Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State Assessments to the National Program
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 20765 |
| Record Number | 2019-09700 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Agricultural Marketing Service |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20765-20771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09700]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2019 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 20765]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1220 and 1260
[No. AMS-LPS-13-0083]
RIN 0581-AD49
Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef
Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State
Assessments to the National Program
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Soybean Promotion, Research, and
Consumer Information Order (Soybean Order) and the Beef Promotion and
Research Order (Beef Order) to add provisions allowing producers
subject to these Orders to request, under certain circumstances, that
their assessments paid to a State board or council authorized under
their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. The
final rule also makes technical amendments to the Beef Order.
DATES: The final rule is effective June 12, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Payne, Research and Promotion
Division, at (202) 720-1118, fax (202) 720-1125, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771
This rulemaking does not meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). 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. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
Executive Order 13175
AMS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule will not, to our knowledge, have tribal
implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order
13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, AMS will work with the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations to ensure
meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and
modifications are identified in this final rule.
Background Summary and Final Action Taken
Soybean Order
The Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act
(Soybean Act) (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court.
Under section 1971 of the Soybean Act, a person subject to the Soybean
Order may file a petition with USDA stating that the Soybean Order, any
provision of the Soybean Order, or any obligation imposed in connection
with the Soybean Order, is not in accordance with the law and request a
modification of the Soybean Order or an exemption from the Soybean
Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Soybean
Act provides that district courts of the United States in any district
in which such person is an inhabitant, or has their principal place of
business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, if
a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of
the entry of the ruling.
Further, section 1974 of the Soybean Act provides, with certain
exceptions, that nothing in the Soybean Act may be construed to preempt
or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion, research,
consumer information, or industry information organized under the laws
of the United States or any State. One exception in the Soybean Act
concerns assessments collected by Qualified State Soybean Boards
(QSSBs). The exception provides that to ensure adequate funding of the
operations of QSSBs under the Soybean Act, no State law or regulation
may limit or have the effect of limiting the full amount of assessments
that a QSSB in that State may collect, and which is authorized to be
credited under the Soybean Act. Another exception concerns certain
referenda conducted during specified periods by a State relating to the
continuation of a QSSB or State soybean assessment.
Beef Order
Section 11 of the Beef Research and Promotion Act of 1985 (Beef
Act) (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911) provides that nothing in the Beef Act may be
construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef
promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or
any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
rule.
Soybean Order Amendments
The Soybean Act and the Soybean Order issued thereunder authorize
the collection of an assessment from soybean producers of one-half of
one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans,
processed soybeans, or soybean products. In most cases, these
assessments are collected by QSSBs that retain up to half of the
assessments as authorized by the Soybean Act. The QSSBs as defined
under Section 1967(14) of the Soybean Act will forward the remainder to
the United Soybean Board (Soybean Board), which administers the
national soybean checkoff program.
The original Soybean Order, which became effective July 9, 1991,
mandated that all producers marketing soybeans pay an assessment of
one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market price of the
market price of soybeans sold. The original Soybean Order contained a
provision in Sec. 1220.228(b)(5)(i), which required QSSBs that were
authorized or required
[[Page 20766]]
to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Soybean Board that they
would honor any request from a producer for a refund from the QSSB by
forwarding to the Soybean Board those contributions for which the
producer received a credit, pursuant to Sec. 1220.223(a)(3). In other
words, this section implicitly authorized refunds by the QSSB if State
law allowed or required the QSSB to pay refunds; it further directed
that the producer receive a credit for those refunds, with the amount
sent to the Soybean Board.
In late 1995, 7 CFR 1220.228(b)(5)(i) was removed as part of a
referendum process and rulemaking to eliminate obsolete regulatory
language. However, the rulemaking inadvertently removed language that
should have been retained regarding a producer's ability to redirect
funds to the national program should they choose to do so. While this
provision was removed from the order, QSSBs were still required to
comply with the terms of their certification as a QSSB and, therefore,
continued to allow for redirection of funds at the producer's request.
In States where payments to a QSSB are not required by State law,
the opportunity for producers to choose, on a monthly basis, to direct
the full federal assessment to the Soybean Board is already AMS'
current policy and required under a QSSB's certification; this rule is
intended to formalize the policy. Therefore, AMS is adding provisions
that remedy the removal of the original refund language. A new
provision is added to the Soybean Order to (i) require producers in
States where refunds are authorized to forward that refund to the
Soybean Board and (ii) provide an opportunity for a refund if the QSSB
is not authorized by State statute but is organized and operating
within a State and is certified by the Soybean Board, as provided by
Sec. 1220.228(a)(2). To avail themselves of this option, producers
need to submit to their QSSB a form (QSSB-1) postmarked by the 30th day
of the month following the month the soybeans were sold. Assessments
will not be able to be retroactively redirected from the QSSB to the
Soybean Board. Likewise, AMS will require that the QSSB must respond by
the last day of the month following the month in which the OMB-approved
QSSB-1 form was received.
Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a
producer is required by the Soybean Act to pay an assessment of one-
half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans,
processed soybeans, or soybean products. Several States have additional
producer assessments, mandated by State statutes, that are collected in
addition to the assessment required by the Soybean Act. If a QSSB
offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSSB can only
refund to the producer any State assessment collected in excess of the
assessment that the producer is required to pay under the Soybean Act.
AMS will allow the portion of the assessment compelled by the Soybean
Act that the QSSB would normally keep to be redirected to the national
program by the producer if State law allows.
Examples:
Example 1--States with no State Law: A soybean producer in
California pays an assessment for a soybean sale. The assessment is
collected by a certified Western Region Soybean Board, which keeps 50%
and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. California has no
State law requiring a California assessment, so the California producer
may request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by the
Western Region Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.
Example 2--States with a State Law that Authorizes
Refunds: A soybean producer in Iowa pays an assessment for a soybean
sale. The assessment is collected by Iowa Soybean Promotion Board,
which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board.
Iowa has a State law with a refund provision, so the Iowa producer may
request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by the Iowa
Soybean Promotion Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.
Example 3--States with a State Law that Does Not Authorize
Refunds: A soybean producer in Virginia pays an assessment for a
soybean sale. The assessment is collected by the Virginia Soybean Board
which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board.
Virginia has a State law with no refund provision, so the Virginia
soybean producer may not request that the 50% of the assessment amount
retained by the Virginia Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean
Board.
Beef Order Amendments
Similarly, the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act)
and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) issued
thereunder authorize the collection of an assessment from cattle
producers of $1.00 per head of cattle sold. In most cases, these
assessments are collected by Qualified State Beef Councils (QSBCs) that
retain up to one-half of the assessments, as authorized by the Beef
Act.\1\ The QSBCs, as defined under Section 3(14) of the Beef Act, are
required to forward the remainder to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and
Research Board (Beef Board), which administers the national beef
checkoff program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Montana Beef Council is currently required by court
order to obtain prior affirmative consent from producers before
retaining any portion of the federal assessment.
\2\ Section 3(14) of the Beef Act states that ``the term
``qualified State beef council'' means a beef promotion entity that
is authorized by State statute or is organized and operating within
a State, that receives voluntary contributions and conducts beef
promotion, research, and consumer information programs, and that is
recognized by the Board as the beef promotion entity within such
State.'' 7 U.S.C. 2902(14). Likewise, 7 CFR 1260.115 of the Beef
Order states ``Qualified State beef council means a beef promotion
entity that is authorized by State statute or a beef promotion
entity organized and operating within a State that receives
voluntary assessments or contributions; conducts beef promotion,
research, and consumer and industry information programs; and that
is certified by the Board pursuant to this subpart as the beef
promotion entity in such State.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original Beef Order, which became effective July 18, 1986,
mandated that all producers owning and marketing cattle pay an
assessment of $1.00 per head of cattle, to be collected each time
cattle are sold. The original Beef Order contained a provision in Sec.
1260.181(b)(5), which required QSBCs that were authorized or required
by State law to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Beef Board
that they would honor any request from a producer for a refund from the
QSBC by forwarding to the Beef Board those contributions for which the
producer received a credit, pursuant to Sec. 1260.172(a)(3). In other
words, this section authorized refunds by the QSBC if State law allowed
or required the QSBC to pay refunds; it further directed that the
producer receive a credit for those refunds, with the amount redirected
to the Beef Board.
In late 1995, 7 CFR 1260.181(b)(5) was removed as part of
rulemaking to eliminate obsolete regulatory language. However, the
rulemaking inadvertently removed language that should have been
retained regarding a producer's ability to redirect funds to the
national program should they choose to do so. While this provision was
removed from the order, QSBCs were still required to comply with the
terms of their certification as a QSBC and, therefore, continued to
allow for redirection of funds at the producer's request. Therefore,
AMS is adding provisions to remedy the removal of the original language
in Sec. 1260.181.
Furthermore, while the Beef Act and Beef Order authorize QSBCs to
retain up to 50 cents per head of cattle assessed, neither the Beef Act
nor the Beef Order
[[Page 20767]]
require producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per-head
assessment to a QSBC. Thus, unless a State statute requires the
collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in the Beef Act
(the federal assessment) or requires producers to contribute a portion
of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the State beef council,
producers are able to choose whether or not to contribute up to 50
cents per head of the federal assessment to their QSBC. While the
original Beef Order did not address the specific situation that allows
producers to choose whether or not to contribute up to 50 cents per
head of the federal assessment to a QSBC, AMS is addressing this in the
new language. A new provision is being added to the Beef Order to (i)
require QSBCs in States where refunds to producers of the $1.00-per-
head assessment collected per the Beef Act and Order are authorized by
State statute to forward that refund to the Beef Board, and (ii)
provide an opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full
$1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board in States where
State law does not require the collection of the $1.00-per-head
assessment set forth in the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or in
States where State statutes do not require producers to contribute a
portion of the $1.00-per head federal assessment to the State beef
council.
In States where payments to a QSBC are not required by State law,
the opportunity for producers to choose, on a monthly basis, to direct
the full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board is already
AMS' current policy; this rule is intended to formalize the policy. The
Beef Board also conveyed this policy in its July 26, 2018, memo
``Obligation to Redirect Assessments Upon Producer Request if Not
Precluded by State Law.\3\ As QSBCs are responsible for collecting
assessments on cattle sold in or originating in their State (Sec. Sec.
1260.172(a)(5) and 1260.181(b)(3)), producers who are allowed refunds
under State statutes and choose to redirect the full $1.00-per-head
assessment to the Beef Board must submit to the QSBC a written request
on an approved request form (QSBC-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.beefboard.org/library/files/redirection-memo-072916.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
QSBCs generally describe the requirements and process for refunds
in their Application for Certification that is reviewed and approved by
the Beef Board. As part of their certification requirements, QSBCs must
certify that any requests from producers for refunds will be honored by
forwarding such request to the Beef Board if allowed by state law. In
practice, QSBCs follow similar operating procedures for collecting the
$1.00-per-head assessment across collection points (e.g., markets,
dealers, brokers) and are required to reconcile transactions on a
monthly basis.\4\ To align with their monthly reconciliation and budget
planning, QSBCs provide for a monthly process through which producers
can, if allowed by state law, redirect their assessments to the Beef
Board. To avail themselves of this option, producers must submit a
QSBC-1 form that is postmarked by the 15th day of the month following
the month the cattle were sold. Assessments cannot be retroactively
redirected from the QSBC to the Beef Board, and QSBCs will be required
to respond to such requests within 60 days.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cattlemen's Beef Board January 26, 2018, Guidelines for
Qualified State Beef Councils.
\5\ Montana Beef Council (MBC) presently operates differently
and is therefore an exception to this process. Under a Preliminary
Injunction in R-CALF v. Sonny Perdue, MBC is required to obtain
affirmative consent from producers before retaining any portion of
the federal assessment. As a result, MBC collects and sends all
assessments to the Beef Board unless producers request, currently on
an annual basis, that $0.50 of the $1.00-per-head assessment be
provided back to MBC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a
producer is required by the Beef Act to pay an assessment of $1.00 on
each head of cattle sold. Several States have additional producer
assessments, mandated by State statutes, which are collected in
addition to the $1.00-per-head assessment required by the Beef Act. If
a QSBC offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSBC can
only refund to the producer any State assessment collected in addition
to the $1.00-per-head assessment that the producer is required to pay
under the Beef Act. This final rule provides that the portion of the
$1.00-per-head federal assessment that the QSBC would normally keep
under Sec. 1260.181(b)(4) can be redirected to the national program by
the producer if State law allows.
Examples:
Example 1--States with no State Law: A producer in Kansas
pays the $1.00 federal assessment for a cattle sale. The Kansas Beef
Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and forwards $0.50 to the Beef
Board. Since there is no Kansas law compelling producers to contribute
to the Kansas Beef Council, the producer may request that the $0.50 of
the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board. This
example is depicted in Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY19.019
Example 2--States with a State Law that Authorizes
Refunds: A producer in Colorado pays $1.00 in assessments for a cattle
sale. The Colorado Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and
forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Colorado State law requires an
assessment but allows a refund. The producer may request that the $0.50
[[Page 20768]]
cents of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board.
This example is depicted in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY19.020
Based on current understanding, AMS believes that most states fall
within one of these two examples--either they have no state law
compelling them to contribute to a QSBC or they have a state law that
provides for refunds. In either case, a producer in these states can
request that the $0.50 of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected
to the Beef Board.
Example 3--States with a State Law that Does Not Authorize
Refunds: A producer in Arizona pays $1.00 in assessments for a cattle
sale. The Arizona Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and
forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Arizona law compels the collection of
the $1.00-per-head assessment and does not provide for a refund. The
producer may not request the Arizona Beef Council to redirect any
portion of the $0.50 to the Beef Board. This example is depicted in
Figure 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13MY19.021
Based on our current understanding of state laws, AMS believes that
a few states fall under this example including Arizona, California,
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Because
there is a state law in place that mandates assessments without
allowing for a refund, producers in these states may not request that
the $0.50 of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef
Board. In general, AMS recommends stakeholders fully consult state laws
as these examples are used for illustrative purposes and are subject to
change.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator of the AMS
has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and
has determined that this final rule will 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.
Soybean Industry
USDA's Farm Service Agency estimates that there are 569,998 soybean
producers subject to the Soybean Order. This estimate comes from
including all soybean producers engaged in the production of soybeans
in the previous 2 years. The majority of producers subject to the
Soybean Order are small businesses under the criteria established by
the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201). SBA defines
small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less
than $750,000.
This final rule imposes no new burden on the soybean industry. This
action clarifies that soybean producers, under certain circumstances,
have the option to request that their assessments paid to a State board
be directed to the national program. This action is not expected to
change how producers or QSSBs operate with respect to directing funds
when appropriate to the national program.
In the July 15, 2016 proposed rule, AMS provided a chart with
estimates by
[[Page 20769]]
state for the potential amount that could be redirected to the national
program (81 FR 45987). The estimates varied depending on whether
redirection was possible and the degree to which state law affected
refund amounts. AMS received comments indicating that the chart was
difficult to follow and, in some cases, inaccurate. As a result, AMS is
generalizing its estimate of potential financial impacts to range
between $0 (for those states in which redirection is not possible) to
up to $14 million (for high producing soybean states in which
redirection is possible). However, given that this action is not
expected to change how and whether producers choose to exercise the
refund provisions in states where redirection of funds is possible, AMS
does not anticipate a significant increase in producer requests that
would impact the amount of assessments retained by a given state.
The information collection requirements on QSSBs are minimal. QSSBs
are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We
have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with this rule.
Accordingly, AMS has determined that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small soybean
entities.
Beef Industry
In the February 2013, publication of ``Farms, Land in Farms, and
Livestock Operations,'' USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) estimated that the number of operations in the United States
with cattle in 2012 totaled approximately 915,000, down from 950,000 in
2009. The majority of these operations that are subject to the Beef
Order may be classified as small entities. According to the NASS
website ``Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,'' the issues
released between 2005 and 2013 included ``Livestock Operations'' in the
title. Beginning in 2014, livestock operations data will be available
in the Census of Agriculture and most recent data can be referenced
from Census data.
This final rule imposes no new burden on the beef industry. This
action clarifies that producers, under certain circumstances, have the
option of requesting that their assessments paid to a State council be
directed to the national program. This action is not expected to change
how producers or QSBCs operate with respect to directing funds when
appropriate to the national program.
In the July 15, 2016, proposed rule, AMS provided a chart with
estimates by state for the potential amount that could be redirected to
the national program (81 FR 45988). The estimates varied depending on
whether redirection was possible and the degree to which state law
affected refund amounts. AMS received comments indicating that the
chart was difficult to follow and, in some cases, inaccurate. As a
result, AMS is generalizing its estimate of potential financial impacts
to range between $0 (for those states in which redirection is not
possible) to up to $4.6 million (for high producing beef states in
which redirection is possible). However, given that this action is not
expected to change how and whether producers choose to exercise the
refund provisions in states where redirection of funds is possible, AMS
does not anticipate a significant increase in producer requests that
would impact the amount of assessments retained by a given state.
Currently, a few States are in various stages of establishing or
amending State laws regarding beef checkoff requirements, so this
information may change over time.
The information collection requirements on QSBCs are minimal. QSBCs
are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We
have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with this rule.
Accordingly, AMS has determined that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
producers.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C Chapter 35 (PRA)), this
collection has been submitted to OMB with the reference number 0581-
0246. Upon approval, the collection will be merged with OMB number
0581-0093, ``National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information
Programs.'' This final rule established the use of two new forms, which
impose a total annual burden of 2.49 hours. The Producer Redirection of
Checkoff Assessment forms, QSBC-1 and QSSB-1, require the minimum
information necessary to effectively allow producers in certain states
that pay their assessments to a State board or council authorized under
their respective statutes, to redirect the assessment to the national
program. The information collection requirements in the request are
essential to carry out the legislative purpose of the Beef Act and the
Soybean Act. Under the Beef and Soybean Orders, producers are required
to pay an assessment each time cattle or soybeans are sold. While the
Beef and Soybean Orders impose certain recordkeeping requirements,
information required under the Beef and Soybean Orders can be compiled
from records currently maintained. Such records must be retained for at
least 3 years beyond the marketing year of their applicability.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information
and services, and for other purposes. As with all Federal promotion
programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector
agencies. In the proposed rule published July 15, 2016, (81 FR 45984)
comments were invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the
Order and USDA's oversight of the program, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of USDA's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. No separate comments were
received regarding the information collection section. However, AMS
received a few comments that discussed the paperwork burden of the
forms. AMS's response to those comments is discussed in the comments
section.
Comments
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal
Register on July 15, 2016 (81 FR 45984). A 60-day comment period ending
September 13, 2016, was provided for interested persons to respond to
the proposal. AMS received 14 comments. Of the 14 comments received, 12
commenters referenced proposed changes to the Beef Order, one commenter
referenced proposed changes to the Soybean Order, and one commenter
referenced both the Soybean and Beef Orders. One commenter did not
provide comments within the timeframe provided in the proposed order.
However, in general, this
[[Page 20770]]
commenter provided thoughts similar to those who opposed to the
proposed rule.
Beef Order Comments
Of the 12 comments received regarding the Beef Order, over half
stated that they opposed the proposed rule while the others recommended
clarification, modification, or changes to the proposed rule. The
majority of commenters believe that assessments should go to the
national program, unless a producer provides affirmative consent that
their federal assessment paid to a State council to remain with the
State program. In their view, this approach would be consistent with a
voluntary contribution as specified in the statute. These commenters
suggest that having to request that their assessments paid to a State
council be directed to the national program creates a mandatory
contribution. Some commenters argued this is unconstitutional. AMS
disagrees. This action continues to provide producers with a choice
about where they want their funds directed. Since the inception of the
national program, few producers have requested redirection of their
funds to the national program, instead choosing to keep a portion of
the federal assessment to support and invest in local programs and
activities. For example, over the last three years, fewer than 20
producers or businesses have requested redirection of their funds to
the national program. Thus, the majority of producers prefer that the
QSBCs retain their assessments. Requiring the majority of producers to
provide prior affirmative consent to keep their funds locally with the
QSBCs would create an unnecessary burden to the industry as a whole.
A few commenters recommended that the deadline to request a
redirection be extended. However, due to the need for QSBCs to
reconcile their financial transactions on a monthly basis, the deadline
for a redirection request must remain as a monthly process as stated in
the proposed rule.
A few commenters recommended that AMS provide clarification of the
individual State laws, clarify any conflicts with state laws, and
modify/correct any examples provided in the rule and the tables to
accurately reflect the governing state law. Specifically, the
commenters requested greater clarification of the application of
refunds in each state. AMS believes that application of State laws are
best interpreted by the States themselves. The States, not AMS, are
responsible for interpretation of their respective laws.
A few commenters pointed out that some QSBC names were incorrect.
AMS has updated the list as part of its technical amendments and is
reflected in this final rule.
One commenter requested that AMS clarify the terminology in the
rule to reflect assessments of cattle producers, not ``beef''
producers, which, in their view, would include multinational trade
associations and packers. That same commenter strongly disagreed with
the assumption that only 20 operations would request a redirection. AMS
modified terminology in the preamble accordingly and clarifies that it
is producers as defined at Sec. 1260.116 who are subject to assessment
per the requirements at Sec. 1260.172. Furthermore, while the
commenter disagrees that only 20 producers or operations would request
redirection and thus that AMS's information collection burden is too
low, AMS has reviewed the number of redirection requests received over
the last 3 years as the basis for its estimate. Over the last three
years, fewer than 20 producers or businesses in total have requested
redirection of their funds to the national program. Based on that data,
AMS anticipates that the number of redirection requests will be similar
to past years. Therefore, we do not believe the burden estimate is too
low.
One commenter recommended several rule text changes. First, the
commenter recommended changes to proposed rule Sec. 1260.181(b)(5) to
correct a perceived syntax error. The commenter recommended adding two
new subsections to correct. Additionally, the commenter recommended a
change to Sec. 1260.312(c) to provide clarity and consistency with
Sec. 1260.181(b)(4). AMS reviewed the comments and believes they have
merit. Consequently, these technical amendments are reflected in this
final rule.
Soybean Order Comments
AMS received two comments respecting the Soybean Order. Both
commenters recommended a rule text change to clarify that the proposed
rule applies to QSSBs subject to both Sec. 1220.228(a)(1) and (2) of
the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order. Both
commenters also raised concerns with how the state refund rules applied
to QSSBs. With respect to the commenters' recommended new amendatory
language, AMS is unclear on section cross references and believes the
suggested changes include an error. Rather than adopt the commenters
suggested changes as they proposed, we have made modifications to the
amendatory text by adding a new Sec. 1220.228(e) to reflect that this
rule applies to all QSSBs (i.e., those entities that elect to serve due
to their state authorization under Sec. 1220.228(a)(1) and those
entities that apply for certification under Sec. 1220.228(a)(2)). AMS
also moved the proposed text about producers receiving a refund and
their obligations to remit this refund to the Board to the appropriate
Assessments section at Sec. 1220.223(a)(3). Further, as stated above,
states are responsible for interpreting their laws, and AMS advises
stakeholders to carefully review the state refund laws applicable to
their state.
Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed other
than the tables and other technical amendments.
Beef Technical Amendments
In addition, several technical amendments are made to update
information in the Beef Promotion and Research Order and rules and
regulations:
Section 1260.181(b)(4) currently requires QSBCs to remit
assessments to the Beef Board by the last day of the month in which the
QSBC received the assessment ``unless the Board determines a different
date.'' The Beef Board's practice has been to require QSBCs to remit
assessments by the 15th day of the following month. This section will
be updated to reflect actual practice.
Section 1260.315 is amended to reflect the current listing of
QSBCs.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 1220
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Marketing agreements, Soybeans and soybean products,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 1260
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 1220 and 1260
are amended as follows:
PART 1220--SOYBEAN PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER INFORMATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 1220 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301-6311 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
[[Page 20771]]
0
2. In Sec. 1220.223, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1220.223 Assessments.
(a) * * *
(3) In determining the assessment due from each producer under
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, a producer who is contributing
to a Qualified State Soybean Board shall receive a credit from the
Board for contributions to such Qualified State Soybean Board on any
soybeans assessed under this section in an amount not to exceed one-
quarter of one percent of the net market price of the soybeans
assessed. Producers receiving a refund from a State entity are required
to remit that refunded portion to the Board in the manner and form
required by the Secretary.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 1220.228, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1220.228 Qualified State Soybean Boards.
* * * * *
(e) Entities authorized or required to pay refunds to producers
must certify to the Board that any requests from producers for such
refunds for contributions to it by the producer will be honored by
forwarding to the Board that portion of such refunds equal to the
amount of credit received by the producer for contributions pursuant to
Sec. 1220.223(a)(3). Entities not authorized by State statute but
organized and operating within a State and certified by the Board
pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must provide producers an
opportunity for a State refund and must forward that refunded portion
to the Board.
PART 1260--BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
4. The authority citation for part 1260 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
0
5. In Sec. 1260.172, add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.172 Assessments.
(a) * * *
(7) A producer may request a redirection of assessments from a
Qualified State Beef Council to the Board in accordance with Sec.
1260.181(b)(8) or (9) by submitting a redirection request on the
appropriate form postmarked by the 15th day of the month following the
month in which the cattle were sold. Requests may not be retroactive.
Requests to redirect assessments must be submitted by the producers who
paid the assessments.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 1260.181, revise the section heading and paragraph (b)(4)
and add paragraphs (b)(8) and (9) to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.181 Qualified State Beef Councils.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Certify to the Board that such organization shall remit to the
Board assessments paid and remitted to the council, minus authorized
credits issued to producers pursuant to Sec. 1260.172(a)(3), by the
15th day of the month following the month in which the assessment was
remitted to the Qualified State Beef Council unless the Board
determines a different date for remittance of assessments.
* * * * *
(8) Certify to the Board, if the Council is authorized or permitted
to pay refunds of contributions to the Council, that any requests from
producers for such refunds by the producers will be honored by
redirecting to the Board that portion of such refunds equal to the
amount of credit received by the producer for contributions pursuant to
Sec. 1260.172(a)(3).
(9) Certify to the Board that, if the Council is in a State in
which State law does not require collection of the $1-per-head
assessment set forth in the Act (the federal assessment) by the
Council, or if the Council is in a State in which State statutes do not
require producers to contribute a portion of the $1-per-head federal
assessment to the Council, the Council will provide an opportunity for
producers to choose to direct the full $1-per-head federal assessment
to the Board.
0
7. In Sec. 1260.312, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.312 Remittance to the Cattlemen's Board or Qualified State
Beef Council.
* * * * *
(c) Remittances. The remitting person shall remit all assessments
to the Qualified State Beef Council or its designee, or, if there is no
Qualified State Beef Council, to the Cattlemen's Board at an address
designated by the Board, with the report required in paragraph (a) of
this section not later than the 15th day of the month following the
month in which the cattle were purchased or marketed. All remittances
sent to a Qualified State Beef Council or the Cattlemen's Board by the
remitting persons shall be by check or money order payable to the order
of the Qualified State Beef Council or the Cattlemen's Board. All
remittances shall be received subject to collection and payment at par.
0
8. Revise Sec. 1260.315 to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.315 Qualified State Beef Councils.
The following State beef promotion entities have been certified by
the Board as Qualified State Beef Councils:
(a) Alabama Cattlemen's Association.
(b) Arizona Beef Council.
(c) Arkansas Beef Council.
(d) California Beef Council.
(e) Colorado Beef Council Authority.
(f) Delaware Beef Advisory Board.
(g) Florida Beef Council, Inc.
(h) Georgia Beef Board, Inc.
(i) Hawaii Beef Industry Council.
(j) Idaho Beef Council.
(k) Illinois Beef Association, Inc.
(l) Indiana Beef Council, Inc.
(m) Iowa Beef Cattle Producers Association/dba/Iowa Beef Industry
Council.
(n) Kansas Beef Council.
(o) Kentucky Cattlemen's Association, Inc.
(p) Louisiana Beef Industry Council.
(q) Maryland Beef Council.
(r) Michigan Beef Industry Commission.
(s) Minnesota Beef Council.
(t) Mississippi Beef Council.
(u) Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc.
(v) Montana Beef Council.
(w) Nebraska Beef Council.
(x) Nevada Beef Council.
(y) New Jersey Beef Industry Council.
(z) New Mexico Beef Council.
(aa) New York Beef Industry Council.
(bb) North Carolina Cattlemen's Beef Council.
(cc) North Dakota Beef Commission.
(dd) Ohio Beef Council.
(ee) Oklahoma Beef Council.
(ff) Oregon Beef Council.
(gg) Pennsylvania Beef Council.
(hh) South Carolina Beef Council.
(ii) South Dakota Beef Industry Council.
(jj) Tennessee Beef Industry Council.
(kk) Texas Beef Council.
(ll) Utah Beef Council.
(mm) Vermont Beef Industry Council.
(nn) Virginia Beef Industry Council.
(oo) Washington State Beef Commission.
(pp) West Virginia Beef Council, Inc.
(qq) Wisconsin Beef Council, Inc.
(rr) Wyoming Beef Council.
Dated: May 7, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09700 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
