Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency: 2005 Section 32 Hurricane Disaster Programs; 2006 Livestock Assistance Grant Program, GAO-07-715R, April 16, 2007
The Honorable Tom
Harkin
Chairman
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
The Honorable Collin
Peterson
Chairman
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives
Subject: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency: 2005 Section 32 Hurricane Disaster Programs; 2006 Livestock Assistance Grant Program
Pursuant to section
801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a major rule
promulgated by the Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA),
entitled “2005 Section 32 Hurricane Disaster Programs; 2006 Livestock
Assistance Grant Program” (RIN: 0560-AH45).
We received the rule on
FSA published an interim final rule on
Enclosed is our assessment of the FSA’s compliance with the procedural steps required by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. Our review indicates that FSA complied with the applicable requirements.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact Michael R. Volpe, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-8236. The official responsible for GAO evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule is Robert Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment. Mr. Robinson can be reached at (202) 512-3841.
signed
Robert J. Cramer
Associate General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Tom Witzig
Director, Regulatory Review Group
Department of Agriculture
ENCLOSURE
REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. sect. 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR
RULE
ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
ENTITLED
"2005 SECTION 32 HURRICANE DISASTER PROGRAMS;
2006 LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM"
(RIN: 0560-AH45)
(i) Cost-benefit analysis
The named hurricanes and other related disasters severely limited the purchasing power of farmers engaged in the production of agricultural commodities. The final rule provides for the establishment of four hurricane disaster programs to be administered by FSA in order to provide funds to eligible producers who suffered eligible losses, and a grant program to enable named states to assist aquaculture producers who suffered losses. One purpose of these programs is to reestablish these producers’ purchasing power. FSA performed a cost-benefit analysis of this final rule for each of the four disaster programs and the grant program under which funds are available.
(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 603-605, 607, and 609
Since the final rule was not preceded by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the requirements of the Act do not apply.
(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202-205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. sections 1532-1535
The final rule does not contain either an
intergovernmental or private sector mandate, as defined in Title II, of more
than $100 million in any one year.
(iv) Other relevant information or requirements under acts
and executive orders
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 551 et seq.
The Administrator of FSA has found “good cause” under 5 U.S.C. sect. 553 to make this regulation effective immediately because to delay implementation of this final rule would significantly delay assistance to the many people who suffered losses by the disasters.
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. sections 3501-3520
The information collection requirements contained in the final rule have been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB Control number 0560-0257.
Statutory authorization for the rule
The final rule is promulgated under the authority found in 7 U.S.C. sect. 612c, Public Law No. 106-387, 114 Stat. 1549, and Public Law No. 107-76, 115 Stat. 704.
Executive Order No. 12866
The final rule was reviewed by OMB and found to be an “economically significant” regulatory action under the order.
Executive Order No. 13132 (Federalism)
FSA states that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.