the exemption thresholds
analyzed would generate sufficient revenue for a viable program.
Regarding free riders, USDA notes that the key to assessing the
free rider implications of a de minimis quantity is not the number of
entities exempt under a program but rather the volume of product
exempt. This is because assessments are based on volume shipped or
imported and not on the number of entities; assessments are not paid by
entities on a pro rata basis. In evaluating free rider implications at
the alternative exemption thresholds, at an exemption threshold of 30
mmbf, 84 percent of the number of entities (or 882) would be exempt but
only 8 percent of the volume would be exempt as de minimis; at a
threshold of 25 mmbf, 82 percent of the number of entities (or 869)
would be exempt, but only 7 percent of the volume would be exempt as de
minimis; at a threshold of 20 mmbf, 80 percent of the number of
entities (or 839) would be exempt, but only 5 percent of the volume
would be exempt as de minimis; at a threshold of 15 mmbf, 76 percent of
the number of entities (or 799) would be exempt, but only 4 percent of
the volume would be exempt as de minimis; and at a threshold of 10
mmbf, 73 percent of the number of entities (or 771) would be exempt,
but only 3 percent of the volume would be exempt as de minimis.
In evaluating the impact of the program's requirements at the
alternative exemption thresholds, entities that ship or import at or
above the de minimis threshold must pay assessments to the Board.
Assessment payers must also submit a report to the Board each quarter
of the volume of softwood lumber shipped or imported for the respective
quarter. Entities that ship or import below the de minimis threshold
must apply to the Board each year for a certificate of exemption and
provide documentation as appropriate to support their request. The
reporting and recordkeeping requirements are detailed in the section
below titled Paperwork Reduction Act.
At an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, 172 entities would pay
assessments and 882 would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 185 entities would pay
assessments and 869 would be exempt; at 20 mmbf, 215 entities would pay
assessments and 839 would be exempt; at 15 mmbf, 255 entities would pay
assessments and 799 would be exempt; at 10 mmbf, 283 entities would pay
assessments and 771 would be exempt. Thus, as the exemption threshold
is reduced, more entities would be subject to the Order's assessment
and quarterly reporting obligation.
Further, in considering program compliance costs, USDA estimates
the cost of an on-site audit of a single entity at $5,000 or more.
Thus, the cost to pursue a compliance case against an entity that
shipped less than 10 mmbf, 9 mmbf for example, would outweigh the
revenue that would be collected from that entity of $3,150. Similarly,
the assessment revenue that would be collected from an entity that
shipped less than 15 mmbf, 12 mmbf for example, would amount to $4,200.
The benefit of assessing smaller manufacturers, $3,150 at 9 mmbf and
$4,200 at 12 mmbf, does not outweigh the cost of pursuing compliance
cases against them at $5,000 per entity. The point at which the
assessment revenue that would be collected from an entity outweighs the
estimated cost of $5,000 to pursue a compliance case is an entity with
volume equal to or greater than 14.3 mmbf.\26\ This level is close to
15 mmbf. By this analysis, the selection of 15 mmbf as the de minimis
quantity is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ This figure is computed by dividing the estimated cost to
pursue a compliance case against an entity of $5,000 by the
assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the 23 mmbf-RFA small business threshold as a
reasonable option for de minimis shows that 190 entities would be
subject to assessment and 864 entities would be exempt. In terms of
volume, 38.44 bbf would be assessed, or 93 percent of total volume, and
2.809 bbf would be exempt, or 7 percent of total volume.
Based upon the analysis contained herein, any of the exemption
threshold reviewed would be reasonable because they would exempt from 3
to 8 percent of the volume of softwood lumber as de minimis. However,
when the total volume exempt under the softwood lumber program is
considered (taking into account both the de minimis and equity
exemptions), thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf exempt between 10 and 13
percent of the volume, which is close to the range exempt under other
programs. While all of the exemption thresholds would generate
sufficient revenue for a viable program, the additional revenue that
could be collected if the de minimis level were reduced much lower than
15 mmbf would likely not be worth the additional costs. The softwood
lumber program operated successfully since its inception at an
exemption threshold of 15 mmbf.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ An independent evaluation of the softwood lumber program
showed that the activities of the Board increased sales of softwood
lumber between 2011 and 2015 by 1.683 bbf or $596 million. This
equates to a return on investment of $15.55 of additional sales for
every $1 spent on promotion by the Board. By this metric, the Order
to-date has been effective. USDA therefore finds that 15 mmbf is a
reasonable exemption level for de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24595]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements
imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control
number 0581-0093. This proposal imposes no additional reporting and
recordkeeping burden on domestic manufacturer and importers of softwood
lumber. The reporting requirements pertaining to this proposed rule are
described in the following paragraphs.
As previously mentioned, pursuant to section 1217.53(a) of the
Order, domestic manufacturers and importers who domestically ship or
import less than the de minimis threshold must apply to the Board each
year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as
appropriate to support their request. The reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per
domestic manufacturer or importer per report, or 0.25 hours per year (1
request per year per exempt entity). This computes to a total annual
burden of 199.75 hours (0.25 hours times 799 exempt entities at the 15
mmbf de minimis exemption threshold from Table 4).
Further, pursuant to section 1217.70 of the Order, domestic
manufacturers and importers that ship or import at or over the de
minimis exemption level and pay their assessments directly to the Board
must submit a shipment/import report for each quarter when assessments
are due. The reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 0.5 hours per domestic manufacturer or importer
per report, or 2 hours per year (4 reports per year times 0.5 hours per
report). This computes to a total annual burden of 510 hours (255
assessed entities (from Table 4--No. of Assessed Entities at 15 mmbf)
at 2 hours each equals 510 hours).
All domestic manufacturers and importers must also maintain records
sufficient to verify their reports. The recordkeeping burden for
keeping this information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per record
keeper maintaining such records, or 527 hours (1,054 total entities
assessed (from Table 4--No. of Assessed Entities at no exemption) times
0.5 hours).
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has
not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
USDA 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 citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, USDA initiated this action in response
to a May 2016 federal court decision in Resolute. USDA proposes to
establish the de minimis quantity exemption under the softwood lumber
Order as contained herein.
We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of
the proposed action on small entities and we invite comments concerning
the potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and
would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposed rule. All written comments received in
response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be
considered.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1217
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements, Promotion, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Softwood lumber.
The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1217 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Dated: May 23, 2017.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-10997 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P