48014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Based on our review, we have 

determined that lemons are a 

conditional non-host for Medfly, 

meaning that while Medfly generally 

does not infest lemons, it will do so 

under certain conditions. For example, 

green lemons are not hosts of Medfly, 

but as they mature they become more 

susceptible to infestation. It is likely 

that light yellow lemons are not at a 

maturity stage where they would be 

susceptible to Medfly; only damaged or 

dark yellow, overly mature fruit are 

considered suitable hosts. 

Resistance of lemons to Medfly 

infestation is causally linked to the 

thickness, toughness, and chemical 

toxicity of the lemon rind. The female 

Medfly ovipositor normally cannot 

pierce through the lemon rind to lay 

eggs in the toxin-free pulp, and if it 

does, the eggs laid within the rind are 

killed by the toxic compounds. 

However, if the rind is thin or damaged, 

or existing oviposition puncture holes 

are present, females can exploit these 

vulnerable points by ovipositing into 

the pulp, where Medfly eggs and larvae 

are more likely to survive and develop. 

A high Medfly population also increases 

the likelihood of lemon infestation due 

to repeated ovipositing by females into 

existing oviposition holes in the rind. 

These findings indicate the need to 

designate all varieties of yellow lemons 

as regulated articles for Medfly in our 

domestic fruit fly quarantine regulations 

in order to prevent the spread of Medfly 

to uninfested areas of the United States. 

We are therefore proposing to amend 

the entry for lemons in the table of 

regulated articles in § 301.32–2(a) by 

removing the exemption for smoothskinned lemons harvested for packing 

by commercial packinghouses, and 

instead indicating that all varieties of 

yellow lemons are regulated articles for 

Medfly. 

We are also proposing to amend the 

phytosanitary treatments regulations in 

7 CFR part 305 by updating the table in 

§ 305.2(h)(2)(ii), which includes 

approved treatments for regulated 

articles moved interstate from areas 

quarantined for fruit flies, to correct two 

outdated references to the former 

locations of specific provisions of the 

fruit fly regulations. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is subject to 

Executive Order 12866. However, for 

this action, the Office of Management 

and Budget has waived its review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this proposed rule. As 

described in the economic analysis, the 

majority of producers, importers, and 

merchants that may be affected by the 

proposed rule are small entities. No 

commercial lemon producers are 

located in the area currently 

quarantined for Medfly. The number of 

producers that may be affected in the 

future is not known, since we do not 

have data on production of smoothskinned lemons harvested for packing 

by commercial packinghouses. 

Nonetheless, the costs of pre-harvest or 

post-harvest treatments of smoothskinned lemons that would be required 

by this rule are negligible. Under these 

circumstances, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The full economic analysis may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room. (Instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room are provided under the 

heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.) In addition, copies 

may be obtained by calling or writing to 

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR parts 301 and 305 as follows: 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, 

Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75– 

16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 

106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 

§ 301.32–2 [Amended] 

2. In § 301.32–2, paragraph (a), 

footnote 2 to the table is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘Smooth-skinned 

lemons harvested for packing by 

commercial packinghouses are not’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘Only yellow lemons 

are’’ in their place. 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

3. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 305.2 [Amended] 

4. In § 305.2, the table in paragraph 

(h)(2)(ii) is amended by removing, from 

the column titled ‘‘Commodity’’, the 

citations ‘‘§ 301.78–2(a)’’ and ‘‘§ 301.99– 

2(b)’’ and adding the citation ‘‘§ 301.32– 

2(a)’’ in their place. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

September 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22631 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 CFR Part 1493 

Solicitation of Input from Stakeholders 

on Revised Fees for the Export Credit 

Guarantee (GSM–102) Program 

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service 

and Commodity Credit Corporation, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 48015 

SUMMARY: This notice solicits comments 

on proposed revisions to the fee rate 

schedule for the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC) Export Credit 

Guarantee Program (GSM–102). The 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 (the Act) amended certain GSM– 

102 program provisions related to fees. 

CCC’s goals in proposing this revised fee 

structure are to create fees more 

commensurate with risk, generate 

additional program revenue in fiscal 

year (FY) 2010 to offset program costs, 

and consider allowing program 

participation by riskier countries. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by October 21, 2009 to be 

assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: gsm102fees@fas.usda.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 720–2495; ‘‘Attention: 

GSM–102 Fee Comments.’’ 

• Mail: P. Mark Rowse, Director, 

Office of Trade Programs, Credit 

Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail 

Stop 1025, Washington, DC 20250– 

1025. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 1250 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 420, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

All comments received will be 

available for public inspection at the 

above address during regular business 

hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P. 

Mark Rowse, Director, Office of Trade 

Programs, Credit Programs Division, 

Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 

1025, Washington, DC 20250–1025; 

telephone: (202) 720–6211. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

The GSM–102 program is currently 

authorized under the Agricultural Trade 

Act of 1978, as amended. The GSM–102 

program provides credit guarantees to 

encourage financing of commercial 

exports of U.S. agricultural products on 

competitive credit terms. The CCC 

currently has authorized availability of 

guarantees for transactions in at least 

176 countries and regions, with 2,900 

exporters eligible to participate. Since 

1981, CCC has issued nearly $92 billion 

in credit guarantees under the GSM–102 

program. Under the terms of the 

guarantee, typically, 98 percent of 

principal and a portion of interest are 

covered on credit terms of up to 3 years. 

By financing less than 100 percent of 

the exported value, CCC encourages 

risk-sharing by the exporter or the 

exporter’s assignee. 

The issuance of the guarantee is 

subject to a fee paid by the applicant 

(the exporter). In July 2005, USDA 

initiated a risk-based fee structure. A fee 

is charged based on the tenor (length of 

credit period) of the guarantee and 

terms for principal payment 

installments, whether 6 months or 

annually, and the risk grade of the 

obligor country. CCC assigns a numeric 

risk category (0–7, lowest to highest 

risk) to each obligor country. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (the Act) amended certain 

GSM–102 program provisions related to 

fees. The Act repealed the 1 percent cap 

on fees. The Act also requires the 

Secretary, in carrying out the GSM–102 

program, to ‘‘work with the industry to 

ensure, to the maximum extent 

practicable, that risk-based fees 

associated with the guarantees cover, 

but do not exceed, the operating costs 

and losses over the long-term.’’ The Act 

defines the ‘‘long term’’ as ‘‘a period of 

10 or more years.’’ 

CCC intends to revise the current fee 

structure, which has been in place since 

July 2005. The revised fee structure is 

designed to accomplish the following 

goals: 

1. Create a fee structure more 

commensurate with risk. The 1 percent 

fee cap in effect prior to the Act resulted 

in a program fee structure with 

disproportionately high fees for low-risk 

transactions and disproportionately low 

fees for higher-risk transactions. CCC 

proposes to correct this imbalance by 

reducing fees for transactions with 

lower risk countries and shorter tenors 

and increasing fees for certain higher 

risk countries and longer tenors. In 

doing so, CCC is responding to many 

program participants who have noted 

that fees for low-risk transactions are 

prohibitively expensive compared to 

fees for higher-risk transactions. 

2. Generate additional program 

revenue in fiscal year (FY) 2010 to offset 

program costs, as measured by budget 

subsidy. Although budget subsidy costs 

are re-estimated each fiscal year, the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

most recent calculations of estimated 

budget subsidy for FY 2008 and FY 

2009 are 3.05 percent and 0.87 percent, 

respectively. Although the initial budget 

subsidy estimate for FY 2010 is ¥1.21 

percent (indicating revenues are 

projected to exceed costs), CCC must 

offset any costs that might ultimately be 

incurred in FY 2008 and FY 2009 to 

meet the provisions of the Act. 

3. Consider allowing program 

participation by riskier countries. When 

CCC implemented risk-based fees in 

July 2005, the highest-risk countries 

were eliminated from programming 

because the 1 percent fee cap did not 

permit CCC to charge fees 

commensurate with the associated risk. 

With the elimination of the fee cap, CCC 

can now consider allowing some of 

these countries to participate, charging 

higher fees to offset risk. The chart 

below shows the proposed fee schedule: 

GSM–102 PROGRAM: PROPOSED PREMIUM PER U.S. $100 OF COVERAGE

Risk category 

Tenor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Annual Payment of Principal 

9 months ........................................................................................ $0.087 $0.130 $0.191 $0.297 $0.429 $0.627 $0.850 $1.116 

12 months ........................................................................................ 0.116 0.173 0.254 0.394 0.569 0.832 1.127 1.480 

15 months ........................................................................................ 0.125 0.185 0.270 0.417 0.599 0.874 1.180 1.544 

18 months ........................................................................................ 0.148 0.213 0.308 0.469 0.671 0.970 1.303 1.694 

24 months ........................................................................................ 0.212 0.292 0.415 0.617 0.873 1.241 1.650 2.115 

30 months ........................................................................................ 0.249 0.340 0.482 0.712 1.000 1.408 1.856 2.353 

36 months ........................................................................................ 0.302 0.413 0.584 0.855 1.194 1.656 2.158 2.695 

Semi-Annual Payment of Principal 

30 days ............................................................................................ 0.010 0.015 0.021 0.033 0.048 0.070 0.095 0.125 

60 days ............................................................................................ 0.020 0.029 0.043 0.067 0.096 0.141 0.191 0.250 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
48016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

GSM–102 PROGRAM: PROPOSED PREMIUM PER U.S. $100 OF COVERAGE—Continued 

Risk category 

Tenor 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

90 days ............................................................................................ 0.029 0.044 0.064 0.100 0.144 0.211 0.286 0.376 

4 months ........................................................................................ 0.039 0.058 0.086 0.133 0.192 0.281 0.381 0.500 

6 months ........................................................................................ 0.058 0.087 0.128 0.199 0.287 0.420 0.569 0.748 

9 months ........................................................................................ 0.068 0.102 0.149 0.231 0.334 0.489 0.662 0.870 

12 months ........................................................................................ 0.087 0.130 0.191 0.296 0.427 0.625 0.847 1.112 

15 months ........................................................................................ 0.102 0.150 0.219 0.338 0.486 0.707 0.955 1.249 

18 months ........................................................................................ 0.129 0.184 0.266 0.403 0.576 0.831 1.115 1.447 

24 months ........................................................................................ 0.173 0.240 0.343 0.512 0.725 1.035 1.378 1.770 

30 months ........................................................................................ 0.218 0.299 0.424 0.627 0.882 1.241 1.637 2.076 

36 months ........................................................................................ 0.262 0.358 0.506 0.743 1.040 1.447 1.891 2.371 

For comparison purposes, the current 

GSM–102 fee structure may be found at 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/

gsm102fees.html. 

Implementation Plans 

CCC will consider stakeholder input 

in determining the revised fee structure. 

CCC plans to implement a revised fee 

structure no later than September 30, 

2009, so that any revised fees will be in 

effect for the FY 2010 GSM–102 

program. Review of the fee structure 

will be an on-going process. CCC 

intends to make future revisions as 

internal and external events warrant, 

including in response to budget subsidy 

re-estimates, with the goal of being 

responsive to comments from program 

participants and meeting the 

requirements of the Act. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on Sept. 3, 

2009. 

Michael V. Michener, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, 

and Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–22661 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0869; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–043–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Vulcanair 

S.p.A. Models P 68, P 68B, P 68C, P 

68C–TC, and P 68 ‘‘OBSERVER’’ 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 85–08–04, 

which applies to certain Vulcanair 

S.p.A. (Vulcanair) Models P 68, P 68B, 

P 68C, P 68C–TC, and P 68 

‘‘OBSERVER’’ airplanes. AD 85–08–04 

currently requires you to repetitively 

visually inspect the front and rear wing 

spars for cracks. If cracks are found, AD 

85–08–04 requires you to modify the 

wing spars. The wing spar modification 

terminates the repetitive inspection AD 

action and may be installed before 

cracks develop. Since we issued AD 85– 

08–04, the manufacturer revised the 

modification kit and identified 

additional airplane serial numbers that 

require the inspection and/or 

modification. Consequently, this 

proposed AD would retain the actions of 

AD 85–08–04, allow you to install the 

revised modification kit, and add 

additional serial numbers to the 

Applicability section. We are proposing 

this AD to detect and correct cracks in 

the front and rear wing spar, which 

could result in the wing separating from 

the airplane. This failure could lead to 

loss of control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this proposed 

AD: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Vulcanair 

S.p.A., Via G. Pascoli, 7, Casoria 

(Naples) 80026 Italy; telephone: 

(+39)081.5918111; fax: 

(+39)081.5918172; e-mail: 

customerservice@vulcanair.com; 

Internet: http://www.vulcanair.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, 

ACE–112, FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: 

(816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2009–0869; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–043–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Reports of cracks in the front and rear 

wing spar on Vulcanair P 68 series 

airplanes caused us to issue AD 85–08– 

04, Amendment 39–5037 (50 FR 14370, 

April 12, 1985). AD 85–08–04 currently 

requires the following on certain 

Vulcanair Models P 68, P 68B, P 68C, P 

68C–TC, and P 68 ‘‘OBSERVER’’ 

airplanes: 

• Repetitively visually inspecting the 

front and rear wing spars; 

• Repairing the front and rear wing 

spars if cracks are found; and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS