Exceptions to Geographic Boundaries, 46606-46611 [2021-17609]
Download as PDF
46606
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 158
Thursday, August 19, 2021
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 800
[Doc. No. AMS–FGIS–19–0062]
RIN 0581–AD90
Exceptions to Geographic Boundaries
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed
rulemaking invites public input on
proposed revisions to Federal Grain
Inspection regulations. The Agricultural
Marketing Service is required to revise
the regulations as a result of 2018 Farm
Bill amendments to the U.S. Grain
Standards Act. Revised regulations
would allow designated official agencies
to perform grain inspections outside
their geographic areas under certain
additional conditions. Proposed
revisions are based on industry input
and are intended to provide additional
flexibility to the industry.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 20, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be
submitted through the Federal erulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov and should
reference the document number and the
date and page number of this issue of
the Federal Register. All comments
submitted in response to this document
will be included in the record and will
be made available to the public. Please
be advised that the identity of
individuals or entities submitting
comments will be made public on the
internet at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sophie Parker, Deputy Director, Quality
Assurance and Compliance Division,
Federal Grain Inspection Service, AMS,
USDA; email: FGISQACD@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.), each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
official agencies (OA) in the United
States is assigned a specific geographic
area where it performs all official grain
inspection and weighing services for
customers within that geographic area (7
U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(A)). This ensures
effective and efficient delivery of official
services to all customers within the
assigned OA’s geographic area and
enhances the orderly marketing of grain.
The U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA)
also provides that customers may obtain
services from other OAs under certain
circumstances. The Secretary may allow
OAs to cross geographic boundaries to
provide services to requesting customers
if: (1) The assigned OA is unable to
provide necessary services on a timely
basis; (2) the customer has not been
receiving official inspection services
from the assigned OA; (3) the customer
requests probe inspection on barge-lot
basis; or (4) the assigned OA agrees in
writing with the adjacent OA to waive
the current geographic restriction at the
customer’s request (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(B)).
These allowances are considered
exceptions to the USGSA’s standard
requirements regarding the use of
designated OAs to perform inspection
services within specified geographic
areas. Exceptions must be approved on
a case-by-case basis by the Agricultural
Marketing Service’s Federal Grain
Inspection Service (FGIS) that
administers regulations under the
USGSA.1 Regulations in 7 CFR part 800
provide limitations for use of these
exceptions.
Service Exceptions
A notable exception that has been
implemented in the past is known as the
nonuse of service exception. In that
exception, a customer who had not
obtained inspection services from the
assigned OA for a specified length of
time could obtain services from another
OA. At times, regulations required
customers to have not used their
designated OA for at least 90
consecutive days; at other times the
regulations specified a 180-day nonuse
period before the customer could apply
for service from another OA. However,
lack of clarity about how FGIS
determined whether to grant nonuse of
service exceptions fostered confusion
1 FGIS, formerly part of USDA’s Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration, was
merged with USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service in 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and conflicts among involved parties
and created a perception of
inconsistency regarding the handling of
such requests. Congress eliminated the
nonuse of service exception from the
USGSA in 2015; 2 FGIS subsequently
removed that exception from the
regulations.3
Although the nonuse of service
exception was eliminated from the
USGSA in 2015, Congress reinstated
authority to implement a nonuse of
service exception through an
amendment to the USGSA in the 2018
Farm Bill.4 FGIS must now consider
regulatory options related to the
reinstatement of the nonuse of service
exception (see 7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(B)(ii)).
On April 1, 2020, FGIS published an
advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) (85 FR 18155) to
solicit public comments on how FGIS
should amend its criteria for reviewing,
approving, and implementing
exceptions to USGSA’s requirements for
geographic boundaries. FGIS received
six comments on the ANPR. We have
incorporated industry feedback from the
ANPR, along with input received during
industry meetings, to develop this
proposed rule (PR). FGIS is requesting
public comment on options for timely
service and nonuse of service, as
defined within this PR. Particularly,
FGIS seeks input from industry
participants and OAs who use and
provide official services and are familiar
with grain inspection services under the
USGSA. We welcome the submission of
data and other information to support
commenters’ views. As a result of public
input received on the PR, FGIS will
develop a final rule for publication in
the Federal Register.
Restoration of Previous Nonuse of
Service Exceptions
Subsequent to 2015 amendments to
the USGSA and the 2016 changes to the
FGIS regulations, a number of nonuse of
service exceptions were terminated. The
2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to allow
for restoration of those exceptions
where appropriate. Interested parties
were given an opportunity to submit
restoration requests to FGIS, as
2 The Agricultural Reauthorizations Act of 2015,
enacted September 20, 2015 (Pub. L. 114–54 sec.
301(b)(3)(A)).
3 81 FR 49855, July 29, 2016.
4 The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018,
enacted December 20, 2018 (Pub. L. 115–334 sec.
12610(a)(1)(D)).
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
described in a Notice to Trade
published on March 5, 2019.5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Termination of Nonuse of Service
Exceptions
The amended USGSA provides that
the nonuse of service exception may
only be terminated if all parties to the
exception jointly agree on the
termination.6 This means that the
customer, the assigned OA, the OA that
has been providing service under the
exception (gaining OA), and FGIS must
agree to terminate the exception. This
ensures that: (1) All parties are aware of
the change and (2) the assigned OA will
resume providing service to the
customer.
The requirement for all parties to the
exception to jointly agree on
termination of the nonuse of service
exception does not apply if the
designation of an OA is terminated.7 If
the designation of an OA is renewed or
restored after being terminated, the
exceptions that were previously
approved, under 7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(B),
may be renewed or restored by
requesting a determination from FGIS.
Comment Review
The ANPR suggested three criteria for
timely service exceptions and four
criteria for nonuse of service exceptions,
and requested input on 11 questions
regarding factors that could impact
decisions on exceptions. FGIS would
like to thank those who participated in
this process for providing valuable
input. Not all commenters provided
feedback on criteria for every exemption
or on every question in the ANPR. Most
recognized the need for the official
system to be customer focused and to
provide timely and accurate services.
FGIS received mixed comments about
timely service and nonuse of service
exceptions. Some commenters stated
that they thought the nonuse of service
exception involved the inability of the
OA to provide timely service. The
USGSA specifies these are two separate
exceptions; therefore, FGIS is using the
feedback to the ANPR to improve and
clarify the requirements under the
appropriate exception.
The ANPR criteria for timely service
exceptions included that: the requesting
facility would be required to submit a
written or verbal request for an
exception to FGIS, along with
documentation regarding the designated
OA’s inability to provide service within
5 Restoring Certain Exceptions to the U.S. Grain
Standards Act, published March 5, 2019. https://
www.ams.usda.gov/content/restoring-certainexceptions-us-grain-standards-act.
6 Public Law 115–334 sec. 12610(a)(1)(E).
7 Public Law 115–334 sec. 12610(a)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
six hours from the requested service.
Further, the OA would have to be
unable to provide requested services
within timeframes established in the
OA’s approved fee schedule. The ANPR
criteria for nonuse of service exception
requests included the requesting facility
(customer or applicant) demonstrating
they have not received official services
for 90 days, documenting why they have
not received service, and providing a
written or verbal request for an
exception. In addition, the ANPR
suggested potential factors for
consideration, some of which now fit
within the expanded criteria for timely
service requests.
In the feedback to the ANPR criteria
for timely service exceptions, some
commenters supported the criteria but
provided differing opinions on how to
apply the criterion regarding timeframes
for services provided. One suggested
that customers should not be allowed to
routinely call their OA after business
hours as a mechanism for obtaining
service from another OA. Here, FGIS
notes parameters required for requesting
official services are defined in
800.116(b) and OA fee schedules. FGIS
also received requests to clarify which
services are included in a timely service
exception. Industry feedback indicates
some OA’s do not offer all official
services some customers request. Others
indicate that weather events could
impact access to timely service. Timely
service exceptions criterion in this PR
would provide an avenue to
accommodate these situations.
In the feedback to the ANPR criteria
for nonuse of service exceptions, some
commenters asked FGIS to add
flexibility to the nonuse of service
exception and to rename it ‘‘service
exception’’. According to industry
input, customers occasionally face
limitations in the types of services
offered by the assigned OA. This again
indicated to FGIS that there is confusion
about the criteria for timely service and
the criteria for nonuse of service
exceptions. In addition, the feedback on
the number of days without official
service (for nonuse of service
exceptions) had a wide range, from 30
to 180 days. As stated in the ANPR,
prior ranges allowed were between 90 to
180 days in length. A period of 90 days
is within timeframes used for the
nonuse of service exception in the past
and is a compromise based on
timeframes suggested in the comments.
In the general feedback to the ANPR,
FGIS received comments expressing
concern that some requests for
exceptions relayed false or misleading
information. These comments
questioned how FGIS would validate
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46607
requests for exceptions and whether the
assigned OA would have an opportunity
to respond to the request. Therefore,
FGIS proposes adding a validation
process for requests for exceptions. This
would allow all parties to submit
information and data regarding the
request. FGIS would review information
and assess requests to ensure the
integrity of the official system is
maintained. FGIS also received feedback
expressing concern that nonuse of
service exceptions negatively impact the
integrity of the official system. FGIS has
attempted to address all feedback within
this PR.
Overview
Amendments proposed would modify
parameters for the exceptions program
for timely service and reinstate the
exception program for nonuse of service
in 7 CFR 800.117, to comply with
amendments made to the USGSA in the
2018 Farm Bill. This PR incorporates
feedback received from the public on
the ANPR to create a clear, consistent,
and fair framework for considering and
granting these exceptions, which allow
designated OAs to perform grain
inspections outside their geographic
areas under certain conditions. Timely
service and nonuse of service are two of
those conditions. This PR defines and
differentiates between timely service
and nonuse of service exceptions and
their associated requirements.
Under § 800.117(b)(1), the industry
would have a mechanism to request and
receive timely service from an alternate
OA. Applicants could also request
timely service exceptions for delays
caused by weather events and requests
for services that are not offered by the
assigned OA. For a timely service
exception, FGIS would grant an
exception when: (1) The designated OA
is unable to provide services to an
applicant within 6 hours or the OA is
unable to provide results and certificate
in accordance with 800.160(c); or (2) a
request for services not offered by the
assigned OA would result in an inability
to receive timely service; or (3) a
weather event or impact caused by a
weather event results in an inability to
receive timely service from the assigned
OA; and (4) granting an exception is in
the best interest of the integrity of the
official system. It is important to note
that not all of these instances indicate
a delay caused by the assigned OA and
that the reasons and justification for the
exception request weigh more
prominently for nonuse of service
requests than timely service. This PR
proposes a tiered progression for timely
service exceptions. The first is a onetime timely service exception. In the
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
46608
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
case of untimely service, the ability to
use another official agency may be
granted for the next service request, as
applicable. The second is a 90-day
timely service exception. If, after the
first request is granted, a second
instance occurs within 180 days, the
customer may apply for a 90-day
exception. Once granted, the alternate
OA would provide services to the
customer for 90 days. The third is a
long-term timely service exception. If
there is another occurrence, within 365
days of the return to the assigned OA,
the applicant may request a long-term
exception, extending until the
termination date of the gaining agency’s
designation. If FGIS determines the
assigned OA’s inability to provide a
specific service, limited due to weather
events or service availability, has been
resolved, FGIS may terminate the longterm exception. If FGIS terminates a
long-term exception, all parties would
be notified, and the applicant would
resume service with the assigned OA
within 60 days of notification. However,
if the exception was associated with the
assigned OA’s inability to provide
service in 6 hours or less, or timely
issuance of the results and certificate,
FGIS may not terminate the exception.
During the duration of exceptions
caused by a failure of the assigned OA
to supply timely service, the assigned
OA should work on improving their
ability to provide the requested services.
For nonuse of service exception
requests, this PR defines the period of
nonuse as 90 days. The PR also
specifies, but does not limit, categories
FGIS would take into consideration
when reviewing requests for nonuse of
service exceptions. These include: (1)
The location of the specified service
point(s); (2) the ability of the alternate
OA to take on additional customers; (3)
the ability of the assigned OA to staff an
onsite laboratory; (4) whether the
requesting facility has ever previously
utilized the official system (i.e., facilities
that have never used the official system
would not qualify for nonuse of service
exception, nor would a facility that was
under new ownership by a company
with no history of use of the official
system). For a nonuse of service
exception, FGIS would grant an
exception when: (1) An OA has not
provided service to an applicant within
their assigned geographic area within
the established time period, (2) FGIS
receives a request for a nonuse of
service exception from an applicant,
and (3) granting an exception is in the
best interest of the integrity of the
official system. In some cases, the cost
of the equipment is more than the OA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
would be able to recoup, due to the
infrequency of the requests. FGIS would
take these factors into consideration
when reviewing requests for exceptions
and would work with the OAs and
customers to find a solution.
FGIS recognizes there may be
instances where granting an exception
may impact the assigned OA’s viability
and instances where there is concern
about the integrity of the official system.
In such instances, FGIS proposes adding
a challenge process into this regulation.
As an example, FGIS would consider
factors such as percent of business or
percent of customers lost due to 90-day
and long-term exceptions. Requests for
a challenge must clearly state and
support the identified reason for the
request. The assigned OA must include
supporting documentation for FGIS to
review as part of this process. FGIS
seeks input from industry participants
and OAs on the challenge process. We
welcome and encourage the submission
of data and other information to support
commenters’ views.
FGIS proposes to add the nonuse of
service exception back into the
regulations, under § 800.117(b)(2). The
industry would be able to apply for
official services from an alternate OA if
they have not received official services
within the previous 90 days. In
addition, FGIS proposes to evaluate
criteria defined in the section to
promote clarity, consistency, and
transparency. FGIS also proposes to
expand and clarify options for
exceptions under timely service.
Applications for timely service
exceptions would undergo a more
streamlined approval process and
require less rigorous justification by the
applicant than those submitted for
nonuse of service exceptions. For both
types of exceptions, the PR establishes
processes to address assigned OA
concerns of potentially false or
misleading exception requests and
validation of requests by FGIS.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review, and 13563—
Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, 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 of
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In this initial evaluation of costs and
benefits of the rule, FGIS has
determined that the proposed rule does
not meet the criteria of a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 as supplemented by Executive
Order 13563. Moreover, FGIS finds that
the rule does not create any new
material costs for industry.
Baseline
Under the USGSA, the USDA
regulates the inspection of barley,
canola, corn, flaxseed, mixed grain, oats,
rye, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed,
triticale, and wheat. This rule impacts
the 42 OAs that provide USDAregulated grain certification and the
5,218 commercial entities they serve. In
FY2020, OAs performed 3,093,261 grain
inspections of 240.3 million metric tons
of grain.8 FGIS expects fewer than one
percent of the entities served by OAs to
request and be granted exceptions under
the rule.
Official inspection costs represent a
very small percentage of the total value
of grain shipment. In 2018, FGIS
calculated weighted average costs for
inspections for different carriers as
follows: $24.50 for a semi-truck capable
of carrying 58,000 pounds, $24.65 for a
railcar capable of carrying 220,000
pounds, and $234.42 for a barge capable
of carrying 3,000,000 pounds of grain.
For example, if the price of wheat was
$5 for a 60-pound bushel, the cost of the
inspection would represent 0.53% of
the revenue for a truck, 0.13% of the
revenue for a railcar train, and 0.08% of
the revenue for a barge.
Need for the Rule
Federally regulated grain inspection is
designed to remedy two competing
sources of market failure—asymmetric
information and market power—while
preserving the ability of small producers
to access markets. This rule increases
the flexibility of the existing inspection
program without affecting the program’s
quality standards or the ability of small
sellers to access inspection services.
Greater flexibility in allowing producers
to obtain inspection services, however,
will save costs and provide them greater
ability to meet potential market
opportunities.
Many agricultural products, including
grain, vary in important quality
characteristics due to both farm
production decisions and idiosyncratic
factors. In the absence of a quality
verification process, sellers in
transactions may have more knowledge
8 Source: USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service
(FGIS) Program Data at: https://
fgisonline.ams.usda.gov/F_DEC/
AnnualReport.aspx.
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
of product quality than buyers, a
condition called asymmetric
information. Akerlof (1970) showed
asymmetric information can cause
economic inefficiencies in which
producers forego investments that are
less costly to implement than the benefit
they provide consumers.9 Third-party
inspection that verifies a product’s
quality resolves this source of market
failure.
Grain inspectors certify the protein
content, kernel size, and other quality
factors related to product’s market value
to simplify transactions. Since the
outcome of grain inspections directly
affects the sale price, biases and
inconsistences in inspection methods
might potentially redistribute the gains
to trade from seller to buyer, or vice
versa. Market power might exacerbate
the tendency to bias and inconsistency
if, for instance, large sellers or buyers
can influence the outcome of quality
inspections in their favor. In addition to
fairness concerns, such opportunistic
behavior creates economic inefficiencies
by reducing returns on investment in
quality improvement and creating costs
for downstream producers (i.e., bakers
and food processors) expecting products
of certain quality.
Grain inspection is an optional
service. When information asymmetries
are a concern, inspection facilitates
simpler, more rapid, and less risky
transaction of final product. By allowing
producers to recoup the costs of quality
improvement, grain inspection also
encourages investment in quality
improvement.
Under its regulatory authority, the
USDA approves grain inspection
standards and monitors their uniform
application by OAs. To promote a
competitive market for grain, in which
all producers have access to inspection
services, FGIS requires that OAs provide
inspection services to all producers in
an assigned area and regulates
marketing fee schedules charged by OAs
for these services. FGIS approves rates
to cover various labor, laboratory, and
travel costs and only approves
differential rates across geographic areas
if underlying costs differ across assigned
regions. For this reason, FGIS does not
expect this rule to impact the prices
paid by inspection users or the fees
received by OAs. Instead, FGIS expects
this rule will allow the small fraction of
inspection users who need ‘‘timely
service’’ and ‘‘nonuse of service’’
exceptions greater flexibility in
9 George
Akerlof, ‘‘The Market for Lemons:
Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’’
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
obtaining inspections services to meet
immediate business requirements.
Benefits and Costs of the Rule
FGIS considers economic benefits of
this rule as being three-fold. First, the
rule provides clarity to producers
regarding the terms under which
exceptions are granted. Second, the rule
increases options to producers who
require inspection services to market
their grain. FGIS expects that this option
will be utilized by fewer than one
percent producers who need inspections
services quickly but face service
constraints by OAs. Third, the rule may
heighten attention to service issues
among OAs that have received nonuse
of service exception requests. The
validation process FGIS will maintain as
part of the granting of exceptions will
ensure requests serve a valid business
purpose. OAs may offer additional
services such as a broader range of
testing as a result.
FGIS does not ascribe any direct
compliance costs to either OAs or
producers as a result of the potential
increase for timely service and nonuse
of service exceptions under this rule.
FGIS does not expect that inspection
fees it approves will change as a result
of this rule. To the extent that this rule
provides greater flexibility to how
producers can obtain inspection
services, it will provide improved
services or reduce total costs to
producers by, for instance, allowing
those needing immediate inspections to
get them from an OA other than the one
to which they are assigned. Moreover,
FGIS does not believe the rule will
create significant indirect costs, aside
from minor costs to market participants
learning the rule and documenting
exceptions.
To the extent that some OAs conduct
fewer inspections because producers in
their assigned area have requested more
exceptions, other OAs will conduct
more inspections. FGIS believes that
any business losses to an OA will be
small and that any losses will be offset
by gains to other OAs. This
rearrangement of business activity
constitutes a transfer of benefits from
one OA to another and has a neutral
effect on total costs and benefits of the
rule.
To summarize, FGIS believes that the
total impact of the rule on the grain
inspection industry is not economically
significant and that the benefits of this
rule exceed its costs, which are
negligible.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46609
to consider the impact of their rules on
small entities and to evaluate
alternatives that would accomplish
objectives of the rule without unduly
burdening small entities when rules
impose a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule has an economic
impact on farms selling grain that
require inspections (classified under
North American Industry Classification
System, or NAICS, codes 111110,
111120, 111130, 111140, 111150,
111191, 111160, 111191, and 111199),
grain elevators and grain certifiers that
conduct post-harvest crop activities
(NAICS code 115114) and either require
or perform inspections. The Small
Business Administration (SBA)
considers grain farms to be small if their
sales are less than $1 million and grain
elevators and grain certifiers (OAs) to be
small if their sales are less than $30
million (13 CFR 121.201).
FGIS certifies that this rule does not
have a significant economic impact on
small businesses. This determination is
made based on FGIS’s expectation that
any small entities requiring grain
inspection, including grain farms and
grain elevators, or entities performing
grain inspection, including OAs, will
see neither a change in prices paid or
fees charged nor a loss in access to
inspection services or change in
territorial boundaries for which they can
perform inspections. Further, FGIS
believes its proposed challenge process
addresses the concern that some small
OAs may lose economic viability when
exceptions are granted to customers
under the exceptions to geographic
boundary requirement.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988—Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect. The USGSA
provides in sec. 87g that no State or
subdivision thereof may require or
impose any requirements or restrictions
concerning the inspection, weighing, or
description of grain under the Act.
This rule will not preempt any State
or local laws, regulations, or policies,
unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. No
administrative proceedings would be
required before parties could file suit in
court challenging the provisions of this
rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. Executive Order 13175
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
46610
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on: (1) Policies that
have tribal implications, including
regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation; and (2) other
policy statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
has assessed the impact of this proposed
rule on Indian tribes and determined
that this rule would not have tribal
implications that require consultation
under Executive Order 13175. AMS
hosts a quarterly teleconference with
tribal leaders where matters of mutual
interest regarding the marketing of
agricultural products are discussed.
Information about proposed changes to
regulations will be shared during an
upcoming quarterly call, and tribal
leaders will be informed about proposed
revisions to the regulation and the
opportunity to submit comments. AMS
will work with the USDA Office of
Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful
consultation is provided as needed with
regards to the proposed regulations.
AMS has provided 30 days for
comments on this proposed rule. All
comments received by September 20,
2021 will be considered prior to
finalizing this proposed rule. Comments
in response to any or all of the above
processes or proposed wording should
be submitted to the address provided in
the ADDRESSES section of this document
to ensure consideration.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800
Administrative practice and
procedure, Exports, Grains, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
FGIS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 800
as follows:
PART 800—GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 800
continues to read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
2. Amend § 800.117 by:
a. Adding paragraph (b) introductory
text;
■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and
(3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and (4),
respectively; and
■ d. Adding new paragraph (b)(2).
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
The additions and revision read as
follows:
§ 800.117
services.
Who shall perform original
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Exceptions for official agencies to
provide service. Under an exception, an
official agency may provide service to a
customer outside of their geographic
area. The applicant must request that
the Service grant an exception. As
outlined below, the Service may grant
an exceptions in instances when: The
assigned official agency is unable to
provide inspection services in a timely
manner; a person requesting inspection
services in that geographic area has not
been receiving official inspection
services from the official agency for that
geographic area; a person requesting
inspection services in that geographic
area requests a probe inspection on a
barge-lot basis; or, the assigned official
agency for that geographic area agrees in
writing with the adjacent official agency
to waive the current geographic area
restriction at the request of the applicant
for service.
(1) Timely service. The Service grants
an exception when service is not timely
as described in this section. Service is
not timely when an official agency
cannot provide requested official
services within 6 hours or cannot
provide results and certificate in
accordance with 800.160(c). Applicants
may also request timely service
exceptions for delays caused by weather
events or request a timely service
exception for services that the assigned
official agency does not offer. The
applicant must submit a request for a
timely service exception to the Service.
The applicant may make this request
orally or in writing. The applicant must
clearly state and support the identified
reason for the requested exception.
There are three consecutive tiers of
timely service exceptions: One-time, 90day, and long-term. Applicants must
progress through each tier. Applicants
must apply for and the Service must
approve a one-time exception before the
Service considers a 90-day exception.
Likewise, applicants must apply for and
the Service must approve a 90-day
exception before the Service will
consider a long-term exception. The
Service will review requests and may
contact the applicant, the assigned
official agency, or potential gaining
agency with questions during its review.
The Service will provide its
determination on the exception request
to the customer in writing.
(i) One-time. In the case of untimely
service, the ability to use another
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
official agency may be granted for the
next service request, as applicable.
(ii) 90-day. If there is an occurrence of
untimely service within 180 days of the
date of the occurrence in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section, the applicant
may request a 90-day exception. This
90-day window will begin the day the
exception is granted.
(iii) Long-term. If after a return to
service following an exception granted
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section
there is another occurrence of untimely
service within 365 days, the applicant
may request a long-term exception.
When granting this exception, the
Service may extend this exception up to
the date of termination of the gaining
agency’s designation term.
(iv) Supporting Documentation. The
applicant must submit a request for a
timely service exception and associated
supporting documentation to the
Service. The Service will give all parties
an opportunity to provide information.
The Service will request additional
information if any is needed.
(v) Review and Validation. Prior to
granting a timely service exception, the
Service will review and validate all
information submitted with the
application. If the request is urgent and
made outside of the Service’s normal
business hours, an official agency from
outside the geographic area may provide
service. When providing an urgent
service, the official agency must provide
written notification to the Service
within two business days after service.
The Service will review and validate the
circumstances of the urgent request and
the Service will verify that the request
was not false or misleading.
(vi) False or Misleading Requests. If
an applicant submits a request that the
Service determines to be false or
misleading, the Service will not grant
the exception. If an urgent request was
granted on the basis of a false and
misleading request, the Service may
deny the applicant from future urgent
timely service exceptions for a period of
up to 180 days.
(vii) Return to the Assigned Official
Agency. The applicant maintains the
option of returning to the assigned
official agency at any time with a 60-day
notification period to all parties. The
exception will be cancelled, and future
exception requests will be considered at
the beginning of successive-tiered
system.
(viii) Termination. If the Service
determines the original official agency’s
inability to provide a specific service,
limited due to weather events or service
availability, has been resolved, the
Service may terminate the long-term
exception. However, if the exception
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
was associated with the official agency’s
inability to provide service in 6 hours or
less, or timely issuance of the results
and certificate, the Service may not
terminate the exception. If the Service
terminates a long-term exception, all
parties will be notified, and the
applicant will resume service with the
assigned official agency within 60 days
of notification.
(2) Nonuse of service exception. If an
applicant has not received service from
the assigned official agency within the
last 90 days, the applicant may request
that the Service grant a nonuse of
service exception.
(i) Requests must clearly state and
support the following:
(A) The last date of service from
assigned official agency;
(B) The reason service has not been
received during this timeframe;
(C) The identified reason for the
request.
(ii) Relevant information. Applicants
may submit any relevant supporting
information. This may include, but is
not limited to:
(A) The location of the specified
service point(s);
(B) The types of services requested by
the applicant and offered by assigned
official agency;
(C) The ability of the gaining official
agency to take on additional customers;
(D) The ability of the assigned official
agency to provide the requested service;
(E) Whether the requesting facility has
ever used the official system.
(iii) Supporting Documentation.
Included with the request for an
exception, the applicant must submit
supporting documentation to the
Service. After receipt of the request, the
Service will give all parties an
opportunity to provide additional
supporting documentation. The Service
will request additional information if
any is needed.
(iv) Review and Validation. Prior to
granting an exception, the Service will
review the application and all
supporting documentation, and the
Service will conduct any necessary
analysis to estimate the exception’s
impact.
(A) Notification. The Service will
notify the assigned official agency prior
to granting an exception for nonuse of
service.
(B) Challenge. The assigned official
agency may challenge a proposed
exception for any reason. To challenge
a proposed exception, the assigned
official agency must object in writing,
and must submit supporting documents
to the Service within 14 days after the
date of notification. Documents must
clearly identify the objection and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Aug 18, 2021
Jkt 253001
support the identified reason for the
challenge.
(C) Determination. The Service will
consider impacts on the assigned
official agency, the applicant, and the
potential gaining agency when deciding
whether to grant an exception. These
impacts may include, but are not
limited to, the viability of the assigned
official agency given the loss of
business. The Service will also consider
the impact on the integrity of the official
system and confirm an exception would
not undermine the congressional
policies in section 2 of the United States
Grain Standards Act. The Service will
provide its decision in writing to the
assigned official agency, the applicant,
and the potential gaining agency.
(v) False or Misleading Requests. If an
applicant submits a request that the
Service determines is false or
misleading the Service may elect to
limit them from submitting further
requests for a period of up to 180 days.
(vi) Renewal or Termination of
Exception. The nonuse of service
exception is for the period of the gaining
agency’s designation. At the end of the
designation, the Service will review the
exception, and verify all criteria and
information. If the exception still meets
the nonuse criteria, the Service will
renew the exception for the new
designation period. In the event the
gaining agency is no longer designated,
the exception would automatically
terminate and the customer would
return to the assigned official agency. If
all parties jointly agree to the
termination of a nonuse of service
exception, the Service will terminate the
exception. In this case, the assigned
official agency must resume service
within 60 days of notification.
(vii) Historic exceptions. All nonuse
of service exceptions, that were in place
as of March 30, 2019, will be
incorporated into geographic boundaries
of the gaining agencies.
*
*
*
*
*
Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–17609 Filed 8–18–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
46611
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0012]
RIN 1904–AF22
Energy Conservation Program:
Definitions for General Service Lamps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2017, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published two final rules adopting
revised definitions of general service
lamp (‘‘GSL’’) and general service
incandescent lamp (‘‘GSIL’’), and other
supplemental definitions, to go into
effect January 1, 2020. Prior to that
effective date, on September 5, 2019,
DOE withdrew the revised definitions of
GSL, GSIL, and the other supplemental
definitions. Upon further review and
consideration, in this notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes to
adopt the definitions of GSL and GSIL
and the associated supplemental
definitions set forth in the January 2017
final rules. This document also
announces a public meeting to receive
comment on these proposed definitions.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Thursday,
September 30, 2021, from 10:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR no later than
October 18, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments identified by docket
number EERE–2021–BT–STD–0012, and
by email: To
2021STD0012GSLDefinitions@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2021–BT–STD–0012 in the
subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM
19AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46606-46611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17609]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 158 / Thursday, August 19, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46606]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 800
[Doc. No. AMS-FGIS-19-0062]
RIN 0581-AD90
Exceptions to Geographic Boundaries
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking invites public input on
proposed revisions to Federal Grain Inspection regulations. The
Agricultural Marketing Service is required to revise the regulations as
a result of 2018 Farm Bill amendments to the U.S. Grain Standards Act.
Revised regulations would allow designated official agencies to perform
grain inspections outside their geographic areas under certain
additional conditions. Proposed revisions are based on industry input
and are intended to provide additional flexibility to the industry.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 20, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted through the Federal e-rulemaking
portal at https://www.regulations.gov and should reference the document
number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal
Register. All comments submitted in response to this document will be
included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please
be advised that the identity of individuals or entities submitting
comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided
above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Parker, Deputy Director,
Quality Assurance and Compliance Division, Federal Grain Inspection
Service, AMS, USDA; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.), each
official agencies (OA) in the United States is assigned a specific
geographic area where it performs all official grain inspection and
weighing services for customers within that geographic area (7 U.S.C.
79(f)(2)(A)). This ensures effective and efficient delivery of official
services to all customers within the assigned OA's geographic area and
enhances the orderly marketing of grain. The U.S. Grain Standards Act
(USGSA) also provides that customers may obtain services from other OAs
under certain circumstances. The Secretary may allow OAs to cross
geographic boundaries to provide services to requesting customers if:
(1) The assigned OA is unable to provide necessary services on a timely
basis; (2) the customer has not been receiving official inspection
services from the assigned OA; (3) the customer requests probe
inspection on barge-lot basis; or (4) the assigned OA agrees in writing
with the adjacent OA to waive the current geographic restriction at the
customer's request (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(B)). These allowances are
considered exceptions to the USGSA's standard requirements regarding
the use of designated OAs to perform inspection services within
specified geographic areas. Exceptions must be approved on a case-by-
case basis by the Agricultural Marketing Service's Federal Grain
Inspection Service (FGIS) that administers regulations under the
USGSA.\1\ Regulations in 7 CFR part 800 provide limitations for use of
these exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FGIS, formerly part of USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration, was merged with USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Exceptions
A notable exception that has been implemented in the past is known
as the nonuse of service exception. In that exception, a customer who
had not obtained inspection services from the assigned OA for a
specified length of time could obtain services from another OA. At
times, regulations required customers to have not used their designated
OA for at least 90 consecutive days; at other times the regulations
specified a 180-day nonuse period before the customer could apply for
service from another OA. However, lack of clarity about how FGIS
determined whether to grant nonuse of service exceptions fostered
confusion and conflicts among involved parties and created a perception
of inconsistency regarding the handling of such requests. Congress
eliminated the nonuse of service exception from the USGSA in 2015; \2\
FGIS subsequently removed that exception from the regulations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agricultural Reauthorizations Act of 2015, enacted
September 20, 2015 (Pub. L. 114-54 sec. 301(b)(3)(A)).
\3\ 81 FR 49855, July 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the nonuse of service exception was eliminated from the
USGSA in 2015, Congress reinstated authority to implement a nonuse of
service exception through an amendment to the USGSA in the 2018 Farm
Bill.\4\ FGIS must now consider regulatory options related to the
reinstatement of the nonuse of service exception (see 7 U.S.C.
79(f)(2)(B)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018, enacted December
20, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334 sec. 12610(a)(1)(D)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 2020, FGIS published an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) (85 FR 18155) to solicit public comments on how FGIS
should amend its criteria for reviewing, approving, and implementing
exceptions to USGSA's requirements for geographic boundaries. FGIS
received six comments on the ANPR. We have incorporated industry
feedback from the ANPR, along with input received during industry
meetings, to develop this proposed rule (PR). FGIS is requesting public
comment on options for timely service and nonuse of service, as defined
within this PR. Particularly, FGIS seeks input from industry
participants and OAs who use and provide official services and are
familiar with grain inspection services under the USGSA. We welcome the
submission of data and other information to support commenters' views.
As a result of public input received on the PR, FGIS will develop a
final rule for publication in the Federal Register.
Restoration of Previous Nonuse of Service Exceptions
Subsequent to 2015 amendments to the USGSA and the 2016 changes to
the FGIS regulations, a number of nonuse of service exceptions were
terminated. The 2018 Farm Bill directed USDA to allow for restoration
of those exceptions where appropriate. Interested parties were given an
opportunity to submit restoration requests to FGIS, as
[[Page 46607]]
described in a Notice to Trade published on March 5, 2019.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Restoring Certain Exceptions to the U.S. Grain Standards
Act, published March 5, 2019. https://www.ams.usda.gov/content/restoring-certain-exceptions-us-grain-standards-act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Nonuse of Service Exceptions
The amended USGSA provides that the nonuse of service exception may
only be terminated if all parties to the exception jointly agree on the
termination.\6\ This means that the customer, the assigned OA, the OA
that has been providing service under the exception (gaining OA), and
FGIS must agree to terminate the exception. This ensures that: (1) All
parties are aware of the change and (2) the assigned OA will resume
providing service to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law 115-334 sec. 12610(a)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement for all parties to the exception to jointly agree
on termination of the nonuse of service exception does not apply if the
designation of an OA is terminated.\7\ If the designation of an OA is
renewed or restored after being terminated, the exceptions that were
previously approved, under 7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)(B), may be renewed or
restored by requesting a determination from FGIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 115-334 sec. 12610(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment Review
The ANPR suggested three criteria for timely service exceptions and
four criteria for nonuse of service exceptions, and requested input on
11 questions regarding factors that could impact decisions on
exceptions. FGIS would like to thank those who participated in this
process for providing valuable input. Not all commenters provided
feedback on criteria for every exemption or on every question in the
ANPR. Most recognized the need for the official system to be customer
focused and to provide timely and accurate services.
FGIS received mixed comments about timely service and nonuse of
service exceptions. Some commenters stated that they thought the nonuse
of service exception involved the inability of the OA to provide timely
service. The USGSA specifies these are two separate exceptions;
therefore, FGIS is using the feedback to the ANPR to improve and
clarify the requirements under the appropriate exception.
The ANPR criteria for timely service exceptions included that: the
requesting facility would be required to submit a written or verbal
request for an exception to FGIS, along with documentation regarding
the designated OA's inability to provide service within six hours from
the requested service. Further, the OA would have to be unable to
provide requested services within timeframes established in the OA's
approved fee schedule. The ANPR criteria for nonuse of service
exception requests included the requesting facility (customer or
applicant) demonstrating they have not received official services for
90 days, documenting why they have not received service, and providing
a written or verbal request for an exception. In addition, the ANPR
suggested potential factors for consideration, some of which now fit
within the expanded criteria for timely service requests.
In the feedback to the ANPR criteria for timely service exceptions,
some commenters supported the criteria but provided differing opinions
on how to apply the criterion regarding timeframes for services
provided. One suggested that customers should not be allowed to
routinely call their OA after business hours as a mechanism for
obtaining service from another OA. Here, FGIS notes parameters required
for requesting official services are defined in 800.116(b) and OA fee
schedules. FGIS also received requests to clarify which services are
included in a timely service exception. Industry feedback indicates
some OA's do not offer all official services some customers request.
Others indicate that weather events could impact access to timely
service. Timely service exceptions criterion in this PR would provide
an avenue to accommodate these situations.
In the feedback to the ANPR criteria for nonuse of service
exceptions, some commenters asked FGIS to add flexibility to the nonuse
of service exception and to rename it ``service exception''. According
to industry input, customers occasionally face limitations in the types
of services offered by the assigned OA. This again indicated to FGIS
that there is confusion about the criteria for timely service and the
criteria for nonuse of service exceptions. In addition, the feedback on
the number of days without official service (for nonuse of service
exceptions) had a wide range, from 30 to 180 days. As stated in the
ANPR, prior ranges allowed were between 90 to 180 days in length. A
period of 90 days is within timeframes used for the nonuse of service
exception in the past and is a compromise based on timeframes suggested
in the comments.
In the general feedback to the ANPR, FGIS received comments
expressing concern that some requests for exceptions relayed false or
misleading information. These comments questioned how FGIS would
validate requests for exceptions and whether the assigned OA would have
an opportunity to respond to the request. Therefore, FGIS proposes
adding a validation process for requests for exceptions. This would
allow all parties to submit information and data regarding the request.
FGIS would review information and assess requests to ensure the
integrity of the official system is maintained. FGIS also received
feedback expressing concern that nonuse of service exceptions
negatively impact the integrity of the official system. FGIS has
attempted to address all feedback within this PR.
Overview
Amendments proposed would modify parameters for the exceptions
program for timely service and reinstate the exception program for
nonuse of service in 7 CFR 800.117, to comply with amendments made to
the USGSA in the 2018 Farm Bill. This PR incorporates feedback received
from the public on the ANPR to create a clear, consistent, and fair
framework for considering and granting these exceptions, which allow
designated OAs to perform grain inspections outside their geographic
areas under certain conditions. Timely service and nonuse of service
are two of those conditions. This PR defines and differentiates between
timely service and nonuse of service exceptions and their associated
requirements.
Under Sec. 800.117(b)(1), the industry would have a mechanism to
request and receive timely service from an alternate OA. Applicants
could also request timely service exceptions for delays caused by
weather events and requests for services that are not offered by the
assigned OA. For a timely service exception, FGIS would grant an
exception when: (1) The designated OA is unable to provide services to
an applicant within 6 hours or the OA is unable to provide results and
certificate in accordance with 800.160(c); or (2) a request for
services not offered by the assigned OA would result in an inability to
receive timely service; or (3) a weather event or impact caused by a
weather event results in an inability to receive timely service from
the assigned OA; and (4) granting an exception is in the best interest
of the integrity of the official system. It is important to note that
not all of these instances indicate a delay caused by the assigned OA
and that the reasons and justification for the exception request weigh
more prominently for nonuse of service requests than timely service.
This PR proposes a tiered progression for timely service exceptions.
The first is a one-time timely service exception. In the
[[Page 46608]]
case of untimely service, the ability to use another official agency
may be granted for the next service request, as applicable. The second
is a 90-day timely service exception. If, after the first request is
granted, a second instance occurs within 180 days, the customer may
apply for a 90-day exception. Once granted, the alternate OA would
provide services to the customer for 90 days. The third is a long-term
timely service exception. If there is another occurrence, within 365
days of the return to the assigned OA, the applicant may request a
long-term exception, extending until the termination date of the
gaining agency's designation. If FGIS determines the assigned OA's
inability to provide a specific service, limited due to weather events
or service availability, has been resolved, FGIS may terminate the
long-term exception. If FGIS terminates a long-term exception, all
parties would be notified, and the applicant would resume service with
the assigned OA within 60 days of notification. However, if the
exception was associated with the assigned OA's inability to provide
service in 6 hours or less, or timely issuance of the results and
certificate, FGIS may not terminate the exception. During the duration
of exceptions caused by a failure of the assigned OA to supply timely
service, the assigned OA should work on improving their ability to
provide the requested services.
For nonuse of service exception requests, this PR defines the
period of nonuse as 90 days. The PR also specifies, but does not limit,
categories FGIS would take into consideration when reviewing requests
for nonuse of service exceptions. These include: (1) The location of
the specified service point(s); (2) the ability of the alternate OA to
take on additional customers; (3) the ability of the assigned OA to
staff an onsite laboratory; (4) whether the requesting facility has
ever previously utilized the official system (i.e., facilities that
have never used the official system would not qualify for nonuse of
service exception, nor would a facility that was under new ownership by
a company with no history of use of the official system). For a nonuse
of service exception, FGIS would grant an exception when: (1) An OA has
not provided service to an applicant within their assigned geographic
area within the established time period, (2) FGIS receives a request
for a nonuse of service exception from an applicant, and (3) granting
an exception is in the best interest of the integrity of the official
system. In some cases, the cost of the equipment is more than the OA
would be able to recoup, due to the infrequency of the requests. FGIS
would take these factors into consideration when reviewing requests for
exceptions and would work with the OAs and customers to find a
solution.
FGIS recognizes there may be instances where granting an exception
may impact the assigned OA's viability and instances where there is
concern about the integrity of the official system. In such instances,
FGIS proposes adding a challenge process into this regulation. As an
example, FGIS would consider factors such as percent of business or
percent of customers lost due to 90-day and long-term exceptions.
Requests for a challenge must clearly state and support the identified
reason for the request. The assigned OA must include supporting
documentation for FGIS to review as part of this process. FGIS seeks
input from industry participants and OAs on the challenge process. We
welcome and encourage the submission of data and other information to
support commenters' views.
FGIS proposes to add the nonuse of service exception back into the
regulations, under Sec. 800.117(b)(2). The industry would be able to
apply for official services from an alternate OA if they have not
received official services within the previous 90 days. In addition,
FGIS proposes to evaluate criteria defined in the section to promote
clarity, consistency, and transparency. FGIS also proposes to expand
and clarify options for exceptions under timely service. Applications
for timely service exceptions would undergo a more streamlined approval
process and require less rigorous justification by the applicant than
those submitted for nonuse of service exceptions. For both types of
exceptions, the PR establishes processes to address assigned OA
concerns of potentially false or misleading exception requests and
validation of requests by FGIS.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563--
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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 of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility.
In this initial evaluation of costs and benefits of the rule, FGIS
has determined that the proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Moreover, FGIS finds that the
rule does not create any new material costs for industry.
Baseline
Under the USGSA, the USDA regulates the inspection of barley,
canola, corn, flaxseed, mixed grain, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans,
sunflower seed, triticale, and wheat. This rule impacts the 42 OAs that
provide USDA-regulated grain certification and the 5,218 commercial
entities they serve. In FY2020, OAs performed 3,093,261 grain
inspections of 240.3 million metric tons of grain.\8\ FGIS expects
fewer than one percent of the entities served by OAs to request and be
granted exceptions under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) Program
Data at: https://fgisonline.ams.usda.gov/F_DEC/AnnualReport.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Official inspection costs represent a very small percentage of the
total value of grain shipment. In 2018, FGIS calculated weighted
average costs for inspections for different carriers as follows: $24.50
for a semi-truck capable of carrying 58,000 pounds, $24.65 for a
railcar capable of carrying 220,000 pounds, and $234.42 for a barge
capable of carrying 3,000,000 pounds of grain. For example, if the
price of wheat was $5 for a 60-pound bushel, the cost of the inspection
would represent 0.53% of the revenue for a truck, 0.13% of the revenue
for a railcar train, and 0.08% of the revenue for a barge.
Need for the Rule
Federally regulated grain inspection is designed to remedy two
competing sources of market failure--asymmetric information and market
power--while preserving the ability of small producers to access
markets. This rule increases the flexibility of the existing inspection
program without affecting the program's quality standards or the
ability of small sellers to access inspection services. Greater
flexibility in allowing producers to obtain inspection services,
however, will save costs and provide them greater ability to meet
potential market opportunities.
Many agricultural products, including grain, vary in important
quality characteristics due to both farm production decisions and
idiosyncratic factors. In the absence of a quality verification
process, sellers in transactions may have more knowledge
[[Page 46609]]
of product quality than buyers, a condition called asymmetric
information. Akerlof (1970) showed asymmetric information can cause
economic inefficiencies in which producers forego investments that are
less costly to implement than the benefit they provide consumers.\9\
Third-party inspection that verifies a product's quality resolves this
source of market failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ George Akerlof, ``The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty
and the Market Mechanism'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain inspectors certify the protein content, kernel size, and
other quality factors related to product's market value to simplify
transactions. Since the outcome of grain inspections directly affects
the sale price, biases and inconsistences in inspection methods might
potentially redistribute the gains to trade from seller to buyer, or
vice versa. Market power might exacerbate the tendency to bias and
inconsistency if, for instance, large sellers or buyers can influence
the outcome of quality inspections in their favor. In addition to
fairness concerns, such opportunistic behavior creates economic
inefficiencies by reducing returns on investment in quality improvement
and creating costs for downstream producers (i.e., bakers and food
processors) expecting products of certain quality.
Grain inspection is an optional service. When information
asymmetries are a concern, inspection facilitates simpler, more rapid,
and less risky transaction of final product. By allowing producers to
recoup the costs of quality improvement, grain inspection also
encourages investment in quality improvement.
Under its regulatory authority, the USDA approves grain inspection
standards and monitors their uniform application by OAs. To promote a
competitive market for grain, in which all producers have access to
inspection services, FGIS requires that OAs provide inspection services
to all producers in an assigned area and regulates marketing fee
schedules charged by OAs for these services. FGIS approves rates to
cover various labor, laboratory, and travel costs and only approves
differential rates across geographic areas if underlying costs differ
across assigned regions. For this reason, FGIS does not expect this
rule to impact the prices paid by inspection users or the fees received
by OAs. Instead, FGIS expects this rule will allow the small fraction
of inspection users who need ``timely service'' and ``nonuse of
service'' exceptions greater flexibility in obtaining inspections
services to meet immediate business requirements.
Benefits and Costs of the Rule
FGIS considers economic benefits of this rule as being three-fold.
First, the rule provides clarity to producers regarding the terms under
which exceptions are granted. Second, the rule increases options to
producers who require inspection services to market their grain. FGIS
expects that this option will be utilized by fewer than one percent
producers who need inspections services quickly but face service
constraints by OAs. Third, the rule may heighten attention to service
issues among OAs that have received nonuse of service exception
requests. The validation process FGIS will maintain as part of the
granting of exceptions will ensure requests serve a valid business
purpose. OAs may offer additional services such as a broader range of
testing as a result.
FGIS does not ascribe any direct compliance costs to either OAs or
producers as a result of the potential increase for timely service and
nonuse of service exceptions under this rule. FGIS does not expect that
inspection fees it approves will change as a result of this rule. To
the extent that this rule provides greater flexibility to how producers
can obtain inspection services, it will provide improved services or
reduce total costs to producers by, for instance, allowing those
needing immediate inspections to get them from an OA other than the one
to which they are assigned. Moreover, FGIS does not believe the rule
will create significant indirect costs, aside from minor costs to
market participants learning the rule and documenting exceptions.
To the extent that some OAs conduct fewer inspections because
producers in their assigned area have requested more exceptions, other
OAs will conduct more inspections. FGIS believes that any business
losses to an OA will be small and that any losses will be offset by
gains to other OAs. This rearrangement of business activity constitutes
a transfer of benefits from one OA to another and has a neutral effect
on total costs and benefits of the rule.
To summarize, FGIS believes that the total impact of the rule on
the grain inspection industry is not economically significant and that
the benefits of this rule exceed its costs, which are negligible.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires agencies to consider the impact of their rules on small
entities and to evaluate alternatives that would accomplish objectives
of the rule without unduly burdening small entities when rules impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule has an economic impact on farms selling grain that require
inspections (classified under North American Industry Classification
System, or NAICS, codes 111110, 111120, 111130, 111140, 111150, 111191,
111160, 111191, and 111199), grain elevators and grain certifiers that
conduct post-harvest crop activities (NAICS code 115114) and either
require or perform inspections. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
considers grain farms to be small if their sales are less than $1
million and grain elevators and grain certifiers (OAs) to be small if
their sales are less than $30 million (13 CFR 121.201).
FGIS certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic
impact on small businesses. This determination is made based on FGIS's
expectation that any small entities requiring grain inspection,
including grain farms and grain elevators, or entities performing grain
inspection, including OAs, will see neither a change in prices paid or
fees charged nor a loss in access to inspection services or change in
territorial boundaries for which they can perform inspections. Further,
FGIS believes its proposed challenge process addresses the concern that
some small OAs may lose economic viability when exceptions are granted
to customers under the exceptions to geographic boundary requirement.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988--
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The USGSA provides in sec. 87g that no State or subdivision
thereof may require or impose any requirements or restrictions
concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of grain under the
Act.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. No administrative proceedings would be required before parties
could file suit in court challenging the provisions of this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. Executive Order 13175
[[Page 46610]]
requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a
government- to-government basis on: (1) Policies that have tribal
implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed
legislation; and (2) other policy statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has assessed the impact of
this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would
not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive
Order 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly teleconference with tribal leaders
where matters of mutual interest regarding the marketing of
agricultural products are discussed. Information about proposed changes
to regulations will be shared during an upcoming quarterly call, and
tribal leaders will be informed about proposed revisions to the
regulation and the opportunity to submit comments. AMS will work with
the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation
is provided as needed with regards to the proposed regulations.
AMS has provided 30 days for comments on this proposed rule. All
comments received by September 20, 2021 will be considered prior to
finalizing this proposed rule. Comments in response to any or all of
the above processes or proposed wording should be submitted to the
address provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document to ensure
consideration.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Grains, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, FGIS proposes to amend 7 CFR
part 800 as follows:
PART 800--GENERAL REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 800 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
0
2. Amend Sec. 800.117 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and
(4), respectively; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (b)(2).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 800.117 Who shall perform original services.
* * * * *
(b) Exceptions for official agencies to provide service. Under an
exception, an official agency may provide service to a customer outside
of their geographic area. The applicant must request that the Service
grant an exception. As outlined below, the Service may grant an
exceptions in instances when: The assigned official agency is unable to
provide inspection services in a timely manner; a person requesting
inspection services in that geographic area has not been receiving
official inspection services from the official agency for that
geographic area; a person requesting inspection services in that
geographic area requests a probe inspection on a barge-lot basis; or,
the assigned official agency for that geographic area agrees in writing
with the adjacent official agency to waive the current geographic area
restriction at the request of the applicant for service.
(1) Timely service. The Service grants an exception when service is
not timely as described in this section. Service is not timely when an
official agency cannot provide requested official services within 6
hours or cannot provide results and certificate in accordance with
800.160(c). Applicants may also request timely service exceptions for
delays caused by weather events or request a timely service exception
for services that the assigned official agency does not offer. The
applicant must submit a request for a timely service exception to the
Service. The applicant may make this request orally or in writing. The
applicant must clearly state and support the identified reason for the
requested exception. There are three consecutive tiers of timely
service exceptions: One-time, 90-day, and long-term. Applicants must
progress through each tier. Applicants must apply for and the Service
must approve a one-time exception before the Service considers a 90-day
exception. Likewise, applicants must apply for and the Service must
approve a 90-day exception before the Service will consider a long-term
exception. The Service will review requests and may contact the
applicant, the assigned official agency, or potential gaining agency
with questions during its review. The Service will provide its
determination on the exception request to the customer in writing.
(i) One-time. In the case of untimely service, the ability to use
another official agency may be granted for the next service request, as
applicable.
(ii) 90-day. If there is an occurrence of untimely service within
180 days of the date of the occurrence in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section, the applicant may request a 90-day exception. This 90-day
window will begin the day the exception is granted.
(iii) Long-term. If after a return to service following an
exception granted under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section there is
another occurrence of untimely service within 365 days, the applicant
may request a long-term exception. When granting this exception, the
Service may extend this exception up to the date of termination of the
gaining agency's designation term.
(iv) Supporting Documentation. The applicant must submit a request
for a timely service exception and associated supporting documentation
to the Service. The Service will give all parties an opportunity to
provide information. The Service will request additional information if
any is needed.
(v) Review and Validation. Prior to granting a timely service
exception, the Service will review and validate all information
submitted with the application. If the request is urgent and made
outside of the Service's normal business hours, an official agency from
outside the geographic area may provide service. When providing an
urgent service, the official agency must provide written notification
to the Service within two business days after service. The Service will
review and validate the circumstances of the urgent request and the
Service will verify that the request was not false or misleading.
(vi) False or Misleading Requests. If an applicant submits a
request that the Service determines to be false or misleading, the
Service will not grant the exception. If an urgent request was granted
on the basis of a false and misleading request, the Service may deny
the applicant from future urgent timely service exceptions for a period
of up to 180 days.
(vii) Return to the Assigned Official Agency. The applicant
maintains the option of returning to the assigned official agency at
any time with a 60-day notification period to all parties. The
exception will be cancelled, and future exception requests will be
considered at the beginning of successive-tiered system.
(viii) Termination. If the Service determines the original official
agency's inability to provide a specific service, limited due to
weather events or service availability, has been resolved, the Service
may terminate the long-term exception. However, if the exception
[[Page 46611]]
was associated with the official agency's inability to provide service
in 6 hours or less, or timely issuance of the results and certificate,
the Service may not terminate the exception. If the Service terminates
a long-term exception, all parties will be notified, and the applicant
will resume service with the assigned official agency within 60 days of
notification.
(2) Nonuse of service exception. If an applicant has not received
service from the assigned official agency within the last 90 days, the
applicant may request that the Service grant a nonuse of service
exception.
(i) Requests must clearly state and support the following:
(A) The last date of service from assigned official agency;
(B) The reason service has not been received during this timeframe;
(C) The identified reason for the request.
(ii) Relevant information. Applicants may submit any relevant
supporting information. This may include, but is not limited to:
(A) The location of the specified service point(s);
(B) The types of services requested by the applicant and offered by
assigned official agency;
(C) The ability of the gaining official agency to take on
additional customers;
(D) The ability of the assigned official agency to provide the
requested service;
(E) Whether the requesting facility has ever used the official
system.
(iii) Supporting Documentation. Included with the request for an
exception, the applicant must submit supporting documentation to the
Service. After receipt of the request, the Service will give all
parties an opportunity to provide additional supporting documentation.
The Service will request additional information if any is needed.
(iv) Review and Validation. Prior to granting an exception, the
Service will review the application and all supporting documentation,
and the Service will conduct any necessary analysis to estimate the
exception's impact.
(A) Notification. The Service will notify the assigned official
agency prior to granting an exception for nonuse of service.
(B) Challenge. The assigned official agency may challenge a
proposed exception for any reason. To challenge a proposed exception,
the assigned official agency must object in writing, and must submit
supporting documents to the Service within 14 days after the date of
notification. Documents must clearly identify the objection and support
the identified reason for the challenge.
(C) Determination. The Service will consider impacts on the
assigned official agency, the applicant, and the potential gaining
agency when deciding whether to grant an exception. These impacts may
include, but are not limited to, the viability of the assigned official
agency given the loss of business. The Service will also consider the
impact on the integrity of the official system and confirm an exception
would not undermine the congressional policies in section 2 of the
United States Grain Standards Act. The Service will provide its
decision in writing to the assigned official agency, the applicant, and
the potential gaining agency.
(v) False or Misleading Requests. If an applicant submits a request
that the Service determines is false or misleading the Service may
elect to limit them from submitting further requests for a period of up
to 180 days.
(vi) Renewal or Termination of Exception. The nonuse of service
exception is for the period of the gaining agency's designation. At the
end of the designation, the Service will review the exception, and
verify all criteria and information. If the exception still meets the
nonuse criteria, the Service will renew the exception for the new
designation period. In the event the gaining agency is no longer
designated, the exception would automatically terminate and the
customer would return to the assigned official agency. If all parties
jointly agree to the termination of a nonuse of service exception, the
Service will terminate the exception. In this case, the assigned
official agency must resume service within 60 days of notification.
(vii) Historic exceptions. All nonuse of service exceptions, that
were in place as of March 30, 2019, will be incorporated into
geographic boundaries of the gaining agencies.
* * * * *
Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17609 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P