Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations addition, the definition of rule in 5
U.S.C. 601 is tied to the publication of a proposed rule.
The Office of Management and Budget OMB designated this rule as major under the Congressional Review Act CRA, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 8042.
Section 808 of the CRA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. The beneficiaries of this rule have been significantly impacted by the COVID19
outbreak, which has resulted in significant declines in demand and market disruptions. USDA finds that notice and public procedure would be contrary to the public interest.
Therefore, even though this rule is a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review.
Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 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
emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.
The Office of Management and Budget OMB designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, OMB
has reviewed this rule.
The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Cost Benefit Analysis Summary CFAP 1 and CFAP 2 assisted producers of agricultural commodities marketed in 2020 who faced continuing market disruptions, reduced farm-level prices, and increased production and marketing costs due to COVID19.
These additional costs are associated with declines in demand, surplus productions, or disruptions to shipping patterns and marketing channels.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:58 Aug 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

In implementing these programs, additional assistance was deemed necessary. Subdivision B, section 751, of the CAA authorizes payments of up to 80 percent of contract producers revenue loss and up to $1 billion in funding. To qualify for payment, a producer must demonstrate a drop in revenue revenue loss between 2019
and 2020. The producer can then choose their 2018 revenue in lieu of their 2019
revenue in the revenue loss calculation if their 2018 revenue is more representative of anticipated revenue in 2020. In addition, note that the CFAP
Additional Assistance regulation, published on January 19, 2021, provided assistance to contract producers. CFAP Additional Assistance activity was paused in late January 2021. No payments were issued to contract producers under that regulation.
This rule and cost-benefit analysis use an 80 percent payment factor, the maximum allowed by the CAA, and apply it to the individual producers actual 2019 to 2020 revenue change.
Contract producer payments are highly uncertain and can depend on the number of animals received by the contractor and the price paid by the integrator to the contractor. The projections contained in this assessment provide an upper bound at over $1
billion. However, available evidence suggests that year-to-year differences in animal volume may moderate that estimate. Broiler and hog contract producers will receive the bulk of payments.
In contrast to assistance for contract producers, CAA provides authority for, but does not mandate, use of 2018 or 2019 revenue data in the calculation of payments for sales-based 1 commodities.
This provision, included in this rule, ensures that farmers who had lower sales in 2019 than in 2018for example, those unable to plant a 2019
cropwould not be penalized in the payment calculation. Fifty-two percent of sales-based applicants are projected to prefer the use of 2018 revenue data relative to 2019 data based on analysis of USDA cash receipts data. The expected cost associated with this change is estimated at $207 million.
Upon implementation of the CFAP 2
rule, FSA became aware that certain commodities had experienced COVID
19 market disruptions but had not been 1 This category includes fruits, vegetables, and nuts; dry edible beans, lentils, dry edible peas, and chickpeas; and commodities including aquaculture, turkeys, mink, mohair, rabbits, and others. For more information, see the CFAP 2 cost-benefit assessment at: https www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/CFAP2-CBA-09252020.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48015

explicitly included in the initial CFAP
2 rule. For example, grass seed was not included in the initial CFAP 2 rule, but evidence indicates that production and revenue were significantly affected. This rule clarifies that grass seed is now an eligible sales-based commodity, the expected cost is $41 million.
FSA, which implemented CFAP 1 and 2, is implementing these three provisions. Producers must fill out paperwork to participate in these programs, and the associated administrative costs are estimated at $1.5 million for contract producers, $2.2
million for the use of 2018 versus 2019
revenue in the calculations for salesbased commodities, and $0.1 million for grass seed.
Environmental Review The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 43214347, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 40 CFR parts 15001508, and because USDA will be making the payments to producers the USDA regulations for compliance with NEPA 7 CFR part 1b.
Although OMB has designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866, economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement when not interrelated to natural or physical environmental effects see 40 CFR 1502.16b. CFAP
was designed to avoid skewing planting decisions. Producers continue to make their planting and production decisions with the market signals in mind, rather than any expectation of what a new USDA program might look like. The discretionary aspects of CFAP for example, determining adjusted gross income AGI and payment limitations were designed to be consistent with established USDA and the FSA
administered programs and are not expected to have any impact on the human environment, as CFAP payments will only be made after the commodity has been produced. Accordingly, the following Categorical Exclusion in 7
CFR part 1b applies: 1b.3a2, which applies to activities that deal solely with the funding of programs, such as program budget proposals, disbursements, and the transfer or reprogramming of funds. As such, the implementation of and participation in CFAP do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, an environmental assessment
E:FRFM27AUR1.SGM

27AUR1