81 FR 63679 - Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased Assessment Rate
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 180 (September 16, 2016)
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 180 (September 16, 2016)
| Page Range | 63679-63682 | |
| FR Document | 2016-22248 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 63679-63682] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-22248] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 983 [Docket No. AMS-SC-16-0076 SC16-983-2 IR] Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased Assessment Rate AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This rule implements a recommendation from the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) for a decrease in the assessment rate established for the 2016-17 and subsequent production years from $0.0035 to $0.0010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of pistachios operating within the area of production. Assessments upon pistachio handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The production year begins September 1 and ends August 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. DATES: Effective September 19, 2016; Comments received by November 15, 2016 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, 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 comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter R. Sommers, Marketing Specialist, [[Page 63680]] or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, 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 Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable pistachios beginning September 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. 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 decreases the assessment rate for the 2016-17 and subsequent production years from $0.0035 to $0.0010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. The California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio 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 California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. 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 2015-16 and subsequent production years, the Committee recommended and USDA approved an assessment rate that would continue in effect from production year to production year 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 July 12, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $922,500, and an assessment rate of $0.0010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,056,402, and the assessment rate was $0.0035 per pound of pistachios. The assessment rate of $0.0010 is $0.0025 lower than the rate currently in effect. The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 production year include $333,000 for salaries and benefits, $250,000 for research, and $19,500 for general and administrative expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in the 2015-16 production year were $316,500, $560,000, and $19,500, respectively. The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. Pistachio shipments for the production year are estimated at 750 million pounds which should provide $750,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum limit permitted by the order, which is two production years' budgeted expenses. The assessment rate established in this rule will 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 is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each production year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee 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 2016-17 production year budget and those for subsequent production years will 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 businesses 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 1,152 producers of pistachios in the production area and 19 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000. (13 CFR 121.201) Based on Committee data, it is estimated that about 53 percent of the handlers annually ship less than $7,500,000 worth of pistachios, and it is also estimated that 68 percent of the producers have annual receipts less [[Page 63681]] than $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers in the production area and more than two-thirds of the producers may be classified as small entities. This rule decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2016-17 and subsequent production years from $0.0035 to $0.0010 per pound of pistachios handled. The Committee unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $922,500 and an assessment rate of $0.0010 per pound of assessed weight pistachios, which is $0.0025 lower than the 2015-16 rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable pistachios for the 2016-17 production year is estimated at 750 million pounds. Thus, the $0.0010 rate should provide $750,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler's assessments, along with interest and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover expenses for the 2016-17 production year. The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 production year include $333,000 for salaries and benefits, $250,000 for research, and $19,500 for general and administrative expenses. Budgeted expenses for these items in the 2015-16 production year were $316,500, $560,000, and $19,500, respectively. The assessment rate decrease is necessary to reduce expected income from an assessment rate set at $0.0035 per pound. The income from that assessment rate would result in the Committee's financial reserve being higher than is permitted under the order. The $0.0035 rate was established to provide sufficient income when the crop was expected to be approximately half of a normal crop. For these reasons, the Committee unanimously voted to decrease the assessment rate from $0.0035 to $0.0010. The income generated from the lower recommended rate combined with funds from the financial reserve should provide sufficient income to cover anticipated 2016-17 expenses and maintain the financial reserve within the limit specified under the marketing order. Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed, based upon the relative value of various activities to the pistachio industry. The Committee ultimately determined that the 2016-17 production year expenses of $922,500 were prudent, and the assessment income provided by the reduced rate and funds from the financial reserve would permit the committee to meet its expenses. According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the season average producer price was $3.57 per pound of assessed weight pistachios in 2014 and $2.48 per pound in 2015. A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming production year indicates that the producer revenue for the 2016-17 production year could range between $1,860,000,000 and $2,677,500,000. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 production year as a percentage of total producer revenue could range between 0.0004 and 0.00028 percent. This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee meeting was widely publicized throughout the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 12, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Industry members also discussed various assessment rates, potential crop size, and estimated expenses at this meeting. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, ``Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders.'' No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval. This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio 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. 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. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. 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/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2016-17 production year begins on September 1, 2016, and the order requires that the rate of assessment for each production year apply to all assessable pistachios handled during such production year; (2) the action decreases the assessment rate for assessable pistachios beginning with the 2016-17 production year; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983 Pistachios, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is amended as follows: [[Page 63682]] PART 983--PISTACHIOS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO 0 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 983 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 0 2. Section 983.253 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 983.253 Assessment rate. On and after September 1, 2016, an assessment rate of $0.0010 per pound is established for California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios. Dated: September 12, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. 2016-22248 Filed 9-15-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 63679
The Board’s meeting was widely For the reasons set forth in the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
publicized throughout the tart cherry preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as
industry and all interested persons were follows: Agricultural Marketing Service
invited to attend and participate in
Board deliberations on all issues. Like PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 7 CFR Part 983
all Board meetings, the June 25, 2015, IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW [Docket No. AMS–SC–16–0076 SC16–983–
meeting was a public meeting and all YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 2 IR]
entities, both large and small, were able UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND
to express views on these issues. WISCONSIN Pistachios Grown in California,
A proposed rule concerning this Arizona, and New Mexico; Decreased
action was published in the Federal ■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Assessment Rate
Register on June 15, 2016 (81 FR 38975). part 930 continues to read as follows:
Copies of the rule were mailed or sent AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
via facsimile to all Board members and Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. USDA.
tart cherry handlers. Finally, the rule ACTION: Interim rule with request for
■ 2. In § 930.151:
was made available through the internet comments.
by USDA and the Office of the Federal ■ a. Designate the current paragraph as
Register. A 30-day comment period paragraph (a); and SUMMARY: This rule implements a
ending July 15, 2016, was provided to recommendation from the
■ b. Add a new paragraph (b) to read as
allow interested persons to respond to Administrative Committee for
follows:
the proposal. Pistachios (Committee) for a decrease in
§ 930.151 Desirable carry-out inventory. the assessment rate established for the
One comment was received during
2016–17 and subsequent production
the comment period in response to the (a) * * * years from $0.0035 to $0.0010 per
proposal. The commenter is an
(b) Beginning with the crop year pound of assessed weight pistachios
individual who supports the proposed
starting July 1, 2016, for the purposes of handled under the marketing order
action. The commenter described the
determining an optimum supply (order). The Committee locally
proposed changes as positive for the
volume, the Board may recommend a administers the order and is comprised
industry. Accordingly, no changes will
desirable carry-out inventory not to of producers and handlers of pistachios
be made to the rule as proposed, based
exceed 100 million pounds. operating within the area of production.
on the comment received.
Assessments upon pistachio handlers
A small business guide on complying ■ 3. Section 930.154 is added to read as are used by the Committee to fund
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop follows: reasonable and necessary expenses of
marketing agreements and orders may
the program. The production year
be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ § 930.154 Release of inventory reserve
cherries.
begins September 1 and ends August 31.
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
The assessment rate will remain in
Any questions about the compliance (a) As provided in § 930.54, the Board effect indefinitely unless modified,
guide should be sent to Richard Lower may recommend a release of a portion suspended, or terminated.
at the previously mentioned address in
or all of the primary and/or secondary DATES: Effective September 19, 2016;
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
reserve cherries. The total available Comments received by November 15,
section.
reserves will be determined at the 2016 will be considered prior to
After consideration of all relevant
beginning of the crop year. The primary issuance of a final rule.
matter presented, including the
information and recommendation reserve as defined in §§ 930.55 and ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
submitted by the Board and other 930.150 must be depleted before the invited to submit written comments
available information, it is hereby found secondary reserve can be released. If a concerning this rule. Comments must be
that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, release is recommended, the sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing
will tend to effectuate the declared recommended volume shall be Order and Agreement Division,
policy of the Act. apportioned to handlers on the basis of Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA,
It is further found that good cause each handler’s proportion of the total 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP
exists for not postponing the effective volume handled in the preceding three 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Fax:
date of this rule until 30 days after crop years. (202) 720–8938; or Internet: http://
publication in the Federal Register (5 (b) If a handler has less volume in www.regulations.gov. Comments should
U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already reserve than is apportioned, the excess reference the docket number and the
putting cherries into reserve. This action date and page number of this issue of
volume shall be reapportioned to those
also needs to be in place before the the Federal Register and will be
who still have volume in reserve until
Board meets in September to discuss available for public inspection in the
the total release is complete. Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
establishing volume control, including
determining an appropriate carry-out Dated: September 12, 2016. business hours, or can be viewed at:
figure. Further, handlers are aware of Elanor Starmer, http://www.regulations.gov. All
this rule, which was recommended at a Administrator, Agricultural Marketing comments submitted in response to this
public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment Service. rule will be included in the record and
period was provided for in the proposed [FR Doc. 2016–22258 Filed 9–15–16; 8:45 am] will be made available to the public.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
rule. Please be advised that the identity of the
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
individuals or entities submitting
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 comments will be made public on the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and Internet at the address provided above.
recordkeeping requirements, Tart FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
cherries. Peter R. Sommers, Marketing Specialist,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:04 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_63859/page/1.svg)
![63682 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN III. Policy Statement the Board generally intends to increase
CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW IV. Administrative Law Matters the CCyB gradually, (2) that the Board
A. Use of Plain Language expects to remove or reduce the CCyB
MEXICO B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
when the conditions that led to its
■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR activation abate or lessen and when the
part 983 continues to read as follows: I. Background release of CCyB capital would promote
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. In December 2015, the Board invited financial stability. The discussion in
public comment on a proposed policy Sections II and IV below responds to
■ 2. Section 983.253 is revised to read comments on the proposal regarding the
as follows: statement describing the framework that
the Board would use to set the amount Board’s process for setting the CCyB. In
§ 983.253 Assessment rate. of the U.S. countercyclical capital buffer particular, as indicated below, the Board
On and after September 1, 2016, an (CCyB) under the Board’s capital rules would seek comment on any proposed
assessment rate of $0.0010 per pound is (Regulation Q).1 The CCyB is a change to the CCyB amount and include
established for California, Arizona, and macroprudential policy tool that the a discussion of the reasons for the
New Mexico pistachios. Board can increase during periods of change.
rising vulnerabilities in the financial II. Purpose of CCyB
Dated: September 12, 2016.
system and reduce when vulnerabilities
Elanor Starmer, recede or when the release of the CCyB The CCyB is designed to increase the
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing would promote financial stability.2 The resilience of large banking organizations
Service. CCyB supplements the minimum capital when the Board sees an elevated risk of
[FR Doc. 2016–22248 Filed 9–15–16; 8:45 am] requirements and other capital buffers above-normal losses. Increasing the
BILLING CODE P included in Regulation Q, which resilience of large banking organizations
themselves are designed to provide should, in turn, improve the resilience
substantial resilience to unexpected of the broader financial system. Above-
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM losses created by normal fluctuations in normal losses often follow periods of
economic and financial conditions. rapid asset price appreciation or credit
12 CFR Part 217 The proposed policy statement growth that are not well supported by
outlined the factors the Board would underlying economic fundamentals. As
[Docket No. R–1529; RIN 7100 AE–43]
consider in setting the level of the stated in the proposed policy statement,
Regulatory Capital Rules: The Federal CCyB, and the indicators it would the circumstances in which the Board
Reserve Board’s Framework for monitor to help determine whether an would most likely use the CCyB as a
Implementing the U.S. Basel III adjustment to the CCyB is appropriate. supplemental, macroprudential tool to
Countercyclical Capital Buffer The proposed policy statement also augment minimum capital requirements
described the effects the Board will and other capital buffers would be to
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the monitor in determining whether the address circumstances when systemic
Federal Reserve System. CCyB is achieving the desired purposes vulnerabilities are somewhat above
ACTION: Final policy statement. of the CCyB. normal. By requiring institutions to hold
The Board received two comments on a larger capital buffer during periods
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the the proposed policy statement. when systemic risk is increasing and
Federal Reserve System (Board) is Commenters raised concerns about the reducing the buffer requirement as
adopting a final policy statement (Policy process that the Board would follow in vulnerabilities diminish, the CCyB also
Statement) describing the framework setting the CCyB pursuant to the policy has the potential to moderate
that the Board will follow under its statement, the potential economic fluctuations in the supply of credit over
Regulation Q in setting the amount of impact of the CCyB, and the efficacy time.
the U.S. countercyclical capital buffer and appropriateness of the CCyB as a The CCyB functions as an expansion
for advanced approaches bank holding policy tool. Commenters also made of the Capital Conservation Buffer
companies, savings and loan holding various specific suggestions as to the (CCB), which is applicable to all
companies, and state member banks. indicators and standards that the Board banking organizations subject to
DATES: The Policy Statement is effective should consider in determining whether Regulation Q. To avoid limits on capital
October 14, 2016. to activate the CCyB. distributions and certain discretionary
After reviewing comments, the Board bonus payments,3 the CCB requires that
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
is revising the final Policy Statement to
William Bassett, Deputy Associate a banking organization hold a buffer of
clarify the following key items: (1) That
Director, (202) 736–5644, or Rochelle common equity tier 1 capital that is at
the Board expects that the CCyB will be
Edge, Deputy Associate Director, (202) least 2.5 percent of the risk-weighted
activated when systemic vulnerabilities
452–2339, Division of Financial assets in addition to the minimum risk-
are meaningfully above normal and that
Stability; Sean Campbell, Associate based capital ratios. The CCB is divided
Director, (202) 452–3760, Division of 1 12 CFR part 217. See also 81 FR 5661 (February
into quartiles, each associated with
Banking Supervision and Regulation; 3, 2016). increasingly stringent limitations on
Benjamin W. McDonough, Special 2 See 12 CFR 217.11(b). Implementation of the capital distributions and certain
Counsel, (202) 452–2036, Mark Buresh, CCyB also helps respond to the provision in the discretionary bonus payments as the
Senior Attorney, (202) 452–5270, or Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer firm’s risk-based capital ratios approach
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) that the agencies
Mary Watkins, Attorney, (202) 452– regulatory minimums.4 The CCyB is an
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
‘‘shall seek to make such [capital] requirements
3722, Legal Division. countercyclical, so that the amount of capital additional, countercyclical buffer that
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: required to be maintained by a company increases has the same limitations on dividends
in times of economic expansion and decreases in and capital distributions as the CCB.
Table of Contents times of economic contraction, consistent with the
safety and soundness of the company.’’ See 12
I. Background U.S.C. 1467a; 12 U.S.C. 1844; 12 U.S.C. 3907 (as 3 12 CFR 217.11(b)(1)(i).
II. Summary of Comments on the Proposal amended by section 616 of the Dodd-Frank Act). 4 12 CFR 217.11(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:04 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_63859/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-09-16 00:25:48
Document Modified: 2016-09-16 00:25:48
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Interim rule with request for comments. | |
| Dates | Effective September 19, 2016; Comments received by November 15, 2016 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule. | |
| Contact | Peter R. Sommers, Marketing Specialist, or Jeffrey Smutny, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 63679 | |
| CFR Associated | Pistachios; Marketing Agreements and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR