Regulations Governing Fees for Services, 9527-9529 [2011-3716]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Agency’s determination in the proposed
rule, dietary supplements containing the
free form of phytosterols would have to
be relabeled or reformulated by
February 21, 2011. The comments that
the Agency received from industry
stated that 75 days is not enough time
to reformulate or relabel dietary
supplements containing free
phytosterols and requested that FDA
consider extending its enforcement
discretion for the use of the health claim
in a consistent manner with the 2003
letter.
The Agency also understands that
there are many conventional foods
currently available in the marketplace
that contain phytosterols at a level of
0.4 g free phytosterol equivalents per
RACC. These foods contain phytosterol
ingredients that have not been the
subject of a generally recognized as safe
(GRAS) notification letter to which the
Agency had no further questions at a
level greater than 0.4 g free sterol
equivalents per RACC. A level of 0.4 g
free sterol equivalents per RACC is less
than the new proposed requirement of
0.5 g of phytosterols per RACC, based
on the nonesterified weight of
phytosterols. Products with 0.4 g free
sterol equivalents per RACC would also
have to be reformulated or relabeled
beginning on February 21, 2011.
Based on these concerns about
reformulation and relabeling during a
75-day period, FDA considers it
appropriate to extend the period of time
that it intends to exercise enforcement
discretion based on the 2003 letter. FDA
intends to exercise enforcement
discretion until February 21, 2012, with
regard to the use of a claim about
reduced risk of CHD in the labeling of
a phytosterol-containing food, including
foods other than those specified in
§ 101.83(c)(2)(iii)(A), based on the
factors set forth in the 2003 letter for the
use of such claim in the labeling of food.
Information submitted by industry and
trade associations about the amount of
time necessary to reformulate, relabel,
and to submit a GRAS notification in
addition to the Agency’s experience
with the economic impact of labeling
and reformulation changes on industry
have served as the basis for the Agency’s
extension of the period during which it
intends to exercise enforcement
discretion to February 21, 2012, based
on the 2003 letter. This document does
not change how FDA intends to
consider exercising its enforcement
discretion when claims are made
consistent with the proposed
requirements in the proposed rule.
Rather, this document only relates to
FDA’s enforcement discretion based on
the 2003 letter, and FDA will determine
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Feb 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
what, if any, further action is necessary,
pending its review of the Cargill and
Pharmachem petitions. Food bearing the
health claim would be required to
comply with any revised requirements
established in the final rule when the
final rule becomes effective.
References
1. Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration. Letter of Enforcement
Discretion from FDA to Cargill Health &
Food Technologies. Docket No. FDA–
2000–P–0102, document ID DRAFT–
0059 (formerly 2000P–1275/LET3) and
Docket No. FDA–2000–P–0133,
document ID DRAFT–0127 (formerly
2000P–1276/LET4). February 14, 2003.
Dated: February 14, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–3678 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
9527
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds
with ‘‘DFARS Case 2009–D043.’’ Follow
the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit
a Comment’’ screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘DFARS Case 2009–D043’’ on your
attached document.
E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2009–D043 in the subject
line of the message.
Fax: 703–602–0350.
Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations
System, Attn: Ms. Clare Zebrowski,
OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, 3060
Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check https://www.regulations.gov
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Clare Zebrowski, Telephone 703–602–
0289; facsimile 703–602–0350. Please
cite DFARS Case 2009–D043.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
48 CFR Parts 211, 212, and 252
A. Background
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Reporting of
Government-Furnished Property
(DFARS Case 2009–D043)
DoD published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on December 22, 2010
(75 FR 80426), with a request for
comment by February 22, 2011. DoD is
extending the comment period for 45
days to provide additional time for
interested parties to review the
proposed DFARS changes. DoD is
planning a public meeting and detailed
information on the meeting will be
published in the Federal Register at a
later date.
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System; Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
comment period.
AGENCY:
DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
revise and expand reporting
requirements for Government-furnished
property to include items uniquely and
non-uniquely identified, and to clarify
policy for contractor access to
Government supply sources.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted in writing to the
address shown below on or before April
8, 2011, to be considered in the
formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DFARS Case 2009–D043,
using any of the following methods:
Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Submit comments via the Federal
eRulemaking portal by inputting
‘‘DFARS Case 2009–D043’’ under the
heading ‘‘Enter keyword or ID’’ and
selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. 2011–3727 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1002
[EP 542 (Sub-No. 18)]
Regulations Governing Fees for
Services
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Board proposes to amend
the regulations governing user fees for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9528
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
services. The proposed amendment
would set the fee for certain formal
complaints at $350.
DATES: Comments on this proposal are
due by April 19, 2011; and replies are
due by May 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted either via the Board’s e-filing
format or in the traditional paper
format. Any person using e-filing should
attach a document and otherwise
comply with the instructions at the
E-Filing link on the Board’s Web site, at
https://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person
submitting a filing in the traditional
paper format should send an original
and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 542 (SubNo. 18), 395 E Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001.
Copies of paper comments will be
available for viewing and self-copying at
the Board’s Public Docket Room, Room
131; paper and electronic copies will be
posted to the Board’s Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Valerie Quinn at 202–245–0382.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board
sets user fees in accordance with the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act
of 1952 (IOAA). The IOAA directs
agencies such as the Board to establish
fees for specific services that it provides
to identifiable recipients, so that the
service provided may be ‘‘self-sustaining
to the extent possible.’’ 31 U.S.C.
9701(a). The fees must be ‘‘fair’’ and be
based on a variety of factors, including
(but not limited to) the costs to the
agency of each covered service, public
policy or interest served, and the value
of the service to the entity receiving it.
31 U.S.C. 9701(b). The Board’s fees
transfer some of the cost of funding the
agency from the general taxpayer to the
entity receiving the benefit of a
particular Board action.1
Historically, certain fees have been set
at levels below the full cost. For
example, fee sub-item 58(i), a petition
for declaratory order involving a dispute
over an existing rate or practice, and fee
sub-item 58(ii), all other petitions for
declaratory order, were held at $1,000
and $1,400, respectively, well below full
cost to agency, to avoid any possible
‘‘chilling effect ’’ 2 that higher fees would
1 The fees established by the Board for specific
services offset the Board’s appropriated funding,
and do not directly add to it.
2 The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
previously defined a ‘‘chilling effect’’ as the level at
which the filing fee represents a significant factor
in determining whether to bring a complaint. See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:15 Feb 17, 2011
Jkt 223001
have on access by shippers and
consumers to the Board’s adjudicatory
process. See Regulations Governing Fees
for Servs. Performed in Connection With
Licensing and Related Servs., 1 S.T.B.
179, 199–200 (1996). Filing fees for
formal complaints generally have been
set based on a percentage of the full
cost. Id. at 195–99. Since 2008, pursuant
to Congressional directive, we have held
the fees for all rate complaints at or
below $350, the level of filing fees for
complaints in district court. Fees for
competitive access complaints and
complaints seeking establishment of a
common carrier rate are also below
$350.
Thus, in our current fee structure, we
have a large gap between the relatively
low fees for most complaints and for
petitions for declaratory orders and the
$20,600 fee for all other formal
complaints, a gap that is not good public
policy. Therefore, the Board proposes to
lower the fee for sub-item 56(iv) [all
other formal complaints except
competitive access] from $20,600 to
$350. Under this proposal, the fee for
sub-items 56(i) [full Stand-Alone Cost
rate complaints] and 56(ii) [SimplifiedSAC rate complaints] would be set at
$350, and the fee for sub-item 56(iii)
[Three Benchmark rate complaints], the
most likely path to rate relief for small
shippers, would remain at $150.
We believe three sound public policy
considerations call for the Board to set
relatively low fees for filing a complaint.
Under the ICC Termination Act of
1995,3 Congress eliminated authority
previously held by the ICC to initiate
investigations of alleged illegal or
unreasonable rates or practices. As a
result, the filing of a complaint by
shippers or other entities is the Board’s
only mechanism for investigating and
addressing potential rate violations or
other unlawful practices.
Second, it is possible that the
relatively high fees for filing formal
complaints under item 56(iv)—currently
$20,600—may be having a chilling effect
on shippers and other entities seeking to
bring a complaint to the Board. For
example, over the past 10 years, our Rail
Consumer and Public Assistance unit
has assessed hundreds of informal
complaints related to service and
demurrage, and although many have
been successfully resolved, several that
were unresolved did not become the
subjects of formal complaints. While we
presume that some of these cases were
not brought before the Board for reasons
Regulations Governing Fees for Servs. Performed in
Connection with Licensing and Related Servs., 1
I.C.C. 2d 196, 198 (1984).
3 Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
unrelated to fees, the proposed fee
amendment would minimize any
chilling effect of high fees, and
encourage outside parties to bring
potential regulatory violations before
the Board for adjudication.
Finally, the proposed amendment
should result in better management of
the Board’s docket and use of Board
resources. Maintaining comparatively
low filing fees for petitions for
declaratory orders, coupled with the
high fee for complaints (other than rate
or competitive access complaints) under
fee item 56(iv), appears to have led
parties to seek broad declarations by the
Board rather than asking the Board to
resolve individual complaints. In some
cases, an individual complaint may
have been preferable and the Board’s fee
structure should not be the deciding
factor in a party’s decision of what type
of case to bring.
While not part of the changes
proposed here, we intend, in a future
proceeding, to consider revising the fees
for declaratory order proceedings to
better reflect the cost of these
proceedings to the agency. However, to
encourage courts to continue to seek our
advice, when appropriate, under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and so
as not to unduly burden parties, we also
intend to establish a new, comparatively
low fee item for petitions for declaratory
order that result from court referrals.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, generally
requires a description and analysis of
final rules that will have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In drafting a
rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess
the effect that its regulation will have on
small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a
regulation’s impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment.
5 U.S.C. 601–604. In its notice of
proposed rulemaking, the agency must
either include an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), or
certify that the proposed rule will not
have a ‘‘significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities,’’
5 U.S.C. 605(b). The impact must be a
direct impact on small entities ‘‘whose
conduct is circumscribed or mandated’’
by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop.
Ass’n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Though these rules may impact some
small entities because they may be
subject to a filing fee, the fees proposed
above would change only the fee for ‘‘all
other formal complaints except
competitive access complaints,’’ by
reducing that fee from $20,600 to $350.
Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
9529
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules
605(b), the Board certifies that the
regulations proposed herein would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of this decision
will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration,
Washington, DC 20416.
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources. This rulemaking will
affect the following subjects:
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1002
Administrative practice and
procedure, Common carriers, Freedom
of information.
chapter X of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1002—FEES
Decided: February 14, 2011.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner
Mulvey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
1. The authority citation for part 1002
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and § 553;
31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 721(a). Section
1002.1(g)(11) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5514
and 31 U.S.C. 3717.
2. In § 1002.2, revise paragraph
(f)(56)(iv) to read as follows:
Code of Federal Regulations
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
the Surface Transportation Board
proposes to amend part 1002 of title 49,
§ 1002.2
*
Filing fees.
*
*
(f) * * *
*
*
Type of proceeding
*
*
*
Fee
*
*
*
*
PART V: Formal Proceedings
*
*
*
*
*
*
(56) * * *
(iv) All other formal complaints (except competitive access complaints) ........................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
We have posted our draft
Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance at
https://www.fws.gov/windenergy. You
may submit e-mail comments to
windenergy@fws.gov. Please include
‘‘Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance
Comments’’ in the subject line of the
message, and your full name and return
address in the body of your message.
Please note that the e-mail address will
be closed when the public comment
period closes. Alternatively, you may
submit comments or recommendations
by mail to: Attention: Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance; Division of
Migratory Bird Management; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Mail Stop 4107; Arlington, VA
22203–1610.
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 22
[FWS–R9–MB–2011–N018; 91200–1231–
9BPP]
RIN 1018–AX53
Migratory Birds; Draft Eagle
Conservation Plan Guidance
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome Ford, 703–358–2583.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability for public comment of draft
Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. The
Guidance provides recommendations
for agency staff and developers to use an
iterative process to avoid and minimize
negative effects on eagles and their
habitats resulting from the construction,
operation and maintenance of landbased, wind energy facilities in the
United States.
DATES: We must receive any comments
or suggestions by the end of the day on
May 19, 2011.
SUMMARY:
13:45 Feb 17, 2011
*
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2011–3716 Filed 2–17–11; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
Jkt 223001
The
Service is charged with implementing
statutes including the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the
Endangered Species Act. BGEPA
prohibits all take of eagles unless
otherwise authorized by the Service. A
goal of BGEPA is to achieve and
maintain stable or increasing
populations of bald and golden eagles.
The draft Eagle Conservation Plan
Guidance (draft Guidance) interprets
and clarifies the permit requirements in
the regulations at 50 Code of Federal
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
$350
*
Regulations (CFR) 22.26 and 22.27, and
does not impose any binding
requirements beyond those specified in
the regulations. The draft Guidance
provides a means of compliance with
BGEPA by providing recommendations
for:
(1) Conducting early pre-construction
assessments to identify important eagle
use areas;
(2) Avoiding, minimizing, and/or
compensating for potential adverse
effects to eagles; and,
(3) Monitoring for impacts to eagles
during construction and operation.
The draft Guidance calls for
scientifically rigorous surveys,
monitoring, risk assessment, and
research designs proportionate to the
risk to eagles. The draft Guidance
describes a process by which wind
energy developers can collect and
analyze information that could lead to a
programmatic permit to authorize
unintentional take of eagles at wind
energy facilities. The process described
here is not required, but project
proponents should coordinate closely
with the Service concerning alternatives
to insure that eagle conservation plans
conform with requirements of BGEPA.
The Service will initiate a peer review
of the draft Guidance during the public
comment period.
The development of facilities to
generate electricity from wind turbines
has increased dramatically in the range
E:\FR\FM\18FEP1.SGM
18FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9527-9529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3716]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1002
[EP 542 (Sub-No. 18)]
Regulations Governing Fees for Services
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board proposes to amend the regulations governing user
fees for
[[Page 9528]]
services. The proposed amendment would set the fee for certain formal
complaints at $350.
DATES: Comments on this proposal are due by April 19, 2011; and replies
are due by May 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing
format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing
should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at
the E-Filing link on the Board's Web site, at https://www.stb.dot.gov.
Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should
send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn:
Docket No. EP 542 (Sub-No. 18), 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20423-0001.
Copies of paper comments will be available for viewing and self-
copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131; paper and
electronic copies will be posted to the Board's Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Quinn at 202-245-0382.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board sets user fees in accordance with
the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA). The IOAA
directs agencies such as the Board to establish fees for specific
services that it provides to identifiable recipients, so that the
service provided may be ``self-sustaining to the extent possible.'' 31
U.S.C. 9701(a). The fees must be ``fair'' and be based on a variety of
factors, including (but not limited to) the costs to the agency of each
covered service, public policy or interest served, and the value of the
service to the entity receiving it. 31 U.S.C. 9701(b). The Board's fees
transfer some of the cost of funding the agency from the general
taxpayer to the entity receiving the benefit of a particular Board
action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fees established by the Board for specific services
offset the Board's appropriated funding, and do not directly add to
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, certain fees have been set at levels below the full
cost. For example, fee sub-item 58(i), a petition for declaratory order
involving a dispute over an existing rate or practice, and fee sub-item
58(ii), all other petitions for declaratory order, were held at $1,000
and $1,400, respectively, well below full cost to agency, to avoid any
possible ``chilling effect '' \2\ that higher fees would have on access
by shippers and consumers to the Board's adjudicatory process. See
Regulations Governing Fees for Servs. Performed in Connection With
Licensing and Related Servs., 1 S.T.B. 179, 199-200 (1996). Filing fees
for formal complaints generally have been set based on a percentage of
the full cost. Id. at 195-99. Since 2008, pursuant to Congressional
directive, we have held the fees for all rate complaints at or below
$350, the level of filing fees for complaints in district court. Fees
for competitive access complaints and complaints seeking establishment
of a common carrier rate are also below $350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) previously defined
a ``chilling effect'' as the level at which the filing fee
represents a significant factor in determining whether to bring a
complaint. See Regulations Governing Fees for Servs. Performed in
Connection with Licensing and Related Servs., 1 I.C.C. 2d 196, 198
(1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in our current fee structure, we have a large gap between the
relatively low fees for most complaints and for petitions for
declaratory orders and the $20,600 fee for all other formal complaints,
a gap that is not good public policy. Therefore, the Board proposes to
lower the fee for sub-item 56(iv) [all other formal complaints except
competitive access] from $20,600 to $350. Under this proposal, the fee
for sub-items 56(i) [full Stand-Alone Cost rate complaints] and 56(ii)
[Simplified-SAC rate complaints] would be set at $350, and the fee for
sub-item 56(iii) [Three Benchmark rate complaints], the most likely
path to rate relief for small shippers, would remain at $150.
We believe three sound public policy considerations call for the
Board to set relatively low fees for filing a complaint. Under the ICC
Termination Act of 1995,\3\ Congress eliminated authority previously
held by the ICC to initiate investigations of alleged illegal or
unreasonable rates or practices. As a result, the filing of a complaint
by shippers or other entities is the Board's only mechanism for
investigating and addressing potential rate violations or other
unlawful practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it is possible that the relatively high fees for filing
formal complaints under item 56(iv)--currently $20,600--may be having a
chilling effect on shippers and other entities seeking to bring a
complaint to the Board. For example, over the past 10 years, our Rail
Consumer and Public Assistance unit has assessed hundreds of informal
complaints related to service and demurrage, and although many have
been successfully resolved, several that were unresolved did not become
the subjects of formal complaints. While we presume that some of these
cases were not brought before the Board for reasons unrelated to fees,
the proposed fee amendment would minimize any chilling effect of high
fees, and encourage outside parties to bring potential regulatory
violations before the Board for adjudication.
Finally, the proposed amendment should result in better management
of the Board's docket and use of Board resources. Maintaining
comparatively low filing fees for petitions for declaratory orders,
coupled with the high fee for complaints (other than rate or
competitive access complaints) under fee item 56(iv), appears to have
led parties to seek broad declarations by the Board rather than asking
the Board to resolve individual complaints. In some cases, an
individual complaint may have been preferable and the Board's fee
structure should not be the deciding factor in a party's decision of
what type of case to bring.
While not part of the changes proposed here, we intend, in a future
proceeding, to consider revising the fees for declaratory order
proceedings to better reflect the cost of these proceedings to the
agency. However, to encourage courts to continue to seek our advice,
when appropriate, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and so as
not to unduly burden parties, we also intend to establish a new,
comparatively low fee item for petitions for declaratory order that
result from court referrals.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In drafting a rule an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that
its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective
alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the
analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. In its notice
of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), or certify that the
proposed rule will not have a ``significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The impact must be a
direct impact on small entities ``whose conduct is circumscribed or
mandated'' by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553
F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
Though these rules may impact some small entities because they may
be subject to a filing fee, the fees proposed above would change only
the fee for ``all other formal complaints except competitive access
complaints,'' by reducing that fee from $20,600 to $350. Accordingly,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
[[Page 9529]]
605(b), the Board certifies that the regulations proposed herein would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy
of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC
20416.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources. This
rulemaking will affect the following subjects:
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1002
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of
information.
Decided: February 14, 2011.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Nottingham, and
Commissioner Mulvey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
Code of Federal Regulations
For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation
Board proposes to amend part 1002 of title 49, chapter X of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1002--FEES
1. The authority citation for part 1002 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and Sec. 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701
and 49 U.S.C. 721(a). Section 1002.1(g)(11) also issued under 5
U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3717.
2. In Sec. 1002.2, revise paragraph (f)(56)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1002.2 Filing fees.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of proceeding Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART V: Formal Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(56) * * *
(iv) All other formal complaints (except competitive $350
access complaints)..................................
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-3716 Filed 2-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
