Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27467 

available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/

downloads/delistingguide.pdf. Persons 

who submit a petition to remove a taxon 

from the noxious weed lists would be 

required to provide their name, address, 

telephone number, and (if available) email address. Persons who submit a 

petition to remove a taxon from the 

noxious weed lists are encouraged to 

provide the following information, 

which can help speed up the review 

process and help APHIS determine 

whether the specified plant taxon 

should not be listed as a noxious weed: 

(a) Evidence that the species is 

distributed throughout its potential 

range or has spread too far to implement 

effective control. 

(b) Evidence that control efforts have 

been unsuccessful and further efforts are 

unlikely to succeed. 

(c) For cultivars of a listed noxious 

weed, scientific evidence that the 

cultivar has a combination of risk 

elements that result in a low pest risk. 

For example, the cultivar may have a 

narrow habitat suitability, low dispersal 

potential, evidence of sterility, inability 

to cross-pollinate with introduced wild 

types, or few if any potential negative 

impacts on the economy or environment 

of the United States. 

(d) List of references. 

PART 361—IMPORTATION OF SEED 

AND SCREENINGS UNDER THE 

FEDERAL SEED ACT 

19. 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. 

20. In § 361.6, paragraph (a)(1) is 

amended as follows: 

a. By removing the entries for 

‘‘Caulerpa taxifolia (Mediterranean 

clone)’’, ‘‘Homeria spp.’’, and ‘‘Mimosa 

invisa Martius’’. 

b. By revising the entries for 

‘‘Digitaria abyssinica (=D. scalarum)’’, 

‘‘Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex Roemer & Schultes’’, 

‘‘Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel’’, 

‘‘Mikania micrantha Humboldt, 

Bonpland, & Kunth’’, ‘‘Prosopis farcta 

(Solander ex Russell) Macbride’’, 

‘‘Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex Willdenow) Humboldt, 

Bonpland, & Kunth’’, ‘‘Setaria pallidefusca (Schumacher) Stapf & Hubbard’’, 

and ‘‘Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de 

Candolle’’ to read as set forth below. 

c. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

entries for ‘‘Acacia nilotica (Linnaeus) 

Wildenow ex Delile’’, ‘‘Ageratina 

riparia (Regel) R.M. King and H. 

Robinson’’, ‘‘Arctotheca calendula 

(Linnaeus) Levyns’’, ‘‘Digitaria 

abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A. Richard) 

Stapf’’, ‘‘Euphorbia terracina Linnaeus’’, 

‘‘Inula britannica Linnaeus’’, ‘‘Mimosa 

diplotricha C. Wright’’, ‘‘Moraea collina 

Thunberg’’, ‘‘Moraea flaccida (Sweet) 

Steudel’’, ‘‘Moraea miniata Andrews’’, 

‘‘Moraea ochroleuca (Salisbury) 

Drapiez’’, ‘‘Moraea pallida (Baker) 

Goldblatt’’, ‘‘Onopordum acaulon 

Linnaeus’’, and ‘‘Onopordum illyricum 

Linnaeus’’. 

§ 361.6 Noxious weed seeds. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A. 

Richard) Stapf 

* * * * * 

Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes 

* * * * * 

Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot 

de Beauvois 

* * * * * 

Mikania micrantha Kunth 

* * * * * 

Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander) J.F. 

Macbride 

* * * * * 

Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & Bonpland 

ex Willdenow) Kunth 

* * * * * 

Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. 

subsp. pallidefusca (Schumach.) B.K. 

Simon 

* * * * * 

Spermacoce alata Aublet 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

June 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13507 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1220 

[Doc. No. AMS–LS–09–0026] 

Soybean Promotion and Research: 

Amend the Order To Adjust 

Representation on the United Soybean 

Board 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

adjust the number of members on the 

United Soybean Board (Board) to reflect 

changes in production levels that have 

occurred since the Board was last 

reapportioned in 2006. As required by 

the Soybean Promotion, Research, and 

Consumer Information Act (Act), 

membership on the Board is reviewed 

every 3 years and adjustments are made 

accordingly. This proposed change 

would result in an increase in Board 

membership for one State, increasing 

the total number of Board members from 

68 to 69. These changes would be 

reflected in the Soybean Promotion and 

Research Order (Order) and would be 

effective for the 2010 appointment 

process. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be posted 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments received will be posted 

without change, including any personal 

information provided. All comments 

should reference the docket number, 

AMS–LS–09–0026; the date of 

submission; and the page number of this 

issue of the Federal Register. Comments 

may also be sent to Kenneth R. Payne, 

Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, 

Livestock and Seed Program, 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Room 2628–S, STOP 0251, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing 

Programs Branch, Livestock and Seed 

Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2628–S, 

STOP 0251, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0251; Telephone 202/720–1115; Fax 

202/720–1125; or e-mail to 

Kenneth.Payne@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has waived the review process 

required by Executive Order 12866 for 

this action. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule was reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. It is not intended to 

have a retroactive effect. This action 

would 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 1971 of the Act, a person subject 

to the Order may file a petition with 

USDA stating that the Order, any 

provision of the Order, or any obligation 

imposed in connection with the Order, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
27468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

is not in accordance with the law and 

request a modification of the Order or 

an exemption from the Order. The 

petitioner is afforded the opportunity 

for a hearing on the petition. After a 

hearing, USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that district 

courts of the United States in any 

district in which such person is an 

inhabitant, or has their principal place 

of business, has jurisdiction to review 

USDA’s ruling on the petition, if a 

complaint for this purpose is filed 

within 20 days after the date of the entry 

of the ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

AMS has determined that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, as defined by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612), because it only adjusts 

representation on the Board to reflect 

changes in production levels that have 

occurred since the Board was last 

reapportioned in 2006. 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. As 

such, these changes will not impose a 

significant impact on persons subject to 

the program. 

There are an estimated 589,182 

soybean producers and an estimated 

10,000 first purchasers who collect the 

assessment, most of whom would be 

considered small businesses under the 

criteria established by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 

121.201]. SBA defines small agricultural 

producers as those having annual 

receipts of less than $750,000. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

7 CFR part 1220 were previously 

approved by OMB and were assigned 

control number 0581–0093. 

Background and Proposed Changes 

The Act (7 U.S.C. 6301–6311) 

provides for the establishment of a 

coordinated program of promotion and 

research designed to strengthen the 

soybean industry’s position in the 

marketplace, and to maintain and 

expand domestic and foreign markets 

and uses for soybeans and soybean 

products. The program is financed by an 

assessment of 0.5 percent of the net 

market price of soybeans sold by 

producers. Pursuant to the Act, an Order 

was made effective July 9, 1991. The 

Order established an initial Board with 

60 members. For purposes of 

establishing the Board, the United States 

was divided into 31 States and 

geographical units. Representation on 

the Board from each unit was 

determined by the level of production in 

each unit. The initial Board was 

appointed on July 11, 1991. The Board 

is composed of soybean producers. 

Section 1220.201(c) of the Order 

provides that at the end of each 3-year 

period, the Board shall review soybean 

production levels in the geographic 

units throughout the United States. The 

Board may recommend to the Secretary 

of Agriculture (Secretary) modification 

in the levels of production necessary for 

Board membership for each unit. 

Section 1220.201(d) of the Order 

provides that at the end of each 3-year 

period, the Secretary must review the 

volume of production of each unit and 

adjust the boundaries of any unit and 

the number of Board members from 

each such unit as necessary to conform 

with the criteria set forth in 

§ 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent 

practicable, States with annual average 

soybean production of less than 

3,000,000 bushels shall be grouped into 

geographically contiguous units, each of 

which has a combined production level 

equal to or greater than 3,000,000 

bushels, and each such group shall be 

entitled to at least one member on the 

Board; (2) units with at least 3,000,000 

bushels, but fewer than 15,000,000 

bushels shall be entitled to one board 

member; (3) units with 15,000,000 

bushels or more but fewer than 

70,000,000 bushels shall be entitled to 

two Board members; (4) units with 

70,000,000 bushels or more but fewer 

than 200,000,000 bushels shall be 

entitled to three Board members; and (5) 

units with 200,000,000 bushels or more 

shall be entitled to four Board members. 

The Board was last reapportioned in 

2006. The total Board membership 

increased from 64 to 68 members, with 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, 

and Virginia each gaining one 

additional member. Additionally, 

Florida was grouped with the Eastern 

Region due to lower production levels. 

These changes were effective with the 

2007 appointments. 

Currently, the Board has 68 members 

representing 30 geographical units. This 

membership is based on average 

production levels for the years 2001– 

2005 (excluding crops in years that 

production was the highest and that 

production was the lowest) as reported 

by USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS). 

This proposed rule would increase 

total membership on the Board from 68 

to 69. Production data for years 2003– 

2008 (excluding the crops in years in 

which production was the highest and 

in which production was the lowest) 

was gathered from NASS. This change 

would not affect the number of 

geographical units. 

This proposed rule would adjust 

representation on the Board as follows: 

State Current 

representation 

Proposed 

representation 

Ohio .......... 3 4 

Board adjustments as proposed by 

this rulemaking would become effective, 

if adopted, with the 2010 appointment 

process. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR 1220 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 

research, Marketing agreements, 

Soybeans and soybean products, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it is proposed that Title 7, 

part 1220 be amended as follows: 

PART 1220—SOYBEAN PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER 

INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 1220 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301–6311 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

2. In § 1220.201, the table 

immediately following paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 1220.201 Membership of board. 

* * * * * 

Unit Number of 

members 

Illinois ........................................ 4 

Iowa .......................................... 4 

Minnesota ................................. 4 

Indiana ...................................... 4 

Nebraska .................................. 4 

Ohio .......................................... 4 

Missouri .................................... 3 

Arkansas ................................... 3 

South Dakota ............................ 3 

Kansas ...................................... 3 

Michigan ................................... 3 

North Dakota ............................ 3 

Mississippi ................................ 2 

Louisiana .................................. 2 

Tennessee ................................ 2 

North Carolina .......................... 2 

Kentucky ................................... 2 

Pennsylvania ............................ 2 

Virginia ...................................... 2 

Maryland ................................... 2 

Wisconsin ................................. 2 

Georgia ..................................... 1 

South Carolina .......................... 1 

Alabama .................................... 1 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27469 

Unit Number of 

members 

Delaware ................................... 1 

Texas ........................................ 1 

Oklahoma ................................. 1 

New York .................................. 1 

Unit Number of 

members 

Eastern Region: 

(Florida, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey,Connecticut, Florida, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, New Hampshire, 

Maine, West Virginia, District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico ........................ 1 

Western Region: 

(Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, 

Utah, Arizona, Washington, 

Oregon, Nevada, California, Hawaii, and Alaska) 1 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 3, 2009. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–13533 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 72 

[NRC–2009–0162] 

RIN 3150–AI62 

List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks: Standardized NUHOMS ®

System Revision 10 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend its spent fuel storage cask 

regulations by revising the 

Transnuclear, Inc. (TN), Standardized 

NUHOMS ® System listing within the 

‘‘List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage 

Casks’’ to include Amendment No. 10 to 

Certificate of Compliance (CoC) Number 

1004. Amendment No. 10 would modify 

the CoC to add a dry shielded canister 

(DSC) designated the NUHOMS ®– 

61BTH DSC, add a dry shielded canister 

designated the NUHOMS ®–32PTH1 

DSC, add an alternate high-seismic 

option of the horizontal storage module 

(HSM) for storing the 32PTH1 DSC, 

allow storage of Westinghouse 15×15 

Partial Length Shield Assemblies in the 

NUHOMS ®–24PTH DSC, allow storage 

of control components in the 

NUHOMS ®–32PT DSC, and add a new 

Technical Specification, which applies 

to Independent Spent Fuel Storage 

Installation sites located in a coastal 

marine environment, that any load 

bearing carbon steel component which 

is part of the HSM must contain at least 

0.20 percent copper as an alloy 

addition. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received on or before July 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

[NRC–2009–0162]. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm 

Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415– 

1677) 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Public 

File Area O1–F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. An electronic 

copy of the proposed CoC No. 1004, the 

proposed technical specifications (TS), 

and the preliminary safety evaluation 

report (SER) can be found under 

ADAMS Package Number 

ML090400180. 

The proposed CoC No. 1004, the 

proposed TS, the preliminary SER, and 

the environmental assessment are 

available for inspection at the NRC PDR, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 

Single copies of these documents may 

be obtained from Jayne M. McCausland, 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 415–6219, e-mail 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

6219, e-mail 

Jayne.McCausland@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional supplementary information, 

see the direct final rule published in the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register. 

Procedural Background 

This rule is limited to the changes 

contained in Amendment No. 10 to CoC 

No. 1004 and does not include other 

aspects of the Standardized NUHOMS ®

System design. Because NRC considers 

this action noncontroversial and 

routine, the NRC is publishing this 

proposed rule concurrently as a direct 

final rule in the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register. 

Adequate protection of public health 

and safety continues to be ensured. The 

direct final rule will become effective on 

August 24, 2009. However, if the NRC 

receives significant adverse comments 

on the direct final rule by July 10, 2009, 

then the NRC will publish a document 

that withdraws the direct final rule. If 

the direct final rule is withdrawn, the 

NRC will address the comments 

received in response to the proposed 

revisions in a subsequent final rule. 

Absent significant modifications to the 

proposed revisions requiring 

republication, the NRC will not initiate 

a second comment period on this action 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS-1