Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14669

‘‘frozen,’’ as currently defined in FSIS

regulations, and ‘‘previously frozen,’’ as

proposed by FSIS for use on poultry

products held below 26° F and

subsequently sold in a thawed state,

both would provide truthful and useful

information to consumers. FSIS is

concerned that the existence of two

definitions which make use of the word

‘‘frozen’’ could be confusing to industry

and consumers. FSIS believes that the

existing definition and the Agency’s

proposed use of the term ‘‘previously

frozen’’ need to be reconciled. The

Agency invites comments on how this

can be accomplished. FSIS has

identified three possible options as

follows:

a. Use a term or phrase other than

‘‘previously frozen’’ to identify products

in the temperature range from above 0°

F to below 26° F. In its proposed rule,

FSIS requested comments on other

descriptive terms to describe the nature

of the product. However, as of this time,

no satisfactory substitute terms have

been suggested. FSIS has identified

other possible terms that do not use the

unqualified word ‘‘frozen.’’ Such terms

include: ‘‘previously semi-frozen,’’

‘‘held semi-frozen,’’ ‘‘previously

partially frozen,’’ ‘‘previously chilled to

semi-solid state,’’ ‘‘shipped/stored/

handled semi-frozen (insert optional

statement, e.g., to preserve quality),’’ or

‘‘previously frosted.’’ FSIS continues to

be interested in receiving comments on

alternate terms including those that do

not contain the unqualified word

‘‘frozen.’’

b. Eliminate the current requirement

that poultry products labeled as

‘‘frozen’’ must be brought to an internal

temperature of 0° F or below and require

use of the term ‘‘frozen’’ to identify all

poultry products whose internal

temperature has ever been below 26° F.

This option would eliminate any

confusion that might be caused by

having more than one temperature

associated with products whose labels

make use of the word ‘‘frozen,’’ and

satisfy the need to label appropriately

all products that have been chilled to

the point where they are hard-to-thetouch. Such action would in no way

prevent manufacturers from continuing

current practices regarding freezing to 0°

F for long-term storage or from making

supportable claims about the storage life

or appropriate ‘‘use by’’ date for their

products. However, such action might

require adjustment in government and

industry purchasing standards, codes of

practice, or product specifications that

evolved from the current freezing

regulations. FSIS does not believe that

elimination of the 0° F requirement for

labeling a product ‘‘frozen’’ would pose

a safety concern. However, purchasers

who expect that a product was frozen

for long-term preservation based on use

of the term ‘‘frozen’’ on the labeling

might be misled in the absence of

explanatory labeling, if the shelf life and

quality differs from products frozen to

0° F or below because the product was

not actually brought to such low

temperatures.

c. Use the proposed term ‘‘previously

frozen’’ on labeling of products with

internal temperatures above 0° F and

below 26° F but require use of a term

other than ‘‘frozen’’ or ‘‘previously

frozen’’ on the labeling of products that

are frozen to 0° F or below. The latter

products could be labeled with a phrase

such as ‘‘frozen for long-term

preservation’’ in order to distinguish

them clearly from chill pack products

whose temperatures were at one time in

the lower 20-degree Fahrenheit range.

This labeling option differentiates the

two types of frozen products so that the

product labeled ‘‘previously frozen’’

would not be confused with the deepfrozen product. The descriptive term for

the 0° F product reflects the purpose of

the processing procedure and can be

linked to the special qualities associated

with these products.

FSIS is interested in receiving

comments on these options and any

others that would appropriately

reconcile the existing definition of

‘‘frozen’’ and the proposed use of the

term ‘‘previously frozen.’’

For all these reasons, FSIS is

extending the comment period on its

‘‘fresh’’ labeling proposal for 60 days.

The comment period will close May 19,

1995.

Done at Washington, DC, on: March 15,

1995.

Michael R. Taylor,

Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–6817 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AE97

Shutdown Operation of Nuclear Power

Plants; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Members of the staff of the

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

will meet with commenters (or their

representatives) who responded to

Federal Register, 59 FR 52707; October

19, 1994, regarding the proposed rule

‘‘Shutdown and Low-Power Operations

for Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ The staff

will discuss comments and receive

feedback on the impact of potential staff

responses regarding the proposed rule.

The meeting will be open for interested

members of the public, petitioners,

intervenors, or other parties to attend as

observers pursuant to ‘‘Open Meeting

Statement of NCR Staff Policy,’’ 43 FR

28058, June 28, 1978.

DATES: The meeting will be Friday,

April 7, 1995 from 9 a.m.–3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Auditorium, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Warren C. Lyon, Senior Reactor Systems

Engineer, Reactor Systems Branch,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001,

Telephone: 301–415–3892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

preliminary agenda for the proposed

meeting is:

9:00—Introduction (Purpose of

shutdown rule, Applicability/

limitations)

9:15—Summary of Comments to

Proposed Rule 59 FR 52707; October

19, 1994

9:30—Staff Decisions (Shutdown rule,

Maintenance Rule, Codification of

industry initiatives, Fire, Technical

specifications, Outage plans and

controls, Fuel storage pool, Safety

related vs. non-safety related, Single

failure, Regulatory analysis,

Regulatory guide, Re notice in Federal

Register)

10:15—Items Covered By Rule (General

content of rule and philosophy;

Structures, systems, and components;

Reliability and redundancy; Planning;

Procedures; Training; Controls;

Reactivity; Reactor coolant system;

Subcooled decay heat removal;

Containment; Adequate core cooling;

Contingency plan; Implementation)

13:15—Discussion—Issues

(Maintenance rule—guidance for

shutdown operation; The meaning of

redundancy [Credit for passive heat

removal, gravity feed, & operator

response; Electrical power systems];

Containment; Analysis and test needs;

Others)

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15 day

of March 1995.
14670 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Warren C. Lyon,

Senior Reactor Systems Engineer, Reactor

Systems Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6735 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171

RIN 3150–AF07

Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee

Recovery, FY 1995

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend the licensing, inspection, and

annual fees charged to its applicants

and licensees. The proposed

amendments are necessary to

implement the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990, which

mandates that the NRC recover

approximately 100 percent of its budget

authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 less

amounts appropriated from the Nuclear

Waste Fund (NWF). The amount to be

recovered for FY 1995 is approximately

$503.6 million.

DATES: The comment period expires

April 19, 1995. Comments received after

this date will be considered if it is

practical to do so, but the NRC is able

to ensure only that comments received

on or before this date will be

considered. Because Public Law 101–

508 requires that NRC collect the FY

1995 fees by September 30, 1995,

requests for extensions of the comment

period will not be granted.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm

Federal workdays. (Telephone 301–415–

1678).

The agency workpapers that support

these proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts

170 and 171 may be examined at the

NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L

Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington,

DC 20555.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C.

James Holloway, Jr., Office of the

Controller, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Telephone 301–415–6213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.

II. Proposed Action.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis.

IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

VI. Regulatory Analysis.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

VIII. Backfit Analysis.

I. Background

Public Law 101–508, the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

(OBRA–90), enacted November 5, 1990,

requires that the NRC recover

approximately 100 percent of its budget

authority, less the amount appropriated

from the Department of Energy (DOE)

administered NWF, for FYs 1991

through 1995 by assessing fees. OBRA–

90 was amended in 1993 to extend the

NRC’s 100 percent fee recovery

requirement through 1998.

The NRC assesses two types of fees to

recover its budget authority. First,

license and inspection fees, established

in 10 CFR part 170 under the authority

of the Independent Offices

Appropriation Act (IOAA), 31 U.S.C.

9701, recover the NRC’s costs of

providing individually identifiable

services to specific applicants and

licensees. Examples of the services

provided by the NRC for which these

fees are assessed are the review of

applications for the issuance of new

licenses or approvals, and amendments

to or renewal of licenses or approvals.

Second, annual fees, established in 10

CFR part 171 under the authority of

OBRA–90, recover generic and other

regulatory costs not recovered through

10 CFR part 170 fees.

Subsequent to enactment of OBRA–

90, the NRC published seven final fee

rules after evaluation of public

comments. On July 10, 1991 (56 FR

31472), the NRC published a final rule

in the Federal Register that established

the Part 170 professional hourly rate

and the materials licensing and

inspection fees, as well as the Part 171

annual fees, to be assessed to recover

approximately 100 percent of the FY

1991 budget. In addition to establishing

the FY 1991 fees, the final rule

established the underlying basis and

methodology for determining both the

10 CFR part 170 hourly rate and fees

and the 10 CFR part 171 annual fees.

The FY 1991 rule was challenged in

Federal court by several parties. The

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit rendered its decision

on those challenges on March 16, 1993,

in Allied-Signal v. NRC, remanding two

issues to the NRC for further

consideration (988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir.

1993)). The court decision was also

extended to cover the FY 1992 fee rule

by court order dated April 30, 1993.

On April 17, 1992 (57 FR 13625), the

NRC published in the Federal Register

two limited changes to 10 CFR parts 170

and 171. The limited changes became

effective May 18, 1992. The limited

change to 10 CFR part 170 allowed the

NRC to bill quarterly for those license

fees that were previously billed every

six months. The limited change to 10

CFR part 171 lowered in some cases the

maximum annual fee of $1,800 assessed

a materials licensee who qualifies as a

small entity under the NRC’s size

standards. A lower tier small entity fee

of $400 per licensed category was

established for small business and nonprofit organizations with gross annual

receipts of less than $250,000 and small

governmental jurisdictions with a

population of less than 20,000.

On July 23, 1992 (57 FR 32691), July

20, 1993 (58 FR 38666), and July 20,

1994 (59 FR 36895), the NRC published

final rules in the Federal Register that

established the licensing, inspection,

and annual fees necessary for the NRC

to recover approximately 100 percent of

its budget authority for FY 1992, FY

1993, and FY 1994 respectively. The

basic methodology used in the FY 1992

and FY 1993 final rules was unchanged

from that used to calculate the 10 CFR

part 170 professional hourly rate, the

specific materials licensing and

inspection fees in 10 CFR Part 170, and

the 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees in the

final rule published July 10, 1991 (56 FR

31472). In FY 1994, the NRC directly

assigned additional effort to the reactor

and materials programs for the Office of

Investigations, the Office of

Enforcement, the Advisory Committee

on Reactor Safeguards, and the Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Waste. Resources

for these activities had previously been

included in overhead, but were assigned

directly to the class of licensees that

they support. Because this direct

assignment resulted in a reduction of

overhead costs allocated to each FTE,

the cost per full time equivalent (FTE)

was about 3 percent less than it would

have been without the additional direct

assignment.

The methodology for assessing lowlevel waste (LLW) costs was changed in

FY 1993 in response to the AlliedSignal

v. NRC judicial decision mentioned

earlier. This change was explained in

detail in the FY 1993 final rule

published July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38669–

72). In brief, the NRC created two

groups—large waste generators and

small waste generators. Licensees

within each group are charged a

uniform fee. On May 19, 1994 (59 FR

26097), the NRC amended its fee

regulations in 10 CFR Part 171 to

establish revised FY 1991 and FY 1992