10444 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

relatively easy to produce lightlycolored sweet cherries with a pink to 

reddish surface blush, since the added 

color is related to the amount of direct 

sunlight available to the fruit. Pruning 

and other common cultural practices 

can greatly affect the amount of blush 

on the cherries. Finally, since this 

change is only required should a 

handler choose to pack and mark 

lightly-colored cherries to the 

‘‘premium’’ standard, any additional 

costs can be eliminated by the handler. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to the recommended action. The most 

significant alternative would have been 

a recommendation that mandated a 

minimum percentage of reddish color 

on lightly colored sweet cherries, as 

well as a mandatory increase in the 

minimum size (currently 11-row size or 

61/64 minimum diameter). There were 

other various options briefly discussed 

under this alternative related to sizing 

and the actual degree of blush. 

Comments from many of those attending 

the May 14th meeting indicated that a 

mandatory change in size and pack 

requirements would not be well 

received by the industry at this time, 

and that the less restrictive 

recommendation subsequently made 

should adequately solve the current 

marketing problem. 

This rule would not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

sweet cherry 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 meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Washington cherry industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

the deliberations. Like all Committee 

meetings, the May 14, 2009, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express their views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this interim final 

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=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

received will be considered before a 

final determination is made on this 

matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 923 

Cherries, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 923 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 923—SWEET CHERRIES 

GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES 

IN WASHINGTON 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 923 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

§ 923.322 [Amended] 

2. In § 923.322, redesignate paragraph 

(e) as paragraph (d), add a new 

paragraph (e), and revise the 

introductory sentence of paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 923.322 Washington cherry handling 

regulation. 

* * * * * 

(e) Light sweet cherries marked as 

premium. No handler shall handle, 

except as otherwise provided in this 

section, any package or container of 

Rainier cherries or other varieties of 

lightly colored sweet cherries marked as 

premium except in accordance with the 

following: 

(1) Quality. 90 percent, by count, of 

such cherries in any lot must exhibit a 

pink-to-red surface blush and, for any 

given sample, not more than 20 percent 

of the cherries shall be absent a pink-tored surface blush. 

(2) Pack. At least 90 percent, by 

count, of the cherries in any lot shall 

measure not less than 64/64-inch (101⁄2- 

row) in diameter and not more than 5 

percent, by count, may be less than 61/ 

64-inch (11-row) in diameter. 

* * * * * 

(g) Exceptions. Any individual 

shipment of cherries which meets each 

of the following requirements may be 

handled without regard to the 

provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (e) of this section, and of §§ 923.41 

and 923.55. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 25, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4341 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. PRM–73–14; NRC–2009–0493] 

Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of 

Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (the 

petitioner). The petitioner requested 

that the NRC amend the compliance 

date for specific requirements in the 

NRC’s regulations. The NRC decided to 

deny PRM–73–14 for the reasons stated 

in this document. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

petition for rulemaking using the 

following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s electronic 

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

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

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

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

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Federal Rulemaking Web site: 

Supporting materials related to this 

petition for rulemaking can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0493. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 44 / Monday, March 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 10445 

Gallagher 301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555. 

Telephone: 301–415–1462 or e-mail: 

Timothy.Reed@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

In a letter to Chairman Gregory B. 

Jaczko dated September 25, 2009, NEI, 

the petitioner, requested that the NRC 

undertake an expedited rulemaking to 

revise the compliance date for specific 

requirements within Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

73.55, ‘‘Requirements for Physical 

Protection of Licensed Activities in 

Nuclear Power Reactors Against 

Radiological Sabotage.’’ The NRC 

reviewed the request for rulemaking and 

determined that the request met the 

minimum sufficiency requirements of 

10 CFR 2.802, ‘‘Petition for Rulemaking’’ 

and, therefore, was considered as a 

petition for rulemaking. Accordingly, 

the NRC docketed the request as PRM– 

73–14 and notified the petitioner of this 

decision by letter dated October 1, 2009. 

Due to the exigent circumstances 

associated with the request, the NRC did 

not prepare a notice of receipt and 

request for comment, and instead gave 

immediate consideration to the request, 

convening a petition review board (PRB) 

on November 9, 2009. 

The petitioner requested the NRC 

amend its regulations to change the 

compliance date for specific 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to 

December 31, 2010, based on the results 

of an industry survey conducted by NEI. 

The petitioner states that 24 sites will 

seek schedular exemption requests from 

the March 31, 2010 compliance date, 

and 9 more sites are evaluating the need 

for exemptions. The petitioner states 

that two provisions of the new Power 

Reactor Security rule, namely 10 CFR 

73.55(e) ‘‘Physical barriers’’ and 10 CFR 

73.55(i) ‘‘Detection and assessment 

systems’’ will be the subject of nearly all 

the exemption requests. 

In support of this request the 

petitioner notes that the subject 

provisions of 10 CFR 73.55 are 

problematic because these provisions 

may require physical modifications to 

the plant and involve engineering 

analysis, design, equipment 

procurement, installation, testing, and 

related training. The petitioner indicates 

that absent a rule change to modify the 

implementation date, both NRC and 

industry would be required to divert 

vast resources to review and approve 

exemption requests for potentially more 

than half of the power reactor sites. The 

petitioner states that these same 

resources are needed to finalize the 

remaining regulatory guidance for 

implementation of the new Power 

Reactor Security rulemaking. 

The petitioner states that the nuclear 

energy industry has fully implemented 

numerous new security provisions and 

enhancements since the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001, including NRC 

orders, an enhanced design basis threat, 

and numerous threat advisories. 

Additionally, the petitioner notes that 

NRC has conducted baseline inspections 

of industry actions to address large fires 

and explosions, and has evaluated forceon-force exercises for the past 7 years. 

The petitioner states that industry has 

been proactive in many initiatives that 

strengthen nuclear power reactor 

security. These initiatives were 

undertaken with the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, and local law 

enforcement authorities. Finally, the 

petitioner notes that all these activities 

have resulted in nuclear power plants 

being recognized as the most protected 

and secure of domestic private 

industrial facilities. 

NRC Evaluation 

The NRC reviewed the petition and 

reached the following conclusions: 

• Revising the compliance date 

established by the final Power Reactor 

Security rulemaking would require the 

NRC to undertake a notice and comment 

rulemaking. 

• The data contained in PRM–73–14 

does not provide enough information to 

currently support the NRC assembling a 

proposed rule that would contain a 

sufficiently robust regulatory basis. 

• The NRC would need to interact 

with external stakeholders to develop 

the additional supporting information 

necessary for completing an adequate 

notice and comment rulemaking. 

• There is not sufficient time, before 

the new Power Reactor Security rule 

compliance date of March 31, 2010, to 

allow the NRC to collect and analyze the 

necessary data and complete an 

adequate notice and comment 

rulemaking. This is due, in part, to 

statutory rulemaking process 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (i.e., development, 

approval, and issuance of a proposed 

rule; adequate public comment period; 

processing and analysis of stakeholder 

comments; development, approval, and 

issuance of a final rule; approval of the 

final rule by OMB if there are 

paperwork provisions). 

• If the NRC were to pursue a more 

narrow revision to the compliance 

provisions of 10 CFR 73.55, this rule 

would require the NRC to tailor rule 

provisions to specific facilities and 

situations. Developing this more 

complex and specific compliance 

language with the supporting regulatory 

basis would, at a minimum, require 

additional interactions with external 

stakeholders. 

• Revising the 10 CFR 73.55 

compliance date is an overly broad 

solution to the petitioner’s problem. A 

revision to the compliance date would 

relieve all power reactor licensees from 

implementing all the new requirements 

by March 31, 2010. However, it is clear 

that according to the data provided by 

the petitioner, that fewer than half of the 

licensees intend to request relief, and 

the requirements in the new rule that 

seem particularly problematic represent 

a very small percentage of the total 

number of requirements in the rule. 

Under such circumstances, the 

exemption process appears to be the 

best regulatory tool to address the 

situation. The staff is currently 

addressing this potential license 

compliance issue through review of 

scheduler exemptions. 

Public Comments on the Petition 

Due to the exigent circumstances 

associated with the request, the NRC did 

not prepare a notice of receipt and 

request for comment, and instead gave 

immediate consideration to the request. 

Accordingly, there are no public 

comments on this petition. 

Determination of Petition 

For reasons cited above, the NRC is 

denying PRM–73–14. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd of 

March 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4827 Filed 3–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS