43084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

periods from $6.25 to $8.41 per ton for 

‘‘summer/fall’’ pears for canning. The 

PPC also unanimously recommended 

2009–2010 expenditures of $1,029,554. 

With a 2009–2010 crop of ‘‘summer/ 

fall’’ pears for canning estimate of 

121,000 tons in Oregon and 

Washington, the PPC anticipates 

assessment income of about $1,017,610. 

The PPC recommended the higher 

assessment rate to increase the funding 

for promotional activities. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the PPC for the 2009– 

2010 fiscal period include $860,310 for 

promotion and paid advertising, 

$130,944 for research, $24,200 for 

administration, $13,100 for PPC 

expenses, and $1,000 for contingency. 

In comparison, major expenditures for 

the 2008–09 fiscal period included 

$700,000 for promotion and paid 

advertising, $140,106 for research, 

$28,000 for administration, $13,500 for 

PPC expenses, and $1,000 for 

contingency. 

The PPC discussed alternatives to this 

recommended assessment increase. The 

PPC reviewed a ‘‘critical issue analysis’’ 

of the key components of the PPC’s 

promotion program and discussed 

individual promotional activities. 

Leaving the assessment rate at the 

current $6.25 per ton would have cut 

core promotional activities. A $0.05 

increase to $6.30 per ton would not be 

sufficient and would limit promotional 

activities. The assessment rate of $8.41 

per ton for ‘‘summer/fall’’ pears for 

canning enables the PPC to achieve the 

key components of the PPC’s promotion 

program. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the grower price for the 2009–2010 

season could average about $250 per ton 

for ‘‘summer/fall’’ pears for canning. 

Therefore, the estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2009–2010 fiscal period 

as a percentage of total grower revenue 

is 3.364 percent for Oregon and 

Washington ‘‘summer/fall’’ pears for 

canning. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to growers. However, 

these costs would be offset by the 

benefits derived by the operation of the 

order. 

In addition, the PPC’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Oregon and Washington pear industry 

and all interested persons were invited 

to attend and participate in PPC 

deliberations on all issues. Like all PPC 

meetings, the May 28, 2009 meeting was 

a public meeting and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

views on the issues. Finally, interested 

persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

Oregon and Washington pear handlers. 

As with all Federal marketing order 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. Additionally, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E–Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and order may be 

viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?

template=TemplateN&page=Marketing

OrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any 

questions about the compliance guide 

should be sent to Jay Guerber at the 

previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2009–2010 fiscal period will begin on 

July 1, 2009, and the order requires that 

the assessment rate for each fiscal 

period apply to all pears for canning 

handled during such fiscal period; (2) 

the Oregon and Washington pear 

harvest and shipping season is expected 

to begin in mid-August; (3) the PPC 

needs to have sufficient funds to pay its 

expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (4) handlers are 

aware of this action, which was 

recommended by the PPC at a public 

meeting and is similar to other 

assessment rate actions issued in past 

years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927 

Marketing agreements, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 927 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 927—PEARS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 927 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. In § 927.237, the introductory text 

and paragraph (a) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 924.237 Processed pear assessment 

rate. 

On or after July 1, 2009, the following 

base rates of assessment for pears for 

processing are established for the 

Processed Pear Committee: 

(a) $8.41 per ton for any or all 

varieties or subvarieties of pears for 

canning classified as ‘‘summer/fall’’ 

excluding pears for other methods of 

processing; 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 20, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20515 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1119 

Civil Penalty Factors; Withdrawal of 

Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of July 

12, 2006, the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

issued a proposed rule that would 

identify and explain related factors, 

other than those specified by statute, 

which the Commission may consider in 

evaluating the appropriateness and 

amount of a civil penalty under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), 

Public Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, 

supersedes the proposed rule by 

amending the CPSA, the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (‘‘FHSA’’), 

and the Flammable Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’) 

to require the Commission to consider 

additional factors and to issue a rule 

providing its interpretation of all 

statutory factors pertaining to civil 

penalties. Consequently, the 

Commission is withdrawing the July 12, 

2006 proposed rule. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

as of August 26, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43085 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa V. Hampshire, Office of the 

General Counsel, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7631, e-mail 

mhampshire@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of July 12, 2006 (71 FR 

39248), the CPSC proposed to amend its 

regulations to add a new part, 16 CFR 

1119, titled ‘‘Civil Penalty Factors.’’ The 

proposed rule would describe the 

factors the Commission may consider in 

determining the appropriateness and 

amount of a civil penalty for violations 

of section 19(a) of the CPSA, which 

includes the failure to furnish 

information required by section 15(b) of 

the CPSA. 

The proposal was intended to provide 

further clarity and transparency in how 

the CPSC determines civil penalty 

amounts. The Commission believed that 

the proposed rule would result in a 

better understanding by the public of 

the Commission’s approach to 

determining the appropriateness and 

amount of a civil penalty. 

The Commission received four 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule. The CPSIA was subsequently 

enacted, and section 217 of the CPSIA 

revised certain sections of the CPSA, the 

FHSA, and the Flammable Fabrics Act. 

In general, section 217 of the CPSIA 

increased the maximum civil penalty 

amounts, described new factors for the 

CPSC to consider when determining 

civil penalty amounts, and instructed 

the CPSC to issue a final rule to 

interpret the ‘‘penalty factors described 

in section 20(b) of the [CPSA] section 

5(c)(3) of the [FHSA] and section 5(e)(2) 

of the [FFA] as amended by subsection 

(a) [of the CPSIA].’’ 

Section 217 of the CPSIA, therefore, 

effectively superseded the July 12, 2006 

proposed rule by adding new factors for 

consideration and directing the 

Commission to issue a final rule 

providing its interpretation of all the 

factors in section 20(b) of the CPSA, 

section 5(c)(3) of the FHSA, and section 

5(e)(2) of the FFA. Consequently, the 

Commission, through this notice, is 

withdrawing the July 12, 2006 proposal. 

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, the Commission is issuing a 

new interim final rule to interpret the 

penalty factors pursuant to section 217 

of the CPSIA. 

Dated: August 19, 2009. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–20590 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0558; FRL–8949–4] 

Revisions to the Arizona State PM–10 

Implementation Plan; Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) portion 

of the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

non-metallic mineral mining and 

processing in the Maricopa County 

(Phoenix) serious PM–10 nonattainment 

area. We are proposing to approve a 

local rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0558], by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972–3368, 

chilingaryan.sona@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rule. 

D. Proposed action and public comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates on which it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

MCAQD ........................................................... 316 Nonmetallic Mineral Processing ..................... 3/10/08 7/10/08 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS