Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Late Payment and Interest Charge Regulation, 62215-62218 [E8-24918]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
A notice of system of records for
Grievances, Appeals, and Disciplinary
Action is also published in this issue of
the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DHS proposes to amend
Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS
AND INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for Part 5
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat.
2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301.
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. In Appendix C to part 5, add a new
paragraph 10 to the end of the Appendix
to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of
Records Exempt From the Privacy Act
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
10. The Department of Homeland Security
Grievances, Appeals, and Disciplinary Action
system of records consists of electronic and
paper records and will be used by DHS and
its components. Grievances, Appeals, and
Disciplinary Action is a repository of
information held by DHS in connection with
its several and varied missions and functions,
including, but not limited to: The
enforcement of civil and criminal laws;
investigations, inquiries, and proceedings
there under; national security and
intelligence activities; and protection of the
President of the United States or other
individuals pursuant to Section 3056 and
3056A of Title 18. Grievances, Appeals, and
Disciplinary Action contains information that
is collected by, on behalf of, in support of,
or in cooperation with DHS and its
components and may contain personally
identifiable information collected by other
Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or
international government agencies. Pursuant
to exemption 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) of the
Privacy Act, portions of this system are
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d);
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(e)(4)(I), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f), and (g). Pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2), (3), and (5), this
system is exempt from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the
limitations set forth in those subsections: 5
U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),
(e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). Exemptions from
these particular subsections are justified, on
a case-by-case basis to be determined at the
time a request is made, for the following
reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4)
(Accounting for Disclosures) because release
of the accounting of disclosures could alert
the subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation to the existence of the investigation,
and reveal investigative interest on the part
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
of DHS as well as the recipient agency.
Disclosure of the accounting would therefore
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve
national security. Disclosure of the
accounting would also permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the
investigation, to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension, which would undermine the
entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records)
because access to the records contained in
this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative
interest on the part of DHS or another agency.
Access to the records could permit the
individual who is the subject of a record to
impede the investigation, to tamper with
witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection
or apprehension. Amendment of the records
could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would
impose an impossible administrative burden
by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated. In addition,
permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to
homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and
Necessity of Information) because in the
course of investigations into potential
violations of Federal law, the accuracy of
information obtained or introduced
occasionally may be unclear or the
information may not be strictly relevant or
necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interests of effective law enforcement, it is
appropriate to retain all information that may
aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of
Information from Individuals) because
requiring that information be collected from
the subject of an investigation would alert the
subject to the nature or existence of an
investigation, thereby interfering with the
related investigation and law enforcement
activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to
Subjects) because providing such detailed
information would impede law enforcement
in that it could compromise investigations
by: Revealing the existence of an otherwise
confidential investigation and thereby
provide an opportunity for the subject of an
investigation to conceal evidence, alter
patterns of behavior, or take other actions
that could thwart investigative efforts; reveal
the identity of witnesses in investigations,
thereby providing an opportunity for the
subjects of the investigations or others to
harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere
with the collection of evidence or other
information from such witnesses; or reveal
the identity of confidential informants,
which would negatively affect the
informant’s usefulness in any ongoing or
future investigations and discourage
members of the public from cooperating as
confidential informants in any future
investigations.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62215
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)
(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency
Rules) because portions of this system are
exempt from the individual access provisions
of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above,
and therefore DHS is not required to establish
requirements, rules, or procedures with
respect to such access. Providing notice to
individuals with respect to existence of
records pertaining to them in the system of
records or otherwise setting up procedures
pursuant to which individuals may access
and view records pertaining to themselves in
the system would undermine investigative
efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses,
and potential witnesses, and confidential
informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of
Information) because in the collection of
information for law enforcement purposes it
is impossible to determine in advance what
information is accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would
preclude DHS agents from using their
investigative training and exercise of good
judgment to both conduct and report on
investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because compliance would
interfere with DHS’ ability to obtain, serve,
and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law
enforcement mechanisms that may be filed
under seal, and could result in disclosure of
investigative techniques, procedures, and
evidence.
(i) From subsection (g) to the extent that
the system is exempt from other specific
subsections of the Privacy Act relating to
individuals’ rights to access and amend their
records contained in the system. Therefore
DHS is not required to establish rules or
procedures pursuant to which individuals
may seek a civil remedy for the agency’s:
Refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply
with a request for access to records; failure
to maintain accurate, relevant timely and
complete records; or failure to otherwise
comply with an individual’s right to access
or amend records.
Dated: October 7, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8–24805 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 946
[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0037; FV08–946–
2 PR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington;
Modification of Late Payment and
Interest Charge Regulation
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
62216
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments
on a modification of the late payment
and interest charge regulation
prescribed under the Washington potato
marketing order. The marketing order
regulates the handling of Irish potatoes
grown in Washington, and is
administered locally by the State of
Washington Potato Committee
(Committee). This rule would revise the
date interest is charged on late
assessment payments from 30 to 60 days
from the billing date shown on the
handler’s assessment statement received
from the Committee. This rule would
contribute to the efficient operation of
the marketing order by reducing billing
for nominal late payment interest
charges on handlers who pay within 60
days of the billing date, while
continuing those interest charges
necessary to encourage payment,
thereby ensuring that adequate funds
are available to cover the Committee’s
authorized expenses.
DATES: Comments must be received by
November 4, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. 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: https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments should reference the docket
number and the date and page number
of this issue of the Federal Register and
will be made available for public
inspection in the Office of the Docket
Clerk during regular business hours, or
can be viewed at: https://
www.regulations.gov.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson,
Northwest Marketing Field Office,
Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
AMS, USDA, Telephone: (503) 326–
2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or E-mail:
Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or
GaryD.Olson@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.
This
proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
946), regulating the handling of Irish
potatoes grown in Washington,
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 proposal has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended
to have retroactive effect. This proposal
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. A 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 proposal invites comments on a
modification of the late payment and
interest charge regulation currently
prescribed under the order. This rule
would revise the date interest is charged
on late assessment payments from 30 to
60 days from the billing date shown on
the handler’s assessment statement
received from the Committee. This rule
would contribute to the efficient
operation of the order by reducing the
number of nominal billings for late
payment interest charges on handlers
who pay within 60 days of the billing
date, while continuing those interest
charges necessary to encourage
payment, thereby ensuring that
adequate funds are available to cover
the Committee’s authorized expenses.
The Washington potato 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
members of the Committee are
producers and handlers of Washington
potatoes. They are familiar with the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Committee’s needs and 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 and the
authority to recommend late payment
charges or interest charges on late
payment, are formulated and discussed
at a public meeting. Thus, all directly
affected persons have an opportunity to
participate and provide input.
Section 946.41 of the order specifies
that if handlers do not pay their
assessments within the time prescribed
by the Committee, the assessments may
be increased by a late payment charge
or an interest charge, or both, at rates
prescribed by the Committee with
approval of USDA.
Section 946.141 of the order’s
administrative rules and regulations
prescribes that the Committee shall
impose a monthly interest charge of one
percent of the unpaid balance on any
handler who fails to pay his or her
assessment within 30 days of the billing
date. The interest charge regulation has
been effective since May 25, 1995 (60
FR 27683). At that time, the Committee
expressed difficulty with handlers that
were continually late with their
assessment payments and recommended
the interest charge to be incurred 30
days after the billing date. It was
believed that the charges were high
enough to encourage timely payment
and that this would be an effective
means to ensure the Committee had
adequate funds to administer the
program.
The Committee unanimously
recommended this rule during a video
conference meeting held on April 16,
2008, followed by unanimous mail vote.
The Committee has determined that
most handlers pay their assessments
within 60 days but there are a few that
pay later than 60 days. The interest
billing that occurs 30 days after the
billing date has proven to be
administratively cumbersome as the
amounts billed are nominal amounts
and many times the handler’s payment
is received shortly after the bill
including interest is mailed.
As an example, the Committee’s
budget for the current fiscal year (2008–
2009) is $38,600 and estimated
assessment income is $35,000. Since
there are approximately 43 handlers, the
average each handler will pay in
assessments is approximately $814.
Committee records indicate that for the
most recent fiscal year, there were 316
invoices billed to handlers. The average
amount on an invoice was $110.44, with
a high of $626.54 and a low of $0.18.
Therefore, the interest amount owed on
a payment that is 30 days late, but not
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
more than 60, would often be less than
a dollar, rarely more than five dollars.
Most handlers pay their assessments
with 60 days. Only a few pay later than
60 days. The Committee believes that
handlers that pay later than 60 days
would be considered a greater risk for
nonpayment than handlers who pay
within 60 days.
The Committee recommended
retaining § 946.141, but recommended
modifying the regulation by providing
an additional 30 days for handlers to
pay. Committee records show that the
great majority of handlers pay
assessments within 60 days of the
billing date. By waiting until 60 days
past the billing date to charge interest
on late assessment payments, the
Committee would only have to charge
interest to the few handlers who do not
pay within 60 days. The Committee
believes the interest charge applied after
60 days will continue to encourage
handlers to pay promptly.
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 action 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 rules issued thereunder, are
unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially
small entities acting on their own
behalf.
Currently, there are approximately 43
handlers of Washington potatoes who
are subject to regulation under the
marketing order and approximately 267
potato producers in the regulated area.
Small agricultural service firms are
defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201)
as those having annual receipts of less
than $6,500,000, and small agricultural
producers are defined as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
During the 2006–2007 marketing year,
9,932,874 hundredweight of
Washington potatoes were inspected
under the order and sold into the fresh
market by 43 handlers, according to
Committee data. The Committee reports
that an industry consensus estimate of
an average fresh potato f.o.b. price is
$8.45 per hundredweight. Multiplying
the 2006–2007 fresh shipments of
9,932,874 hundredweight by the average
f.o.b. price of $8.45 yields a handler-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
level fresh market crop value of
$83,932,785. Dividing $83,933,785 by
43 handlers gives an average annual
sales value per handler estimate of
about $1,951,949. The Committee
estimates that 41, or about 95 percent of
these 43 handlers, had annual receipts
of less than $6,500,000.
A comparable computation can be
made to estimate annual average
revenue per producer. Based on
information provided by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, the 2006
season average producer price for
Washington potatoes was $6.25 per
hundredweight. Multiplying the 2006–
2007 fresh shipments of 9,932,874
hundredweight by the average producer
price of $6.25 provides a producer-level
fresh market crop value of $62,080,463.
Dividing $62,080,463 by 267
Washington potato producers yields an
average annual fresh market sales value
per producer of approximately
$232,511.
In view of the foregoing, it can be
concluded that the majority of the
Washington potato producers and
handlers may be classified as small
entities.
This proposal would change the date
interest is charged on late assessment
payments from 30 to 60 days past the
billing date. This rule would contribute
to the efficient operation of the
marketing order by reducing billing for
nominal late payment interest charges
on handlers who pay within 60 days of
the billing date, while continuing those
interest charges necessary to encourage
payment, thereby ensuring that
adequate funds are available to cover
the Committee’s authorized expenses.
The authority for late payment and
interest charges is provided in § 946.41
of the order. Section 946.141 of the
order’s administrative rules and
regulations prescribes the amount of
interest charged and when interest
charges are imposed.
This proposed change is expected to
reduce the cost to administer the order.
Regarding the impact of this rule on
affected entities, modification of the late
payment and interest charge regulation
is expected to benefit handlers. Most
handlers pay their assessments within
60 days of the billing date. Only a few
handlers pay later than 60 days.
Imposing the interest charge on late
assessment payments at 60 days instead
of 30 days past due will allow the
committee to operate more efficiently by
only billing after 60 days to handlers
whose late payments are considered
more serious and a greater risk. The
benefits of this proposal are not
expected to be disproportionately
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62217
greater or lesser for small entities than
large entities.
The Committee discussed several
alternatives to this recommendation,
including not changing the date interest
charges would be imposed and
suspending the entire section. However,
the Committee believes that it is
important that interest charges be
continued to encourage handlers to pay
assessments in a timely manner.
Further, the additional 30 days should
allow adequate time to receive
assessment payments by mail and allow
the Committee to reduce administrative
costs.
This proposed rule would not impose
any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large potato 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. In
addition, 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.
Further, the Committee’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the
Washington potato industry and all
interested persons were invited to
participate in Committee deliberations.
Like all Committee meetings, the April
16, 2008, meeting was a public meeting
and all entities, both large and small,
were able to express views on this issue.
Finally, interested persons are invited to
submit comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?
template=TemplateN&page=
MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.
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 proposal. Fifteen days is deemed
appropriate because this rule relaxes
requirements and would improve the
operation of the marketing order. All
written comments timely received will
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
62218
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules
be considered before a final
determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946
Marketing agreements, Potatoes,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN
IN WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 946 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 946.141 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 946.141
charge.
Late payment and interest
The Committee shall impose an
interest charge on any handler who fails
to pay his or her assessment within
sixty (60) days of the billing date shown
on the handler’s assessment statement
received from the Committee. The
interest charge shall, after 60 days, be
one percent of the unpaid assessment
balance. In the event the handler fails to
pay the delinquent assessment, the one
percent interest charge shall be applied
monthly thereafter to the unpaid
balance, including any accumulated
unpaid interest. Any amount paid by a
handler as an assessment, including any
charges imposed pursuant to this
paragraph, shall be credited when the
payment is received in the Committee
office.
Dated: October 15, 2008.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–24918 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 966
[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0081; FV08–966–
1 PR]
Tomatoes Grown In Florida; Increased
Assessment Rate
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule would increase the
assessment rate established for the
Florida Tomato Committee (Committee)
for the 2008–09 and subsequent fiscal
periods from $0.0325 to $0.0375 per 25-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Oct 17, 2008
Jkt 217001
pound carton of tomatoes handled. The
Committee locally administers the
marketing order which regulates the
handling of tomatoes grown in Florida.
Assessments upon tomato handlers are
used by the Committee to fund
reasonable and necessary expenses of
the program. The fiscal period begins
August 1 and ends July 31. The
assessment rate would remain in effect
indefinitely unless modified,
suspended, or terminated.
DATES: Comments must be received by
November 19, 2008.
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: https://
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:
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William G. Pimental, Marketing
Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen,
Regional Manager, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA;
Telephone: (863) 324–3375 Fax: (863)
325–8793, or E-mail:
William.Pimental@usda.gov or
Christian.Nissen@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. 125 and Order No. 966, both as
amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating
the handling of tomatoes grown in
Florida, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Reform. Under the marketing order now
in effect, Florida tomato 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
tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2008,
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 2008–09 and
subsequent fiscal periods from $0.0325
to $0.0375 per 25-pound carton of
tomatoes.
The Florida tomato 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 members
of the Committee are producers of
Florida tomatoes. 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 in 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 USDA approved, an assessment rate
that would continue 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.
E:\FR\FM\20OCP1.SGM
20OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 203 (Monday, October 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62215-62218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24918]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 946
[Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0037; FV08-946-2 PR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Late Payment
and Interest Charge Regulation
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62216]]
SUMMARY: This rule invites comments on a modification of the late
payment and interest charge regulation prescribed under the Washington
potato marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of
Irish potatoes grown in Washington, and is administered locally by the
State of Washington Potato Committee (Committee). This rule would
revise the date interest is charged on late assessment payments from 30
to 60 days from the billing date shown on the handler's assessment
statement received from the Committee. This rule would contribute to
the efficient operation of the marketing order by reducing billing for
nominal late payment interest charges on handlers who pay within 60
days of the billing date, while continuing those interest charges
necessary to encourage payment, thereby ensuring that adequate funds
are available to cover the Committee's authorized expenses.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 4, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. 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: https://
www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the docket number
and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and
will be made 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: Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson,
Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Telephone: (503) 326-
2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or E-mail: Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or
GaryD.Olson@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 proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), regulating the handling of
Irish potatoes grown in Washington, 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 proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This proposal 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. A
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 proposal invites comments on a modification of the late
payment and interest charge regulation currently prescribed under the
order. This rule would revise the date interest is charged on late
assessment payments from 30 to 60 days from the billing date shown on
the handler's assessment statement received from the Committee. This
rule would contribute to the efficient operation of the order by
reducing the number of nominal billings for late payment interest
charges on handlers who pay within 60 days of the billing date, while
continuing those interest charges necessary to encourage payment,
thereby ensuring that adequate funds are available to cover the
Committee's authorized expenses.
The Washington potato 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 members of the Committee are producers and handlers of
Washington potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and
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 and the authority to recommend late payment charges or
interest charges on late payment, are formulated and discussed at a
public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity
to participate and provide input.
Section 946.41 of the order specifies that if handlers do not pay
their assessments within the time prescribed by the Committee, the
assessments may be increased by a late payment charge or an interest
charge, or both, at rates prescribed by the Committee with approval of
USDA.
Section 946.141 of the order's administrative rules and regulations
prescribes that the Committee shall impose a monthly interest charge of
one percent of the unpaid balance on any handler who fails to pay his
or her assessment within 30 days of the billing date. The interest
charge regulation has been effective since May 25, 1995 (60 FR 27683).
At that time, the Committee expressed difficulty with handlers that
were continually late with their assessment payments and recommended
the interest charge to be incurred 30 days after the billing date. It
was believed that the charges were high enough to encourage timely
payment and that this would be an effective means to ensure the
Committee had adequate funds to administer the program.
The Committee unanimously recommended this rule during a video
conference meeting held on April 16, 2008, followed by unanimous mail
vote. The Committee has determined that most handlers pay their
assessments within 60 days but there are a few that pay later than 60
days. The interest billing that occurs 30 days after the billing date
has proven to be administratively cumbersome as the amounts billed are
nominal amounts and many times the handler's payment is received
shortly after the bill including interest is mailed.
As an example, the Committee's budget for the current fiscal year
(2008-2009) is $38,600 and estimated assessment income is $35,000.
Since there are approximately 43 handlers, the average each handler
will pay in assessments is approximately $814. Committee records
indicate that for the most recent fiscal year, there were 316 invoices
billed to handlers. The average amount on an invoice was $110.44, with
a high of $626.54 and a low of $0.18. Therefore, the interest amount
owed on a payment that is 30 days late, but not
[[Page 62217]]
more than 60, would often be less than a dollar, rarely more than five
dollars. Most handlers pay their assessments with 60 days. Only a few
pay later than 60 days. The Committee believes that handlers that pay
later than 60 days would be considered a greater risk for nonpayment
than handlers who pay within 60 days.
The Committee recommended retaining Sec. 946.141, but recommended
modifying the regulation by providing an additional 30 days for
handlers to pay. Committee records show that the great majority of
handlers pay assessments within 60 days of the billing date. By waiting
until 60 days past the billing date to charge interest on late
assessment payments, the Committee would only have to charge interest
to the few handlers who do not pay within 60 days. The Committee
believes the interest charge applied after 60 days will continue to
encourage handlers to pay promptly.
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 action 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 rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf.
Currently, there are approximately 43 handlers of Washington
potatoes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and
approximately 267 potato producers in the regulated area. Small
agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts
of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined
as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
During the 2006-2007 marketing year, 9,932,874 hundredweight of
Washington potatoes were inspected under the order and sold into the
fresh market by 43 handlers, according to Committee data. The Committee
reports that an industry consensus estimate of an average fresh potato
f.o.b. price is $8.45 per hundredweight. Multiplying the 2006-2007
fresh shipments of 9,932,874 hundredweight by the average f.o.b. price
of $8.45 yields a handler-level fresh market crop value of $83,932,785.
Dividing $83,933,785 by 43 handlers gives an average annual sales value
per handler estimate of about $1,951,949. The Committee estimates that
41, or about 95 percent of these 43 handlers, had annual receipts of
less than $6,500,000.
A comparable computation can be made to estimate annual average
revenue per producer. Based on information provided by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, the 2006 season average producer price
for Washington potatoes was $6.25 per hundredweight. Multiplying the
2006-2007 fresh shipments of 9,932,874 hundredweight by the average
producer price of $6.25 provides a producer-level fresh market crop
value of $62,080,463. Dividing $62,080,463 by 267 Washington potato
producers yields an average annual fresh market sales value per
producer of approximately $232,511.
In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of
the Washington potato producers and handlers may be classified as small
entities.
This proposal would change the date interest is charged on late
assessment payments from 30 to 60 days past the billing date. This rule
would contribute to the efficient operation of the marketing order by
reducing billing for nominal late payment interest charges on handlers
who pay within 60 days of the billing date, while continuing those
interest charges necessary to encourage payment, thereby ensuring that
adequate funds are available to cover the Committee's authorized
expenses.
The authority for late payment and interest charges is provided in
Sec. 946.41 of the order. Section 946.141 of the order's
administrative rules and regulations prescribes the amount of interest
charged and when interest charges are imposed.
This proposed change is expected to reduce the cost to administer
the order.
Regarding the impact of this rule on affected entities,
modification of the late payment and interest charge regulation is
expected to benefit handlers. Most handlers pay their assessments
within 60 days of the billing date. Only a few handlers pay later than
60 days. Imposing the interest charge on late assessment payments at 60
days instead of 30 days past due will allow the committee to operate
more efficiently by only billing after 60 days to handlers whose late
payments are considered more serious and a greater risk. The benefits
of this proposal are not expected to be disproportionately greater or
lesser for small entities than large entities.
The Committee discussed several alternatives to this
recommendation, including not changing the date interest charges would
be imposed and suspending the entire section. However, the Committee
believes that it is important that interest charges be continued to
encourage handlers to pay assessments in a timely manner. Further, the
additional 30 days should allow adequate time to receive assessment
payments by mail and allow the Committee to reduce administrative
costs.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either small or large potato 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. In addition, 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.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout
the Washington potato industry and all interested persons were invited
to participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings,
the April 16, 2008, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both
large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally,
interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed
rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action
on small businesses.
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/AMSv1.0/
ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&page=MarketingOrdersSmallBus
inessGuide. 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 proposal. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because
this rule relaxes requirements and would improve the operation of the
marketing order. All written comments timely received will
[[Page 62218]]
be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 946--IRISH POTATOES GROWN IN WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 946.141 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.141 Late payment and interest charge.
The Committee shall impose an interest charge on any handler who
fails to pay his or her assessment within sixty (60) days of the
billing date shown on the handler's assessment statement received from
the Committee. The interest charge shall, after 60 days, be one percent
of the unpaid assessment balance. In the event the handler fails to pay
the delinquent assessment, the one percent interest charge shall be
applied monthly thereafter to the unpaid balance, including any
accumulated unpaid interest. Any amount paid by a handler as an
assessment, including any charges imposed pursuant to this paragraph,
shall be credited when the payment is received in the Committee office.
Dated: October 15, 2008.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. E8-24918 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P