[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27163-27167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09010]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1250
[Document No. AMS-LP-19-0113]
Egg Research and Promotion; Reapportionment
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust representation on the American
Egg Board (Board), established under the Egg Research and Consumer
Information Act of 1974 (Act), and outlines changes to geographic areas
based on sustained changes in egg production in several States. The Egg
Research and Promotion Order (Order) establishes a Board composed of 18
members. Currently, the 48 contiguous States are divided into 6 areas
with 3 members representing each area. This proposed rule would reduce
the number of geographic areas from six to three. The number of Board
members representing each geographic area would change to six. The
total Board membership would remain at 18.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 8, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted online at www.regulations.gov.
Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal
information provided. All comments should reference the docket number
AMS-LP-19-0113, the date of submission, and the page number of this
issue of the Federal Register. Comments may also be sent to Craig
Shackelford, Agricultural Marketing Specialist; Research and Promotion
Division; Livestock and Poultry Program, AMS, USDA; Room 2608-S, STOP
0251, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0251; or via
fax to (202) 720-1125. Comments will be made available for public
inspection at the above address during regular business hours or via
the internet at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Shackelford, Research and
Promotion Division, at (470) 315-4246; fax (202) 720-1125; or by email
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Proposed Action
The Act authorizes the Secretary to establish an Egg Board composed
of egg producers or representatives of egg producers appointed by the
Secretary so that the representation of egg producers
[[Page 27164]]
on the Board reflects, to the extent practicable, the proportion of
eggs produced in each geographic area of the United States. 7 U.S.C.
Sec. 2707(b). This proposal invites comments on changing the Board's
membership under the Order. The Board administers the Order with
oversight by the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The Order outlines the geographic representation of the current 18-
member board, composed of members from six distinct geographical areas.
To ensure that representation on the Board remains representative of
the industry, Sec. 1250.328 of the Order provides for reapportionment
of Board membership based on the Board's periodic review of production
by geographic area. This periodic review can occur at any time based on
changes in egg production in various geographical areas; however, the
Order requires that the area distribution be reviewed at least every 5
years. Sections 1250.328(d) and (e) of the Order provide that any
changes in the delineation of the geographical areas and the area
distribution of the Board be determined by the percentage of total U.S.
egg production.
Reapportionment
The Board and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) reviewed
production data to determine what, if any, changes are needed in the
distribution of Board membership. The Board and AMS verified certain
shifts in production trends. Section 8 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2707)
provides for a Board of not more than 20 members. Section 1250.328 of
the Order provides for an 18-member Board and contemplates changes to
the Board by determining the percentage of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership) and rounding to the
nearest whole number. Using the calculation for the North Atlantic
region results in 2 members while the calculation for the other 5
regions result in 3 members each, for a total 17 members, one less than
the number stated in the Order. Therefore, regions must be changed so
that the 18-member Board can be established. Table 1 shows that
reducing regions from six to three will expand the number of States
included in each region and suggests that the grouping of more States
into fewer regions would improve consistency in the proportion of small
versus large farms represented on the Board.
Table 1--Regional Poultry Farm Distribution--Current and Proposed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Small firms
Large Total States
<$1,000,000
$1,000,000+ .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 27,243 93% 2,172 7% 29,415 13
II...................................................... 29,077 76% 9,042 24% 38,119 9
III..................................................... 27,774 95% 1,575 5% 29,349 5
IV...................................................... 24,652 96% 1,102 4% 25,754 10
V....................................................... 7,292 96% 312 4% 7,604 3
VI...................................................... 32,750 97% 1,108 3% 33,858 10
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Geographical Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I....................................................... 63,513 87% 9,891 13% 73,404 21
II...................................................... 48,482 92% 4,299 8% 52,781 10
III..................................................... 36,793 97% 1,121 3% 37,914 19
148,788 91% 15,311 9% 164,099 50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table also shows the distribution of farms represented by
size, and the proportion of farms that are small versus large. With the
inclusion of more states into fewer regions, the proportion of small
versus large farms becomes less variable. For example, in Regions I and
II in the current structure, 93 percent and 76 percent, respectively,
of the firms in these regions are classified as small. When the
structure is changed, as proposed, the two regions are more or less
combined, and the new Region I is composed of 87 percent small firms.
The table shows less variation in size between the three proposed new
regions than there is in the current structure.
Section 1250.326 of the Order establishes a Board, composed of 18
egg producers or representatives of egg producers, and 18 specific
alternates, appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by
eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives, or by other
producers pursuant to Sec. 1250.328. The current 18-member Board is
composed of 3 members representing each of the 6 regions. No changes to
the total number of members (18 members with 18 alternates) is
proposed. However, regions would be reduced to three from six and each
region would include more States.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Order, the Board began its most
recent review of Board member apportionment in 2019. Production data
from the 2018 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) report
was used to establish the percentage of U.S. egg production in each
area. The goal of this reapportionment of Board members is to ensure
representation on the Board remains consistent with the Act and Order
by recognizing production shifts over time. If finalized, these changes
would become effective with the Secretary's appointments for terms
beginning in the year 2021.
The Board and AMS recognize that shifts in production have resulted
in the Northeast region no longer being proportionately represented on
the Board. The Board and AMS also found that industry consolidation has
also contributed to a more limited number of egg producing entities in
each region. The Board and AMS desire a structure that allows the full
representation of the egg producing entities. The Board and AMS have
found that it is increasingly difficult for State nominating
organizations to present an appropriate number of candidates each year.
By reducing the number of regions and increasing the geographic size of
regions, the Board and AMS believe that more egg producing entities may
be represented on the Board.
This proposed rule would result in the proportionate representation
of each
[[Page 27165]]
geographic area and increase the number of egg producing entities
represented in each geographic area. The Board and AMS have determined
that these changes will better represent the distribution of egg
production and enable eligible nominating organizations to more easily
identify potential nominees.
In accordance with Sec. 1250.328(e) of the Order, the Board has
recommended changes to the number and composition of geographic regions
represented on the Board.
The current and proposed representation are indicated in the
following two tables:
Table 2--Current Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current number
Geographic area of members Represented States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--North Atlantic............................. 3 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and District of
Columbia.
II--South Atlantic............................ 3 Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
South Carolina.
III--East North Central....................... 3 Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and
Tennessee.
IV--West North Central........................ 3 Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming.
V--South Central.............................. 3 Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
VI--Western................................... 3 Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Proposed Geographical Distribution and Number of Members on the Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Proposed geographic area number of Proposed States represented
members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--East....................................... 6 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, the District of
Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Texas.
II--Central................................... 6 Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.
III--West..................................... 6 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Membership changes are based on production in the proposed
geographic areas, noting that changes to Board distribution will be
accomplished by determining the percentage of reported cases of eggs
produced in each area times 18 (total Board membership) and rounding to
the nearest whole number, as follows:
Table 4--Projected Board Membership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of total
USDA reported Percent of total production Projected board
Proposed geographical areas cases of eggs production multiplied by 18 membership
produced board members
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--East................................. 35,724,500,000 32.72 5.89 6
II--Central............................. 36,942,400,000 33.83 6.09 6
III--West............................... 36,525,200,000 33.45 6.02 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total U.S. Production............... 109,192,100,000 100 100 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would apply to the nomination process in 2020
and affect the board members appointed by the Secretary to serve on the
Board beginning in 2021.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments received in response to
this rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing
this action.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant
regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived
review of this action. Additionally, because this rule does not meet
the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger
the requirements contained in
[[Page 27166]]
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 proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect.
There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not
have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments or
significant Tribal implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. part 35), the
information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the
Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been
approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093. This
proposal would not increase or impose any new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-622), AMS considered the economic
effect of this action on small entities and determined that this
proposed rule would 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. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) published an interim final rule that
became effective on August 19, 2019, (84 FR 34261) that adjusts the
monetary-based size standards for inflation. As a result of this rule,
the size classification for small egg-producing firms changed from
sales of $750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000 or less.
According to USDA's NASS, USDA collects data for the Agriculture
Census (Ag Census) using the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). The NAICS classifies economic activities and was
developed to provide a consistent framework for the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of industrial statistics used by government
policy analysts, academia and the business community. It is the first
industry classification system developed in accordance with a single
principle of aggregation that production units using similar production
processes should be grouped together.
In the 2017 Ag Census, the poultry and egg production
classification (classification category 1123) comprises establishments
primarily engaged in breeding, hatching, and raising poultry for meat
or egg production. The 2017Ag Census shows there were 164,099 reported
poultry farms in the United States and 36,012 egg producers. Ag Census
data includes sales category ranges for the poultry sector as a whole
but does not include separate sales categories for egg producers.
Instead, NASS provides data for the broader category of ``Poultry and
Eggs.'' Therefore, AMS is not able to obtain stand-alone sales data for
egg-producing farms. As a result, for this RFA, AMS used the broader
category of poultry producers as the closest possible substitute as the
basis for determining the size of egg producers.
Of the 164,099 poultry producers identified in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture, 148,788 (91 percent) reported sales of less than
$1,000,000 and would therefore fall under the SBA definition of small
business. Therefore, the remaining 15,311 (9 percent) producers would
be considered large. If the egg producer segment has the same
proportional distribution across firm sizes, 91 percent, or 32,771 egg
producers would be classified as small businesses, and 9 percent, or
3,241 egg producers would be considered large.
Sales data are also available at the state level for the overall
poultry segment. Using this data, and the assumption that the
proportion of large and small poultry farms similarly applies to egg
producers, Table 1 shows how the proposed changes in geographical areas
will shift producer representation on the Board.
The proposed rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only
adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in egg
production. The adjustments are required by the Order and would not
result in a change in the overall number of Board members. Even if most
egg producers are small entities, this action does not change their
ability to qualify for representation on the Board or add any new
burden. In conclusion, AMS believes that reducing the regions from six
to three and increasing the number of States within each region will
contribute to greater representation of egg producing firms on the
Board.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1250
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Eggs and Egg products, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1250 as follows:
PART 1250--EGG PROMOTION AND RESEARCH
0
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701-2718 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1250.510 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1250.510 Determination of Board Membership.
(a) Pursuant to Sec. 1250.328 (d) and (e), the 48 contiguous
States of the United States shall be grouped into three geographic
areas, as follows: Area I (East)--Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, the
District of Columbia, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas; Area II
(Central)--Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; Area III (West)--Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.
(b) Board representation among the three geographic areas is
apportioned to reflect the percentages of United States egg production
in each area times 18 (total Board membership). The distribution of
members of the Board is: Area I-6, Area II-6, and Area III-6. Each
[[Page 27167]]
member will have an alternate appointed from the same area.
* * * * *
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09010 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P