Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule
4,471 words·~20 min read·
/register/2007/04/19/07-1934A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 75 Thursday, April 19, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 28 [Docket No. CN-07-003] RIN 0581-AC68 User Fees for 2007 Crop Cotton Classification Services to Growers AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is proposing to maintain user fees for cotton producers for 2007 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act at the same level as in 2006. This is in accordance with the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. The 2006 user fee for this classification service was $1.85 per bale. This proposal would maintain the fee for the 2007 crop at $1.85 per bale. The proposed fee and the existing reserve are sufficient to cover the costs of providing classification services, including costs for administration and supervision. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule to Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number and the date and the page of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the above office in Rm. 2639-South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. A copy of this notice may be found at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton/rulemaking.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2639-S, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Telephone
(202)720-2145, facsimile
(202)690-1718, or e-mail *darryl.earnest@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 30,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Continuing the user fee at the 2006 crop level as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:
(1)The fee represents a very small portion of the cost-per-unit currently borne by those entities utilizing the services. (The 2006 user fee for classification services was $1.85 per bale; the fee for the 2007 crop would be maintained at $1.85 per bale; the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales).
(2)The fee for services will not affect competition in the marketplace; and
(3)The use of classification services is voluntary. For the 2006 crop, 21,729,000 bales were produced; and, almost all of these bales were voluntarily submitted by growers for the classification service.
(4)Based on the average price paid to growers for cotton from the 2005 crop of 46.9 cents per pound, 500 pound bales of cotton are worth an average of $234.50 each. The proposed user fee for classification services, $1.85 per bale, is less than one percent of the value of an average bale of cotton. Paperwork Reduction Act In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions to be amended by this proposed rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-AC43. It is anticipated that the proposed changes, if adopted, would be made effective July 1, 2007, as provided by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act. Fees for Classification Under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927 The user fee charged to cotton producers for High Volume Instrument
(HVI)classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 473a) was $1.85 per bale during the 2006 harvest season as determined by using the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The fees cover salaries, costs of equipment and supplies, and other overhead costs, including costs for administration, and supervision. This proposed rule establishes the user fee charged to producers for HVI classification at $1.85 per bale during the 2007 harvest season. Public Law 102-237 amended the formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the producer's classification fee so that the producer's fee is based on the prevailing method of classification requested by producers during the previous year. HVI classing was the prevailing method of cotton classification requested by producers in 2006. Therefore, the 2007 producer's user fee for classification service is based on the 2006 base fee for HVI classification. The fee was calculated by applying the formula specified in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The 2006 base fee for HVI classification exclusive of adjustments, as provided by the Act, was $2.45 per bale. An increase of 2.82 percent, or 7 cents per bale, due to the implicit price deflator of the gross domestic product added to the $2.45 would result in a 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale. The formula in the Act provides for the use of the percentage change in the implicit price deflator of the gross national product (as indexed for the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available). However, gross *national* product has been replaced by gross *domestic* product by the Department of Commerce as a more appropriate measure for the short-term monitoring and analysis of the U.S. economy. The number of bales to be classed by the United States Department of Agriculture from the 2007 crop is estimated at 19,900,000 bales. The 2007 base fee was decreased 15 percent based on the estimated number of bales to be classed (1 percent for every 100,000 bales or portion thereof above the base of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum decreased adjustment of 15 percent). This percentage factor amounts to a 38 cents per bale reduction and was subtracted from the 2007 base fee of $2.52 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.14 per bale. However, with a fee of $2.14 per bale, the projected operating reserve would be 37.2 percent. The Act specifies that the Secretary shall not establish a fee which, when combined with other sources of revenue, will result in a projected operating reserve of more than 25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.14 must be reduced by 29 cents per bale, to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending accumulated operating reserve for the fiscal year of not more than 25 percent of the projected cost of operating the program. This would establish the 2007 season fee at $1.85 per bale. Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph
(b)would reflect the continuation of the HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale. As provided for in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, a 5 cent per bale discount would continue to be applied to voluntary centralized billing and collecting agents as specified in § 28.909 (c). Growers or their designated agents receiving classification data would continue to incur no additional fees if classification data is requested only once. The fee for each additional retrieval of classification data in § 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per bale. The fee in § 28.910
(b)for an owner receiving classification data from the National database would remain at 5 cents per bale, and the minimum charge of $5.00 for services provided per monthly billing period would remain the same. The provisions of § 28.910
(c)concerning the fee for new classification memoranda issued from the National database for the business convenience of an owner without reclassification of the cotton will remain the same at 15 cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per sheet. The fee for review classification in § 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85 per bale. The fee for returning samples after classification in § 28.911 would remain at 40 cents per sample. A 15-day comment period is provided for public comments. This period is appropriate because it is anticipated that the proposed changes, if adopted, would be made effective July 1, 2007, as provided by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 Administrative practice and procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, Grades, Market news, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standards, Staples, Testing, Warehouses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to be amended to read as follows: PART 28—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 28, subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471-476. 2. In § 28.909, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 28.909 Costs.
(b)The cost of High Volume Instrument
(HVI)cotton classification service to producers is $1.85 per bale. 3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 28.911 Review classification.
(a)* * * The fee for review classification is $1.85 per bale. Dated: April 13, 2007. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E7-7401 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-07-012] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone around Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. This zone is intended to control the movement of vessels on portions of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor during the Spill of National Significance
(SONS)exercise on June 19 and 20, 2007. This zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with ships and boats deploying oil containment equipment. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan (spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD09-07-012], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention Department at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Information The comment period for this rule is only 15 days because the request for the safety zone was not received in time to allow for a longer period. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of vessels during this event and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. Background and Purpose This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people from hazards associated with numerous vessels deploying oil containment booms and conducting diving operations. Based on experiences in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined numerous vessels engaged in the deployment of oil containment booms in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels and congested waterways could result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the SONS exercise will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks. Discussion of Proposed Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels during the deployment and recovery of oil containment booms in conjunction with the SONS exercise. The safety zone will be enforced between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. local time, each day, on June 19 and 20, 2007. The safety zone for the SONS exercise will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor from the shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 20285) and bounded by a line with of point origin at 42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W; then west to 42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W; then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of origin (NAD 83). All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard will only enforce this safety zone for 10 hours a day on the two days specified. This safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the harbor not affected by the zone. The Captain of the Port will allow vessels to enter and depart Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor. The Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of this zone. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., local time, on June 19, 2007 and June 20, 2007. The safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only 20 hours. Vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone and enter and depart Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor upon request. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414)747-7154. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal concerns. We have determined that these special local regulations and fishing rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this proposed rule or options for compliance are encourage to contact the point of contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this proposed rule establishes a safety zone. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T09-012 to read as follows: § 165.T09-012 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, IL.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All waters of Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor, from surface to bottom, from the shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 20285) and bounded by a line with of point origin at 42°20′12″ N, 087°48′ W; then west to 42°20′12″ N, 087°50′ W; then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of origin (NAD 83).
(b)*Effective period.* This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007. This regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative. Dated: April 3, 2007. Bruce C. Jones, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. [FR Doc. E7-7416 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P 72 75 Thursday, April 19, 2007 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (CCPAC) will meet for one day on April 25, 2007 in Ukiah, California. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). DATES: The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land Management Field Office, 2550 North State Street, Ukiah, California. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Allen, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501
(707)441-3557 or *kmallen@fs.fed.us* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics to be covered include:
(1)Forest Service Planning Rules;
(2)Survey and Manage Update;
(3)National Park Service Centennial Initiative;
(4)Monitoring Program Update;
(5)Lacks Creek Project;
(6)Regional Interagency Ecosystem Committee
(RIEC)Decisions;
(7)Aquatic Conservation Strategy; and
(7)NWFP Update. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time. Dated: April 13, 2007. William Metz, Deputy Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 07-1934 Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]