67098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Budget expense categories 2004–05 2005–06 

Administrative Staff/Field Salaries & Benefits ......................................................................................................... $332,000 $360,000 

Travel/Board Expenses ........................................................................................................................................... 69,000 80,000 

Office Costs/Annual Audit ........................................................................................................................................ 124,000 132,500 

Program Expenses Including Research Controlled Purchases .............................................................................. 5,000 5,000 

Crop Acreage Survey .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 85,000 

Crop Estimate .......................................................................................................................................................... 94,000 95,000 

Production Research Director ................................................................................................................................. 76,500 75,000 

Production Research ............................................................................................................................................... 548,500 500,000 

Domestic Market Development ............................................................................................................................... 1,393,500 1,550,000 

Reserve for Contingency ......................................................................................................................................... 107,000 55,100 

The Board reviewed and unanimously 

recommended 2005–06 expenditures of 

$2,937,600, which included an increase 

in audit expenses. Prior to arriving at 

this budget, the Board considered 

alternative expenditure levels, but 

ultimately decided that the 

recommended levels were reasonable to 

properly administer the order. The 

assessment rate recommended by the 

Board was derived by dividing 

anticipated expenses by expected 

shipments of California walnuts 

certified as merchantable. Merchantable 

shipments for the year are estimated at 

306,000,000 kernelweight pounds 

which should provide $2,937,600 in 

assessment income and allow the Board 

to cover its expenses. Unexpended 

funds may be used temporarily to defray 

expenses of the subsequent marketing 

year, but must be made available to the 

handlers from whom collected within 5 

months after the end of the year, 

according to § 984.69. 

According to NASS, the season 

average grower prices for years 2003 and 

2004 were $1,160 and $1,350 per ton 

respectively. Dividing these average 

grower prices by 2,000 pounds per ton 

provides an inshell price per pound 

range of between $.58 and $.68. 

Adjusting by a few cents above and 

below those prices ($0.55 to $0.70 per 

inshell pound) provides a reasonable 

price range within which the 2005–06 

season average price is likely to fall. 

Dividing these inshell prices per pound 

by the 0.45 conversion factor designated 

in the order yields a 2005–06 price 

range estimate of $1.22 and $1.56 per 

kernelweight pound of assessable 

walnuts. 

To calculate the percentage of grower 

revenue represented by the assessment 

rate, the assessment rate of $0.0096 (per 

kernelweight pound) is divided into the 

low and high estimates of the price 

range. The estimated assessment 

revenue for the 2005–06 marketing year 

as a percentage of total grower revenue 

would likely range between .8 and .6 

percent. 

This action would increase the 

assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to producers. 

However, these costs would be offset by 

the benefits derived by the operation of 

the marketing order. In addition, the 

Board’s meeting was widely publicized 

throughout the California walnut 

industry and all interested persons were 

invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in Board deliberations on all 

issues. Like all Board meetings, the 

September 9, 2005, meeting was a 

public meeting and all entities, both 

large and small, were able to express 

views on this issue. Finally, interested 

persons are invited to submit 

information on the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

California walnut 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

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/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 10-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Ten days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2005–06 marketing year began on 

August 1, 2005, and the marketing order 

requires that the rate of assessment for 

each year apply to all assessable 

walnuts handled during the year; (2) the 

Board needs to have sufficient funds to 

pay its expenses which are incurred on 

a continuous basis and; (3) handlers are 

aware of this action which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

Board at a public meeting and is similar 

to other assessment rate actions issued 

in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 984 

Walnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 984 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 984—WALNUTS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 984 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 984.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 984.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2005, an 

assessment rate of $0.0096 per 

kernelweight pound is established for 

California merchantable walnuts. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22047 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 63 

RIN 3150–AH68 

Implementation of a Dose Standard 

After 10,000 Years; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2005 (70 FR 

53313), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) published for public 

comment a proposed rule that would 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67099 

amend its regulations governing the 

disposal of high-level radioactive wastes 

in a proposed geologic repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The proposed 

rule would implement the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) proposed standards for doses 

that could occur after 10,000 years but 

within the period of geologic stability. 

The comment period for EPA’s 

proposed standards currently expires on 

November 21, 2005 (extended 30 days 

from October 21, 2005); the comment 

period for NRC’s proposed rule 

currently expires on November 7, 2005. 

A letter was received from U.S. 

Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign 

from the State of Nevada requesting that 

the comment period for NRC’s proposed 

rule be extended to a total of 180 days, 

or at least past the date of EPA’s 30-day 

extension. Another letter representing 

several citizen and environmental 

groups requested that the deadline for 

comments be extended to 180 days. In 

addition, a letter from the Agency for 

Nuclear Projects, on behalf of the State 

of Nevada, requested that NRC extend 

its comment period for an additional 30 

days, consistent with EPA’s 30-day 

extension of its comment period. 

Given the interrelationship between 

these two proposed rules, and for 

consistency with the ongoing EPA 

rulemaking process, NRC has decided to 

extend the comment period for its 

rulemaking an additional 30 days to 

December 7, 2005, for a total comment 

period of 90 days. In vacating the 

compliance period in NRC’s rule at 10 

CFR part 63, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has made clear that it is ‘‘NRC’s 

obligation under the [Energy Policy Act 

of 1992] to maintain licensing criteria 

that are consistent with the public 

health and safety standards promulgated 

by EPA.’’ See Nuclear Energy Institute, 

Inc. v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251, 1299 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004). Thus NRC’s proposed rule, 

for the most part, simply implements 

EPA’s proposed standards for doses that 

could occur after 10,000 years but 

within the period of geologic stability, 

and its final rule will need to implement 

any changes EPA may make with 

respect to its standards. NRC’s proposed 

rule provides further detail for 

implementing the EPA standard in only 

two specific areas: A value to represent 

climate change after 10,000 years; and a 

requirement that calculations of 

radiation doses for workers use the same 

weighting factors that EPA is proposing 

for calculating individual doses to 

members of the public. A lengthy period 

of time should not be needed by 

potential commenters to address these 

issues. Hence the NRC’s 30-day 

extension is believed to be appropriate. 

DATES: The comment period has been 

extended and now expires on December 

7, 2005. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include the following number 

(RIN 3150–AH68) in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments on 

rulemakings submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

to the public in their entirety on the 

NRC rulemaking Web site. Personal 

information will not be removed from 

your comments. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attn: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If 

you do not receive a reply e-mail 

confirming that we have received your 

comments, contact us directly at (301) 

415–1966. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–

5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments 

can also be submitted via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966.) 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this rulemaking may be examined 

and copied for a fee at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, Public File Area O1 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

Selected documents, including 

comments, can be viewed and 

downloaded electronically via the NRC 

rulemaking Web site at http:// 

ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room 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. If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

Public Document Room Reference staff 

at 1–800–397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or 

by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy McCartin, Office of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

(301) 415–7285, e-mail tjm3@nrc.gov; 

Janet Kotra, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6674, e-mail jpk@nrc.gov; or Frank 

Cardile, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6185, e-mail fpc@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of November, 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 05–22121 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22364; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NE–26–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

Arriel 1B, 1D and 1D1 Turboshaft 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D and 1D1 

turboshaft engines. This proposed AD 

would require inspecting the 2nd stage 

nozzle guide vanes (NGV2) for wall 

thickness. This proposed AD results 

from one instance of a fractured 2nd 

stage turbine blade followed by an 

uncommanded engine shutdown. We 

are proposing this AD to detect and 

prevent perforation of the NGV2 that 

could cause fracture of a turbine blade 

that could result in an uncommanded 

engine in-flight shutdown. 

DATES: We must receive any comments 

on this proposed AD by January 3, 2006.