This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

10091 

Vol. 72, No. 44 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0225; FV07–932– 

1 PR] 

Olives Grown in California; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes an 

increase in the assessment rate 

established for the California Olive 

Committee (committee) for the 2007 and 

subsequent fiscal years from $11.03 to 

$47.84 per assessable ton of olives 

handled. The committee locally 

administers the marketing order which 

regulates the handling of olives grown 

in California. Assessments upon olive 

handlers are used by the committee to 

fund reasonable and necessary expenses 

of the program. The fiscal year began 

January 1 and ends December 31. The 

assessment rate would remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this rule. Comments must be 

sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments should 

reference the docket number and the 

date and page number of this issue of 

the Federal Register and will be 

available for public inspection in the 

Office of the Docket Clerk during regular 

business hours, or can be viewed at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer R. Garcia, Marketing Specialist, 

or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or E-mail: 

Jennifer.Garcia@usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating 

the handling of olives grown in 

California, 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.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California olive handlers are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as proposed herein 

would be applicable to all assessable 

olives beginning on January 1, 2007, and 

continue until amended, suspended, or 

terminated. This rule will not preempt 

any State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies, unless they present an 

irreconcilable conflict with this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

committee for the 2007 and subsequent 

fiscal years from $11.03 to $47.84 per 

ton of assessable olives from the 

applicable crop years. 

The California olive marketing order 

provides authority for the committee, 

with the approval of USDA, to formulate 

an annual budget of expenses and 

collect assessments from handlers to 

administer the program. The fiscal year, 

which is the 12-month period between 

January 1 and December 31, begins after 

the corresponding crop year, which is 

the 12-month period beginning August 

1 and ending July 31 of the subsequent 

year. Fiscal year budget and assessment 

recommendations are made after the 

corresponding crop year olive tonnage is 

reported. The members of the committee 

are producers and handlers of California 

olives. They are familiar with the 

committee’s needs and with costs for 

goods and services in their local area 

and are thus in a position to formulate 

an appropriate budget and assessment 

rate. The assessment rate is discussed in 

a public meeting. Thus, all directly 

affected persons have an opportunity to 

participate and provide input. 

For the 2006 and subsequent fiscal 

years, the committee recommended, and 

USDA approved, an assessment rate that 

would continue in effect from fiscal year 

to fiscal year unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The committee met on December 12, 

2006, and unanimously recommended 

2007 fiscal year expenditures of 

$950,396 and an assessment rate of 

$47.84 per ton of assessable olives. In 

comparison, the budgeted expenditures 

for fiscal year 2006 were $1,301,121. 

The assessment rate of $47.84 is $36.81 

higher than the rate currently in effect. 

The committee recommended the higher 

assessment rate because the 2006–07 

assessable olive receipts as reported by 

the California Agricultural Statistics 

Service (CASS) are only 16,270 tons, 

which compares to 114,761 tons in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
10092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

2005–06. Unusual weather conditions, 

including a wet winter and very hot 

summer, contributed to a substantially 

smaller crop. The committee also plans 

to use available reserve funds to help 

meet its 2007 expenses. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the committee for the 

2007 fiscal year include $365,775 for 

research, $332,450 for marketing 

activities, and $252,171 for 

administration. Budgeted expenditures 

for these items in 2006 were $210,000, 

$800,700, and $290,421, respectively. 

The committee recommended a larger 

2007 research budget so it can continue 

its ongoing olive fly research and 

research to develop a mechanical olive 

harvesting method. The 2007 marketing 

program would be scaled back. 

Recommended decreases in the 

administrative budget are due mainly to 

tighter budgeting in several areas. 

The assessment rate recommended by 

the committee was derived by 

considering anticipated fiscal year 

expenses, actual olive tonnage received 

by handlers during the 2006–07 crop 

year, and additional pertinent factors. 

Actual assessable tonnage for the 2007 

fiscal year is expected to be lower than 

the 2006–07 crop receipts of 16,270 tons 

reported by the CASS because some 

olives may be diverted by handlers to 

uses that are exempt from marketing 

order requirements. Income derived 

from handler assessments, along with 

funds from the committee’s authorized 

reserve and interest income, would be 

adequate to cover budgeted expenses. 

Funds in the reserve would be kept 

within the maximum permitted by the 

order of approximately one fiscal year’s 

expenses (§ 932.40). 

The proposed assessment rate would 

continue in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated by 

USDA upon recommendation and 

information submitted by the committee 

or other available information. 

Although this assessment rate is 

effective for an indefinite period, the 

committee would continue to meet prior 

to or during each fiscal year to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of committee meetings 

are available from the committee or 

USDA. Committee meetings are open to 

the public and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA would evaluate committee 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking would be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

committee’s 2007 budget and those for 

subsequent fiscal years would be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by USDA. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial 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. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 850 

producers of olives in the production 

area and 2 handlers subject to regulation 

under the marketing order. Small 

agricultural producers are defined by 

the Small Business Administration (13 

CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 

those whose annual receipts are less 

than $6,500,000. 

Based upon information from the 

committee, the majority of olive 

producers may be classified as small 

entities. Both of the handlers may be 

classified as large entities. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

committee and collected from handlers 

for the 2007 and subsequent fiscal years 

from $11.03 to $47.84 per ton of 

assessable olives. The committee 

unanimously recommended 2007 

expenditures of $950,396 and an 

assessment rate of $47.84 per ton. The 

proposed assessment rate of $47.84 is 

$36.81 higher than the 2006 rate. The 

higher assessment rate is necessary 

because assessable olive receipts for the 

2006–07 crop year were reported by the 

CASS to be 16,270 tons, compared to 

114,761 tons for the 2005–06 crop year. 

Actual assessable tonnage for the 2007 

fiscal year is expected to be lower 

because some of the receipts may be 

diverted by handlers to exempt outlets 

on which assessments are not paid. 

Income generated from the $47.84 per 

ton assessment rate should be adequate 

to meet this year’s expenses when 

combined with funds from the 

authorized reserve and interest income. 

Funds in the reserve would be kept 

within the maximum permitted by the 

order of about one fiscal year’s expenses 

(§ 932.40). 

Expenditures recommended by the 

committee for the 2007 fiscal year 

include $365,775 for research, $332,450 

for marketing activities, and $252,171 

for administration. Budgeted expenses 

for these items in 2006 were $210,000, 

$800,700, and $290,421 respectively. 

The committee recommended a larger 

2007 research budget so it can continue 

its olive fly research projects and 

research to develop a mechanical olive 

harvesting method. The 2007 marketing 

program would be scaled back. 

Recommended decreases in the 

administrative budget are due mainly to 

tighter budgeting in several areas. 

Prior to arriving at this budget, the 

committee considered information from 

various sources, such as the committee’s 

Executive, Market Development, and 

Research Subcommittees. Alternate 

spending levels were discussed by these 

groups, based upon the relative value of 

various research and marketing projects 

to the olive industry and the reduced 

olive production. The assessment rate of 

$47.84 per ton of assessable olives was 

derived by considering anticipated 

expenses, the volume of assessable 

olives and additional pertinent factors. 

A review of historical information 

indicates that the grower price for the 

2006–07 crop year was approximately 

$960.57 per ton for canning fruit and 

$344.56 per ton for limited-use sizes, 

leaving the balance as unusable cull 

fruit. Approximately 87 percent of a ton 

of olives are canning fruit sizes and 9 

percent are limited use sizes, leaving the 

balance as unusable cull fruit. Grower 

revenue on 16,270 total tons of canning 

and limited-use sizes would be 

$14,704,092 given the current grower 

prices for those sizes. Therefore, with an 

assessment rate increased from $11.03 

to $47.84, the estimated assessment 

revenue is expected to be approximately 

5 percent of grower revenue. 

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 producers. 

However, these costs would be offset by 

the benefits derived by the operation of 

the marketing order. In addition, the 

committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the California 

olive industry and all interested persons 

were invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all committee 

meetings, the December 12, 2006, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 10093 

to express views on this issue. 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 

California olive 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. 

The 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

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

fv/moab/html. 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 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2007 fiscal year began on January 1, 

2007, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each 

fiscal year apply to all assessable olives 

handled during such fiscal year; (2) the 

committee needs sufficient funds to pay 

its expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (3) handlers are 

aware of this action, which was 

discussed by the committee and 

unanimously recommended at a public 

meeting, and is similar to other 

assessment rate actions issued in past 

years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Marketing agreements, Olives, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 932 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 932.230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 932.230 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2007, an 

assessment rate of $47.84 per ton is 

established for California olives. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–3936 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–26598; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–CE–87–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa 

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. 

(EMBRAER) Models EMB–110P1 and 

EMB–110P2 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of the comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

NPRM for the products listed above. 

This proposed AD results from 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI) originated by an 

aviation authority of another country to 

identify and correct an unsafe condition 

on an aviation product. The MCAI 

describes the unsafe condition as: 

It has been found cases of corrosion at 

regions of Wings-to-Fuselage attachments, 

Vertical Stabilizer to Fuselage attachments, 

Rib 1 Half-wing and Passenger Seat Tracks. 

Such corrosion may lead to subsequent 

fatigue cracking of the parts affected, 

reducing the aircraft structural integrity, 

which may in turn lead to structural failure 

and/or loss of some control surface. 

The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to address the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web Site: 

Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–

5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri, 64106; telephone: (816) 329–

4146; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Streamlined Issuance of AD 

The FAA is implementing a new 

process for streamlining the issuance of 

ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined 

process will allow us to adopt MCAI 

safety requirements in a more efficient 

manner and will reduce safety risks to 

the public. This process continues to 

follow all FAA AD issuance processes to 

meet legal, economic, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and Federal Register 

requirements. We also continue to meet 

our technical decision-making 

responsibilities to identify and correct 

unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated 

products. 

This proposed AD references the 

MCAI and related service information 

that we considered in forming the 

engineering basis to correct the unsafe 

condition. The proposed AD contains 

text copied from the MCAI and for this 

reason might not follow our plain 

language principles. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2006–26598; Directorate Identifier 

2006–CE–87–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS