Wyoming State Laws Regarding Beef Promotion, Education, and Research

Start Preamble Get-go Printed Page 20765

AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

Action:

Final dominion; technical amendments.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Soybean Lodge) and the Beef Promotion and Research Guild (Beef Society) to add provisions allowing producers subject field to these Orders to request, nether certain circumstances, that their assessments paid to a State board or quango authorized under their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. The final rule too makes technical amendments to the Beef Order.

DATES:

The last rule is effective June 12, 2019.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Payne, Research and Promotion Sectionalization, at (202) 720-1118, fax (202) 720-1125, or by email at Kenneth.Payne@ams.usda.gov.

Finish Further Info End Preamble

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771

This rulemaking does not encounter the definition of a pregnant regulatory action contained in department 3(f) of Executive Lodge 12866 and is not subject to review past the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this dominion does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory activeness it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled "Interim Guidance Implementing Section two of the Executive Order of Jan 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' " (February 2, 2017).

Executive Order 12988

This last rule has been reviewed under Executive Club 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is non intended to have retroactive outcome.

Executive Club 13175

AMS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this dominion will not, to our cognition, accept tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, AMS will piece of work with the Section of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are identified in this terminal rule.

Background Summary and Final Action Taken

Soybean Club

The Soybean Promotion, Inquiry, and Consumer Data Act (Soybean Human action) (vii U.South.C. 6301-6311) provides that administrative proceedings must exist wearied before parties may file suit in courtroom. Under section 1971 of the Soybean Act, a person subject to the Soybean Society may file a petition with USDA stating that the Soybean Guild, whatever provision of the Soybean Order, or any obligation imposed in connexion with the Soybean Gild, is not in accordance with the law and request a modification of the Soybean Social club 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 commune courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has their principal place of business concern, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, if a complaint for this purpose is filed inside 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

Further, section 1974 of the Soybean Human activity provides, with certain exceptions, that naught in the Soybean Act may be construed to preempt or supercede 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 Human activity concerns assessments collected past Qualified Land 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 total corporeality of assessments that a QSSB in that State may collect, and which is authorized to be credited under the Soybean Human action. Some other exception concerns certain referenda conducted during specified periods by a State relating to the continuation of a QSSB or Country soybean assessment.

Beef Social club

Section xi of the Beef Research and Promotion Deed of 1985 (Beefiness Act) (7 U.Due south.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 nether the laws of the United states of america or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to whatsoever judicial claiming to the provisions of this rule.

Soybean Guild Amendments

The Soybean Act and the Soybean Gild issued thereunder authorize the drove of an assessment from soybean producers of one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans, processed soybeans, or soybean products. In well-nigh cases, these assessments are collected past QSSBs that retain upwardly to half of the assessments as authorized by the Soybean Act. The QSSBs as defined under Section 1967(14) of the Soybean Act will forrard the remainder to the United Soybean Board (Soybean Board), which administers the national soybean checkoff program.

The original Soybean Order, which became constructive July 9, 1991, mandated that all producers marketing soybeans pay an cess of i-half of 1 percentage (0.5 per centum) of the cyberspace market toll of the market price of soybeans sold. The original Soybean Order independent a provision in § 1220.228(b)(5)(i), which required QSSBs that were authorized or required Starting time Printed Page 20766 to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Soybean Lath 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 § 1220.223(a)(3). In other words, this section implicitly authorized refunds by the QSSB if Land 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 tardily 1995, seven CFR 1220.228(b)(v)(i) was removed equally part of a referendum process and rulemaking to eliminate obsolete regulatory linguistic communication. All the same, the rulemaking inadvertently removed linguistic communication that should accept been retained regarding a producer'southward 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 police force, 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 nether 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 Social club to (i) require producers in States where refunds are authorized to forward that refund to the Soybean Lath and (2) provide an opportunity for a refund if the QSSB is not authorized by Country statute but is organized and operating inside a State and is certified by the Soybean Lath, every bit provided by § 1220.228(a)(two). To avail themselves of this option, producers need to submit to their QSSB a grade (QSSB-one) postmarked past the 30th solar day of the calendar month post-obit the month the soybeans were sold. Assessments volition non exist able to exist retroactively redirected from the QSSB to the Soybean Board. Likewise, AMS volition require that the QSSB must respond by the last day of the calendar month post-obit 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 Human action 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 take additional producer assessments, mandated by State statutes, that are collected in addition to the assessment required past the Soybean Act. If a QSSB offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSSB tin can only refund to the producer any State assessment nerveless 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 usually keep to exist redirected to the national program by the producer if State police force allows.

Examples:

Case ane—States with no State Law: A soybean producer in California pays an assessment for a soybean auction. The assessment is collected by a certified Western Region Soybean Board, which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining fifty% to the Soybean Lath. California has no State law requiring a California assessment, so the California producer may request that the 50% of the assessment corporeality retained by the Western Region Soybean Board exist redirected to the Soybean Board.
Case 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 forrard the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. Iowa has a State law with a refund provision, so the Iowa producer may asking that the fifty% of the assessment amount retained by the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board exist redirected to the Soybean Board.
Case 3—States with a State Police that Does Not Qualify Refunds: A soybean producer in Virginia pays an assessment for a soybean auction. The assessment is collected by the Virginia Soybean Board which keeps 50% and forrard the remaining fifty% to the Soybean Board. Virginia has a Land police force with no refund provision, so the Virginia soybean producer may not request that the l% of the assessment amount retained by the Virginia Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.

Beef Order Amendments

Similarly, the Beef Promotion and Inquiry Act of 1985 (Beef Act) and the Beefiness Promotion and Research Order (Beef Lodge) issued thereunder authorize the collection of an assessment from cattle producers of $ane.00 per head of cattle sold. In almost cases, these assessments are collected by Qualified Country Beef Councils (QSBCs) that retain upward to one-half of the assessments, equally authorized by the Beefiness Act.^[ane] The QSBCs, as defined nether Department 3(14) of the Beef Act, are required to forrad the remainder to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Enquiry Board (Beefiness Board), which administers the national beefiness checkoff program.^[two]

The original Beef Order, which became constructive July 18, 1986, mandated that all producers owning and marketing cattle pay an assessment of $one.00 per head of cattle, to be collected each fourth dimension cattle are sold. The original Beef Order contained a provision in § 1260.181(b)(5), which required QSBCs that were authorized or required by Country law to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Beef Lath that they would honour whatever 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 § 1260.172(a)(3). In other words, this department authorized refunds by the QSBC if Land police force 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 Beefiness 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 power to redirect funds to the national programme should they choose to do so. While this provision was removed from the order, QSBCs were nevertheless required to comply with the terms of their certification equally 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 § 1260.181.

Furthermore, while the Beef Deed and Beefiness Order authorize QSBCs to retain up to 50 cents per head of cattle assessed, neither the Beef Act nor the Beef Order Start Printed Page 20767 require producers to contribute a portion of the $i.00-per-caput assessment to a QSBC. Thus, unless a State statute requires the collection of the $1.00-per-caput assessment ready along in the Beefiness Act (the federal cess) or requires producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the State beef council, producers are able to cull whether or not to contribute up to 50 cents per caput 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 existence added to the Beef Order to (i) crave QSBCs in States where refunds to producers of the $1.00-per-head assessment collected per the Beef Act and Social club are authorized by Land statute to frontwards that refund to the Beefiness Lath, and (2) provide an opportunity for producers to choose to straight the full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beefiness Lath in States where Land constabulary does not require the drove of the $1.00-per-caput assessment set forth in the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or in States where Country 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 past State law, the opportunity for producers to choose, on a monthly basis, to direct the total $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board is already AMS' current policy; this rule is intended to formalize the policy. The Beefiness Board also conveyed this policy in its July 26, 2018, memo "Obligation to Redirect Assessments Upon Producer Request if Not Precluded past Country Police.^[iii] As QSBCs are responsible for collecting assessments on cattle sold in or originating in their Land (§§ 1260.172(a)(five) and 1260.181(b)(three)), producers who are allowed refunds under Land statutes and choose to redirect the full $1.00-per-head assessment to the Beefiness Board must submit to the QSBC a written asking on an approved request course (QSBC-1).

QSBCs generally draw the requirements and procedure for refunds in their Application for Certification that is reviewed and approved past the Beef Board. As role of their certification requirements, QSBCs must certify that whatsoever requests from producers for refunds will be honored by forwarding such request to the Beef Board if allowed by state constabulary. In practice, QSBCs follow similar operating procedures for collecting the $1.00-per-caput assessment beyond collection points (eastward.m., markets, dealers, brokers) and are required to reconcile transactions on a monthly footing.^[4] To align with their monthly reconciliation and upkeep planning, QSBCs provide for a monthly process through which producers tin can, if allowed past state law, redirect their assessments to the Beef Board. To avail themselves of this option, producers must submit a QSBC-1 grade that is postmarked past the 15th day of the month following the month the cattle were sold. Assessments cannot exist retroactively redirected from the QSBC to the Beefiness Board, and QSBCs will be required to respond to such requests inside 60 days.^[5]

Regardless of a Land'south requirements or refunding provisions, a producer is required by the Beef Human action to pay an assessment of $1.00 on each head of cattle sold. Several States have boosted producer assessments, mandated past State statutes, which are collected in addition to the $1.00-per-caput assessment required by the Beefiness Deed. If a QSBC offers a producer refund under a Country statute, the QSBC tin can only refund to the producer whatsoever Country assessment collected in add-on to the $i.00-per-head cess that the producer is required to pay nether the Beef Deed. This last dominion provides that the portion of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment that the QSBC would normally proceed under § 1260.181(b)(4) tin can be redirected to the national program past the producer if State law allows.

Examples:

Example 1—States with no Country Law: A producer in Kansas pays the $1.00 federal assessment for a cattle sale. The Kansas Beef Council collects $one.00, keeps $0.50, and forwards $0.50 to the Beefiness Board. Since there is no Kansas law compelling producers to contribute to the Kansas Beef Council, the producer may request that the $0.fifty of the original $ane.00 assessment be redirected to the Beefiness Board. This case is depicted in Figure one.

Instance 2—States with a Land Law that Authorizes Refunds: A producer in Colorado pays $1.00 in assessments for a cattle sale. The Colorado Beefiness Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.l, and forwards $0.50 to the Beefiness Lath. Colorado State law requires an assessment but allows a refund. The producer may request that the $0.50 Start Printed Page 20768 cents of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board. This instance is depicted in Effigy 2.

Based on current agreement, AMS believes that well-nigh states fall within i of these two examples—either they have no state law compelling them to contribute to a QSBC or they have a land constabulary that provides for refunds. In either case, a producer in these states tin can request that the $0.50 of the original $i.00 assessment exist redirected to the Beef Board.

Example iii—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 Quango collects $i.00, keeps $0.50, and forward $0.50 to the Beef Board. Arizona law compels the collection of the $ane.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.l to the Beef Board. This example is depicted in Effigy 3.

Based on our current agreement of state laws, AMS believes that a few states autumn under this instance including Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Because at that place is a state police force in place that mandates assessments without allowing for a refund, producers in these states may not asking that the $0.l of the original $1.00 cess be redirected to the Beef Board. In general, AMS recommends stakeholders fully consult country 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) (five U.s.C. 601-612), the Administrator of the AMS has considered the economic result of this activeness on pocket-size entities and has adamant that this final rule volition not accept 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 gild that modest businesses volition not be unduly burdened.

Soybean Industry

USDA's Farm Service Agency estimates that at that place are 569,998 soybean producers subject to the Soybean Order. This guess comes from including all soybean producers engaged in the production of soybeans in the previous two years. The majority of producers subject to the Soybean Order are minor businesses under the criteria established past the Small Concern Assistants (SBA) (thirteen CFR 121.201). SBA defines pocket-sized agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

This final dominion imposes no new brunt on the soybean industry. This action clarifies that soybean producers, under certain circumstances, have the choice to request that their assessments paid to a State board exist directed to the national programme. This activity is non expected to change how producers or QSSBs operate with respect to directing funds when advisable to the national plan.

In the July 15, 2016 proposed dominion, AMS provided a chart with estimates by Starting time Printed Page 20769 country 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 country law affected refund amounts. AMS received comments indicating that the nautical chart was hard to follow and, in some cases, inaccurate. As a result, AMS is generalizing its estimate of potential fiscal impacts to range between $0 (for those states in which redirection is non possible) to upwards to $14 one thousand thousand (for high producing soybean states in which redirection is possible). However, given that this activeness is not expected to modify how and whether producers choose to exercise the refund provisions in states where redirection of funds is possible, AMS does not anticipate a pregnant increase in producer requests that would impact the amount of assessments retained by a given state.

The data collection requirements on QSSBs are minimal. QSSBs are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We accept not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this dominion.

Accordingly, AMS has determined that this last rule volition not accept a pregnant economical impact on a substantial number of pocket-size soybean entities.

Beef Industry

In the February 2013, publication of "Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations," USDA's National Agronomical Statistics Service (NASS) estimated that the number of operations in the United States with cattle in 2012 totaled approximately 915,000, downwards from 950,000 in 2009. The bulk of these operations that are bailiwick to the Beefiness Order may be classified as small entities. According to the NASS website "Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations," the issues released betwixt 2005 and 2013 included "Livestock Operations" in the championship. Beginning in 2014, livestock operations data will be available in the Census of Agriculture and most contempo data tin can be referenced from Demography data.

This last rule imposes no new burden on the beef industry. This action clarifies that producers, nether certain circumstances, have the option of requesting that their assessments paid to a Country council be directed to the national program. This activeness 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 past 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 police force afflicted 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 judge of potential financial impacts to range between $0 (for those states in which redirection is not possible) to up to $iv.six million (for high producing beef states in which redirection is possible). Yet, given that this action is non expected to change how and whether producers cull to practice 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 diverse stages of establishing or amending State laws regarding beef checkoff requirements, so this information may modify over time.

The information drove requirements on QSBCs are minimal. QSBCs are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We have not identified whatever relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or disharmonize with this rule.

Accordingly, AMS has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of pocket-size producers.

Paperwork Reduction Deed

In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Deed of 1995 (44 U.s.a.C Affiliate 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 Inquiry, Promotion, and Consumer Data Programs." This final rule established the utilise of two new forms, which impose a total annual brunt of two.49 hours. The Producer Redirection of Checkoff Assessment forms, QSBC-1 and QSSB-i, crave 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 drove requirements in the request are essential to carry out the legislative purpose of the Beefiness Act and the Soybean Act. Under the Beef and Soybean Orders, producers are required to pay an assessment each fourth dimension cattle or soybeans are sold. While the Beef and Soybean Orders impose certain recordkeeping requirements, information required nether 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 East-Government Human action, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for denizen admission to Government data 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 Social club and USDA's oversight of the program, including whether the information will accept applied utility; (b) the accurateness of USDA'south estimate of the brunt 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 data to exist collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents including the utilize of advisable automatic, electronic, mechanical, or other technological drove techniques or other forms of information technology. No separate comments were received regarding the data collection department. However, AMS received a few comments that discussed the paperwork burden of the forms. AMS'due south response to those comments is discussed in the comments department.

Comments

A proposed rule apropos this activeness was published in the Federal Register on July xv, 2016 (81 FR 45984). A sixty-day comment menses ending September thirteen, 2016, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. AMS received 14 comments. Of the fourteen comments received, 12 commenters referenced proposed changes to the Beef Order, one commenter referenced proposed changes to the Soybean Order, and i commenter referenced both the Soybean and Beef Orders. 1 commenter did not provide comments inside the timeframe provided in the proposed order. Withal, in general, this Start Printed 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 become to the national programme, unless a producer provides affirmative consent that their federal assessment paid to a Land council to remain with the Land program. In their view, this arroyo would be consequent 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 desire 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 go along a portion of the federal assessment to support and invest in local programs and activities. For example, over the terminal three years, fewer than twenty 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 go along their funds locally with the QSBCs would create an unnecessary burden to the industry every bit a whole.

A few commenters recommended that the borderline to request a redirection be extended. However, due to the demand for QSBCs to reconcile their financial transactions on a monthly basis, the deadline for a redirection asking must remain as a monthly process every bit stated in the proposed rule.

A few commenters recommended that AMS provide clarification of the private State laws, clarify any conflicts with state laws, and alter/correct any examples provided in the rule and the tables to accurately reverberate the governing state police force. Specifically, the commenters requested greater clarification of the application of refunds in each state. AMS believes that awarding of Land laws are all-time interpreted by united states themselves. The States, not AMS, are responsible for estimation of their corresponding laws.

A few commenters pointed out that some QSBC names were wrong. AMS has updated the list every bit part of its technical amendments and is reflected in this final rule.

One commenter requested that AMS clarify the terminology in the rule to reverberate assessments of cattle producers, not "beefiness" producers, which, in their view, would include multinational trade associations and packers. That aforementioned 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 § 1260.116 who are subject to assessment per the requirements at § 1260.172. Furthermore, while the commenter disagrees that only 20 producers or operations would asking redirection and thus that AMS's information collection burden is too low, AMS has reviewed the number of redirection requests received over the last iii years as the basis for its estimate. Over the concluding iii years, fewer than 20 producers or businesses in full have requested redirection of their funds to the national plan. Based on that data, AMS anticipates that the number of redirection requests will be similar to past years. Therefore, we do non believe the brunt estimate is also depression.

One commenter recommended several dominion text changes. First, the commenter recommended changes to proposed rule § 1260.181(b)(5) to right a perceived syntax fault. The commenter recommended adding two new subsections to correct. Additionally, the commenter recommended a change to § 1260.312(c) to provide clarity and consistency with § 1260.181(b)(four). AMS reviewed the comments and believes they take merit. Consequently, these technical amendments are reflected in this final dominion.

Soybean Order Comments

AMS received 2 comments respecting the Soybean Order. Both commenters recommended a dominion text change to clarify that the proposed rule applies to QSSBs subject to both § 1220.228(a)(one) and (2) of the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Lodge. Both commenters besides raised concerns with how the state refund rules applied to QSSBs. With respect to the commenters' recommended new amendatory language, AMS is unclear on department cantankerous references and believes the suggested changes include an error. Rather than adopt the commenters suggested changes as they proposed, we have fabricated modifications to the amendatory text by adding a new § 1220.228(due east) to reflect that this rule applies to all QSSBs (i.eastward., those entities that elect to serve due to their country authorization under § 1220.228(a)(one) and those entities that apply for certification under § 1220.228(a)(ii)). AMS also moved the proposed text near producers receiving a refund and their obligations to remit this refund to the Board to the appropriate Assessments department at § 1220.223(a)(three). Farther, as stated above, states are responsible for interpreting their laws, and AMS advises stakeholders to carefully review the country refund laws applicative to their state.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule every bit proposed other than the tables and other technical amendments.

Beef Technical Amendments

In addition, several technical amendments are fabricated to update information in the Beef Promotion and Research Gild and rules and regulations:

Department 1260.181(b)(iv) 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 Lath determines a different appointment." The Beef Lath'south practice has been to require QSBCs to remit assessments past the 15th mean solar day of the following calendar month. This department will be updated to reflect actual practice.

Section 1260.315 is amended to reflect the electric current listing of QSBCs.

Offset List of Subjects

List of Subjects

seven CFR Function 1220

Administrative do and process
Advertising
Agricultural inquiry
Marketing agreements
Soybeans and soybean products
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

vii CFR Role 1260

Administrative exercise and procedure
Ad
Agronomical research
Imports
Marketing understanding
Meat and meat products
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Stop List of Subjects

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 1220 and 1260 are amended as follows:

Outset Part

Function 1220—SOYBEAN PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER Data

End Office Starting time Subpoena Function

one. The authority commendation for part 1220 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part

7 United states of americaC. 6301-6311 and 7 U.Due south.C. 7401.

End Say-so Start Printed Folio 20771 Showtime Amendment Part

2. In § 1220.223, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read equally follows:

End Amendment Part

Assessments.

(a) * * *

(three) In determining the assessment due from each producer under paragraph (a)(one) 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 whatever soybeans assessed under this section in an amount non to exceed ane-quarter of one pct 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 class required past the Secretarial assistant.

Start Subpoena Part

three. In § 1220.228, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Finish Subpoena Office

Qualified State Soybean Boards.

(eastward) 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 Lath that portion of such refunds equal to the corporeality of credit received past the producer for contributions pursuant to § 1220.223(a)(3). Entities non authorized by State statute just 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.

Start Part

Role 1260—Beef PROMOTION AND RESEARCH

Finish Part Start Amendment Part

4. The say-so citation for part 1260 continues to read as follows:

Finish Amendment Role Start Authority

7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.s.C. 7401.

Terminate Authority Start Amendment Role

5. In § 1260.172, add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

Stop Amendment Part

Assessments.

(a) * * *

(7) A producer may request a redirection of assessments from a Qualified State Beefiness Quango to the Board in accordance with § 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 non be retroactive. Requests to redirect assessments must be submitted by the producers who paid the assessments.

Starting time Amendment Part

6. In § 1260.181, revise the department heading and paragraph (b)(4) and add paragraphs (b)(viii) and (ix) to read every bit follows:

End Amendment Office

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 § 1260.172(a)(3), past 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 Quango, that whatsoever requests from producers for such refunds by the producers will be honored past redirecting to the Lath that portion of such refunds equal to the corporeality of credit received by the producer for contributions pursuant to § 1260.172(a)(3).

(nine) Certify to the Board that, if the Quango is in a State in which State law does not require collection of the $1-per-caput assessment set forth in the Act (the federal assessment) past the Council, or if the Council is in a State in which State statutes do not require producers to contribute a portion of the $one-per-head federal assessment to the Quango, the Council will provide an opportunity for producers to cull to straight the total $1-per-caput federal assessment to the Board.

Start Amendment Part

7. In § 1260.312, revise paragraph (c) to read equally follows:

End Subpoena Part

Remittance to the Cattlemen's Board or Qualified State Beefiness Council.

(c) Remittances. The remitting person shall remit all assessments to the Qualified Country Beef Council or its designee, or, if at that place is no Qualified State Beef Council, to the Cattlemen'southward Lath at an address designated by the Board, with the report required in paragraph (a) of this section not later than the 15th 24-hour interval of the month following the month in which the cattle were purchased or marketed. All remittances sent to a Qualified Country Beefiness Council or the Cattlemen's Board by the remitting persons shall be by check or money gild payable to the guild of the Qualified Country Beef Council or the Cattlemen'due south Board. All remittances shall exist received field of study to collection and payment at par.

Start Amendment Part

viii. Revise § 1260.315 to read as follows:

Cease Amendment Part

Qualified State Beef Councils.

The following Land beefiness promotion entities have been certified by the Board as Qualified State Beef Councils:

(a) Alabama Cattlemen's Association.

(b) Arizona Beef Quango.

(d) California Beefiness Quango.

(east) Colorado Beef Quango Potency.

(f) Delaware Beef Advisory Board.

(g) Florida Beefiness Quango, Inc.

(h) Georgia Beef Board, Inc.

(i) Hawaii Beef Industry Council.

(j) Idaho Beef Council.

(k) Illinois Beefiness Association, Inc.

(fifty) Indiana Beef Quango, Inc.

(one thousand) 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 Beefiness Council.

(u) Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc.

(five) Montana Beef Council.

(due west) Nebraska Beef Council.

(x) Nevada Beef Council.

(y) New Jersey Beef Manufacture Council.

(z) New Mexico Beef Council.

(aa) New York Beef Industry Council.

(bb) Northward Carolina Cattlemen'southward Beef Council.

(cc) North Dakota Beef Commission.

(dd) Ohio Beef Council.

(ee) Oklahoma Beefiness Quango.

(ff) Oregon Beef Council.

(gg) Pennsylvania Beef Council.

(hh) South Carolina Beefiness Council.

(2) South Dakota Beef Industry Council.

(jj) Tennessee Beefiness Industry Council.

(kk) Texas Beefiness Council.

(ll) Utah Beef Quango.

(mm) Vermont Beef Industry Council.

(nn) Virginia Beefiness Industry Council.

(oo) Washington Land Beef Commission.

(pp) W Virginia Beef Council, Inc.

(qq) Wisconsin Beef Quango, Inc.

(rr) Wyoming Beef Council.

Showtime Signature

Dated: May 7, 2019.

Bruce Summers,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Cease Signature

smithdertuary.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/13/2019-09700/soybean-promotion-research-and-consumer-information-beef-promotion-and-research-amendments-to-allow