45414 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Notices 

1To view the notice, the EA, and the comment 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0021. 

finding of no significant impact, the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that an 

environmental impact statement need 

not be prepared for this field test. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the 

environmental assessment (EA), finding 

of no significant impact (FONSI), and 

our response to the one the comment we 

received on the EA in our reading room, 

which is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. The EA, FONSI and decision 

notice, and our response to the public 

comment are available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/ 

aphisdocs/06_11101r_ea.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Andrea Huberty, Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236; (301) 734–0659. To obtain copies 

of the EA, FONSI and decision notice, 

and our response to the public 

comment, contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at 

(301) 734–0667; e-mail: 

cynthia.a.eck@aphis.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340, 

‘‘Introduction of Organisms and 

Products Altered or Produced Through 

Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant 

Pests or Which There Is Reason to 

Believe Are Plant Pests,’’ regulate, 

among other things, the introduction 

(importation, interstate movement, or 

release into the environment) of 

organisms and products altered or 

produced through genetic engineering 

that are plant pests or that there is 

reason to believe are plant pests. Such 

genetically engineered organisms and 

products are considered ‘‘regulated 

articles.’’ A permit must be obtained or 

a notification acknowledged before a 

regulated article may be introduced. The 

regulations set forth the permit 

application requirements and the 

notification procedures for the 

importation, interstate movement, or 

release in the environment of a 

regulated article. 

On April 21, 2006, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

received a permit application (APHIS 

No. 06–111–01r) from Louisiana State 

University, in Baton Rouge, LA for a 

field test using strains of the bacterium 

Burkholderia glumae. Permit 

application 06–111–01r describes four 

Burkholderia glumae strains—two wildtype strains, one of which is diseasecausing and the other naturally nonpathogenic, endemic to the United 

States, and two genetically engineered, 

non-pathogenic strains that share the 

same avirulent phenotype. The 

transgenic strains were created by 

placing base pairs of a methyltransferase 

gene into the cloning vector. The 

introduced vector, along with the 

methyltransferase gene, will integrate 

into the bacterial chromosome by 

homologous recombination. 

The subject Burkholderia glumae is 

considered a regulated article under the 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it 

is the causal pathological agent of 

panicle blight in rice, a plant disease 

occurring in the United States. 

On June 19, 2007, APHIS published a 

notice 1 in the Federal Register (72 FR 

33735–33736, Docket No. APHIS–2007–

0021) announcing the availability of an 

environmental assessment (EA) for a 

field test of two non-pathogenic, 

genetically engineered strains of 

Burkholderia glumae. During the 30-day 

comment period, which ended on June 

19, 2007, APHIS received one comment, 

from an academic professional who 

opposed APHIS granting the permit. 

APHIS has addressed the issues raised 

in the comment and has provided a 

response as an attachment to the finding 

of no significant impact (FONSI). 

Pursuant to the regulations in 7 CFR 

part 340 promulgated under the Plant 

Protection Act, APHIS has determined 

that this field test will not pose a risk 

of introducing or disseminating a plant 

pest. Additionally, based upon analysis 

described in the EA, APHIS has 

determined that the action proposed in 

Alternative C of the EA, issue the permit 

with supplemental permit conditions, 

will not have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. You 

may read the FONSI and decision notice 

on the Internet or in the APHIS reading 

room (see ADDRESSES above). Copies 

may also be obtained from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

The EA and FONSI were prepared in 

accordance with (1) The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

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

7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of 

August 2007. 

Cindy Smith, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–15932 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Assessment of Fees for Dairy Import 

Licenses for the 2008 Tariff-Rate 

Import Quota Year 

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

the fee to be charged for the 2008 tariffrate quota (TRQ) year for each license 

issued to a person or firm by the 

Department of Agriculture authorizing 

the importation of certain dairy articles, 

which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set 

forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTS), will be 

$150.00 per license. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jorge Martinez, Dairy Import Licensing 

Program, Import and Trade Support 

Programs Division, STOP 1021, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–1021 or 

telephone at (202) 720–9439 or e-mail at 

Jorge.Martinez@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dairy 

Tarrif-Rate Import Quota Licensing 

Regulation promulgated by the 

Department of Agriculture and codified 

at 7 CFR 6.20–6.37 provides for the 

issuance of licenses to import certain 

dairy articles that are subject to TRQs 

set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles 

may only be entered into the United 

States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by 

or the account of a person or firm to 

whom such licenses have been issued 

and only in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of the regulation. 

Licenses are issued on a calendar year 

basis, and each license authorizes the 

license holder to import a specified 

quantity and type of dairy article from 

a specified country of origin. The use of 

licenses by the license holder to import 

dairy articles is monitored by the Import 

and Trade Support Programs Division, 

Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 14, 2007 / Notices 45415 

Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. 

The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) 

provides that a fee will be charged for 

each license issued to a person or firm 

by the Licensing Authority in order to 

reimburse the Department of 

Agriculture for the costs of 

administering the licensing system 

under this regulation. 

The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also 

provides that the Licensing Authority 

will announce the annual fee for each 

license and that such fee will be set out 

in a notice to be published in the 

Federal Register. Accordingly, this 

notice sets out the fee for the licenses to 

be issued for the 2008 calendar year. 

Notice 

The total cost to the Department of 

Agriculture of administering the 

licensing system for 2008 has been 

estimated to be $360,000, and the 

estimated number of licenses expected 

to be issued is 2,400. Of the total cost, 

$230,000 represents staff and 

supervisory costs directly related to 

administering the licensing system, and 

$130,000 represents other miscellaneous 

costs, including travel, postage, 

publications, forms, Internet software 

development, and ADP system 

contractors. 

Accordingly, notice is hereby given 

that the fee for each license issued to a 

person or firm for the 2008 calendar 

year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, 

will be $150.00 per license. 

Dated: Issued at Washington, DC the 31st 

day of July, 2007. 

Ronald Lord, 

Licensing Authority. 

[FR Doc. 07–3944 Filed 8–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration 

Guideline Change Involving Volume 

Discounts in Tariffs 

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are announcing a change 

in policy to accept non-tiered volumebased rate discounts in tariffs. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 14, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S. 

Brett Offutt, Director, Policy and 

Litigation Division, Packers and 

Stockyards Program, Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards Administration, 

1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720–7363, 

s.brett.offutt@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) 

enforces the Packers and Stockyards 

Act, 1921 (7 U.S.C. 181–229) (P&S Act). 

Under the P&S Act, market agencies 

selling on commission (market agencies) 

at stockyards posted by GIPSA as public 

livestock sales facilities operating in 

interstate commerce (posted stockyards) 

must file a tariff with GIPSA. These 

tariffs list the rates charged for 

stockyard services the market agency 

provides, including selling commissions 

(7 U.S.C. 207(a)). The use of 

discriminatory rates in tariffs is 

prohibited (7 U.S.C. 206). Neither the 

Packers and Stockyards Act, nor 

regulations promulgated thereunder, 

describe specifically what constitutes a 

discriminatory rate. Since 1978, GIPSA 

has investigated the reasonableness of 

rates only in response to specific 

complaints or other compelling 

circumstances. This general policy with 

regards to GIPSA investigation of rates 

is published at 9 CFR 203.17. 

Current Policy 

Currently, GIPSA policy permits 

volume-based rate discounts in tariffs, 

but the policy historically has 

considered non-tiered volume discounts 

to be discriminatory and therefore 

prohibited. Tiered discounts involve 

commission rate structures with lower 

selling commission rates per head above 

a specified number of head threshold, or 

lower selling commissions above a 

certain dollar threshold of gross 

proceeds. For example, in a tiered 

volume-based discount rate system, the 

commission would be the standard rate 

for the first 10 cows, then a discounted 

rate for the next ten, or it might be the 

standard rate for the first $10,000 in 

gross proceeds, then a discounted rate 

for the next $10,000 in gross proceeds. 

GIPSA currently requires that the 

discounted rate be applied only to that 

portion of a consignment above the 

specified number of head or dollar 

threshold, although GIPSA doesn’t set 

what the threshold must be. The current 

policy is that those animals in the same 

consignment group below the specified 

number or dollar threshold must be 

assessed the non-discounted rate. 

Allowing the application of non-tiered 

volume-based discounted rates to all the 

animals consigned in large 

consignments could in some 

circumstances result in large volume 

consignors paying less in total selling 

commissions than small volume 

consignors. For example, a standard 

commission rate of $10 per cow for 10 

cows and a non-tiered discounted rate 

of $9 per cow for larger sales could 

result in the seller of 11 cows paying 

less in commission ($99) than the seller 

of 10 cows ($100). Historically, GIPSA 

believed this practice to be 

discriminatory. The prohibition on nontiered application of volume-based rate 

discounts prevented a reduction in the 

total amount of commissions paid as the 

number of animals consigned increased. 

New Policy 

Representatives from livestock 

industry groups including the Livestock 

Marketing Association requested that 

GIPSA examine its prohibition of nontiered commission discounts. Allowing 

the non-tiered commission discounts to 

all animals consigned in large groups 

affords qualifying consignors significant 

reductions in selling cost on a per head 

basis. Livestock industry stakeholders 

have presented a number of reasons 

why allowing non-tiered volume 

discounting of commissions would 

benefit the industry as a whole. 

Primarily, the argument presented by 

industry groups in favor of the new 

policy is that non-tiered discounts are 

fair because they more accurately reflect 

the market agencies’ actual cost of the 

transaction. Most of the cost accrued by 

the market agency is per transaction, not 

per animal. Also, the industry groups 

argue that stockyards now face 

competition from markets that did not 

exist in 1921, such as satellite video and 

internet auctions, which are not 

required to file tariffs with GIPSA. 

Livestock industry groups believe that 

prohibiting non-tiered volume discounts 

discriminates against market agencies at 

posted stockyards. 

Stakeholders have told us that small 

volume consignors are not harmed 

when consignors of larger groups of 

animals receive volume-based discounts 

even if the discount is applied in a nontiered manner because the same 

volume-based discounts are available to 

small volume consignors whenever they 

have the opportunity to consign in 

larger volumes. An examination of 

tiered tariffs conducted by the GIPSA 

Midwest regional office found that in 

some cases, the threshold for obtaining 

the volume discount was as small as 

five (5) head or $3000. Market agencies 

stated that the effort and cost to sell a 

large group of animals as a unit is 

comparable to that for small 

consignments, which is why they are 

willing to offer a discount on a peranimal basis for volume consigners. 

Market agencies also stated that large 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES