35544 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

HAZARD PAY DIFFERENTIAL, OF PART 550 PAY ADMINISTRATION (GENERAL)—Continued

Duty

Rate of

hazard pay

differential

(percent)

Effective date

* * * * * * *

(6) Working at high altitudes. Performing work at a worksite more than 3900 meters (12,795 feet) in altitude, provided the employee is required to commute to the worksite on the same day from a substantially lower altitude under circumstances in which the rapid change in altitude may result in acclimation

problems.

8 [Date of effectiveness of the final

rule].

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–17318 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 52

[FV–98–327]

Processed Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

revise the regulations governing

inspection and certification for

processed fruits, vegetables, and

processed products made from them by

increasing by approximately three to

seven percent fees charged for the

inspection services. These revisions are

necessary in order to recover, as nearly

as practicable, the costs of performing

inspection services under the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The

fees charged to persons required to have

inspections on imported commodities in

accordance with the Agricultural

Marketing Act of 1937 would also be

affected. This rule would also

incorporate miscellaneous changes to

revise a citation number and revise a

statement in a footnote in regards to

sample size.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

or courier dated on or before July 30,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this proposal. Comments

must be sent in duplicate to the Office

of the Branch Chief, Processed Products

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

96456, Room 0709 South Building,

Washington, DC 20090–6456.

Comments should make reference to the

date and page number of this issue of

the Federal Register and will be made

available for public inspection in the

above office during regular business

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James R. Rodeheaver at the above

address or call (202) 720–4693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been determined not

significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866, and has not been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget. Also, pursuant to the

requirements set forth in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has

considered the economic impact of this

action on small entities. Accordingly,

the required analyses are set forth

below.

AMS regularly reviews its user fee

financed programs to determine if the

fees are adequate. The existing fee

schedule will not generate sufficient

revenues to cover lot, and year round

and less than year round inspection

program costs while maintaining an

adequate reserve balance (four months

of costs) as called for by Agency policy

(AMS Directive 408.1). Current revenue

projection for work in regards to these

inspection programs during FY 1998 is

$11.7 million with costs projected at

$13.1 million and an end-of-year reserve

balance of $3.9 million. The PPB trust

fund reserve balance for these programs

will be approximately $0.5 million

under the four-month level of

approximately $4.4 million, which is

called for by Agency policy. Further,

PPB’s cost of operating the user fee

financed programs are expected to

increase to approximately $13.5 million

during FY 1999 and to approximately

$13.9 million in FY 2000. These cost

increases will result from inflationary

increases with regard to current PPB

operations and services.

The Processed Products Branch (PPB)

estimates that without a fee increase the

trust fund reserve as called for by

Agency policy (four-months) will

significantly decrease, that will result in

an operating reserve balance of

approximately $3.0 million in FY 1999

and $2.6 million in FY 2000. This

relates to only 2.9 months and 2.3

months of operating reserve for the

respective years.

Employee salaries and benefits are

major program costs that account for

approximately 85 percent of the total

operating budget. A general and locality

salary increase for Federal employees,

ranging from 2.30 to 7.11 percent

depending on locality, effective January

1997, significantly increased program

costs. Another locality salary increase

ranging from 2.30 to 7.27 percent

depending on locality, effective January

1998, also increased program costs.

These increases have increased PPB’s

cost of operating these programs by

$400,000 per year.

The proposed fee increase of

approximately 3 to 7 percent, should

result in an estimated $500,000 in

additional revenue per year and should

enable PPB to cover its costs and reestablish program reserves (current

operating reserves are being maintained

at a level below that provided for by

Agency policy).

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.

The objective of the proposed rule is to

increase user fee revenue generated

under the lot inspection program, and

the year round and less than year round

inspection programs by approximately

$500,000 annually. This action is

authorized under the AMA of 1946 [see

7 U.S.C. 1622(h)] which states that the

Secretary of Agriculture may assess and

collect ‘‘such fees as will be reasonable

and as nearly as may be to cover the

costs of services rendered * * *’’.

There are more than 1239 users of

PPB’s lot, and less than year round and

year round inspection services

(including applicants who must meet
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 35545

1Section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–

604), requires that whenever the Secretary of

Agriculture issues grade, size, quality or maturity

regulations under domestic marketing orders for

certain commodities, the same or comparable

regulations on imports of those commodities must

be issued. Import regulations apply only during

those periods when domestic marketing order

regulations are in effect.

import requirements,1 inspections

which amount to under 2 percent of all

lot inspections performed). A small

portion of these users are small entities

under the criteria established by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601). There will be no additional

reporting, recordkeeping, or other

compliance requirements imposed upon

small entities as a result of this

proposed rule. PPB has not identified

any other federal rules which may

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

proposed rule.

Currently, there are 4 processed

commodities subject to 8e import

regulations: canned ripe olives, dates,

prunes, and processed raisins. A current

listing of the regulated commodities can

be found under 7 CFR parts 944 and

999.

Inasmuch as the inspection services

are voluntary (except when required for

imported commodities), and since the

fees charged to users of these services

vary with usage, the impact on all

businesses, including small entities, is

very similar. Further, even though fees

will be raised, the increase is small

(three to seven percent) and should not

significantly affect these entities.

Finally, except for those applicants who

are required to obtain inspections, most

of these businesses are typically under

no obligation to use these inspection

services, and therefore, any decision to

discontinue the use of the services

should not prevent them from marketing

their products.

Executive Order 12988

The rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is not intended to

have a retroactive effect and will not

preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this rule.

Proposed Action

The AMA authorizes official

inspection, grading and certification for

processed fruits, vegetables, and

processed products made from them.

The AMA provides that reasonable fees

be collected from the users of the

services to cover, as nearly as

practicable, the costs of the services

rendered. This proposed rule will

amend the schedule for fees for

inspection services rendered to the

processed fruit and vegetable industry

to reflect the costs necessary to operate

the program and incorporates

miscellaneous changes to revise a

citation number and to revise a

statement in a footnote in regards to

sample size.

AMS regularly reviews its user fee

programs to determine if the fees are

adequate. While PPB continues to

search for opportunities to reduce its

costs, the existing fee schedule will not

generate sufficient revenues to cover lot,

and less than year round and year round

inspection program costs while

maintaining an adequate reserve balance

(four months of costs) as called for by

Agency policy (AMS Directive 408.1).

The current revenue projection for work

in regards to these inspection programs

during FY 1998 is $11.7 million with

cost projected at $13.1 million and an

end-of-year reserve of $3.9 million. This

will result in a decrease of PPB’s trust

fund balance of approximately $0.5

million under the four-month level ($4.4

million) called for by Agency policy.

Further, PPB’s cost of operating these

inspection programs is expected to

increase to approximately $13.5 million

during FY 1999 and to approximately

$13.9 million in FY 2000, resulting in a

decrease of the trust fund balance to

approximately $3.0 in FY 1999, and to

approximately $2.6 million in FY 2000.

These cost increases will result from

inflationary increases with regard to

current PPB operations and services.

Employee salaries and benefits are

major program costs that account for

approximately 85 percent of the total

operating budget. A general and locality

salary increase for Federal employees,

ranging from 2.30 to 7.11 percent

depending on locality, effective January

1997, significantly increased program

costs. Another general and locality

salary increase ranging from 2.30 to 7.27

percent depending on locality, effective

January 1998, also increased program

costs. These increases will increase

PPB’s costs of operating these

inspection programs by approximately

$400,000 per year. Therefore, the salary

increases necessitate additional funding

under the program. This proposed fee

increase of approximately 3 to 7 percent

should result in an estimated additional

revenue of $500,000 per year, and

should enable PPB to cover the costs of

doing business and re-establish program

reserves (current operating reserves are

at a level below that provided for by

Agency policy). In order to reach and

maintain a four-month reserve, a further

increase in fees may be likely in future

years.

Based on the aforementioned analysis

of increasing program costs, AMS

proposes to increase the fees relating to

lot inspection service and the fees for

less than year round and year round

inspection services. For inspection

services charged under § 52.42, overtime

and holiday work would continue to be

charged as provided in that section. For

inspection services charged on a

contract basis under § 52.51 overtime

work would also continue to be charged

as provided in that section. The

following fee schedule compares current

fees and charges with proposed fees and

charges for processed fruit and vegetable

inspection as found in 7 CFR 52.42–

52.51. Unless otherwise provided for by

regulation or written agreement between

the applicant and the Administrator, the

charges in the schedule of fees as found

in § 52.42 are:

Current $41.00/hr.

Proposed $43.00/hr.

Charges for travel and other expenses

as found in § 52.50 are:

Current: $41.00/hr.

Proposed: $43.00/hr.

Charges for year-round in-plant

inspection services on a contract basis

as found in § 52.51(c) are:

(1) For inspector assigned on a yearround basis:

Current: $34.00/hr.

Proposed: $35.00/hr.

(2) For inspector assigned on less than

a year-round basis: Each inspector:

Current: $42.00/hr.

Proposed: $45.00/hr.

Charges for less than year-round inplant inspection services (four or more

consecutive 40 hour weeks) on a

contract basis as found in § 52.51(d) are:

(1) Each inspector:

Current: $42.00/hr.

Proposed: $45.00/hr.

Also, AMS revises §§ 52.21 and 52.38

(Table II, footnote number 2), of 7 CFR

part 52 to make editorial changes.

In § 52.21, § 52.50 is referenced as

providing information regarding the

purchase of additional copies of

certificates. This should be revised to

read § 52.49.

In § 52.38, Table II, footnote number

2, the statement that describes the

sample size for Group 3 containers that

weigh over 10 pounds is omitted. Table

II, footnote number 2 is revised to

include the sample size for Group 3

containers that are over 10 pounds.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 52

Food grades and standards, Food

labeling, Frozen foods, Fruit juices,
35546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 125 /Tuesday, June 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Fruits, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and Vegetables.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 52 is amended to

read as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

§ 52.42 [Amended]

2. In § 52.42, the figure ‘‘$41.00’’ is

revised to read ‘‘$43.00’’.

§ 52.50 [Amended]

3. In § 52.50, the figure ‘‘$41.00’’ is

revised to read ‘‘$43.00’’.

§ 52.51 [Amended]

4. In § 52.51, paragraph (c)(1), the

figure ‘‘$34.00’’ is revised to read

‘‘$35.00’’, in paragraph (c)(2), the figure

‘‘$42.00’’ is revised to read ‘‘$45.00’’,

and in paragraph (d)(1), the figure

‘‘$42.00’’ is revised to read ‘‘$45.00’’.

§ 52.21 [Amended]

5. In § 52.21, the words ‘‘§ 52.50’’ is

revised to read ‘‘§ 52.49’’.

§ 52.38 [Amended]

6. In § 52.38, Table II, footnote

number 2 is revised to read as follows:

2When a standard sample size is not

specified in the U.S. grade standards, the

sample units for the various container size

groups are as follows: Groups 1 and 2—1

container and its entire contents. Group 3

containers up to 10 pounds—1 container and

its entire contents. Group 3 containers over

10 pounds—approximately three pounds of

product. When determined by the inspector

that a 3-pound sample unit is inadequate, a

larger sample unit or 1 or more containers

and their entire contents may be substituted

for 1 or more sample units of 3 pounds.

Dated: June 24, 1998.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–17297 Filed 6–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–AEA–12]

Proposed Amendment to Class E

Airspace; Danville, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Danville, VA. The amendment of a

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) based on an

Instrument Landing System (ILS) at

Danville Regional Airport has made this

proposal necessary. Additional

controlled airspace extending upward

from 700 feet Above Ground Level

(AGL) is needed to accommodate the

SIAP and for Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Airspace Branch, AEA–520, Docket No.

98–AEA–12, FAA Eastern Region,

Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy

Int’l Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.

The official docket may be examined

in the Office of the Regional Counsel,

AEA–7, FAA Eastern Region, Federal

Building, #111, John F. Kennedy

International Airport, Jamaica, New

York 11430.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the Airspace Branch, AEA–520, FAA

Eastern Region, Federal Building #111,

John F. Kennedy International Airport,

Jamaica, NY 11430.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace

Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA–520

FAA Eastern Region, Federal Building

#111, John F. Kennedy International

Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430;

telephone: (718) 553–4521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, economic, environmental,

and energy-related aspects of the

proposal. Communications should

identify the airspace docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 98–

AEA–12.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments will be considered before

taking action on the proposed rule. The

proposal contained in this notice may

be changed in light of comments

received. All comments submitted will

be available for examination in the

Rules Docket both before and after the

closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with the FAA personnel

concerned with this rulemaking will be

filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Office of

the Regional Counsel, AEA–7, FAA

Eastern Region, Federal Building #111,

John F. Kennedy International Airport,

Jamaica, NY 11430. Communications

must identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRMs should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to Part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to

amend the Class E airspace area at

Danville, VA. The ILS RWY 2 SIAP has

been amended for the Danville Regional

Airport. Additional controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet AGL is

needed to accommodate the SIAP and

for IFR operations at the airport. Class

E airspace designations for airspace

areas extending upward from 700 feet or

more above the surface are published in

Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9E,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that would only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule

would not have significant economic