This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

35543

Vol. 63, No. 125

Tuesday, June 30, 1998

OFFICER OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 550

RIN 3206–A129

Hazardous Duty Pay

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Officer of Personnel

Management is issuing a proposed

regulation to provide an 8 percent

hazard pay differential for General

Schedule employees who perform work

at a worksite a more than 3900 meters

(12,795 feet) in altitude, provided such

employees are 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent or

delivered to Donald J. Winstead,

Assistant Director for Compensation

Administration, Workforce

Compensation and Performance Service,

Office of Personnel Management, Room

7H31, 1300 E Street NW., Washington,

DC 20415, FAX: (202) 606–0824, or

email at payleave@opm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Kitchelt, (202) 606–2858, FAX:

(202) 606–0824, or email at

payleave@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Smithsonian Institution asked the Office

of Personnel Management (OPM) to

establish a 10 percent hazard pay

differential for General Schedule

employees for days when they must

perform work at the Smithsonian

Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) near

the 4206 meter (13,800 foot) summit of

Mauna Kea, an extinct volcano on the

Island of Hawaii. The Smithsonian

Institution states that suitable housing is

available only near sea level and that

SAO employees must commute back

and forth from their homes to the SAO

worksite each workday. The

Smithsonian Institution submitted

research evidence which indicates that

work at high altitudes can have negative

physiological effects such as impaired

judgment, increased heart rates, and

nausea, especially if employees have not

had time to acclimate to the lower

atmospheric pressure and oxygen levels

that exist at a high altitude.

After discussions with the

Smithsonian Institution, OPM has

agreed to propose an 8 percent hazard

duty pay differential for work at such a

high altitude. The reason for proposing

a lower differential rate is to conform

with a proposed 8 percent

environmental differential rate for

prevailing rate (wage) employees who

work at the same or similar high altitude

job sites. The proposal for an 8 percent

environmental differential will be

provided to the Federal Prevailing Rate

Advisory Committee for its

consideration.

As stated in 5 U.S.C. 5545(d), OPM is

responsible for establishing schedules of

hazardous duty pay differentials for

General Schedule employees. This

proposed regulation would authorize a

new hazard pay category for General

Schedule employees who must work at

worksite more than 3900 meters (12,795

feet) in altitude, provided such

employees are 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. The

establishment of this new category for

payment of hazardous duty pay would

not relieve an agency of its

responsibility to take whatever

measures are feasible to minimize the

harmful effects of work at a high

altitude.

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review

This rule has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations would

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because they would apply only to

Federal agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 550

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Government

employees, Wages.

Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to

amend subpart I of part 550 of title 5 of

the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 550—PAY ADMINISTRATION

(GENERAL)

Subpart I—Pay for Duty Involving

Physical Hardship or Hazard

1. The authority for subpart I of part

550 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5545(d), 5548(b).

2. Appendix A to subpart I of part 550

is amended by adding a new category to

the Schedule of Hazard Pay Differentials

to read as follows:

Appendix A—Schedule of Pay

Differentials Authorized for Hazardous

Duty Under Subpart I

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

Duty

Rate of

hazard pay

differential

(percent)

Effective date

* * * * * * *

Exposure to Physiological Hazards:
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