30832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

full-scale wage survey in the Dubuque,

Iowa, appropriated fund Federal Wage

System (FWS) wage area and to abolish

the wage area. FWS employees in the

Dubuque wage area moved to the

Davenport, IA, wage schedule on the

first day of the first applicable pay

period beginning on or after December

19, 1999.

Under section 5343 of title 5, United

States Code, OPM is responsible for

defining FWS wage areas. For this

purpose, we follow the regulatory

criteria in section 532.211 of title 5,

Code of Federal Regulations. The

Dubuque wage area is presently

composed of six survey counties,

Clinton, Dubuque, and Jackson, IA, and

Carroll, Jo Daviess, and Whiteside, IL.

The Department of Defense (DOD) asked

OPM to abolish the requirement to

conduct a full-scale wage survey in the

Dubuque wage area because of the

planned closure of the wage area’s host

installation, the Savannah Army Depot.

This closure leaves DOD without an

installation in the survey area that is

capable of hosting annual local wage

surveys. DOD also asked OPM to abolish

the Dubuque wage area and redefine its

counties to the area of application of the

Davenport, IA, FWS wage area.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory

Committee, the national labormanagement committee responsible for

advising OPM on matters concerning

the pay of FWS employees, reviewed

these recommendations and by

consensus recommended approval of

these changes. The interim rule had a

30-day public comment period, during

which OPM did not receive any

comments.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because they will affect only Federal

agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

Accordingly, under the authority of 5

U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule (64 FR

60087) amending 5 CFR part 532

published on November 4, 1999, is

adopted as final with no changes.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–12056 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1220

[No. LS–00–01]

Results of Soybean Request for

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of referendum results.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing

Service’s (AMS) Request for

Referendum shows that too few soybean

producers want a referendum on the

Soybean Promotion and Research Order

(Order) for one to be conducted. The

Request for Referendum was held from

October 20, 1999, through November 16,

1999, at the Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) county Farm Service Agency

(FSA) offices. To trigger a referendum

60,082 soybean producers must

complete a Request for Referendum. The

number of soybean producers requesting

a referendum was 17,970.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; Marketing

Programs Branch; Livestock and Seed

Program, AMS, USDA; STOP–0251;

14th and Independence Avenue, SW.;

Washington, D.C. 20250–0251.

Telephone number 202/720–1115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the Soybean Promotion, Research,

and Consumer Information Act (Act)(7

U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), every 5 years the

Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) will

give soybean producers the opportunity

to request a referendum on the Order. If

the Secretary determines that at least 10

percent of U.S. producers engaged in

growing soybeans (not in excess of onefifth of which may be producers in any

one State) support the conduct of a

referendum, the Secretary must conduct

a referendum within 1 year of that

determination. If these requirements are

not met, a referendum would not be

conducted.

A notice of opportunity to Request a

Soybean Referendum was publicized in

the Federal Register on September 13,

1999, at 64 FR 49349. Soybean

producers who produced soybeans

during the representative period

between January 1, 1997, and November

16, 1999, were eligible to participate in

the Request for Referendum.

According to USDA’s soybean

producer survey, there are 600,813

soybean producers in the United States

(see 64 FR 45413).

A total of 17,970 valid Requests for

Referendum were completed by eligible

soybean producers. This number does

not meet the requisite number of 60,082.

Therefore, based on the Request for

Referendum results, a referendum will

not be conducted. In accordance with

the provisions of the Act, soybean

producers would be provided another

opportunity to request a referendum in

5 years.

The following is the State-by-State

results of the Request for Referendum:

State

Number of

valid requests for

referendum

Alabama .................................... 9

Alaska ....................................... 0

Arizona ...................................... 2

Arkansas ................................... 90

California ................................... 0

Colorado ................................... 1

Connecticut ............................... 0

Delaware ................................... 0

Florida ....................................... 13

Georgia ..................................... 9

Hawaii ....................................... 0

Idaho ......................................... 0

Illinois ........................................ 5,851

Indiana ...................................... 1,926

Iowa .......................................... 3,932

Kansas ...................................... 438

Kentucky ................................... 177

Louisiana .................................. 44

Maine ........................................ 0

Maryland ................................... 119

Massachusetts .......................... 0

Michigan ................................... 408

Minnesota ................................. 991

Mississippi ................................ 66

Missouri .................................... 1,019

Montana .................................... 0

Nebraska .................................. 500

Nevada ..................................... 0

New Hampshire ........................ 0

New Jersey ............................... 11

New Mexico .............................. 0

New York .................................. 35

North Carolina .......................... 28

North Dakota ............................ 41

Ohio .......................................... 1,449

Oklahoma ................................. 17

Oregon ...................................... 1

Pennsylvania ............................ 61

Puerto Rico ............................... 0

Rhode Island ............................ 0

South Carolina .......................... 17

South Dakota ............................ 409

Tennessee ................................ 102

Texas ........................................ 51

Utah .......................................... 0

Vermont .................................... 1

Virginia ...................................... 30

Washington ............................... 0

West Virginia ............................ 3

Wisconsin ................................. 119

Wyoming ................................... 0

Total ................................... 17,970.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301–6311.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 30833

Dated: May 9, 2000.

Barry L. Carpenter,

Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed

Program.

[FR Doc. 00–12155 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NORTHEAST INTERSTATE LOWLEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

COMMISSION

10 CFR Chapter XVIII

Northeast Interstate Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Compact Final Rule

for Declaration of Party State Eligibility

AGENCY: Northeast Interstate Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Northeast Interstate Lowlevel Radioactive Waste Commission

(the ‘‘Commission’’) is adopting these

rules to establish the conditions under

which a state not a party to the

Northeast Interstate Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Management

Compact (the ‘‘Compact’’) may be

declared eligible to become a party state.

The Commission must declare a state

eligible before it may become a party

state to the Compact. The procedures

and conditions established by the

Commission through this rule are

intended to protect the integrity of the

Compact and the interests of both the

existing party states and any state

petitioning for a declaration of

eligibility.

DATES: This rule becomes effective May

15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin McCarthy, Chairman, Northeast

Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Commission, 703 Hebron Avenue,

Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033, (860)

633–2060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

The Compact was established by ‘‘The

Omnibus Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Compact Consent Act of 1985,’’ Public

Law 99–240, Title II (the ‘‘Act’’). The

Act gave Congress’’ consent to

agreements between and among states

that were designed to facilitate the

regional disposal of low-level

radioactive waste (‘‘waste’’), thereby

promoting the health and safety of the

region. Connecticut and New Jersey are

current members of the Compact. The

Act also established the Commission

and gave it authority, inter alia, to

promulgate rules, conduct hearings,

receive and act on applications to

become eligible states, develop regional

plans to ensure safe and effective

management of waste within the region,

designate a host state for siting of a

regional disposal facility, enter

agreements for the importation of waste

into the region and export of waste from

the region, impose sanctions, and

establish criteria for disposal fees. The

Commission consists of one voting

member from Connecticut and one

voting member from New Jersey.

Since the establishment of the

Compact, there has been no regional

disposal facility to receive waste

generated within the Compact states.

Nevertheless, at various times, regional

generators have been able to dispose of

their waste at other facilities (e.g., at

facilities located in Clive, Utah, and

Barnwell, South Carolina). Those

facilities have not always been available

for disposal of all of the waste generated

within the region, however, and the

Commission has sought to make

available more reliable access to waste

disposal facilities. Current regional

generators anticipate that they will need

assured access to waste disposal

facilities for the next 50 years until all

of the currently licensed nuclear power

stations are fully decommissioned and

all spent nuclear fuel has been removed

from the sites. With these needs in

mind, the Commission seeks to ensure

the long-term availability of

approximately 800,000 cubic feet of

disposal space to accommodate all

classes of low-level waste. The

Commission also seeks to stabilize fees

for waste disposal.

The Commission has determined that

it is in the interests of the Compact

states to declare another state eligible

for membership in the Compact if (a)

that state is willing to become the

voluntary host state and (b) membership

in the Compact would achieve

important objectives for both the current

member states and any petitioning state.

Article VII.e. of the Compact permits the

Commission to ‘‘establish such

conditions as it deems necessary and

appropriate to be met by a state

requesting eligibility as a party state to

this compact.’’ The Commission has

further determined that the

identification and implementation of

reasonable conditions to be applied

when evaluating a petition for new

party state eligibility are essential to the

long-term health and safety of the

region.

These rules establish the conditions

for party state eligibility contemplated

by Article VII.e. of the Compact and the

criteria for fee and surcharge systems

contemplated by Article IV.i.(15) of the

Compact. The rules specify the

procedures that the Commission will

follow for receiving petitions for party

state eligibility. They then describe the

essential conditions for declaring a state

eligible for membership in the Compact.

Those conditions include agreements (a)

to be the sole host state until all

currently licensed nuclear power

stations in the region have been

decommissioned, (b) to warrant the

availability of 800,000 cubic feet of

disposal capacity for Connecticut and

New Jersey generators, (c) to assure

stable, predictable disposal fees that are

no greater than generators in

Connecticut and New Jersey paid at the

end of 1999, (d) to give flexibility for

generators to dispose of waste elsewhere

at their discretion, (e) to indemnify the

existing party states for any potential

environmental liability caused by their

membership in the Compact and by

operation of the regional disposal

facility, and (f) to ensure an equitable

schedule for return of a portion of any

incentive payment made by the existing

party states if the regional disposal

facility ceases to be available for any

reason.

Summary of Public Comments on the

Proposed Rule

The Commission received written

comments on the proposed rule (65 FR

13700, March 14, 2000) from the New

Jersey Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Disposal Facility Siting Board,

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company,

GPU Nuclear, the State of Connecticut

Office of Policy Management, Public

Service Electric & Gas Company, and

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company. These organizations (except

Connecticut Yankee), as well as the New

Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the

New Jersey Business and Industry

Association, offered oral comments at

public hearings held in Trenton, NJ on

April 17, 2000, and in Bridgeport, CT on

April 18, 2000. All of the commenters

supported the proposed rule and urged

its adoption. Copies of the public

comments are available for review at the

Commission’s office, 703 Hebron

Avenue, Glastonbury, Connecticut

06033.

Public Comments on the Rule To

Establish Criteria for Declaration of

Eligible State

None of the public commenters

objected to the Commission’s proposed

procedures and criteria for declaring a

state eligible to become a party to the

Compact. Some of the comments raise

issues that should be addressed during

the evaluation of a specific petition for

declaration as a party state. Other

comments raise issues that are