53400 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State 

and local laws and regulations that are 

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 

retroactive effect; and (2) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This interim 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 360 

Imports, Plants (Agriculture), 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Weeds. 

7 CFR Part 361 

Agricultural commodities, Imports, 

Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seeds, 

Vegetables, Weeds. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

parts 360 and 361 as follows: 

PART 360–NOXIOUS WEED 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 360 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 360.200 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 360.200, the list in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order, entries for 

‘‘Lygodium flexuosum (Linnaeus) 

Swartz (maidenhair creeper)’’ and 

‘‘Lygodium microphyllum (Cavanilles) 

R. Brown (Old World climbing fern)’’. 

■ 3. A new § 360.400 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 360.400 Preemption of State and local 

laws. 

(a) Under section 436 of the Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State 

or political subdivision of a State may 

not regulate in foreign commerce any 

noxious weed in order to control it, 

eradicate it, or prevent its 

dissemination. A State or political 

subdivision of a State also may not 

impose prohibitions or restrictions upon 

the movement in interstate commerce of 

noxious weeds if the Secretary has 

issued a regulation or order to prevent 

the dissemination of the noxious weed 

within the United States. The only 

exceptions to this are: 

(1) If the prohibitions or restrictions 

issued by the State or political 

subdivision of a State are consistent 

with and do not exceed the regulations 

or orders issued by the Secretary; or 

(2) If the State or political subdivision 

of a State demonstrates to the Secretary 

and the Secretary finds that there is a 

special need for additional prohibitions 

or restrictions based on sound scientific 

data or a thorough risk assessment. 

(b) Therefore, in accordance with 

section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, 

the regulations in this part preempt all 

State and local laws and regulations that 

are inconsistent with or exceed the 

regulations in this part unless a special 

need request has been granted in 

accordance with the regulations in §§ 

301.1 through 301.13 of this chapter. 

PART 361–IMPORTATION OF SEED 

AND SCREENINGS UNDER THE 

FEDERAL SEED ACT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 361 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1581-1610; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 5. In § 361.2, the section heading is 

revised and paragraphs (a) through (d) 

are redesignated as paragraphs (b) 

through (e), respectively, and a new 

paragraph (a) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 361.2 Preemption of State and local 

laws; general restrictions on the 

importation of seed and screenings. 

(a) The regulations in this part 

preempt State and local laws regarding 

seed and screenings imported into the 

United States while the seed and 

screenings are in foreign commerce. 

Seed and screenings imported for 

immediate distribution and sale to the 

consuming public remain in foreign 

commerce until sold to the ultimate 

consumer. The question of when foreign 

commerce ceases in other cases must be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

* * * * * 

§ 361.6 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 361.6, paragraph (a)(1) is 

amended by adding, in alphabetical 

order, entries for ‘‘Lygodium flexuosum 

(Linnaeus) Swartz (maidenhair 

creeper)’’ and ‘‘Lygodium microphyllum 

(Cavanilles) R. Brown (Old World 

climbing fern)’’. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day 

of October, 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25119 Filed 10–16–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 922 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0038; FV09–922–1 

FIR] 

Apricots Grown in Designated 

Counties in Washington; Decreased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim final rule 

as final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

final rule which decreased the 

assessment rate established for the 

Washington Apricot Marketing 

Committee (Committee) for the 2009– 

2010 and subsequent fiscal periods from 

$2.00 to $1.00 per ton of apricots 

handled. The Committee locally 

administers the marketing order, which 

regulates the handling of apricots grown 

in designated counties in Washington. 

The decreased assessment rate is 

necessary to align the Committee’s 

expected revenue with its proposed 

2009–2010 budget. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Curry or Gary D. Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1220 SW. Third Avenue, 

suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; 

telephone: (503) 326–2724, fax: (503) 

326–7440; or e-mail: 

Robert.Curry@ams.usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may obtain 

information on complying with this and 

other marketing order regulations by 

viewing a guide at the following Web 

site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?

template=TemplateN&page=Marketing

OrdersSmallBusinessGuide; or by 

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 53401 

telephone: (202) 720–2491; fax: (202) 

720–8938; or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

and Order No. 922 (7 CFR part 922), 

regulating the handling of apricots 

grown in designated counties in 

Washington, hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under 

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601– 

674), hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Act.’’ 

USDA is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

Under the order, Washington apricot 

handlers are subject to assessments, 

which provide funds to administer the 

order. Assessment rates issued under 

the order are intended to be applicable 

to all assessable apricots for the entire 

fiscal period, and continue indefinitely 

until amended, suspended, or 

terminated. The Committee’s fiscal 

period begins on April 1 and ends on 

March 31. 

In an interim final rule published in 

the Federal Register on July 29, 2009, 

and effective July 30, 2009 (74 FR 

37496, Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0038; 

FV09–922–1 IFR), § 922.235 was 

amended by decreasing the assessment 

rate established for the Committee for 

the 2009–2010 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $2.00 to $1.00 per ton of 

apricots handled. Because of the 

projections of a large crop this season, 

the Committee recommended the 

assessment rate decrease in order to 

maintain assessment income at a level 

proportionate to the current budget. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612), the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) has considered the 

economic impact of this rule on small 

entities. Accordingly, AMS has 

prepared this final regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 300 

producers of fresh apricots in the 

regulated production area and 

approximately 22 handlers subject to 

regulation under the order. Small 

agricultural producers are defined by 

the Small Business Administration (13 

CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts of less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 

those whose annual receipts are less 

than $7,000,000. 

Based on information compiled by the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

the value of Washington’s total apricot 

production in 2008 was $6,601,000. 

Based on 300 apricot producers, the 

average annual producer revenue from 

the sale of Washington apricots last year 

was approximately $22,000 per 

producer. In addition, based on 

Committee records and 2008 f.o.b. 

prices ranging from $20.00 to $26.00 per 

24-pound loose-pack carton as reported 

by AMS Market News Service, the 

average annual revenue per handler in 

2008 was $357,197. Therefore, the 

majority of Washington apricot 

producers and handlers may be 

classified as small entities. 

This rule decreases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2009– 

2010 and subsequent fiscal periods from 

$2.00 to $1.00 per ton. The Committee 

unanimously recommended 2009–2010 

expenditures of $7,843 and the 

decreased assessment rate at the May 

21, 2009, meeting. The recommended 

assessment rate is $1.00 less than the 

rate in effect since the beginning of the 

2008–2009 fiscal period. With an 

estimated 2009–2010 apricot crop of 

7,600 tons, assessment income 

combined with funds from the 

Committee’s monetary reserve should be 

adequate to cover budgeted expenses. 

The Committee recommended 

decreasing the assessment rate by 50 

percent due to its estimate that the crop 

this season would approximately be 

twice the size of the crop actually 

harvested last year. With current crop 

and expense estimates, the Committee 

estimates that its reserve fund at the end 

of the 2009–2010 fiscal period will be 

about $8,300. This is equal to 

approximately one fiscal period’s 

operational expenses as authorized by 

the order (§ 922.42). 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2009–2010 fiscal period include $4,800 

for the management fee and $3,043 for 

operational expenses. In comparison, 

budgeted expenses for the 2008–2009 

seasons were $4,800 and $2,293, 

respectively. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this rule. With the potential for a 

much larger crop this season, 

assessment rates over $1.00 per ton were 

not seriously considered because of the 

potential of generating too much income 

and thus increasing the reserve fund to 

an amount higher than program 

requirements allow. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the producer price for the 2009–2010 

season could average about $1,000 per 

ton. Therefore, the estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2009–2010 fiscal period 

as a percentage of total producer 

revenue could approximate 0.1 percent. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that decreased the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers of 

Washington apricots. Assessments are 

applied uniformly on all handlers, and 

some of the costs may be passed on to 

producers. However, decreasing the 

assessment rate reduces the burden on 

handlers, and may reduce the burden on 

producers. The Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Washington apricot industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in the 

Committee’s deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the May 

21, 2009, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express views on this issue. 

This action does not impose 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on small or large 

Washington apricot 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. 

Furthermore, USDA has not identified 

any relevant Federal rules that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

Comments on the interim final rule 

were requested by September 28, 2009. 

No comments were received. Therefore, 

for the reasons given in the interim final 

rule, USDA is adopting the interim final 

rule as a final rule without change. To 

view the interim final rule on the 

Internet, navigate to: http://

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/

home.html#document

Detail?R=09000064809fd6a6. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim final rule 

pertaining to Executive Orders 12866 

and 12988, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the EGov Act (44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim final rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 37496, July 29, 2009) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
53402 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922 

Apricots, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 922—APRICOTS GROWN IN 

DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

WASHINGTON 

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 7 CFR part 922, which was 

published at 74 FR 37496 on July 29, 

2009, is adopted as a final rule without 

change. 

Dated: October 9, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25121 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

RIN 3150–AI53 

[NRC–2008–0663] 

Industry Codes and Standards; 

Amended Requirements; Confirmation 

of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule: Confirmation 

of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is confirming the 

effective date of October 19, 2009, for 

the direct final rule that was published 

in the Federal Register on August 5, 

2009. This direct final rule amended the 

NRC’s regulations on governing vessel 

head inspection requirements. This 

amendment revised the upper range of 

the percentage of axial flaws permitted 

in a specimen set used for the 

qualification of nondestructive 

examination systems (procedures, 

personnel and equipment), which are 

used in the performance of inservice 

inspection (ISI) of pressurized water 

reactor (PWR) upper vessel head 

penetrations. This amendment was 

made as a result of the withdrawal of a 

stakeholder’s recommendation 

necessitated by a typographical error in 

the original recommendation with 

respect to the maximum percentage of 

flaws that should be oriented axially. 

DATES: The effective date of October 19, 

2009, is confirmed for the direct final 

rule published August 5, 2009 (74 FR 

38890). 

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this 

rulemaking, including comments 

received, may be examined at the NRC 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F23, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manash K. Bagchi, Project Manager, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

301–415–2905, e-mail 

manash.bagchi@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

5, 2009 (74 FR 38890), the NRC 

published in the Federal Register a 

direct final rule amending its 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 governing 

vessel head inspection requirements. 

This amendment revises the upper 

range of the percentage of axial flaws 

from 40 percent to 60 percent permitted 

in a specimen set used for the 

qualification of nondestructive 

examination systems (procedures, 

personnel and equipment), which are 

used in the performance of ISI of PWR 

upper vessel head penetrations. This 

amendment is being made as a result of 

the withdrawal of a stakeholder’s 

recommendation necessitated by a 

typographical error in the original 

recommendation with respect to the 

maximum percentage of flaws that 

should be oriented axially. In the direct 

final rule, NRC stated that if no 

significant adverse comments were 

received, the direct final rule would 

become final on October 19, 2009. The 

NRC did not receive any comments that 

warranted withdrawal of the direct final 

rule. Therefore, this rule will become 

effective as scheduled. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 

of October, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Michael T. Lesar, 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, Office 

of Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25049 Filed 10–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0504; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AGL–7] 

Amendment of Class E Airspace; 

Tioga, ND 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E 

airspace at Tioga, ND. Additional 

controlled airspace is necessary to 

accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures (SIAP) at Tioga Municipal 

Airport, Tioga, ND. This action also 

amends the geographic coordinates of 

Tioga Municipal Airport. The FAA is 

taking this action to enhance the safety 

and management of Instrument Flight 

Rule (IFR) operations at Tioga 

Municipal Airport. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 

17, 2009. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321– 

7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On July 31, 2009, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to amend Class E 

airspace at Tioga, ND, reconfiguring 

controlled airspace at Tioga Municipal 

Airport, Tioga, ND. (74 FR 38142, 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0504). Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

this rulemaking effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal to the 

FAA. No comments were received. Class 

E airspace designations are published in 

paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9T 

signed August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

Part 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in the 

Order. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by 

amending Class E airspace at Tioga, ND, 

adding additional controlled airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface at Tioga Municipal Airport, 

Tioga, ND, for the safety and 

management of IFR operations. This 

action also amends the geographic 

coordinates of Tioga Municipal Airport. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES