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

36616 

Vol. 74, No. 141 

Friday, July 24, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 924 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0040; FV09–924–1 

PR] 

Fresh Prunes Grown in Designated 

Counties in Washington and in 

Umatilla County, OR; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Washington-Oregon Fresh Prune 

Marketing Committee (Committee) for 

the 2009–10 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $1.00 to $2.00 per ton for 

fresh prunes. The Committee is 

responsible for local administration of 

the marketing order regulating the 

handling of fresh prunes grown in 

designated counties in Washington and 

in Umatilla County, Oregon. 

Assessments upon handlers of fresh 

prunes are used by the Committee to 

fund reasonable and necessary expenses 

of the program. The fiscal period for the 

marketing order begins April 1 and ends 

March 31. The assessment rate would 

remain in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended or terminated. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

regarding 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. All 

comments submitted in response to this 

rule will be included in the record and 

will be made available to the public. 

Please be advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. 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 request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence, SW., 

STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250– 

0237; 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. 924 (7 CFR part 924), 

regulating the handling of fresh prunes 

grown in designated counties in 

Washington and in Umatilla County, 

Oregon, 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, Washington-Oregon prune 

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 Washington-Oregon 

prunes beginning April 1, 2009, 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 2009–10 and 

subsequent fiscal periods from $1.00 to 

$2.00 per ton for Washington-Oregon 

prunes handled under the order. 

The 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 

members of the Committee are 

producers and handlers of prunes in 

designated counties in Washington and 

in Umatilla County, Oregon. They are 

familiar with the Committee’s needs and 

with the 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 formulated and 

discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all 

directly affected persons have an 

opportunity to participate and provide 

input. 

For the 2007–08 and subsequent fiscal 

periods, the Committee recommended, 

and the USDA approved, an assessment 

rate of $1.00 per ton of prunes handled. 

This rate continues in effect from fiscal 

period to fiscal period 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 June 2, 2009, 

and unanimously recommended 2009– 

10 expenditures of $8,893. The major 

expenditures recommended by the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36617 

Committee for the 2009–10 fiscal period 

include $4,800 for the management fee, 

$800 for Committee travel, $100 for 

compliance, $2,000 for the financial 

audit, and $1,193 for equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. In comparison, 

the $6,893 budget approved for the 

2008–09 fiscal period included $4,800 

for the management fee, $800 for travel 

expenses, $100 for compliance, and 

$1,150 for audits, equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. The major 

increase in expenses this year is in the 

audit category. 

The assessment rate recommended by 

the Committee was derived by dividing 

the anticipated expenses of $8,893 by 

the projected 2009 4,400 ton prune 

production. Applying the $2.00 per ton 

assessment rate to this crop estimate 

should provide $8,800 in assessment 

income, which, in addition to a small 

draw of approximately $93.00 from the 

Committee’s monetary reserve should 

adequately cover the budgeted 

expenditures. The reserve balance at the 

end of the 2008–09 fiscal period was 

$5,160. The estimated 2009–10 year-end 

reserve is $5,067, which is within the 

order’s limit of approximately one fiscal 

period’s operational expenses. The 

Committee recommended the higher 

assessment rate in order that the 

budgeted expenditures—$2,000 higher 

than the 2008–09 approved budget—are 

adequately covered and that the current 

reserve balance is maintained. 

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 would 

be effective for an indefinite period, the 

Committee would continue to meet 

prior to or during each fiscal period to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of the Committee’s 

meetings are available from the 

Committee or USDA. The Committee’s 

meetings are open to the public and 

interested persons may express their 

views at these meetings. USDA would 

evaluate the Committee’s 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking will be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

Committee’s 2009–10 budget and those 

for subsequent fiscal periods would be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by USDA. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (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 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. 

There are approximately 215 

producers of fresh prunes in the 

regulated production area and 

approximately 10 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 

both the Committee and the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, the 

average annual revenue from the sale of 

fresh prunes was approximately $7,930 

per producer in 2008. This estimate is 

based on 215 producers with a total 

production of about 3,514 tons of fresh 

prunes selling for an average of $485 per 

ton. In addition, based on AMS Market 

News Service reports that 2008 f.o.b. 

prices ranged from $17.00 to $19.00 per 

30-pound container, the entire 

Washington-Oregon fresh prune 

industry handled less than $7,000,000 

worth of prunes last season. In view of 

the foregoing, the majority of 

Washington-Oregon fresh prune 

producers and handlers may be 

classified as small entities. 

This rule would increase the 

assessment rate established for the 

Committee and collected from handlers 

for the 2009–10 and subsequent fiscal 

periods from $1.00 to $2.00 per ton for 

prunes handled under the order’s 

authority. The Committee also 

unanimously recommended 2009–10 

expenditures of $8,893, which is $2,000 

higher than the $6,893 budget approved 

for the 2008–09 fiscal period. When the 

recommended $2.00 per ton assessment 

rate is levied against the 2009–10 prune 

crop estimate of 4,400 tons, the 

Committee expects assessment income 

of about $8,800. The Committee 

recommended the higher assessment 

rate to help ensure that the 2009–10 

budgeted expenses are adequately 

covered and that the current reserve 

balance is maintained. With the 4,400 

crop estimate this year, the Committee 

would have realized income of about 

$4,400 without the assessment rate 

increase. This would have forced the 

Committee to draw approximately 

$4,493 from its $5,160 reserve fund, 

leaving an inadequate amount in 

reserve. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2009–10 fiscal period include $4,800 for 

the management fee, $800 for 

Committee travel, $100 for compliance, 

$2,000 for the financial audit, and 

$1,193 for equipment maintenance, 

insurance, bonds, and miscellaneous 

expenses. In comparison, the $6,893 

budget approved for the 2008–09 fiscal 

period included $4,800 for the 

management fee, $800 for travel 

expenses, $100 for compliance, and 

$1,193 for audits, equipment 

maintenance, insurance, bonds, and 

miscellaneous expenses. The major 

increase in expenses this year is in the 

audit category. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this recommended assessment 

increase. Leaving the assessment rate at 

the current $1.00 per ton was discussed, 

but not considered since such a rate 

would not have generated income 

adequate to maintain the Committee’s 

reserve at or about the current level. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the producer price for the 2009–10 

season could average about $500 per ton 

for fresh Washington and Oregon grown 

prunes. Therefore, the estimated 

assessment revenue for the 2009–10 

fiscal period as a percentage of total 

producer revenue is 0.4 percent for 

Washington-Oregon prunes. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are 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 order. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Washington prune industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the June 2, 2009, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on the issues. Finally, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
36618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Washington-Oregon prune 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. Additionally, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

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. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and order may be 

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

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData

.do?template=TemplateN&

page=MarketingOrders

SmallBusinessGuide. 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 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2009–10 fiscal period began on April 1, 

2009, and the order requires that the 

assessment rate for each fiscal period 

apply to all assessable prunes handled 

during such fiscal period; (2) the 

Washington-Oregon prune harvest and 

shipping season is expected to begin in 

early August; (3) the Committee needs 

to have sufficient funds to pay its 

expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (4) handlers are 

aware of this action, which was 

recommended by the Committee at a 

public meeting and is similar to other 

assessment rate actions issued in past 

years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 924 

Prunes, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 924 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 924—PRUNES GROWN IN 

DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 924 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 924.236 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 924.236 Assessment rate. 

On or after April 1, 2009, an 

assessment rate of $2.00 per ton is 

established for the Washington-Oregon 

Fresh Prune Marketing Committee. 

Dated: July 20, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17601 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 701 and 741 

RIN 3133–AD63 

National Credit Union Share Insurance 

Fund Premium and One Percent 

Deposit 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Section 741.4 of NCUA’s rules 

describes the procedures for the 

capitalization and maintenance of the 

National Credit Union Share Insurance 

Fund (NCUSIF). The current rule, 

however, does not adequately address 

how credit unions that enter or depart 

the NCUSIF system in a given calendar 

year are affected by any NCUSIF 

premium or deposit replenishment 

assessments in that same year. Due to 

the unprecedented level of NCUSIF 

expenses in 2009, which required the 

NCUA to announce both such 

assessments, NCUA is now proposing 

amendments to § 741.4 to clarify these 

procedures. The proposal makes other 

minor changes to 741.4 and conforming 

changes to § 701.6 relating to the 

payment of operating fees by Federal 

credit unions. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods. (Please 

send comments by one method only): 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• NCUA Web Site: http:// 

www.ncua.gov/ 

RegulationsOpinionsLaws/ 

proposed_regs/proposed_regs. html. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Address to 

regcomments@ncua.gov. Include ‘‘[Your 

name] Comments on Insurance 

Premium and One Percent Deposit’’ in 

the e-mail subject line. 

• Fax: (703) 518–6319. Use the 

subject line described above for e-mail. 

• Mail: Address to Mary Rupp, 

Secretary of the Board, National Credit 

Union Administration, 1775 Duke 

Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314– 

3428. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail address. 

Public inspection: All public 

comments are available on the agency’s 

Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/ 

RegulationsOpinionsLaws/comments as 

submitted, except as may not be 

possible for technical reasons. Public 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

Paper copies of comments may be 

inspected in NCUA’s law library, at 

1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314, by appointment weekdays 

between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an 

appointment, call (703) 518–6546 or 

send an e-mail to OGC Mail@ncua.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Wirick, Staff Attorney, Office 

of General Counsel, National Credit 

Union Administration, 1775 Duke 

Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–3428 

or telephone: (703) 518–6540; and Paul 

Peterson, Director, Applications 

Section, Office of General Counsel, 

National Credit Union Administration, 

at the same address and telephone 

number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Congress created the National Credit 

Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) 

in 1970 to provide share insurance 

coverage to all Federal credit unions 

and to those State chartered credit 

unions that apply and meet minimum 

qualification standards. The NCUSIF 

provides insurance coverage for each of 

an insured credit union’s members, 

similar to the coverage provided by the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s 

(FDIC’s) Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). 

Unlike the DIF, however, the NCUSIF 

was not capitalized at its inception by 

tax revenues. From 1971 through 1980, 

the capital of the NCUSIF was 

established solely through the annual 

insurance premium contributions of 

insured credit unions. During the period 

from 1971 through the end of calendar 

year 1980, the capital of the fund (i.e., 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS