Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63767

arbitration for disputes where the

parties had not previously agreed to

arbitration and would be required to

arbitrate. These respondents argued that

their constitutional rights would be

infringed upon as they would not be

free to choose the forum for resolving

their disputes, and their property rights

could be affected without due process of

the law. The respondents’ claims as to

contra-constitutionality were overstated;

however, USDA did believe that they

should change this provision to indicate

a permissive use of arbitration where

the parties so desired. Accordingly,

USDA has amended § 735.202 (a) to

change ‘‘will be’’ to ‘‘may be’’ to

indicate that where the parties are able

to arbitrate the issue, they should be

allowed to do so, but not required by

regulation. In addition, the word

‘‘relevant’’ will be inserted into

§ 735.201 to clarify that a

warehouseman must meet the delivery

standard for the week of the shipment

in question.

As with the proposed rule, the final

rule will define ‘‘without unnecessary

delay,’’ through the establishment of a

uniform cotton delivery standard based

upon weekly deliveries of 4.5 percent of

a warehouse operator’s licensed storage

capacity or CCC approved capacity or

other capacity in effect for the relevant

week in question. However,

enforcement of the standard through

arbitration is no longer mandatory. The

final rule continues to include a

provision that requires any party who

requests or initiates FSA’s involvement

in a shipping standard issue to be

responsible for any cost incurred by

FSA.

USDA believes this final rule provides

an identifiable standard for the delivery

and shipment of cotton with the option

of arbitrating, has minimal FSA

oversight, will best meet the tradeindustry’s aspirations to expedite the

delivery and shipment of U.S. cotton

into marketing trade channels and

enhance prices paid producers while

reducing the cost of handling cotton.

The provisions in this final rule are

applicable to cotton warehouse

operators licensed under the USWA and

any warehouse operators who issue

electronic warehouse receipts under the

USWA.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 735

Administrative practice and

procedure, Cotton, Delivery, Reporting

and record keeping requirements,

Shipping, Surety bonds, Warehouses.

Accordingly, the provisions of 7 CFR

part 735 are amended as follows:

PART 735—COTTON WAREHOUSES

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 735 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.

2. Section 735.2 is amended by

adding paragraph (jj).

§ 735.2 Terms defined.

* * * * *

(jj) Force majeure. Severe weather

conditions, fire, explosion, flood,

earthquake, insurrection, riot, strike,

labor dispute, act of civil or military

authority, non-availability of

transportation facilities, or any other

cause beyond the control of the

warehouseman that renders

performance impossible.

§§ 735.106–735.199 [Reserved]

3. Sections 735.106 through 735.199

are added and reserved.

4. Following § 735.199 an

undesignated center heading and

§§ 735.200 through 735.202 are added to

read as follows:

Delivery and Shipping

§ 735.200 Applicability.

The cotton shipping standard set forth

in § 735.201 is applicable to all cotton

warehousemen licensed under the Act

and to all warehousemen that issue

electronic warehouse receipts through

an authorized electronic warehouse

receipt provider in accordance with part

735 regardless of whether the

warehouse is licensed under the Act.

§ 735.201 Cotton shipping standard.

Unless prevented from doing so by

force majeure, a warehouseman

identified in § 735.200 shall deliver

stored cotton without unnecessary

delay. A warehouseman shall be

considered to have delivered cotton

without unnecessary delay, if for the

week in question, the warehouseman

has delivered or staged for scheduled

delivery at least 4.5 percent of either

their licensed storage capacity or

Commodity Credit Corporationapproved storage capacity or other

storage capacity as determined by the

Secretary to be in effect during the

relevant week of shipment.

§ 735.202 Compliance and dispute

resolution.

(a) Any claim for noncompliance with

the cotton shipping standard may be

resolved by the parties involved through

established industry, professional, or

mutually agreed upon arbitration

procedures. The arbitration procedures

shall be nondiscriminatory and provide

each person equal access and protection

relating to the cotton shipping standard.

(b) No arbitration determination or

award resulting from noncompliance

with the shipping standard shall affect,

obligate, or restrict the Service’s

authority to provide, administer, and

regulate the issuance of a license,

receipt, contractual agreement, or

authorized electronic warehouse receipt

provider system in accordance with the

Act.

(c) The Service shall not settle

unresolved disputes involving the

cotton shipping standard or associated

damages.

(d) In the event a party requests

assistance from or initiates the

involvement of the Service in a matter

relating to the cotton shipping standard,

the initiating party shall be responsible

for all costs incurred by the Service.

Before any such assistance is provided,

the initiating party shall make payment

to the Service in an amount equal to the

Service’s good faith estimate of costs

and expenses that will be incurred in

fulfilling the request. Costs incurred that

exceed the Service’s good faith estimate

will be the responsibility of the

initiating party.

Signed at Washington, D.C., on October 19,

2000.

Keith Kelly,

Administrator, Farm Service Agency.

[FR Doc. 00–27346 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1220

[No. LS–00–04]

Soybean Promotion and Research:

Amend the Order To Adjust

Representation on the United Soybean

Board

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts the

number of members for certain States on

the United Soybean Board (Board) to

reflect changes in production levels that

have occurred since the last time the

Board was reapportioned in 1997. These

adjustments are required by the Soybean

Promotion and Research Order (Order).

The results of the adjustments are an

additional member for Kansas and one

less member for Maryland. As a result

of these changes, the total Board

membership will remain at 62 members.

These changes to the Board are effective

with the Secretary’s 2001 appointments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 2000.

63768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph L. Tapp, Chief; Marketing

Programs Branch; Livestock and Seed

Program; Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS), USDA, Room 2627–S; STOP

0251; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.;

Washington, D.C. 20250–0251;

telephone 202/720–1115; fax 202/720–

1125; or e-mail to

Ralph.Tapp@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Orders 12866 and 12988,

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule was reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. It is not intended to have a

retroactive effect. This rule would not

preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

The Soybean Promotion, Research,

and Consumer Information Act (Act)

provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

§ 1971 of the Act, a person subject to the

Order may file a petition with the

Secretary 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

requesting a modification of the Order

or an exemption from the Order. The

petitioner is afforded the opportunity

for a hearing on the petition. After a

hearing, the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district courts of the United States in

any district in which such person is an

inhabitant, or has their principal place

of business, has jurisdiction to review

the Secretary’s ruling on the petition, if

a complaint for this purpose is filed

within 20 days after the date of the entry

of the ruling.

Effect on Small Entities

AMS has determined that this final

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as defined by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.), because it only adjusts

representation on the Board to reflect

changes in production levels that have

occurred since the Board was

reapportioned in 1997. As such, these

changes will not impact on persons

subject to the program. There are an

estimated 600,813 soybean producers

who pay assessments and an estimated

10,000 first purchasers who collect

assessments, most of whom would be

considered small entities under the

criteria established by the Small

Business Administration (13 CFR

121.201).

Background and Changes

The Act (7 U.S.C. 6301–6311)

provides for the establishment of a

coordinated program of promotion and

research designed to strengthen the

soybean industry’s position in the

marketplace, and to maintain and

expand domestic and foreign markets

and uses for soybeans and soybean

products. The program is financed by an

assessment of 0.5 percent of the net

market price of soybeans sold by

producers. Pursuant to the Act, an Order

was made effective July 9, 1991. The

Order established a Board of 60

members. For purposes of establishing

the Board, the United States was

divided into 31 geographic units.

Representation on the Board from each

unit was determined by the level of

production in each unit. The Secretary

appointed the initial Board on July 11,

1991. The Board is composed of

soybean producers.

Section 1220.201(c) of the Order

provides that at the end of each 3-year

period, the Board shall review soybean

production levels in the geographic

units throughout the United States. The

Board may recommend to the Secretary

modification in the levels of production

necessary for Board membership for

each unit. At its March 2000 meeting

the Board voted to recommend to the

Secretary that no modification be made.

Section 1220.201(d) of the Order

provides that at the end of each 3-year

period, the Secretary must review the

volume of production of each unit and

adjust the boundaries of any unit and

the number of Board members from

each such unit as necessary to conform

with the criteria set forth in

§ 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent

practicable, States with annual average

soybean production of less than

3,000,000 bushels shall be grouped into

geographically contiguous units, each of

which has a combined production level

equal to or greater than 3,000,000

bushels, and each such group shall be

entitled to at least one member on the

Board; (2) units with at least 3,000,000

bushels, but fewer than 15,000,000

bushels shall be entitled to one Board

member; (3) units with 15,000,000

bushels or more but fewer than

70,000,000 bushels shall be entitled to

two Board members; (4) units with

70,000,000 bushels or more but fewer

than 200,000,000 bushels shall be

entitled to three Board members; and (5)

units with 200,000,000 bushels or more

shall be entitled to four Board members.

A proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register (65 FR 30922), on May

15, 2000, with a 60-day comment

period. One comment was received from

the Chairman of the United Soybean

Board. The comment states that ‘‘the

reapportionment appears to be

appropriate under the formula

mandated by the Soybean Promotion,

Research, and Consumer Information

Act.’’

Based on the comment received and

the requirements of the Act and the

Order, AMS is adjusting the

representation on the Board as

proposed; one additional member for

Kansas and one less member for

Maryland.

Board membership remains at 62 and

is based on average production levels

for the years 1995–1999 (excluding

crops in years that production was the

highest and that production was the

lowest) as reported by the National

Agricultural Statistics Service. Board

member adjustments are effective with

the 2001 nominations and

appointments.

The number of geographical units

remains at 30.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1220

Administrative practice and

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural

research, Marketing agreements,

Soybeans and soybean products,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, Title 7, part 1220 is amended

as follows:

Part 1220—Soybean Promotion,

Research, and Consumer Information

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1220 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301–6311.

2. In § 1220.201, the table

immediately following paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1220.201 Membership of board.

* * * * *

Unit Number of

members

Illinois ........................................ 4

Iowa .......................................... 4

Minnesota ................................. 4

Indiana ...................................... 4

Missouri .................................... 3

Ohio .......................................... 3

Arkansas ................................... 3

Nebraska .................................. 3

South Dakota ............................ 3

Kansas ...................................... 3

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 63769

Unit Number of

members

Mississippi ................................ 2

Louisiana .................................. 2

Tennessee ................................ 2

North Carolina .......................... 2

Kentucky ................................... 2

Michigan ................................... 2

North Dakota ............................ 2

Wisconsin ................................. 2

Maryland ................................... 1

Virginia ...................................... 1

Georgia ..................................... 1

South Carolina .......................... 1

Alabama .................................... 1

Delaware ................................... 1

Texas ........................................ 1

Pennsylvania ............................ 1

Oklahoma ................................. 1

New Jersey ............................... 1

Eastern Region (New York,

Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Florida, Rhode Island,

Vermont, New Hampshire,

Maine, West Virginia, District

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 1

Western Region (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona,

Wash-ington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Hawaii, and

Alaska) .................................. 1

* * * * *

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Barry L. Carpenter,

Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed

Program.

[FR Doc. 00–27411 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50 and 72

RIN 3150–AF98

Reporting Requirements for Nuclear

Power Reactors and Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installations at

Power Reactor Sites

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending the

event reporting requirements for nuclear

power reactors to reduce or eliminate

the unnecessary reporting burden

associated with events of little or no

safety significance. This final rule

continues to provide the Commission

with reporting of significant events

where Commission action may be

needed to maintain or improve reactor

safety or to respond to heightened

public concern. This final rule also

better aligns event reporting

requirements with the type of

information NRC needs to carry out its

safety mission, including revising

reporting requirements based on

importance to risk and extending the

required reporting times consistent with

the time that information is needed for

prompt NRC action. Also, NUREG–

1022, Revision 2, ‘‘Event Reporting

Guidelines, 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73,’’ is

being made available concurrently with

the amendments.

DATES: The final rule is effective January

23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Documents related to this

action may be examined, and/or copied

for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document

Room, located at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),

Rockville, Maryland. Documents created

or received at the NRC after November

1, 1999 are also available electronically

at the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading

Room on the Internet at http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.

From this site, the public can gain entry

into the NRC’s Agencywide Document

Access and Management System

(ADAMS), which provides text and

image files of NRC’s public documents.

For further information contact the PDR

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis P. Allison, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC

20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–1178,

e-mail dpa@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents

I. Background

II. Analysis of Comments

III. Discussion

1. Objectives

2. Section by Section Discussion of Final

Amendments

3. Revisions to Event Reporting Guidelines

in NUREG–1022

4. Reactor Oversight

5. Enforcement

6. Electronic Reporting

7. State Input

8. Plain Language

IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

V. Backfit Analysis

VI. Regulatory Analysis

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

IX. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

X. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

XI. Final Amendments

I. Background

The reporting requirements in

Sections 50.72 and 50.73 have been in

effect, with minor modifications, since

1983. Experience has shown a need for

change in several areas. On July 23,

1998 (63 FR 39522), the NRC published

in the Federal Register an advance

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)

to announce a contemplated rulemaking

that would modify reporting

requirements for nuclear power reactors.

Among other things, the ANPR

requested public comments on several

concrete proposals for modification of

the event reporting rules. Public

meetings were held to discuss the ANPR

at NRC Headquarters on August 21,

1998, in Rosemont, Illinois on

September 1, 1998, and at NRC

Headquarters on November 13, 1998.

A proposed rule was published in the

Federal Register on July 6, 1999 (64 FR

36291), including a conforming change

to Section 72.216. Concurrently, a draft

revision to the associated event

reporting guidelines was made available

for public comment (NUREG–1022,

Draft Revision 2). A public meeting was

held at NRC Headquarters on August 3,

1999, to discuss the proposed rule and

draft guidelines. Public comments were

due on September 20, 1999. Additional

public meetings were held on February

25, and March 22, 2000, to discuss

public comments.

II. Analysis of Comments

The comment period for the proposed

rule expired September 20, 1999.

Twenty-seven comment letters were

received, representing comments from

24 nuclear power plant licensees

(utilities), two organizations of utilities,

and one State agency.

In addition to the written comments

received, the proposed rule was the

subject of a public meeting on August 3,

1999, as discussed above under the

heading ‘‘Background,’’ and comments

made at that meeting have also been

considered.

Most commenters expressed support

for amending the rules in accordance

with the objectives discussed in the

proposed rule. However, they objected

to some of the specific provisions. Many

comments also provided specific

recommendations for changes to the

proposed rules. The resolution of

comments is summarized below. This

summary addresses the principal

comments (i.e., comments other than

those that are: minor or editorial in

nature; supportive of the approach

described in the proposed rules; or

applicable to another area or activity

outside the scope of sections 50.72 and

50.73).

Comment A (Do not require reporting

of degraded components): The proposed

rule included a new component