Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

3740

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
methods used for those contract or agreement types ensure that NRCS
obtains assistance from qualified TSPs, the TSP regulations specify that such TSPs do not also need to be certified under 7 CFR part 652. For more information, visit the NRCS TSP website at https www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/
technical/tsp/. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Program Contracts Comment: NRCS received comment requesting clarification as to whether RCPP contracts can serve to meet existing compliance and enforcement requirements. Comment also encouraged separate contracts for easements on agricultural land, a focus on co-operators needs and resources rather than program requirements, and that NRCS provide a visual depiction as to how the new contracting method will be efficient and independent. Comment also expressed support for skipping an eligible application on a ranking list if the remaining funding is insufficient to fund that application or for other limited circumstances that would warrant not selecting applications strictly according to rank order.
Response: Conservation activities funded under RCPP, as with other NRCS
voluntary conservation programs, can address resource concerns that meet a producers compliance requirements, provided that the producer is not under an administrative order or other compulsory enforcement process related to the producers failure to meet those requirements. NRCS will provide informational materials to partners about the new contracting methods as requested. No changes to the rule were needed to address these issues.
Programmatic Partnership Agreements Comment: Comment praised approval of salary expenses in PPAs and the ability to make selections out of rank order for critical projects. Comment also suggested that more clarification is needed in the rule on expenses incurred prior to PPA completion, how and when funding will become available, how funds for project management can be requested, who measures success in TA
and FA activities, and how partnerships can be terminated.
Respondents suggested that NRCS
should:
a Publicly report on its TA
expenditures under PPAs;
b Require lead partners to periodically assess conservation benefits;
c Increase PPA length beyond 5
years if needed; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:59 Jan 14, 2021

Jkt 253001

d Establish that lead partners will be required to follow all applicable laws, rules, and guidelines expected of NRCS
when awarding contracts.
Response: The RCPP statute specifies the terms for PPAs and no change is needed to address agreement duration in this rule. The AFAs provide detail as to the ability to receive payment for prePPA expenses. The terms and conditions associated with terminating a PPA are specified in the PPA itself. The regulation addresses the consequences should NRCS determine that PPA
termination is necessary. No changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
Proposals Comment: NRCS received comment about several aspects of APFs, recommending that the RCPP regulation include similar detail as APFs regarding proposal requirements and the evaluation process beyond the four overarching pillars. Comment also requested language:
a Addressing circumstances under which associated non-agricultural lands would be eligible for RCPP;
b Defining eligible activities more clearly;
c Providing information about the percentages of project funding that will be available for FA versus TA; and d Providing clear guidance on what can and cannot count as direct or inkind partner contribution.
Further, NRCS received comment:
a Requesting clarity regarding innovation and flexibility;
b Identifying that limiting the percentage of funding that can be allocated using discretionary prioritization factors would increase transparency;
c Requesting that the RCPP Portal be active at the beginning of the application process; and d Recommending language for the regulation to reflect conservation benefits as a proposal requirement.
Response: The funding announcement process and timeline, including the application questions and criteria, are published as part of each funding announcement. This process provides the greatest program flexibility regarding the diversity of partner capabilities, resource concerns, and other program goals. The criteria are made public and provide transparency about how NRCS is focusing its RCPP
implementation. The circumstances about eligible activities, associated nonagricultural lands, and TA and FA
percentages will be addressed in upcoming APFs.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Similarly, APFs include more information about innovation, selection criteria, and weightings as these terms relate to program priorities.
Establishing funding percentages or limitations in the regulation would reduce NRCSs ability to tailor APFs to critical resource concerns. In response to comment, this rule revises 1464.20b to focus proposal priorities on conservation benefits. No other changes are made in the final rule in response to these issues.
RCPP Activity Types Rental Contract Duration Comment: NRCS received comment recommending that RCPP rental contracts should be for 10 years, as that is the duration authorized under the Conservation Reserve Program CRP.
Response: NRCS uses RCPP land rental contracts to focus on short-term, targeted rental needs in the context of a larger RCPP project, unlike the longerterm purpose of CRP rental contracts.
RCPP rental contracts are focused on actions such as incentivizing adoption of an innovative cropping system or to transition to an organic production system and thus are short term 3 years.
No change was made in response to this comment.
Other Comment: NRCS received comment covering a variety of RCPP activity types. For practice innovation related to land management contracts, comment recommended:
a Simplifying the process for adding interim conservation practice standards;
b Including practices focused on water recycling, the recycling of liquid waste, and the adoption of advanced nutrient recovery technology;
c Allowing a flexible fallow program to be eligible; and d Allowing different practices and approaches to be used in the same RCPP
project and not limit practices in RCPP
project awards.
For rental contracts, comment recommended:
a Clarifying the availability and eligibility of land-rental practices from CRP, especially for longer contracts and practices;
b Concern about not applying the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CREP authority for riparian buffers;
c Having project partners add a farmer mentor component to projects utilizing the short-term land rental option; and d Clarifying whether the use of CRP
authorities 16 U.S.C. 38313835
includes CREP.

E:FRFM15JAR1.SGM

15JAR1