FR 2021-00328

The document under discussion is the Pecan Promotion, Research, and Information Order, a regulatory framework, designed to strengthen the pecan industry's position in the marketplace. This initiative is overseen by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the Agriculture Department, with the rule being published on January 13, 2021. It sets up a mandatory funding mechanism through assessments on domestic pecan producers and importers to back research, promotional activities, and expand pecan markets both locally and internationally.

Summary of the Document

The primary goal of this order is to bolster the pecan industry's outreach and market presence. It suggests the establishment of a governing body called the American Pecan Promotion Board, which will be responsible for implementing strategic programs. Effectiveness and continuity of the program are to be gauged via a referendum among stakeholders after three years. It's a strategic move motivated by previous challenges, particularly the supply exceeding demand.

Significant Issues or Concerns

The document appears to face several complexities that may not be immediately easy to grasp by the general public. Integral components like regulatory jargon and intricate procedural details might pose comprehension difficulties for non-expert readers.

The use of funds through collected assessments is outlined generally but lacks a transparent breakdown of their specific application, potentially raising questions about accountability. Moreover, while it mentions existing marketing orders, the document risks overlapping these systems, which might lead to redundant efforts and resource wastage.

Criteria for product exemptions, especially for imports, and the audit processes designed to ensure proper use and collection of funds are somewhat vague. This lack of detailed explanation could be a point of contention among stakeholders.

Impact on the Public

For the public, the overarching aim of boosting market demand for pecans may lead to more competitive prices, innovation in pecan products, and potentially more consumer choices. Improved promotional efforts might also raise awareness about pecans and their nutritional benefits.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For the stakeholders directly involved, such as pecan producers and importers, this initiative could provide much-needed support to stabilize and potentially grow their markets. The sustained joint effort and funding could help tackle challenges like supply-demand imbalance and competitive pressures from other nut industries.

However, there are concerns about the financial burden on small producers, who already contribute to existing marketing orders, struggling under added assessment pressures. Additionally, if outreach efforts are ineffective in reaching stakeholders like small farmers, they might not fully realize the program's benefits or leverage the exemptions and support offered.

In summary, while the order aims at bolstering the pecan industry, questions about clarity and the potential financial strain on smaller entities linger, leaving room for further evaluation and adjustment to ensure broad and fair stakeholder benefits.

The Pecan Promotion, Research, and Information Order aims to strengthen the pecan market by imposing assessments on producers and importers. These assessments are intended to fund research, marketing, and promotional efforts. The initial assessment rate is $0.02 per pound for inshell pecans and $0.04 per pound for shelled pecans. These funds will be collected from producers and importers and used to support various industry initiatives.

One of the primary financial issues identified in the document is the lack of specific details on how these funds will be allocated and utilized to ensure accountability and transparency. Although the document specifies assessment rates, it does not thoroughly outline the particular projects or initiatives these rates will finance. Providing more clarity on the exact applications of these funds would help address concerns regarding financial accountability.

The document also notes the potential for overlap with existing marketing orders, which could lead to duplicative efforts. It is not entirely clear how this new order will differentiate itself from existing ones or how it will avoid inefficiencies. Clarification in this area could ensure that funds derived from assessments are used in the most effective manner possible, without unnecessary duplication of efforts.

Additionally, while the document outlines exemptions based on production thresholds, it does not clearly specify the criteria or process for determining exemptions for imported products. This lack of specificity could lead to confusion or misapplication of rules regarding assessments. Ensuring detailed processes for exemptions could help avoid potential legal and administrative hurdles.

The economic impact analysis briefly touches on burden estimates for collecting and handling information related to assessments, forecasting costs at $606,046 for respondents. These costs are calculated based on a mean hourly wage of $36.08 for producers and importers, including benefits. Despite this estimation, the document does not offer detailed strategies for minimizing the paperwork burden beyond referencing the Paperwork Reduction Act. Improved strategies could be developed to further reduce the administrative costs associated with program compliance.

Finally, while outreach efforts are mentioned, there is no comprehensive analysis of their effectiveness, particularly in reaching smaller farming operations. This information could be critical in ensuring that all stakeholders understand their financial obligations and benefits under the order. Enhancing communication strategies could ensure that these assessments are both understood and correctly implemented.

In summary, the financial aspects of the Pecan Promotion, Research, and Information Order highlight essential commitments to market development but also underscore the need for greater clarity in fund usage, processes for exemptions, and minimizing administrative burdens. Enhanced transparency and strategic planning for these elements would likely improve the program's credibility and effectiveness.