Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: What a rip off don't let this happen

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "sal" <sals@rain.org>
  • To: "sanet" <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>, <OGL@LSV.UKY.EDU>, "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: What a rip off don't let this happen
  • Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 06:29:30 -0700



>
> check out an organic farmers homepage
> http://www.rain.org/~sals/.my.html
> sals@rain.,org
>
> http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/ let USDA know they can not steal our word =
> "organic" then charge us to use it. we are mad as hell and we are not =
> going to take it anymore. Get big government off our backs. its is the =
> small farmer that is paying for this. it is oppression on the poor.
>
> What a rip off. I don't feel a organic grower should pay one cent extra =
> because he grows and sells his products in a organic way. this is a =
> organic farmer rip off and the USDA should be ashamed of it self all =
> this and they say organic food is not safer or better for the earth .=20
>
>
>
> I hope all u bottom feeding bureaucratic pencils pushers have a happy =
> Easter because you are still crucifying good folks. set Barabus free =
> and hang the good man who has done no wrong.
>
> the government say they do not want to burden business with fees and =
> paper work and look at this . the USDA speak with a fork toung. say =
> they want to help the small family grower. i say look at their works and =
> their word and u will see the USDA are liars. this is getting nuts.
>
> how many bureaucratic bottom feeding pencils pushers does it take and =
> how much will the farmer have to pay to grow organic. the USDA is worse =
> then the Mafia in fact I think the Mafia won and they are now the USDA. =
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fees
>
> This portion of subpart G sets forth the regulations on fees and other =
> charges to be assessed for accreditation and certification services =
> under the National Organic Program (NOP). These regulations address the =
> kinds of fees and charges to be assessed by the Department for the =
> accreditation of certifying agents, the level of such fees and charges, =
> and the payment of such fees and charges. These regulations also address =
> general requirements to be met by certifying agents in assessing fees =
> and other charges for the certification of producers and handlers as =
> certified organic operations. Finally, these regulations address the =
> Secretary's oversight of a certifying agent's fees and charges for =
> certification services.
>
> Proposal Description
>
> Fees and Other Charges for Accreditation.
>
> Fees and other charges will be assessed and collected from applicants =
> for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents submitting =
> annual reports or seeking renewal of accreditation. Such fees will be =
> equal as nearly as may be to the cost of the accreditation services =
> rendered under these regulations. Fees-for-service will be based on the =
> time required to render the service provided calculated to the nearest =
> 15-minute period. Activities to be billed on the basis of time used =
> include the review of applications and accompanying documents and =
> information, evaluator travel, the conduct of on-site evaluations, =
> review of annual reports and updated documents and information, and the =
> preparation of reports and any other documents in connection with the =
> performance of service. The hourly rate will be the same as that charged =
> by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), through its Quality System =
> Certification Program, to certification bodies requesting conformity =
> assessment to the International Organization for Standardization =
> "General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification =
> Systems" (ISO Guide 65).
>
> Applicants for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents =
> submitting annual reports or seeking renewal of accreditation during the =
> first 18 months following the effective date of subpart F will receive =
> service without incurring an hourly charge for such service.
>
> Applicants for initial accreditation and renewal of accreditation must =
> pay at the time of application, effective 18 months following the =
> effective date of Subpart F, a nonrefundable fee of $500.00. This fee =
> will be applied to the applicant's fees-for-service account.
>
> When service is requested at a place so distant from the evaluator's =
> headquarters that a total of one-half hour or more is required for the =
> evaluator(s) to travel to such place and back to the headquarters, or at =
> a place of prior assignment on circuitous routing requiring a total of =
> one-half hour or more to travel to the next place of assignment on the =
> circuitous routing, the charge for such service will include all =
> applicable travel charges. Travel charges may include a mileage charge =
> administratively determined by the Department, travel tolls, or, where =
> the travel is made by public transportation (including hired vehicles), =
> a fee equal to the actual cost thereof. If the service is provided on a =
> circuitous routing the travel charges will be prorated among all the =
> applicants and certifying agents furnished the service involved on an =
> equitable basis. Travel charges will become effective for all applicants =
> for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents on the =
> effective date of subpart F. The applicant or certifying agent will not =
> be charged a new mileage rate without notification before the service is =
> rendered.
>
> When service is requested at a place away from the evaluator's =
> headquarters, the fee for such service shall include a per diem charge =
> if the employee(s) performing the service is paid per diem in accordance =
> with existing travel regulations. Per diem charges to applicants and =
> certifying agents will cover the same period of time for which the =
> evaluator(s) receives per diem reimbursement. The per diem rate will be =
> administratively determined by the Department. Per diem charges shall =
> become effective for all applicants for initial accreditation and =
> accredited certifying agents on the effective date of subpart F. The =
> applicant or certifying agent will not be charged a new per diem rate =
> without notification before the service is rendered.
>
> When costs, other than fees-for-service, travel charges, and per diem =
> charges are associated with providing the services, the applicant or =
> certifying agent will be charged for these costs. Such costs include, =
> but are not limited to, equipment rental, photocopying, delivery, =
> facsimile, telephone, or translation charges incurred in association =
> with accreditation services. The amount of the costs charged will be =
> determined administratively by the Department. Such costs will become =
> effective for all applicants for initial accreditation and accredited =
> certifying agents on the effective date of subpart F.
>
> Payment of Fees and Other Charges
>
> Applicants for initial accreditation and renewal of accreditation must =
> remit the nonrefundable fee along with their application. Remittance =
> must be made payable to the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, and =
> mailed to: Program Manager, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-South Building, =
> PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456 or such other address as =
> required by the Program Manager. All other payments for fees and other =
> charges must be received by the due date shown on the bill for =
> collection, made payable to the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, =
> and mailed to the address provided on the bill for collection. The =
> Administrator will assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs =
> on debts not paid by the due date shown on a bill for collection and =
> collect delinquent debts or refer such debts to the Department of =
> Justice for litigation.
>
> Fees and Other Charges for Certification
>
> Fees charged by a certifying agent must be reasonable, and a certifying =
> agent may charge applicants for certification and certified production =
> and handling operations only those fees and charges that it has filed =
> with the Administrator. The certifying agent must provide each applicant =
> with an estimate of the total cost of certification and an estimate of =
> the annual cost of updating the certification. The certifying agent may =
> require applicants for certification to pay at the time of application a =
> nonrefundable fee of no more than $250.00 which must be applied to the =
> applicant's fees-for-service account. The certifying agent must provide =
> all persons inquiring about the application process with a copy of its =
> fee schedule.
>
> Fees - Changes Based on Comments
>
> This portion of subpart G differs from our first proposal in several =
> respects as follows: (1) Application and Administrative Fees. We have =
> removed the provisions which required certifying agents to pay =
> application and administrative fees. These fee provisions have been =
> replaced with provisions for the assessment of fees for service equal as =
> nearly as may be to the cost of the accreditation services rendered =
> under these regulations. In other words, we will be assessing fees and =
> charges only for activities related to accreditation. These fees and =
> charges will be assessed and collected from applicants for initial =
> accreditation and accredited certifying agents submitting annual reports =
> or seeking renewal of accreditation. The balance of costs incurred by =
> the NOP will be funded through appropriations. We have retained the =
> requirement, with modification, that certifying agents reimburse the =
> Department for travel, per diem, and related other costs associated with =
> providing accreditation services. We have taken these actions in an =
> attempt to minimize the cost of this program on certifying agents. =
> Certifying agents will be charged for the actual time and travel =
> expenses necessary for the NOP to perform accreditation services.
>
> This proposed program is similar to the Quality Systems Certification =
> Program (QSCP) established pursuant to 7 CFR Part 54. The QSCP is an =
> audit-based program administered by AMS through its Livestock and Seed =
> Program, which provides meatpackers, processors, producers, and other =
> businesses in the livestock and meat trade with the opportunity to have =
> special processes or documented quality management systems verified. =
> Since the procedures used for accrediting State and private entities as =
> accredited organic certifying agents are similar to those used to =
> certify other types of product or system certification programs under =
> the QSCP, we have decided to use this existing program and its staff in =
> examining certifying agents' operations and evaluating their compliance =
> with the Act and these regulations. Using the QSCP and its staff will =
> enable the NOP to provide the necessary services without creating a =
> separate bureaucracy. Hourly fees to be charged for services under this =
> program will be the same as those under the QSCP, currently estimated at =
> $95.00 per hour.
>
> This fee of approximately $95.00 is greater than the $42.20 base rate =
> charged under the voluntary user-fee-funded program established by AMS =
> to verify that State and private organic certifying agents in the United =
> States comply with the requirements prescribed under ISO Guide 65. This =
> program, administered by the AMS Livestock and Seed Program, applied the =
> aggregate meat grading rate for services to this ISO Guide 65 =
> verification program for State and private organic certificating agents. =
> The grading rate of $42.20 was the only rate for which AMS was =
> authorized to charge at the time that the program to assess ISO Guide 65 =
> conformity by organic certifying agents was implemented. This was not =
> the actual audit rate of approximately $95.00 for such services. The AMS =
> Livestock and Seed Program will engage in rulemaking to establish audit =
> fees for its QSCP. As noted above, those fees are expected to be =
> approximately $95.00 per hour. The NOP will notify accredited certifying =
> agents of proposed rate changes and final actions on such rates by AMS.
>
> To minimize the economic impact of implementing the NOP on certifying =
> agents, we have decided to provide services for accreditation during the =
> first 18 months following the effective date of new subpart F without an =
> hourly charge for all applicants for initial accreditation and =
> accredited certifying agents. This represents full subsidization of the =
> hourly costs for accreditation by the Department during the first 18 =
> months of operation. This 18-month subsidization of the hourly costs =
> will prove especially beneficial to any applicant for accreditation that =
> submits a substandard application or has difficulty establishing =
> eligibility for accreditation. Certifying agents will be charged for =
> accreditation service at the published hourly rate on the first day of =
> the nineteenth month following the effective date of subpart F.
>
> Over 15,000 comments were received on fees, with all opposing the first =
> proposal's fee provisions. In addition to comments from consumers, =
> comments were received from State agencies, organic growers, grower =
> associations, and certifying agents. Most of these commenters expressed =
> the belief that the proposed fees would price small certifying agents =
> out of the organic industry. Almost half of the over 15,000 comments =
> suggested a sliding-scale fee system, rather than the flat fee system in =
> the first proposal, to accommodate the economic needs of small =
> certifying agents. We have not accepted the concept of a sliding-scale =
> fee system. Rather, as noted above, we are proposing that certifying =
> agents be charged for the actual time and travel expenses necessary for =
> the NOP to perform accreditation services. Under this fee system, =
> smaller certifying agents should pay less in hourly charges to obtain =
> and maintain certification than larger certifying agents. This =
> assumption, however, is contingent on the quality of all documentation =
> submitted to the Department, certifying agent recordkeeping, and the =
> efficiency of the certifying agent in meeting the requirements of this =
> part. The fees and other charges for accreditation regulations are found =
> in section 205.640.
>
> (2) Payment by Certified Check. We have removed the requirement that the =
> payment of fees and charges to the Department be by certified check or =
> money order. We have made this change because we agree with commenters =
> that this requirement is unnecessary and potentially burdensome.
>
> Nearly all industry commenters opposed the form and method of payments =
> stated throughout the original fee sections. Commenters stated that =
> payment by certified check or money order was unnecessary and would =
> create an additional burden on individual producers, handlers, and =
> private certifiers. A few State commenters stated that it was insulting =
> for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to require a State =
> government agency to pay for its accreditation with a certified check.
>
> (3) Producer and Handler Fees to the Department. We have removed the =
> provisions which required the payment of certification fees by producers =
> and handlers to the Department. We have taken this action because we =
> believe that the goal of recovering program costs through fees and other =
> costs charged to producers and handlers for certification as certified =
> organic operations should be balanced against the Act's purpose to =
> facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food.
>
> We received over 15,000 comments all opposing the first proposal's fee =
> provisions for producers and handlers. Comments were received from =
> consumers, State agencies, organic growers, grower associations, and =
> certifying agents. Most of these commenters stated that the proposed =
> fees would price small producers and handlers out of the organic =
> industry. Hundreds of these commenters stated that the proposed fees =
> favor large production operations. Almost half of the over 15,000 =
> comments suggested a sliding-scale fee system, rather than the flat fee =
> system proposed in the first proposal, to accommodate the economic needs =
> of small producers and handlers. Hundreds more suggested that small =
> producers and processors be exempt from the payment of fees.
>
> Most of the State agency, organic grower, grower association, and =
> certifying agent (industry) commenters spoke to the very small size and =
> family-farm nature of the average organic production operation and how =
> those operations would be affected by the proposed fees. Commenters from =
> this group who offered estimates suggested that one-third to over =
> one-half of organic producers in their area or State are very small =
> organic producers operating at or near the exemption level of $5,000 in =
> annual sales. They said those operating just above the exemption level =
> could be forced out of organic production by the extra fee and the =
> increased certification charges passed down by certifying agents who =
> would have to pay the proposed accreditation charges.
>
> Commenters, industry and consumer, stated that, rather than encouraging =
> growth and new participation in organic agriculture, . the costs of =
> certification would stifle growth and discourage small producer =
> participation in organic agricultureAn industry commenter stated that =
> exempt producers who might want to be certified so they could market =
> their product as organic would be dissuaded from doing so because of the =
> cost of certification. Industry commenters also stated that the =
> additional USDA fee on small handlers would make small organic handling =
> operations marginal. A few State agencies commented that many small =
> organic producers also conduct their own on-farm handling and that these =
> operations would be forced out of the organic industry by the excessive =
> handler fee and reporting burdens.
>
> The comment, that exempt producers who might want to be certified so =
> they could market their product as organic would be dissuaded from doing =
> so because of the cost of certification, requires clarification. It may =
> be true that such producers would be dissuaded from seeking =
> certification because of the cost of certification. It is not true, =
> however, that exempt producers must be certified to sell or label their =
> production as organic. The Act exempts small producers, those who =
> produce no more than $5,000 in agricultural products, from the =
> requirement that a person may sell or label an agricultural product as =
> organically produced only if such product is produced and handled in =
> accordance with the Act.=20
>
> Industry commenters recommended complete changes to the proposed fee =
> structure. Most, like the consumer commenters, suggested a sliding scale =
> for fees based on either size or sales volume. Several industry =
> commenters stated that the Act does not require that USDA recover all =
> program costs from assessments on producers, handlers, and certifying =
> agents. They cited section 6522 of the Act as authorizing the use of =
> appropriated funds to carry out the program. Some industry commenters =
> suggested that appropriated funds should be used to cover all =
> administrative and overhead costs and that fees collected from the =
> industry should only be used for specific program activities such as =
> accreditation. A few industry commenters suggested that organic farmers =
> not be charged an AMS fee but that each be required to sign an affidavit =
> of compliance with program requirements.
>
> After further discussions within the Department and review of the =
> comments, we have determined that the fee structure for the NOP should =
> be modified to reduce costs to all organic sectors. We acknowledge that =
> the fees proposed in the first proposal might have discouraged industry =
> growth and might not have facilitated interstate commerce of organic =
> products. Because we believe that fees and other costs charged to =
> producers and handlers for certification as certified organic operations =
> should be kept to a minimum to encourage industry participation and =
> growth, we have removed the regulations which provided for the payment =
> of fees to the Department by certified production and handling =
> operations.
>
> (4) Estimated Cost of Certification. We have added, at section 205.642, =
> the requirement that the certifying agent must provide each applicant =
> with an estimate of the total cost of certification and an estimate of =
> the annual cost of updating the certification. Additionally, the =
> certifying agent must provide all persons inquiring about the =
> application process with a copy of its fee schedule. We have added these =
> provisions to ensure that producers and handlers have early and ready =
> access to the information they need to consider cost in selecting an =
> agent to certify their production or handling operation. We consider =
> this to be especially important because, as noted in the preamble to =
> subpart F, we have removed the requirement that the certifying agent =
> charge only such fees to applicants for certification and operations it =
> certifies that the Secretary determines are reasonable. We have removed =
> this requirement because we concur with those commenters who expressed =
> the belief that certifying agents should be permitted to set their own =
> fees without the approval of the Secretary. We have also removed this =
> requirement because we concur with the commenters' belief that =
> production and handling operations are free to consider cost in =
> selecting an agent to certify their production or handling operation.
>
> Fees - Changes Requested But Not Made
>
> This subpart retains from our first proposal regulations on which we =
> received comments as follows:
>
> (1) Accreditation Charges Billed to State Certifying Agents. Several =
> State certifying agents stated that State certifying agents should not =
> be assessed accreditation charges. Commenters stated that most State =
> certifying agents could face large accreditation costs because they have =
> many county or regional offices which would be considered subsidiaries =
> of the headquarters office. They stated that these charges would have to =
> be passed on to producers and handlers or paid with supplemental State =
> funds. A few State certifying agents stated that USDA should pay the =
> States, rather than vice versa, because of the State organic programs' =
> contributions to the national program. At least one State representative =
> commented that accreditation fees for State certifying agents should be =
> less than for private certifying agents because State certifying agents =
> should require less review and oversight by AMS.
>
> We disagree with those commenters who recommended that State certifying =
> agents not be assessed accreditation charges, be charged less for =
> accreditation, or be paid to certify production or handling operations. =
> We view such actions as constituting unacceptable preferential treatment =
> of State certifying agents to the detriment of private-entity certifying =
> agents. Accordingly, under this proposal, State-entity certifying agents =
> will be assessed fees for accreditation under the same fee structure as =
> private-entity certifying agents.
>
> (2) Subsidization. Some industry commenters stated that national =
> governments in Europe provide direct subsidies and other economic =
> incentives for their farmers to grow organic. A few questioned why the =
> organic industry would be charged for services while some USDA programs =
> are provided without cost to other agricultural sectors, and USDA =
> actually pays some farmers not to grow some commodities. Industry =
> commenters and many consumer commenters stated that it was unfair for =
> this proposed program to charge all costs to a fledgling agricultural =
> industry composed mostly of small, family farmers and marginal =
> operations. Finally, a few industry commenters proposed the =
> philosophical argument that program fees penalize those who protect the =
> earth and that USDA should charge traditional producers who damage the =
> earth with chemical applications and nonsustainable cultural practices.
>
> AMS is primarily a user-fee-based Federal agency. The Act at section =
> 6506(a)(10) requires the collection of fees from producers, handlers, =
> and certifying agents. We are, therefore, unable to provide for the full =
> subsidization of producers, handlers, and certifying agents as espoused =
> by some commenters. Accordingly, this proposal provides for the payment =
> of fees by producers, handlers, and certifying agents. We have, however, =
> proposed regulations in this proposal which we believe will minimize the =
> economic impact of the NOP on producers, handlers, and certifying =
> agents.
>
> Fees - Additional Provisions
>
> Upon further review of the fee provisions in the first proposal, we have =
> decided to propose the following additions.
>
> (1) Certification Fees Charged by Certifying Agents. We have added, at =
> section 205.642, regulations addressing general requirements to be met =
> by certifying agents in assessing fees and other charges for the =
> certification of producers and handlers as certified organic operations. =
> First, fees charged by a certifying agent must be reasonable, and a =
> certifying agent may charge applicants for certification and certified =
> production and handling operations only those fees and charges that it =
> has filed with the Administrator. This is a general requirement for =
> accreditation and is also found at section 205.501(a)(15) in subpart F =
> on accreditation. This regulation does not prohibit certifying agents =
> from providing and charging for services outside the NOP. Services that =
> certifying agents might provide outside the NOP include in-house =
> publications, conferences, workshops, informational meetings, and field =
> days. Certifying agents cannot require participation in such activities =
> by certified operations or applicants for certification as a condition =
> of certification.
>
> Second, the certifying agent may require applicants for certification to =
> pay at the time of application a nonrefundable fee of no more than =
> $250.00 which must be applied to the applicant's fees-for-service =
> account. We believe that this fee will help ensure that certifying =
> agents are compensated for certification services provided to an =
> applicant that is found to be not qualified to receive certification as =
> an organic production or handling operation.
>
> (2) Fees Charged to Foreign Certifying Agents. We have removed the =
> provisions which required the payment of fees for import programs. We =
> have taken this action because this proposal incudes foreign State =
> entities and foreign private entities which provide certification =
> services under the accreditation requirements of this part. Accordingly, =
> such entities are covered under the fees for accreditation provisions of =
> section 205.640.
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFACEC.BF12C180
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3013.2600" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>check out an organic farmers =
> homepage<BR><A=20
> href=3D"http://www.rain.org/~sals/.my.html";>http://www.rain.org/~sals/.my=
> .html</A><BR><A=20
> href=3D"mailto:sals@rain.,org";>sals@rain.,org</A></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
> <P><A =
> href=3D"http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/";>http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/</A>&nb=
> sp;=20
> let&nbsp;USDA know they can not steal our word "organic" then charge us =
> to use=20
> it. we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore. Get big=20
> government off our backs.&nbsp; its is the small farmer that is paying =
> for=20
> this.&nbsp; it is oppression on the poor.</P>
> <P><STRONG>What a rip off.&nbsp; I don't feel a organic grower should =
> pay one=20
> cent extra because he grows and sells his products in a organic=20
> way.&nbsp;&nbsp;this is a organic farmer rip off and the&nbsp;USDA =
> should be=20
> ashamed of it self&nbsp; all this and they say organic food is not safer =
> or=20
> better for the earth . </STRONG></P>
> <P>&nbsp;</P>
> <P><STRONG>I hope all u bottom feeding bureaucratic pencils pushers have =
> a happy=20
> Easter because you are still crucifying good folks.&nbsp; set Barabus =
> free and=20
> hang the good man who has done no wrong.</STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG>the government say they do not want to burden business with =
> fees and=20
> paper work and look at this .&nbsp;&nbsp; the USDA speak with a fork=20
> toung.&nbsp; say they want to help the small family grower. i say look =
> at their=20
> works and their word and u will see the USDA are liars.&nbsp; this is =
> getting=20
> nuts.</STRONG></P>
> <P>how many bureaucratic bottom feeding pencils pushers does it take and =
> how=20
> much will the farmer have to pay to grow organic.&nbsp; the USDA is =
> worse then=20
> the Mafia in fact I think the Mafia won and they are now the USDA.&nbsp; =
> </P>
> <P>&nbsp;</P>
> <P>&nbsp;</P>
> <P>&nbsp;</P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees</STRONG></P>
> <P>This portion of subpart G sets forth the regulations on fees and =
> other=20
> charges to be assessed for accreditation and certification services =
> under the=20
> National Organic Program (NOP). These regulations address the kinds of =
> fees and=20
> charges to be assessed by the Department for the accreditation of =
> certifying=20
> agents, the level of such fees and charges, and the payment of such fees =
> and=20
> charges. These regulations also address general requirements to be met =
> by=20
> certifying agents in assessing fees and other charges for the =
> certification of=20
> producers and handlers as certified organic operations. Finally, these=20
> regulations address the Secretary's oversight of a certifying agent's =
> fees and=20
> charges for certification services.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Proposal Description</STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees and Other Charges for Accreditation.</STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees and other charges </STRONG>will be assessed and =
> collected from=20
> applicants for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents =
> submitting=20
> annual reports or seeking renewal of accreditation. Such fees will be =
> equal as=20
> nearly as may be to the cost of the accreditation services rendered =
> under these=20
> regulations<STRONG>. Fees-for-service will be based on the time required =
> to=20
> render the service provided calculated to the nearest 15-minute period.=20
> Activities to be billed on the basis of time used include the review of=20
> applications and accompanying documents and information, evaluator =
> travel, the=20
> conduct of on-site evaluations, review of annual reports and updated =
> documents=20
> and information, and the preparation of reports and any other documents =
> in=20
> connection with the performance of service. </STRONG>The hourly rate =
> will be the=20
> same as that charged by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), =
> through its=20
> Quality System Certification Program, to certification bodies requesting =
>
> conformity assessment to the International Organization for =
> Standardization=20
> "General Requirements for Bodies Operating Product Certification =
> Systems" (ISO=20
> Guide 65).</P>
> <P>Applicants for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents =
>
> submitting annual reports or seeking renewal of accreditation during the =
> first=20
> 18 months following the effective date of subpart F will receive service =
> without=20
> incurring an hourly charge for such service.</P>
> <P>Applicants for initial accreditation and renewal of accreditation =
> must pay at=20
> the time of application, effective 18 months following the effective =
> date of=20
> Subpart F<STRONG>, a nonrefundable fee of $500.00</STRONG>. This fee =
> will be=20
> applied to the applicant's fees-for-service account.</P>
> <P>When service is requested at a place so distant from the evaluator's=20
> headquarters that a total of one-half hour or more is required for the=20
> evaluator(s) to travel to such place and back to the headquarters, or at =
> a place=20
> of prior assignment on circuitous routing requiring a total of one-half =
> hour or=20
> more to travel to the next place of assignment on the circuitous =
> routing, the=20
> charge for such service will include all applicable travel charges.=20
> <STRONG>Travel charges may include a mileage charge administratively =
> determined=20
> by the Department, travel tolls, or, where the travel is made by public=20
> transportation (including hired vehicles), a fee equal to the actual =
> cost=20
> thereof. </STRONG>If the service is provided on a circuitous routing the =
> travel=20
> charges will be prorated among all the applicants and certifying agents=20
> furnished the service involved on an equitable basis. Travel charges =
> will become=20
> effective for all applicants for initial accreditation and accredited =
> certifying=20
> agents on the effective date of subpart F. The applicant or certifying =
> agent=20
> will not be charged a new mileage rate without notification before the =
> service=20
> is rendered.</P>
> <P>When service is requested at a place away from the evaluator's =
> headquarters,=20
> the fee for such service shall include a per diem charge if the =
> employee(s)=20
> performing the service is paid per diem in accordance with existing =
> travel=20
> regulations. Per diem charges to applicants and certifying agents will =
> cover the=20
> same period of time for which the evaluator(s) receives per diem =
> reimbursement.=20
> The per diem rate will be administratively determined by the Department. =
> Per=20
> diem charges shall become effective for all applicants for initial =
> accreditation=20
> and accredited certifying agents on the effective date of subpart F. The =
>
> applicant or certifying agent will not be charged a new per diem rate =
> without=20
> notification before the service is rendered.</P>
> <P><STRONG>When costs, other than fees-for-service, travel charges, and =
> per diem=20
> charges are associated with providing the services, the applicant or =
> certifying=20
> agent will be charged for these costs.</STRONG> Such costs include, but =
> are not=20
> limited to, equipment rental, photocopying, delivery, facsimile, =
> telephone, or=20
> translation charges incurred in association with accreditation services. =
> The=20
> amount of the costs charged will be determined administratively by the=20
> Department. Such costs will become effective for all applicants for =
> initial=20
> accreditation and accredited certifying agents on the effective date of =
> subpart=20
> F.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Payment of Fees and Other Charges</STRONG></P>
> <P>Applicants for <STRONG>initial accreditation and renewal of =
> accreditation=20
> must remit the nonrefundable fee along with their application</STRONG>.=20
> Remittance must be made payable to the Agricultural Marketing Service, =
> USDA, and=20
> mailed to: Program Manager, USDA-AMS-TMP-NOP, Room 2945-South Building, =
> PO Box=20
> 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456 or such other address as required by =
> the=20
> Program Manager. All other payments for fees and other charges must be =
> received=20
> by the due date shown on the bill for collection, made payable to the=20
> Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, and mailed to the address provided =
> on the=20
> bill for collection. The Administrator will assess interest, penalties, =
> and=20
> administrative costs on debts not paid by the due date shown on a bill =
> for=20
> collection and collect delinquent debts or refer such debts to the =
> Department of=20
> Justice for litigation.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees and Other Charges for Certification</STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees charged by a certifying agent must be =
> reasonable</STRONG>, and a=20
> certifying agent may charge applicants for certification and certified=20
> production and handling operations only those fees and charges that it =
> has filed=20
> with the Administrator. The certifying agent must provide each applicant =
> with an=20
> estimate of the total cost of certification and an estimate of the =
> annual cost=20
> of updating the certification. The <STRONG>certifying agent may require=20
> applicants for certification to pay at the time of application a =
> nonrefundable=20
> fee of no more than $250.00 </STRONG>which must be applied to the =
> applicant's=20
> fees-for-service account. The certifying agent must provide all persons=20
> inquiring about the application process with a copy of its fee =
> schedule.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees - Changes Based on Comments</STRONG></P>
> <P>This portion of subpart G differs from our first proposal in several =
> respects=20
> as follows: (1) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Application =
> and=20
> Administrative Fees</SPAN>. We have removed the provisions which =
> required=20
> certifying agents to pay application and administrative fees. These fee=20
> provisions have been replaced with provisions for the assessment of fees =
> for=20
> service equal as nearly as may be to the cost of the accreditation =
> services=20
> rendered under these regulations. In other words, <STRONG>we will be =
> assessing=20
> fees and charges only for activities related to accreditation.</STRONG> =
> These=20
> fees and charges will be assessed and collected from applicants for =
> initial=20
> accreditation and accredited certifying agents submitting annual reports =
> or=20
> seeking renewal of accreditation. The balance of costs incurred by the =
> NOP will=20
> be funded through appropriations. We have retained the requirement, with =
>
> modification, <STRONG>that certifying agents reimburse the Department =
> for=20
> travel, per diem, and related other costs associated with providing=20
> accreditation service</STRONG>s. We have taken these actions in an =
> attempt to=20
> minimize the cost of this program on certifying agents. Certifying =
> agents will=20
> be charged for the actual time and travel expenses necessary for the NOP =
> to=20
> perform accreditation services.</P>
> <P>This proposed program is similar to the Quality Systems Certification =
> Program=20
> (QSCP) established pursuant to 7 CFR Part 54. The QSCP is an audit-based =
> program=20
> administered by AMS through its Livestock and Seed Program, which =
> provides=20
> meatpackers, processors, producers, and other businesses in the =
> livestock and=20
> meat trade with the opportunity to have special processes or documented =
> quality=20
> management systems verified. Since the procedures used for accrediting =
> State and=20
> private entities as accredited organic certifying agents are similar to =
> those=20
> used to certify other types of product or system certification programs =
> under=20
> the QSCP, we have decided to use this existing program and its staff in=20
> examining certifying agents' operations and evaluating their compliance =
> with the=20
> Act and these regulations. Using the QSCP and its staff will enable the =
> NOP to=20
> provide the necessary services without creating a separate bureaucracy. =
> Hourly=20
> fees to be charged for services under this program will be the same as =
> those=20
> under the QSCP, currently estimated at $95.00 per hour.</P>
> <P>This fee of approximately $95.00 is greater than the $42.20 base rate =
> charged=20
> under the voluntary user-fee-funded program established by AMS to verify =
> that=20
> State and private organic certifying agents in the United States comply =
> with the=20
> requirements prescribed under ISO Guide 65. This program, administered =
> by the=20
> AMS Livestock and Seed Program, applied the aggregate meat grading rate =
> for=20
> services to this ISO Guide 65 verification program for State and private =
> organic=20
> certificating agents. The grading rate of <STRONG>$42.20 </STRONG>was =
> the only=20
> rate for which AMS was authorized to charge at the time that the program =
> to=20
> assess ISO Guide 65 conformity by organic certifying agents was =
> implemented.=20
> This was not the actual audit rate of approximately $95.00 for such =
> services.=20
> The AMS Livestock and Seed Program will engage in rulemaking to =
> establish audit=20
> fees for its QSCP. As noted above, those fees are expected to be =
> approximately=20
> <STRONG>$95.00 per hour</STRONG>. The NOP will notify accredited =
> certifying=20
> agents of proposed rate changes and final actions on such rates by =
> AMS.</P>
> <P>To minimize the economic impact of implementing the NOP on certifying =
> agents,=20
> we have decided to provide services for accreditation during the first =
> 18 months=20
> following the effective date of new subpart F without an hourly charge =
> for all=20
> applicants for initial accreditation and accredited certifying agents. =
> This=20
> represents full subsidization of the hourly costs for accreditation by =
> the=20
> Department during the first 18 months of operation. This 18-month =
> subsidization=20
> of the hourly costs will prove especially beneficial to any applicant =
> for=20
> accreditation that submits a substandard application or has difficulty=20
> establishing eligibility for accreditation. <STRONG>Certifying agents =
> will be=20
> charged for accreditation service at the published hourly rate on the =
> first day=20
> of the nineteenth month following the effective date of subpart =
> F.</STRONG></P>
> <P>Over 15,000 comments were received on fees, with all opposing the =
> first=20
> proposal's fee provisions. In addition to comments from consumers, =
> comments were=20
> received from State agencies, organic growers, grower associations, and=20
> certifying agents. Most of these commenters expressed the belief that =
> the=20
> proposed fees would price small certifying agents out of the organic =
> industry.=20
> Almost half of the over 15,000 comments suggested a sliding-scale fee =
> system,=20
> rather than the flat fee system in the first proposal, to accommodate =
> the=20
> economic needs of small certifying agents. We have not accepted the =
> concept of a=20
> sliding-scale fee system. Rather, as noted above, we are proposing that=20
> certifying agents be charged for the actual time and travel expenses =
> necessary=20
> for the NOP to perform accreditation services. Under this fee system, =
> smaller=20
> certifying agents should pay less in hourly charges to obtain and =
> maintain=20
> certification than larger certifying agents. This assumption, however, =
> is=20
> contingent on the quality of all documentation submitted to the =
> Department,=20
> certifying agent recordkeeping, and the efficiency of the certifying =
> agent in=20
> meeting the requirements of this part. The fees and other charges for=20
> accreditation regulations are found in section 205.640.</P>
> <P>(2) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Payment by Certified=20
> Check</SPAN>. We have removed the requirement that the payment of fees =
> and=20
> charges to the Department be by certified check or money order. We have =
> made=20
> this change because we agree with commenters that this requirement is=20
> unnecessary and potentially burdensome.</P>
> <P>Nearly all industry commenters opposed the form and method of =
> payments stated=20
> throughout the original fee sections. Commenters stated that payment by=20
> certified check or money order was unnecessary and would create an =
> additional=20
> burden on individual producers, handlers, and private certifiers. A few =
> State=20
> commenters stated that it was insulting for the U.S. Department of =
> Agriculture=20
> (USDA) to require a State government agency to pay for its accreditation =
> with a=20
> certified check.</P>
> <P>(3) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Producer and Handler =
> Fees to the=20
> Department.</SPAN> We have removed the provisions which required the =
> payment of=20
> certification fees by producers and handlers to the Department. We have =
> taken=20
> this action because we believe that the goal of recovering program costs =
> through=20
> fees and other costs charged to producers and handlers for certification =
> as=20
> certified organic operations should be balanced against the Act's =
> purpose to=20
> facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food.</P>
> <P>We received over 15,000 comments all opposing the first proposal's =
> fee=20
> provisions for producers and handlers. Comments were received from =
> consumers,=20
> State agencies, organic growers, grower associations, and certifying =
> agents.=20
> Most of these commenters stated that the proposed fees would price small =
>
> producers and handlers out of the organic industry. Hundreds of these =
> commenters=20
> stated that the proposed fees favor large production operations. Almost =
> half of=20
> the over 15,000 comments suggested a sliding-scale fee system, rather =
> than the=20
> flat fee system proposed in the first proposal, to accommodate the =
> economic=20
> needs of small producers and handlers. Hundreds more suggested that =
> small=20
> producers and processors be exempt from the payment of fees.</P>
> <P>Most of the State agency, organic grower, grower association, and =
> certifying=20
> agent (industry) commenters spoke to the very small size and family-farm =
> nature=20
> of the average organic production operation and how those operations =
> would be=20
> affected by the proposed fees. Commenters from this group who offered =
> estimates=20
> suggested <STRONG>that one-third to over one-half of organic producers =
> in their=20
> area or State are very small organic producers operating at or near the=20
> exemption level of $5,000 in annual sales. They said those operating =
> just above=20
> the exemption level could be forced out of organic production by the =
> extra fee=20
> and the increased certification charges passed down by certifying agents =
> who=20
> would have to pay the proposed accreditation charges.</STRONG></P>
> <P>Commenters, industry and consumer, stated that, rather than =
> encouraging=20
> growth and new participation in organic agriculture, <STRONG>. the costs =
> of=20
> certification would stifle growth and discourage small producer =
> participation in=20
> organic agricultureAn industry commenter stated that exempt producers =
> who might=20
> want to be certified so they could market their product as organic would =
> be=20
> dissuaded from doing so because of the cost of certification. Industry=20
> commenters also stated that the additional USDA fee on small handlers =
> would make=20
> small organic handling operations marginal. A few State agencies =
> commented that=20
> many small organic producers also conduct their own on-farm handling and =
> that=20
> these operations would be forced out of the organic industry by the =
> excessive=20
> handler fee and reporting burdens.</STRONG></P>
> <P>The comment, that exempt producers who might want to be certified so =
> they=20
> could market their product as organic would be dissuaded from doing so =
> because=20
> of the cost of certification, requires clarification. It may be true =
> that such=20
> producers would be dissuaded from seeking certification because of the =
> cost of=20
> certification. It is not true, however, that exempt producers must be =
> certified=20
> to sell or label their production as organic. <STRONG>The Act exempts =
> small=20
> producers, those who produce no more than <U>$5,000 </U>in agricultural=20
> products, from the requirement that a person may sell or label an =
> agricultural=20
> product as organically produced only if such product is produced and =
> handled in=20
> accordance with the Act. </STRONG></P>
> <P>Industry commenters recommended complete changes to the proposed fee=20
> structure. Most, like the consumer commenters, suggested a sliding scale =
> for=20
> fees based on either size or sales volume. Several industry commenters =
> stated=20
> that the Act does not require that USDA recover all program costs from=20
> assessments on producers, handlers, and certifying agents. They cited =
> section=20
> 6522 of the Act as authorizing the use of appropriated funds to carry =
> out the=20
> program. Some industry commenters suggested that appropriated funds =
> should be=20
> used to cover all administrative and overhead costs and that fees =
> collected from=20
> the industry should only be used for specific program activities such as =
>
> accreditation. A few industry commenters suggested that organic farmers =
> not be=20
> charged an AMS fee but that each be required to sign an affidavit of =
> compliance=20
> with program requirements.</P>
> <P>After further discussions within the Department and review of the =
> comments,=20
> we have determined that the fee structure for the NOP should be modified =
> to=20
> reduce costs to all organic sectors. We acknowledge that the fees =
> proposed in=20
> the first proposal might have discouraged industry growth and might not =
> have=20
> facilitated interstate commerce of organic products. Because we believe =
> that=20
> fees and other costs charged to producers and handlers for certification =
> as=20
> certified organic operations should be kept to a minimum to encourage =
> industry=20
> participation and growth, we have removed the regulations which provided =
> for the=20
> payment of fees to the Department by certified production and handling=20
> operations.</P>
> <P>(4) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Estimated Cost of=20
> Certification.</SPAN> We have added, at section 205.642, the requirement =
> that=20
> the certifying agent must provide each applicant with an estimate of the =
> total=20
> cost of certification and an estimate of the annual cost of updating the =
>
> certification. Additionally, the certifying agent must provide all =
> persons=20
> inquiring about the application process with a copy of its fee schedule. =
> We have=20
> added these provisions to ensure that producers and handlers have early =
> and=20
> ready access to the information they need to consider cost in selecting =
> an agent=20
> to certify their production or handling operation. We consider this to =
> be=20
> especially important because, as noted in the preamble to subpart F, we =
> have=20
> removed the requirement that the certifying agent charge only such fees =
> to=20
> applicants for certification and operations it certifies that the =
> Secretary=20
> determines are reasonable. We have removed this requirement because we =
> concur=20
> with those commenters who expressed the belief that certifying agents =
> should be=20
> permitted to set their own fees without the approval of the Secretary. =
> We have=20
> also removed this requirement because we concur with the commenters' =
> belief that=20
> production and handling operations are free to consider cost in =
> selecting an=20
> agent to certify their production or handling operation.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees - Changes Requested But Not Made</STRONG></P>
> <P>This subpart retains from our first proposal regulations on which we =
> received=20
> comments as follows:</P>
> <P>(1) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Accreditation Charges =
> Billed to=20
> State Certifying Agents.</SPAN> Several State certifying agents stated =
> that=20
> State certifying agents should not be assessed accreditation charges. =
> Commenters=20
> stated that most State certifying agents could face large accreditation =
> costs=20
> because they have many county or regional offices which would be =
> considered=20
> subsidiaries of the headquarters office. They stated that these charges =
> would=20
> have to be passed on to producers and handlers or paid with supplemental =
> State=20
> funds. A few State certifying agents stated that USDA should pay the =
> States,=20
> rather than vice versa, because of the State organic programs' =
> contributions to=20
> the national program. At least one State representative commented that=20
> accreditation fees for State certifying agents should be less than for =
> private=20
> certifying agents because State certifying agents should require less =
> review and=20
> oversight by AMS.</P>
> <P><STRONG>We disagree with those commenters who recommended that State=20
> certifying agents not be assessed accreditation charges, be charged less =
> for=20
> accreditation, or be paid to certify </STRONG>production or handling =
> operations.=20
> We view such actions as constituting unacceptable preferential treatment =
> of=20
> State certifying agents to the detriment of private-entity certifying =
> agents.=20
> Accordingly, under this proposal, State-entity certifying agents will be =
>
> assessed fees for accreditation under the same fee structure as =
> private-entity=20
> certifying agents.</P>
> <P>(2) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Subsidization.</SPAN> =
> Some=20
> industry commenters stated that national governments in <STRONG>Europe =
> provide=20
> direct subsidies and other economic incentives for their farmers to grow =
>
> organic. A few questioned why the organic industry would be charged for =
> services=20
> while some USDA programs are provided without cost to other agricultural =
>
> sectors, and USDA actually pays some farmers not to grow some =
> commodities.=20
> Industry commenters and many consumer commenters stated that it was =
> unfair for=20
> this proposed program to charge all costs to a fledgling agricultural =
> industry=20
> composed mostly of small, family farmers and marginal operations. =
> Finally, a few=20
> industry commenters proposed the philosophical argument that program =
> fees=20
> penalize those who protect the earth and that USDA should charge =
> traditional=20
> producers who damage the earth with chemical applications and =
> nonsustainable=20
> cultural practices.</STRONG></P>
> <P>AMS is primarily a user-fee-based Federal agency. The Act at section=20
> 6506(a)(10) requires the collection of fees from producers, handlers, =
> and=20
> certifying agents. We are, therefore, unable to provide for the full=20
> subsidization of producers, handlers, and certifying agents as espoused =
> by some=20
> commenters. Accordingly, this proposal provides for the payment of fees =
> by=20
> producers, handlers, and certifying agents. We have, however, proposed=20
> regulations in this proposal which we believe will minimize the economic =
> impact=20
> of the NOP on producers, handlers, and certifying agents.</P>
> <P><STRONG>Fees - Additional Provisions</STRONG></P>
> <P>Upon further review of the fee provisions in the first proposal, we =
> have=20
> decided to propose the following additions.</P>
> <P>(1) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Certification Fees =
> Charged by=20
> Certifying Agents.</SPAN> We have added, at section 205.642, regulations =
>
> addressing general requirements to be met by certifying agents in =
> assessing fees=20
> and other charges for the certification of producers and handlers as =
> certified=20
> organic operations. First, fees charged by a certifying agent must be=20
> reasonable, and a certifying agent may charge applicants for =
> certification and=20
> certified production and handling operations only those fees and charges =
> that it=20
> has filed with the Administrator. This is a general requirement for=20
> accreditation and is also found at section 205.501(a)(15) in subpart F =
> on=20
> accreditation. This regulation does not prohibit certifying agents from=20
> providing and charging for services outside the NOP. Services that =
> certifying=20
> agents might provide outside the NOP include in-house publications, =
> conferences,=20
> workshops, informational meetings, and field days. Certifying agents =
> cannot=20
> require participation in such activities by certified operations or =
> applicants=20
> for certification as a condition of certification.</P>
> <P>Second, the certifying agent may require applicants for certification =
> to pay=20
> at the time of application a nonrefundable fee of no more than $250.00 =
> which=20
> must be applied to the applicant's fees-for-service account. We believe =
> that=20
> this fee will help ensure that certifying agents are compensated for=20
> certification services provided to an applicant that is found to be not=20
> qualified to receive certification as an organic production or handling=20
> operation.</P>
> <P>(2) <SPAN style=3D"TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Fees Charged to =
> Foreign=20
> Certifying Agents.</SPAN> <STRONG>We have removed the provisions which =
> required=20
> the payment of fees for import programs. </STRONG>We have taken this =
> action=20
> because this proposal incudes foreign State entities and foreign private =
>
> entities which provide certification services under the accreditation=20
> requirements of this part. Accordingly, such entities are covered under =
> the fees=20
> for accreditation provisions of section =
> 205.640.</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BFACEC.BF12C180--
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page