Egg Research and Promotion; Reapportionment, 62942-62945 [2020-19431]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62942
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
PART 90—[Removed and Reserved]
■
9. Remove and reserve part 90.
PART 91—SERVICES AND GENERAL
INFORMATION
■
10. Revise § 91.1 to read as follows:
§ 91.1
General.
This part consolidates the procedural
and administrative rules of the Science
and Technology Program of the
Agricultural Marketing Service for
conducting the analytical testing and
laboratory audit verification and
accreditation services. It also contains
the fees and charges applicable to such
services.
■ 11. Amend § 91.2 by revising the
definition of applicant to read as
follows:
§ 91.2
*
*
*
*
Applicant. Any individual or business
requesting services provided by the
Science and Technology (S&T)
programs.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Amend § 91.4 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Kinds of services.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Agricultural Marketing Service
Audit Verification and Accreditation
Programs as described in 7 CFR 62.200.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Amend § 91.5 by:
■ a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(6); and
■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(8).
The revision to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
§ 91.5
Where services are offered.
(a) * * *
(8) Laboratory Approval Service. The
Laboratory Approval Service (LAS)
provides technical, scientific, and
quality assurance support services to
Agency programs, other agencies within
the USDA, and private entities. In
addition, the LAS provides audit
verification and approval or
accreditation services, including
laboratory approval and accreditation
programs of Federal and State
government laboratories and private/
commercial laboratories in support of
domestic and international trade. The
programs administered by LAS verify
analyses of food and agricultural
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Oct 05, 2020
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–19655 Filed 10–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
Definitions.
*
§ 91.4
products showing that said food and
products meet country or customerspecific requirements and that the
testing of marketed products is
conducted by qualified and approved
laboratories. The LAS is located and can
be reached by mail at: USDA, AMS,
S&T, Laboratory Approval Service, 1400
Independence Ave. SW, South Building,
Mail Stop 0272, Washington, DC 20250–
0272.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 253001
7 CFR Part 1250
[Document No. AMS–LP–19–0113]
Egg Research and Promotion;
Reapportionment
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule adjusts
representation on the American Egg
Board (Board), and outlines changes to
geographic areas based on sustained
changes in egg production in several
States. The Egg Research and Promotion
Order (Order) establishes a Board
composed of 18 members. Currently, the
48 contiguous States are divided into six
areas with three members representing
each area. This final rule reduces the
number of geographic areas from six to
three. The number of Board members
representing each geographic area
changes to six. The total Board
membership remains at 18.
DATES: Effective November 5, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Shackelford, Research and
Promotion Division, at (470) 315–4246;
fax (202) 720–1125; or by email at
Craig.shackelford@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The Egg Research and Consumer
Information Act of 1974 (Act) authorizes
the Secretary to establish an Egg Board
composed of egg producers or
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
representatives of egg producers
appointed by the Secretary so that the
representation of egg producers on the
Board reflects, to the extent practicable,
the proportion of eggs produced in each
geographic area of the United States. 7
U.S.C. 2707(b). The Board administers
the Order with oversight by the U.S
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Order outlines the geographic
representation of the current 18-member
board, composed of members from six
distinct geographical areas. To ensure
that representation on the Board
remains representative of the industry,
§ 1250.328 of the Order provides for
reapportionment of Board membership
based on the Board’s periodic review of
production by geographic area. This
periodic review can occur at any time
based on changes in egg production in
various geographical areas; however, the
Order requires that the area distribution
be reviewed at least every five years.
Sections 1250.328(d) and (e) of the
Order provide that any changes in the
delineation of the geographical areas
and the area distribution of the Board be
determined by the percentage of total
U.S. egg production.
Reapportionment
The Board and the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) reviewed
production data to determine what, if
any, changes were needed in the
distribution of Board membership. The
Board and AMS verified certain shifts in
production trends. Section 8 of the Act
(7 U.S.C. 2707) provides for a Board of
not more than 20 members. Section
1250.328 of the Order provides for an
18-member Board and contemplates
changes to the Board by determining the
percentage of United States egg
production in each area times 18 (total
Board membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number. Using the
calculation for the North Atlantic region
results in two members while the
calculation for the other five regions
result in three members each, for a total
17 members, one less than the number
stated in the Order. Therefore, regions
were changed so that the 18-member
Board can be established. Table 1 shows
that reducing regions from six to three
expands the number of States included
in each region and suggests that the
grouping of more States into fewer
regions improves consistency in the
proportion of small versus large farms
represented on the Board.
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
62943
TABLE 1—REGIONAL POULTRY FARM DISTRIBUTION—CURRENT AND NEW
Small
Large
<$1,000,000
$1,000,000+
Region
Total
States
Current Geographical Area
I .................................................................
II ................................................................
III ...............................................................
IV ..............................................................
V ...............................................................
VI ..............................................................
27,243
29,077
27,774
24,652
7,292
32,750
148,788
93%
76%
95%
96%
96%
97%
91%
2,172
9,042
1,575
1,102
312
1,108
15,311
7%
24%
5%
4%
4%
3%
9%
29,415
38,119
29,349
25,754
7,604
33,858
164,099
13
9
5
10
3
10
50
9,891
4,299
1,121
15,311
13%
8%
3%
9%
73,404
52,781
37,914
164,099
21
10
19
50
New Geographical Area
I .................................................................
II ................................................................
III ...............................................................
63,513
48,482
36,793
148,788
With the inclusion of more states into
fewer regions, the proportion of small
versus large farms is less variable. For
example, in Regions I and II in the
current structure, 93 percent and 76
percent, respectively, of the farms are
classified as small. In the new structure
the two regions are more or less
combined, and the new Region I is
composed of 87 percent small firms.
The table shows less variation in size
between the three new regions than
there is in the current structure.
Section 1250.326 of the Order
establishes a Board, composed of 18 egg
producers or representatives of egg
producers, and 18 specific alternates,
appointed by the Secretary from
nominations submitted by eligible
organizations, associations, or
cooperatives, or by other producers
pursuant to § 1250.328. The current 18member Board is composed of three
members representing each of the six
regions. There were no changes to the
total number of members (18 members
with 18 alternates). However, regions
87%
92%
97%
91%
were reduced to three from six and each
region will include more States.
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Order, the Board began its most recent
review of Board member apportionment
in 2019. Production data from the 2018
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) report was used to establish the
percentage of U.S. egg production in
each area. The goal of this
reapportionment of Board members is to
ensure representation on the Board
remains consistent with the Act and
Order by recognizing production shifts
over time. These changes are effective
with the Secretary’s appointments for
terms beginning in the year 2021.
The Board and AMS recognize that
shifts in production have resulted in the
Northeast region no longer being
proportionately represented on the
Board. The Board and AMS also found
that industry consolidation has also
contributed to a more limited number of
egg producing entities in each region.
The Board and AMS desire a structure
that allows the full representation of all
the egg producing entities. The Board
and AMS have found that it is
increasingly difficult for State
nominating organizations to present an
appropriate number of candidates each
year. By reducing the number of regions
and increasing the geographic size of
regions, the Board and AMS believe that
more egg producing entities may be
represented on the Board.
This final rule results in the
proportionate representation of each
geographic area and increases the
number of egg-producing entities
represented in each geographic area.
The Board and AMS have determined
that these changes will better represent
the distribution of egg production and
enable eligible nominating organizations
to more easily identify potential
nominees.
In accordance with § 1250.328(e) of
the Order, the Board has recommended
changes to the number and composition
of geographic regions represented on the
Board.
The current and new representation
are indicated in the following two
tables:
TABLE 2—CURRENT GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Geographic area
Current
number of
members
Represented states
I-North Atlantic ..........................
3
II-South Atlantic ........................
3
III-East North Central ................
IV-West North Central ..............
3
3
V-South Central ........................
VI-Western ................................
3
3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Oct 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and District of Columbia.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina.
Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
62944
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—NEW GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD
Geographic area
Number of
members
States represented
I-East ........................................
6
II-Central ...................................
6
III-West .....................................
6
Membership changes are based on
production in the new geographic areas,
noting that changes to Board
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Texas.
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
distribution will be accomplished by
determining the percentage of reported
cases of eggs produced in each of the
three new areas times 18 (total Board
membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number, as follows:
TABLE 4—PROJECTED BOARD MEMBERSHIP
USDA reported
cases of eggs
produced
Geographical areas
Projected
board
membership
I-East ........................................................................................
II-Central ..................................................................................
III-West .....................................................................................
35,724,500,000
36,942,400,000
36,525,200,000
32.72
33.83
33.45
5.89
6.09
6.02
6
6
6
Total U.S. Production .......................................................
109,192,100,000
100
100
18
This final rule applies to the
nomination process in 2020 and affects
the board members appointed by the
Secretary to serve on the Board
beginning in 2021.
A 30-day comment period was
provided to allow interested persons to
respond to the proposal. All written
comments received in response to this
rule by the date specified were
considered prior to finalizing this
action.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
% of total
production
multiplied by
18 board
members
% of total
production
Summary of Comments
USDA received five timely comments
from individuals and industry
organizations. Of those comments, two
were in favor of the rule, and three did
not state a position. Two of the
comments were submitted by industry
organizations in support of the changes.
One comment expressed concerns that
the larger regions reduce the
representation of smaller-production
areas. AMS addressed this concern in
the proposed rule. Table 1 indicates the
distribution of farms represented by
size, and the proportion of farms that
are small versus large. With the
inclusion of more states into fewer
regions, the proportion of small versus
large farms becomes less variable. For
example, in Regions I and II in the
current structure, 93 percent and 76
percent, respectively, of the farms in
these regions are classified as small. In
the new structure the two regions are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Oct 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
more or less combined, and the new
Region I is composed of 87 percent
small farms. The table shows less
variation in size between the three new
regions than there is in the current
structure. One comment observed that
Oregon was missing in Table 3. AMS
recognizes this error and has corrected
it by placing Oregon in the West Region
III. One comment did not address the
proposal but did offer one idea related
to Board membership. The required
composition of the Board is set forth in
the Act and Order. No changes were
made in the final rule based on the
comments received.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
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 rule does not
meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and
therefore, the Office of Management and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Budget (OMB) has waived review of this
action. 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 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect.
There are no administrative
proceedings that must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule.
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 regulation would not have
substantial and direct effects on Tribal
governments or significant Tribal
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations
(5 CFR part 1320) that implement the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
U.S.C. part 35), the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements contained in the Order
and accompanying Rules and
Regulations have previously been
approved by OMB and were assigned
OMB control number 0581–0093. This
final rule does not increase or impose
any new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601–622), AMS considered the
economic effect of this action on small
entities and determined that this final
rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The purpose of
RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the
scale of businesses subject to such
actions in order that small businesses
will not be unduly burdened. The Small
Business Administration (SBA)
published an interim final rule that
became effective on August 19, 2019,
(84 FR 34261) that adjusts the monetarybased size standards for inflation. As a
result of this rule, the size classification
for small egg-producing firms changed
from sales of $750,000 or less to sales
of $1,000,000 or less.
According to USDA’s NASS, USDA
collects data for the Agriculture Census
(Ag Census) using the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The NAICS classifies economic
activities and was developed to provide
a consistent framework for the
collection, analysis, and dissemination
of industrial statistics used by
government policy analysts, academia
and the business community. It is the
first industry classification system
developed in accordance with a single
principle of aggregation that production
units using similar production processes
should be grouped together.
In the 2017 Ag Census, the poultry
and egg production classification
(classification category 1123) was
comprised of establishments primarily
engaged in breeding, hatching, and
raising poultry for meat or egg
production. The 2017 Ag Census also
shows there were 164,099 reported
poultry farms in the United States and
36,012 egg producers. Ag Census data
includes sales category ranges for the
poultry sector but does not include
separate sales categories for egg
producers. Instead, NASS provides data
for the broader category of ‘‘Poultry and
Eggs.’’ Therefore, AMS is not able to
obtain stand-alone sales data for eggproducing farms. As a result, for this
RFA, AMS used the broader category of
poultry producers as the closest possible
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Oct 05, 2020
Jkt 253001
substitute as the basis for determining
the size of egg producers.
Of the 164,099 poultry producers
identified in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, 148,788 (91 percent)
reported sales of less than $1,000,000
and thus fall under the SBA definition
of small business. Therefore, the
remaining 15,311 (9 percent) producers
are considered large. If the egg producer
segment has the same proportional
distribution across firm sizes, 91
percent, or 32,771 egg producers are
classified as small businesses, and 9
percent, or 3,241 egg producers are
considered large.
Sales data are also available at the
state level for the overall poultry sector.
Using this data, and the assumption that
the proportion of large and small
poultry farms similarly applies to egg
producers, Table 1 shows how the
changes in geographical areas shift
producer representation on the Board.
The final rule imposes no new burden
on the industry, as it only adjusts
representation on the Board to reflect
changes in egg production. The
adjustments are required by the Order
and do not result in a change in the
overall number of Board members. Even
if most egg producers are small entities,
this action does not change their ability
to qualify for representation on the
Board or add any new burden. In
conclusion, AMS believes that reducing
the regions from six to three and
increasing the number of States within
each region will contribute to greater
representation of egg producing firms on
the Board.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
AMS has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR part 1250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Eggs and Egg products,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1250
as follows:
PART 1250—EGG PROMOTION AND
RESEARCH
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1250 continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62945
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701–2718 and 7
U.S.C 7401.
2. Revise § 1250.510 to read as
follows:
■
§ 1250.510 Determination of Board
Membership.
(a) Pursuant to § 1250.328 (d) and (e),
the 48 contiguous States of the United
States shall be grouped into three
geographic areas, as follows: Area 1
(East)—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Texas; Area 2
(Central)—Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; Area 3
(West)—Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.
(b) Board representation among the
three geographic areas is apportioned to
reflect the percentages of United States
egg production in each area times 18
(total Board membership). The
distribution of members of the Board is:
Area 1–6, Area 2–6, and Area 3–6. Each
member will have an alternate
appointed from the same area.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–19431 Filed 10–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 615
RIN 3052–AD35
Organization; Funding and Fiscal
Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations,
and Funding Operations; Investment
Eligibility
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Farm Credit
Administration (FCA, we, or our) adopts
a final rule that amends its investment
regulations to allow Farm Credit System
(FCS or System) associations to
purchase and hold the portion of certain
loans that non-FCS lenders originate
and sell in the secondary market, and
that the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) unconditionally
guarantees or insures as to the timely
payment of principal and interest.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62942-62945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19431]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1250
[Document No. AMS-LP-19-0113]
Egg Research and Promotion; Reapportionment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts representation on the American Egg
Board (Board), and outlines changes to geographic areas based on
sustained changes in egg production in several States. The Egg Research
and Promotion Order (Order) establishes a Board composed of 18 members.
Currently, the 48 contiguous States are divided into six areas with
three members representing each area. This final rule reduces the
number of geographic areas from six to three. The number of Board
members representing each geographic area changes to six. The total
Board membership remains at 18.
DATES: Effective November 5, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Shackelford, Research and
Promotion Division, at (470) 315-4246; fax (202) 720-1125; or by email
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Egg Research and Consumer Information Act of 1974 (Act)
authorizes the Secretary to establish an Egg Board composed of egg
producers or representatives of egg producers appointed by the
Secretary so that the representation of egg producers on the Board
reflects, to the extent practicable, the proportion of eggs produced in
each geographic area of the United States. 7 U.S.C. 2707(b). The Board
administers the Order with oversight by the U.S Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
The Order outlines the geographic representation of the current 18-
member board, composed of members from six distinct geographical areas.
To ensure that representation on the Board remains representative of
the industry, Sec. 1250.328 of the Order provides for reapportionment
of Board membership based on the Board's periodic review of production
by geographic area. This periodic review can occur at any time based on
changes in egg production in various geographical areas; however, the
Order requires that the area distribution be reviewed at least every
five years. Sections 1250.328(d) and (e) of the Order provide that any
changes in the delineation of the geographical areas and the area
distribution of the Board be determined by the percentage of total U.S.
egg production.
Reapportionment
The Board and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reviewed
production data to determine what, if any, changes were needed in the
distribution of Board membership. The Board and AMS verified certain
shifts in production trends. Section 8 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2707)
provides for a Board of not more than 20 members. Section 1250.328 of
the Order provides for an 18-member Board and contemplates changes to
the Board by determining the percentage of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number. Using the calculation for the North Atlantic
region results in two members while the calculation for the other five
regions result in three members each, for a total 17 members, one less
than the number stated in the Order. Therefore, regions were changed so
that the 18-member Board can be established. Table 1 shows that
reducing regions from six to three expands the number of States
included in each region and suggests that the grouping of more States
into fewer regions improves consistency in the proportion of small
versus large farms represented on the Board.
[[Page 62943]]
Table 1--Regional Poultry Farm Distribution--Current and New
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Large
Region -------------------------------- Total States
<$1,000,000 $1,000,000+
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 27,243 93% 2,172 7% 29,415 13
II...................................................... 29,077 76% 9,042 24% 38,119 9
III..................................................... 27,774 95% 1,575 5% 29,349 5
IV...................................................... 24,652 96% 1,102 4% 25,754 10
V....................................................... 7,292 96% 312 4% 7,604 3
VI...................................................... 32,750 97% 1,108 3% 33,858 10
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 63,513 87% 9,891 13% 73,404 21
II...................................................... 48,482 92% 4,299 8% 52,781 10
III..................................................... 36,793 97% 1,121 3% 37,914 19
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the inclusion of more states into fewer regions, the
proportion of small versus large farms is less variable. For example,
in Regions I and II in the current structure, 93 percent and 76
percent, respectively, of the farms are classified as small. In the new
structure the two regions are more or less combined, and the new Region
I is composed of 87 percent small firms. The table shows less variation
in size between the three new regions than there is in the current
structure.
Section 1250.326 of the Order establishes a Board, composed of 18
egg producers or representatives of egg producers, and 18 specific
alternates, appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by
eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives, or by other
producers pursuant to Sec. 1250.328. The current 18-member Board is
composed of three members representing each of the six regions. There
were no changes to the total number of members (18 members with 18
alternates). However, regions were reduced to three from six and each
region will include more States.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Order, the Board began its most
recent review of Board member apportionment in 2019. Production data
from the 2018 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) report
was used to establish the percentage of U.S. egg production in each
area. The goal of this reapportionment of Board members is to ensure
representation on the Board remains consistent with the Act and Order
by recognizing production shifts over time. These changes are effective
with the Secretary's appointments for terms beginning in the year 2021.
The Board and AMS recognize that shifts in production have resulted
in the Northeast region no longer being proportionately represented on
the Board. The Board and AMS also found that industry consolidation has
also contributed to a more limited number of egg producing entities in
each region. The Board and AMS desire a structure that allows the full
representation of all the egg producing entities. The Board and AMS
have found that it is increasingly difficult for State nominating
organizations to present an appropriate number of candidates each year.
By reducing the number of regions and increasing the geographic size of
regions, the Board and AMS believe that more egg producing entities may
be represented on the Board.
This final rule results in the proportionate representation of each
geographic area and increases the number of egg-producing entities
represented in each geographic area. The Board and AMS have determined
that these changes will better represent the distribution of egg
production and enable eligible nominating organizations to more easily
identify potential nominees.
In accordance with Sec. 1250.328(e) of the Order, the Board has
recommended changes to the number and composition of geographic regions
represented on the Board.
The current and new representation are indicated in the following
two tables:
Table 2--Current Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current number
Geographic area of members Represented states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-North Atlantic.............................. 3 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and District of
Columbia.
II-South Atlantic............................. 3 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina.
III-East North Central........................ 3 Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and
Tennessee.
IV-West North Central......................... 3 Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
V-South Central............................... 3 Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
VI-Western.................................... 3 Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62944]]
Table 3--New Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Geographic area members States represented
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-East........................................ 6 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Texas.
II-Central.................................... 6 Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.
III-West...................................... 6 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Membership changes are based on production in the new geographic
areas, noting that changes to Board distribution will be accomplished
by determining the percentage of reported cases of eggs produced in
each of the three new areas times 18 (total Board membership) and
rounding to the nearest whole number, as follows:
Table 4--Projected Board Membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of total
USDA reported % of total production Projected board
Geographical areas cases of eggs production multiplied by 18 membership
produced board members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-East.............................. 35,724,500,000 32.72 5.89 6
II-Central.......................... 36,942,400,000 33.83 6.09 6
III-West............................ 36,525,200,000 33.45 6.02 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Production........... 109,192,100,000 100 100 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule applies to the nomination process in 2020 and
affects the board members appointed by the Secretary to serve on the
Board beginning in 2021.
A 30-day comment period was provided to allow interested persons to
respond to the proposal. All written comments received in response to
this rule by the date specified were considered prior to finalizing
this action.
Summary of Comments
USDA received five timely comments from individuals and industry
organizations. Of those comments, two were in favor of the rule, and
three did not state a position. Two of the comments were submitted by
industry organizations in support of the changes. One comment expressed
concerns that the larger regions reduce the representation of smaller-
production areas. AMS addressed this concern in the proposed rule.
Table 1 indicates the distribution of farms represented by size, and
the proportion of farms that are small versus large. With the inclusion
of more states into fewer regions, the proportion of small versus large
farms becomes less variable. For example, in Regions I and II in the
current structure, 93 percent and 76 percent, respectively, of the
farms in these regions are classified as small. In the new structure
the two regions are more or less combined, and the new Region I is
composed of 87 percent small farms. The table shows less variation in
size between the three new regions than there is in the current
structure. One comment observed that Oregon was missing in Table 3. AMS
recognizes this error and has corrected it by placing Oregon in the
West Region III. One comment did not address the proposal but did offer
one idea related to Board membership. The required composition of the
Board is set forth in the Act and Order. No changes were made in the
final rule based on the comments received.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
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 rule does not meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived
review of this action. 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 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect.
There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
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 regulation would not
have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments or
significant Tribal implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
[[Page 62945]]
U.S.C. part 35), the information collection and recordkeeping
requirements contained in the Order and accompanying Rules and
Regulations have previously been approved by OMB and were assigned OMB
control number 0581-0093. This final rule does not increase or impose
any new information collection or recordkeeping requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-622), AMS considered the economic
effect of this action on small entities and determined that this final
rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory
actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order
that small businesses will not be unduly burdened. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) published an interim final rule that became
effective on August 19, 2019, (84 FR 34261) that adjusts the monetary-
based size standards for inflation. As a result of this rule, the size
classification for small egg-producing firms changed from sales of
$750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000 or less.
According to USDA's NASS, USDA collects data for the Agriculture
Census (Ag Census) using the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The NAICS classifies economic activities and was
developed to provide a consistent framework for the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of industrial statistics used by government
policy analysts, academia and the business community. It is the first
industry classification system developed in accordance with a single
principle of aggregation that production units using similar production
processes should be grouped together.
In the 2017 Ag Census, the poultry and egg production
classification (classification category 1123) was comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in breeding, hatching, and raising
poultry for meat or egg production. The 2017 Ag Census also shows there
were 164,099 reported poultry farms in the United States and 36,012 egg
producers. Ag Census data includes sales category ranges for the
poultry sector but does not include separate sales categories for egg
producers. Instead, NASS provides data for the broader category of
``Poultry and Eggs.'' Therefore, AMS is not able to obtain stand-alone
sales data for egg-producing farms. As a result, for this RFA, AMS used
the broader category of poultry producers as the closest possible
substitute as the basis for determining the size of egg producers.
Of the 164,099 poultry producers identified in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, 148,788 (91 percent) reported sales of less than
$1,000,000 and thus fall under the SBA definition of small business.
Therefore, the remaining 15,311 (9 percent) producers are considered
large. If the egg producer segment has the same proportional
distribution across firm sizes, 91 percent, or 32,771 egg producers are
classified as small businesses, and 9 percent, or 3,241 egg producers
are considered large.
Sales data are also available at the state level for the overall
poultry sector. Using this data, and the assumption that the proportion
of large and small poultry farms similarly applies to egg producers,
Table 1 shows how the changes in geographical areas shift producer
representation on the Board.
The final rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only
adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in egg
production. The adjustments are required by the Order and do not result
in a change in the overall number of Board members. Even if most egg
producers are small entities, this action does not change their ability
to qualify for representation on the Board or add any new burden. In
conclusion, AMS believes that reducing the regions from six to three
and increasing the number of States within each region will contribute
to greater representation of egg producing firms on the Board.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR part 1250
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Eggs and Egg products, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part
1250 as follows:
PART 1250--EGG PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701-2718 and 7 U.S.C 7401.
0
2. Revise Sec. 1250.510 to read as follows:
Sec. 1250.510 Determination of Board Membership.
(a) Pursuant to Sec. 1250.328 (d) and (e), the 48 contiguous
States of the United States shall be grouped into three geographic
areas, as follows: Area 1 (East)--Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, the
District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas; Area 2
(Central)--Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; Area 3 (West)--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
(b) Board representation among the three geographic areas is
apportioned to reflect the percentages of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership). The distribution of
members of the Board is: Area 1-6, Area 2-6, and Area 3-6. Each member
will have an alternate appointed from the same area.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-19431 Filed 10-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
