30734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

continuous—like square footage, 

number of bedrooms, or number of 

bathrooms—or class variables, like 

external condition (good, fair, etc.), 

availability of air conditioning (yes, no), 

or the particular COLA survey area in 

which the rental unit is located. The 

resulting hedonic regression allows 

OPM to hold rental unit characteristics 

constant between the COLA area and 

the Washington, DC, area while 

comparing rents. In other words, we use 

hedonic regressions to compare rents for 

non-identical but comparable rental 

units by holding quality and quantity 

constant, to the extent practical. It is not 

practical to survey every characteristic 

of a rental unit. For example, we do not 

collect information on floor coverings, 

size and types of windows, color of 

bathroom fixtures, and size of closets. 

Instead, working with the Survey 

Implementation Committee, Technical 

Advisory Committee, and COLA 

Advisory Committees, we identified 

over 80 characteristics that seem likely 

to have an influence on rental prices. 

Similarly, it is not desirable from a 

statistical standpoint to use all 80-plus 

characteristics in the hedonic 

regressions. Therefore, OPM and the 

Technical Advisory Committee, in 

consultation with the Survey 

Implementation Committee, developed 

objective procedures to determine 

which rental unit characteristics to 

include in the regression equation. 

Home Purchase Costs 

One commenter believed OPM should 

survey home purchase costs instead of 

rental value. Under the Caraballo 

settlement, the parties agreed to adopt a 

rental equivalence approach similar to 

the one the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

uses for the Consumer Price Index. 

Rental equivalence compares the shelter 

value (rental value) of owned homes, 

rather than total owner costs, because 

the latter are influenced by the 

investment value of the home (i.e., what 

homeowners hope to realize as a profit 

when they sell their homes). As a rule, 

living-cost surveys do not compare how 

consumers invest their money. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Review 

This rule has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the regulation will affect only 

Federal agencies and employees. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 591 

Government employees, Travel and 

transportation expenses, Wages. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Linda M. Springer, 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, OPM amends subpart B 

of 5 CFR part 591 as follows: 

PART 591—ALLOWANCES AND 

DIFFERENTIALS 

Subpart B—Cost-of-Living Allowance 

and Post Differential—Nonforeign 

Areas 

■ 1. The authority citation for subpart B 

of 5 CFR part 591 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5941; E.O. 10000, 3 

CFR, 1943–1948 Comp., p. 792; and E.O. 

12510, 3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 338. 

■ 2. Revise appendix A of subpart B to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 591— 

Places and Rates at Which Allowances 

Are Paid 

This appendix lists the places approved for 

a cost-of-living allowance and shows the 

authorized allowance rate for each area. The 

allowance rate shown is paid as a percentage 

of an employee’s rate of basic pay. The rates 

are subject to change based on the results of 

future surveys. 

Geographic coverage 

Allowance 

rate 

(percent) 

State of Alaska: 

City of Anchorage and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road ......................................................................................................... 24 

City of Fairbanks and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road .......................................................................................................... 24 

City of Juneau and 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius by road .............................................................................................................. 24 

Rest of the State .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 

State of Hawaii: 

City and County of Honolulu ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 

Hawaii County, Hawaii ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

County of Kauai ................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 

County of Maui and County of Kalawao .......................................................................................................................................... 25 

Territory of Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ............................................................................................... 25 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 

U.S. Virgin Islands ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 

[FR Doc. E8–12020 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 28 

[AMS–CN–07–0092; CN–08–001] 

RIN 0581–AC80 

User Fees for 2008 Crop Cotton 

Classification Services to Growers 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) will raise the user fees 

for cotton producers for 2008 crop 

cotton classification services under the 

Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act. 

These user fees also are authorized 

under the Cotton Standards Act of 1923. 

The 2007 user fee for this classification 

service was $1.85 per bale. This rule 

will raise the fee for the 2008 crop to 

$2.00 per bale. This fee and the existing 

reserve are sufficient to cover the costs 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 30735 

of providing classification services, 

including costs for administration and 

supervision. 

DATES: Effective July 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, 

Cotton and Tobacco Programs, AMS, 

USDA, Room 2639–S, STOP 0224, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0224. 

Telephone (202) 720–2145, facsimile 

(202) 690–1718, or e-mail 

darryl.earnest@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

proposed rule detailing the revisions 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20842). A 15- 

day comment period was provided for 

interested persons to respond to the 

proposed rule. One comment was 

received from the National Cotton 

Council in support of the fee increase. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866; and, therefore has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. It is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. This rule will 

not preempt any state or local laws, 

regulations, or policies unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. There are no administrative 

procedures that must be exhausted prior 

to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of this rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601–612) AMS has considered 

the economic impact of this action on 

small entities and has determined that 

its implementation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

businesses subject to such actions so 

that small businesses will not be 

disproportionately burdened. There are 

an estimated 25,000 cotton growers in 

the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS 

cotton classing services annually, and 

the majority of these cotton growers are 

small businesses under the criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201). The 

increase above the 2007 crop level as 

stated will not significantly affect small 

businesses as defined in the RFA 

because: 

(1) The fee represents a very small 

portion of the cost-per-unit currently 

borne by those entities utilizing the 

services. (The 2007 user fee for 

classification services was $1.85 per 

bale; the fee for the 2008 crop would be 

increased to $2.00 per bale; the 2008 

crop is estimated at 14,000,000 bales.) 

(2) The fee for services will not affect 

competition in the marketplace; and 

(3) The use of classification services is 

voluntary. For the 2007 crop, 19,033,000 

bales were produced; and, almost all of 

these bales were voluntarily submitted 

by growers for the classification service. 

(4) Based on the average price paid to 

growers for cotton from the 2006 crop of 

47.3 cents per pound, 500 pound bales 

of cotton are worth an average of 

$236.50 each. The proposed user fee 

increase for classification services, $2.00 

per bale, is less than one percent of the 

value of an average bale of cotton. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In compliance with OMB regulations 

(5 CFR part 1320), which implement the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520), the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

provisions to be amended by this final 

rule have been previously approved by 

OMB and were assigned OMB control 

number 0581–AC80. 

Fees for Classification Under the Cotton 

Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927 

The user fee charged to cotton 

producers for High Volume Instrument 

(HVI) classification services under the 

Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 

U.S.C. 473a) was $1.85 per bale during 

the 2007 harvest season as determined 

by using the formula provided in the 

Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 

1987, as amended by Public Law 102–

237. The fees cover salaries, costs of 

equipment and supplies, and other 

overhead costs, including costs for 

administration and supervision. The fee 

structure for the 2007 crop year was 

incorporated under the authority of the 

Cotton Standards Act of 1923, by an 

interim final rule effective October 1, 

2007 (72 FR 56242). 

This final rule establishes the user fee 

charged to producers for HVI 

classification at $2.00 per bale during 

the 2008 harvest season. 

The classification fees are based on 

the prevailing method of classification 

requested by producers during the 

previous year. HVI classing was the 

prevailing method of cotton 

classification requested by producers in 

2007. Therefore, the 2008 producers’

user fee for classification service is 

based on the 2007 base fee for HVI 

classification. 

The fee was calculated by applying 

the formula specified in the Uniform 

Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as 

amended by Public Law 102–237 which 

AMS also considers reasonable under 

the authority of the Cotton Standards 

Act of 1923. The 2007 base fee for HVI 

classification exclusive of adjustments, 

as provided by that Act, was $2.52 per 

bale. An increase of 3.06 percent, or 7 

cents per bale, due to the implicit price 

deflator of the gross domestic product 

added to the $2.52 would result in a 

2008 base fee of $2.59 per bale. The 

formula in the Act provides for the use 

of the percentage change in the implicit 

price deflator of the gross national 

product (as indexed for the most recent 

12-month period for which statistics are 

available). However, gross national 

product has been replaced by gross 

domestic product by the Department of 

Commerce as a more appropriate 

measure for the short-term monitoring 

and analysis of the U.S. economy. 

The number of bales to be classed by 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture from the 2008 crop is 

estimated at 14,000,000 bales. The 2008 

base fee was decreased 15 percent based 

on the estimated number of bales to be 

classed (1 percent for every 100,000 

bales or portion thereof above the base 

of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum 

decreased adjustment of 15 percent). 

This percentage factor amounts to a 39 

cents per bale reduction and was 

subtracted from the 2008 base fee of 

$2.59 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.20 

per bale. 

However, with a fee of $2.20 per bale, 

the projected operating reserve would 

be 31.6 percent. The 1987 Act specifies 

that the Secretary shall not establish a 

fee which, when combined with other 

sources of revenue, will result in a 

projected operating reserve of more than 

25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.20 

is reduced by 20 cents per bale, to $2.00 

per bale, to provide an ending 

accumulated operating reserve for the 

fiscal year of not more than 25 percent 

of the projected cost of operating the 

program. This will establish the 2008 

season fee at $2.00 per bale. 

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) 

will reflect the increase of the HVI 

classification fee to $2.00 per bale. 

A 5 cent per bale discount will 

continue to be applied to voluntary 

centralized billing and collecting agents 

as specified in § 28.909 (c). 

Growers or their designated agents 

receiving classification data will 

continue to incur no additional fees if 

classification data is requested only 

once. The fee for each additional 

retrieval of classification data in 

§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
30736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

1This temporary exemption originally was 

scheduled to expire on September 5, 2007. OTS 

extended the expiration date to March 1, 2008, 72 

FR 50644 (Sept. 4, 2008) and to June 1, 2008, 73 

FR 10985 (Feb. 29, 2008). 

2 72 FR at 25953. 

3 72 FR at 25953–54. 

4 72 FR at 25954. 

bale. The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an 

owner receiving classification data from 

the National database would remain at 

5 cents per bale, and the minimum 

charge of $5.00 for services provided per 

monthly billing period would remain 

the same. The provisions of § 28.910 (c) 

concerning the fee for new classification 

memoranda issued from the National 

database for the business convenience of 

an owner without reclassification of the 

cotton will remain the same at 15 cents 

per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per 

sheet. 

The fee for review classification in 

§ 28.911 will increase to $2.00 per bale. 

The fee for returning samples after 

classification in § 28.911 would remain 

at 40 cents per sample. This fee was 

incorrectly referred to in the proposed 

rule as 50 cents per sample. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, 

Grades, Market news, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Standards, 

Staples, Testing, Warehouses. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is amended to 

read as follows: 

PART 28—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 28, subpart D, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 51–65; 7 U.S.C. 471–

476. 

■ 2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 28.909 Costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) The cost of High Volume 

Instrument (HVI) cotton classification 

service to producers is $2.00 per bale. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of 

paragraph (a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 28.911 Review classification. 

(a) * * * The fee for review 

classification is $2.00 per bale. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 27, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–1308 Filed 5–27–08; 1:29 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

12 CFR Part 585 

[OTS–2007–0008] 

RIN 1550–AC14 

Prohibited Service at Savings and 

Loan Holding Companies Extension of 

Expiration Date of Temporary 

Exemption 

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision 

(OTS), Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: OTS is revising its rules 

implementing section 19(e) of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), 

which prohibits any person who has 

been convicted of any criminal offense 

involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or 

money laundering (or who has agreed to 

enter into a pretrial diversion or similar 

program in connection with a 

prosecution for such an offense) from 

holding certain positions with respect to 

a savings and loan holding company 

(SLHC). Specifically, OTS is extending 

the expiration date of a temporary 

exemption granted to persons who held 

positions with respect to a SLHC as of 

the date of the enactment of section 

19(e). The revised expiration date for 

the temporary exemption is November 

3, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is 

effective on May 29, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deale, Director, Holding 

Companies and Affiliates, Supervision 

Policy, (202) 906–7488, Office of Thrift 

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 8, 

2007, OTS published an interim final 

rule adding 12 CFR part 585. This new 

part implemented section 19(e) of the 

FDIA, which prohibits any person who 

has been convicted of any criminal 

offense involving dishonesty, breach of 

trust, or money laundering (or who has 

agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion 

or similar program in connection with a 

prosecution for such an offense) from 

holding certain positions with a SLHC. 

Section 19(e) also authorizes the 

Director of OTS to provide exemptions 

from the prohibitions, by regulation or 

order, if the exemption is consistent 

with the purposes of the statute. 

The interim final rule described the 

actions that are prohibited under the 

statute and prescribed procedures for 

applying for an OTS order granting a 

case-by-case exemption from the 

prohibition. The rule also provided 

regulatory exemptions to the 

prohibitions, including a temporary 

exemption for persons who held 

positions with respect to a SLHC on 

October 13, 2006, the date of enactment 

of section 19(e). This temporary 

exemption is set to expire on June 1, 

2008, unless a case-by-case exemption is 

filed prior to that expiration date.1

OTS is extending the expiration date 

of the temporary exemption to 

November 3, 2008. This extension will 

avoid needless disruptions of SLHC 

operations while OTS continues to 

review the public comments and 

develop a final rule addressing these 

comments. OTS has concluded that this 

extension of the exemption is consistent 

with the purposes of section 19(e) of the 

FDIA. 

Regulatory Findings 

Notice and Comment and Effective Date 

For the reasons set out in the interim 

final rule,2 OTS has concluded that: 

Notice and comment on this extension 

are unnecessary and contrary to the 

public interest under section 552(b)(B) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act; 

there is good cause for making the 

extension effective immediately under 

section 553(d) of the APA; and the 

delayed effective date requirements of 

section 302 of the Riegle Community 

Development and Regulatory 

Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRIA) do 

not apply. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

For the reasons stated in the interim 

final rule,3 OTS has concluded that this 

extension does not require an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and that this 

extension should not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, as defined in the RFA. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

OTS has determined that this 

extension does not involve a change to 

collections of information previously 

approved under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 

For the reasons stated in the interim 

final rule,4 OTS has determined that 

this extension will not result in 

expenditures by state, local, and tribal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES