Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations will notify such individuals of their requirements to remit assessments and will perform onsite audits, if needed.
These efforts assist in ensuring that all appropriate entities and individuals who are subject to collection and remittance of checkoff funds are following the requirements of the Act and Order.
Comment: One comment received by a national trade association for livestock auction markets, stated that If auction markets are going to be made mandatory collection points, then all participants should be made to follow the rules of the checkoff through the pass-through and remittance requirements. The Board, through their partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA, AMS, should prioritize finding solutions to help those currently not participating in the process to come into compliance.
AMS Response: Anyone who sells or buys domestic lamb or lamb products in the United States of America, is required by law to pay the price-perpound and price-per-head assessments.
In order to reduce assessment delinquency rates or non-payment of assessment rates, the Board proposed market agencies collect the assessments at the point of sale/purchase. The collection of assessments at the market agency level will be a solution to those who do not currently participate in the assessment remittance process at the market agency level. Individuals who do not remit their assessments or who are late in the pass-through remittance process will continue to be subject to the Boards Compliance Department.
Additionally, the Board performs monthly compliance checks and random onsite audits to determine potential sellers and buyers who are not remitting their assessments. Lastly, if the Board is made aware of new processing facilities or individuals who are selling or buying lambs, they will notify such individuals of their requirements to remit assessments and will perform onsite audits, if needed.
These efforts assist in ensuring that all appropriate entities and individuals who are subject to collection and remittance of checkoff funds are following the requirements of the Act and Order.
Comment: One comment received was concerned that If the reason for making these changes are because first handlers are not remitting assessments to the Board now, it cannot be assumed they would disclose to the market agency they are the first handler and have the assessment deducted after the amendment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Dec 21, 2021

Jkt 256001

AMS Response: Under the final rule, anyone purchasing lambs at a market agency will be required to pay the $0.42
per-head-assessment rate on ovine animals, regardless if the buyer discloses that they are a first handler or not. Currently, there is no requirement in the Order for disclosing first handler status.
Comment: One comment received was concerned with implementation costs of the proposed rule. Another commenter was concerned with implementation costs of the proposed rule as well as the technical training of market agency staff on how to perform assessment collection procedures.
AMS Response: The Board will cover the costs of upgrades to each respondents existing computer software system at an estimated cost of $500 per respondent and provide hands-on training to amend the collection and remittance process. Once this final rule is implemented, the Board will perform educational outreach to the market agencies to educate them on the new collection and remittance process. The outreach efforts will also consist of mailed educational materials and training webinars, which is estimated to cost $5 per respondent.
Comment: One commenter asked for flexibility on the frequency of assessment remittances to relieve the burden of constant documentation and remittance on markets, particularly those who do not regularly sell small ruminants at their businesses.
Additionally, another commenter from an advocacy alliance group stated that if market agencies already have low sales volume, it is the position of the alliance that AMS ought to be lifting burdens, rather than adding to them.
AMS Response: Due to the above comments, AMS reopened the comment period on two separate occasions 86 FR
10459 and 86 FR 24513 to encourage additional input on:
1. What level or threshold should AMS consider as a low-volume market agency that might be eligible for additional flexibility?
2. Approximately how many market agencies would fit into such a category?
3. How would this type of flexibility reduce regulatory burden for those market agencies?
Unfortunately, during the two additional comment periods, no data was provided to AMS to define a lowvolume market agency. Should such data be provided at a later date, AMS
would consider defining a low-volume market agency in hopes of alleviating the burden to said agencies. However, the final rule does allow for flexibility in the remittance process as auction
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

72511

markets only need to complete a remittance form when lambs were sold in the previous month. For those markets that do not sell lambs each month, this offers flexibility in the remittance of assessments. For example, seasonal market agencies, who facilitate the selling and buying of lambs for 3
months out of the year, will only be required to collect and remit assessments for those 3 months.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the proposed rule could create an incentive for sellers of sheep to choose to market their livestock outside of a public auction environment through other private channels e.g., livestock dealers or direct sales to skirt around checkoff requirements.
AMS Response: Traditional lamb sales first handler purchases from a producer or feeder, independent of a market agency will still be subject to the current assessment remittance procedures via the pass-through collection process.
Multiple commenters responding to the proposed rule submitted comments that were outside the scope of this particular rulemaking. For example, one commenter suggested that Research and Promotion Programs should be voluntary in nature, instead of mandatory. Two commenters responded to the proposed rule in what appeared to be Slovakian language. When translated, the comments mentioned a cleaning company and the services they provided. Three commenters made disparaging remarks about the U.S.
Government. Accordingly, AMS is making no changes to the final rule based on these comments.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
AMS is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Orders E.O. 12866 and 13563, which 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. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget OMB exempted from E.O. 12866
review.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
It is not intended to have a retroactive
E:FRFM22DER1.SGM

22DER1