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

24247

Vol. 61, No. 94

Tuesday, May 14, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR PART 51

[Docket Number FV–95–306]

Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other

Products (Inspection, Certification, and

Standards)

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document would revise

the regulations governing inspection

and certification for fresh fruits,

vegetables and other products by

increasing the fees charged for the

inspection of these products at

destination markets. These revisions are

necessary in order to recover, as nearly

as practicable, the costs of performing

inspection services at destination

markets under the Agricultural

Marketing Act of 1946.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

or courier dated on or before July 15,

1996.

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, Fresh Products

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

96456, Room 2049 South Building,

Washington, DC 20090–6456.

Comments should note the date and

page number of this issue of the Federal

Register and will be made available for

public inspection in the office of the

Branch Chief during regular business

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Huttenlocker, at the above

address or call, (202) 720–0297.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposed rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866, and therefore

has not been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. This

rule 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.

The Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS), has certified that this action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities, as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, (5 U.S.C. 601). The proposed rule

reflects certain fee increases needed to

recover the costs of inspection services

rendered in accordance with the

Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of

1946.

The AMA authorizes official

inspection, grading, and certification on

a user-fee basis, of fresh fruits,

vegetables, and other products such as

raw nuts, Christmas trees, and flowers.

The AMA provides that reasonable fees

be collected from the user of the

program services to cover, as nearly as

practicable, the costs of services

rendered. This proposal would amend

the schedule for fees and charges for

inspection services rendered to the fresh

fruit and vegetable industry to reflect

the costs currently associated with the

program.

AMS regularly reviews these

programs to determine if fees are

adequate. Employee salaries and

benefits are major program costs that

account for approximately 86 percent of

the total operating budget. A general

and locality salary increase for Federal

employees, ranging from 3.09 to 6.25

percent depending on locality, effective

January 1995, has materially affected

program costs. Another general and

locality salary increase, ranging from

2.39 to 2.87 percent depending upon

locality (amounting to approximately

$253,000), was effective January 1996;

further standardization program costs

must be paid for by user fees.

While a concerted effort to cut costs

resulted in overhead savings of

$350,000 in FY 95 over FY 94, the last

fee increase of June 1994 did not result

in collection of enough revenue to cover

all these increases and still maintain an

adequate reserve balance (four months

of costs) called for by Agency policy

(AMS Directive 407.1) and prudent

financial management. Currently the

Fresh Products Branch (FPB) trust fund

reserve balance for the market program

is approximately $1 mil. under the

desired level of $3.9 mil. Further action

is necessary to meet rising costs and

maintain adequate reserve balances.

This action will assist in moving the

FPB trust fund toward a more adequate

level and will result in an estimated

$614,000 in additional revenues.

Projected FY96 revenues for market

inspection are $12.555 mil with costs

projected at $11.594 mil and a reserve

of $3.093.

Based on the Agency’s analysis of

increased costs since 1994, AMS

proposes to increase the fees for

destination market inspection services.

The following table compares current

fees and charges with proposed fees and

charges for fresh fruit and vegetable

inspection as found in 7 CFR 51.38.

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 § 51.38 are:

Service Current Proposed

Quality and condition inspections of one to four products each in quantities of 51 or more packages and

unloaded from the same land or air conveyance:

Over a half carlot equivalent of each product ............................................................................................ $74 ................... $78.

Half carlot equivalent or less of each product ............................................................................................ $62 ................... $65.

For each additional lot of the same product ............................................................................................... $12 ................... $13.

Condition inspections of one to four products each in quantities of 51 or more packages and unloaded

from the same land or air conveyance:

Over a half carlot equivalent of each product ............................................................................................ $62 ................... $65.
24248 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Service Current Proposed

Half carlot equivalent or less of each product ............................................................................................ $57 ................... $60.

For each additional lot of the same product ............................................................................................... $12 ................... $13.

Inspections of five or more products each in quantities of 51 or more packages and unloaded from the

same land or air conveyance:

For the first five products ............................................................................................................................ $264 ................. $277.

For each additional product ........................................................................................................................ $37 ................... $39.

For each additional lot of any of the same product ................................................................................... $12 ................... $13.

Inspections of products each in quantities of 50 or less packages unloaded from the same land or air conveyance:

For each product ......................................................................................................................................... $37 ................... $39.

For each additional lot of any of the same product ................................................................................... $12 ................... $13.

Dock-side inspections of an individual product unloaded directly from the same ship:

For each package weighing less than 15 pounds ...................................................................................... 1 cent ............... No change.

For each package weighing 15 to 29 pounds ............................................................................................ 2 cents .............. No change.

For each package weighing 30 or more pounds ........................................................................................ 3 cents .............. No change.

For each additional lot of any of the same product ................................................................................... $12 ................... $13.

Minimum charge per individual product ............................................................................................................. $74 ................... $78.

Inspections performed for other purposes during the grader’s regularly scheduled work week ...................... $37 per hour ..... $39 per hour.

Overtime or holiday premium rate for all inspections performed outside the hourgrader’s regularly scheduled work week.$18.50 per hour $19.50 per hour.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51

Agricultural commodities, Food

grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Trees, Vegetables.

PART 51—[AMENDED]

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

7 CFR Part 51 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

2. Section 51.38 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.38 Basis for fees and rates.

(a) When performing inspections of

product unloaded directly from land or

air transportation, the charges shall be

determined on the following basis:

(1) For products in quantities of 51 or

more packages:

(i) Quality and condition inspection

of 1 to 4 products unloaded from the

same conveyance:

(A) $78 for over a half carlot

equivalent of an individual product.

(B) $65 for a half carlot equivalent or

less of an individual product.

(C) $13 for each additional lot of the

same product.

(ii) Condition only inspection of 1 to

4 products unloaded from the same

conveyance:

(A) $65 for over a half carlot

equivalent of an individual product.

(B) $60 for a half carlot equivalent or

less of an individual product.

(C) $13 for each additional lot of the

same product.

(iii) Quality and condition inspection

and/or condition only inspection of 5 or

more products unloaded from the same

conveyance:

(A) $277 for the first 5 products.

(B) $39 for each additional product.

(C) $13 for each additional lot of any

of the same product.

(2) For quality and condition

inspection and/or condition only

inspection of products in quantities of

50 or less packages unloaded from the

same conveyance:

(i) $39 for each individual product.

(ii) $13 for each additional lot of any

of the same product.

(b) When performing inspections of

palletized products unloaded directly

from sea transportation or when

palletized product is first offered for

inspection before being transported

from the dock-side facility, charges shall

be determined on the following basis:

(1) For each package inspected

according to the following rates:

(i) 1 cent per package weighing less

than 15 pounds;

(ii) 2 cents per package weighing 15

to 29 pounds; and

(iii) 3 cents per package weighing 30

or more pounds.

(2) $13 for each additional lot of any

of the same product.

(3) A minimum charge of $78 for each

product inspected.

(c) When performing inspections of

products from sea containers unloaded

directly from sea transportation or when

palletized products unloaded directly

from sea transportation are not offered

for inspection at dockside, the car-lot

fees in § 51.38(a) shall apply.

(d) When performing inspections for

Government agencies, or for purposes

other than those prescribed in the

preceding paragraphs, including weightonly and freezing-only inspections, fees

for inspection shall be based on the time

consumed by the grader in connection

with such inspections, computed at a

rate of $39 an hour: Provided, That:

(1) Charges for time shall be rounded

to the nearest half hour;

(2) The minimum fee shall be two

hours for weight-only inspections, and

one- half hour for other inspections;

(3) When weight certification is

provided in addition to quality and/or

condition inspection, a one-hour charge

shall be added to the carlot fee.

(4) When inspections are performed to

certify product compliance for Defense

Personnel Support Centers, the daily or

weekly charge shall be determined by

multiplying the total hours consumed to

conduct inspections by the hourly rate.

The daily or weekly charge shall be

prorated among applicants by

multiplying the daily or weekly charge

by the percentage of product passed

and/or failed for each applicant during

that day or week. Waiting time and

overtime charges shall be charged

directly to the applicant responsible for

their incurrence.

(e) When performing inspections at

the request of the applicant during

periods which are outside the grader—s

regularly scheduled work week, a

charge for overtime or holiday work

shall be made at the rate of $19.50 per

hour or portion thereof in addition to

the carlot equivalent fee, package

charge, or hourly charge specified in

this subpart. Overtime or holiday

charges for time shall be rounded to the

nearest half hour.

(f) When an inspection is delayed

because product is not available or

readily accessible, a charge for waiting

time shall be made at the prevailing

hourly rate in addition to the carlot

equivalent fee, package charge, or

hourly charge specified in this subpart.

Waiting time shall be rounded to the

nearest half hour.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24249

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12057 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[Docket No. PRM–72–3]

Fawn Shillinglaw; Receipt of Petition

for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice

of receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received and

requests public comment on a petition

for rulemaking filed by Fawn

Shillinglaw. The petition has been

docketed by the Commission and has

been assigned Docket No. PRM–72–3.

The petitioner requests that the NRC

amend its regulations which govern

independent storage of spent nuclear

fuel in dry storage casks to require that

the safety analysis report for a cask

design fully conforms with the

associated NRC safety evaluation report

and certificate of compliance before

NRC certification of the cask design.

The petitioner also requests that the

revision date and number of a safety

analysis report be specified whenever

that report is referenced in documents.

The petitioner believes that her proposal

would eliminate confusion among

licensees, vendors, fabricators, and

others who often refer to only the safety

analysis report as the relevant document

when there may be revisions that must

be included to ensure compliance with

the NRC safety evaluation report and

certificate of compliance. The petitioner

also believes that the NRC must clarify

the process for modification of a safety

analysis report after a cask has been

certified.

DATES: Submit comments by July 29,

1996. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given except as to comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45

am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write:

Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

For information regarding electronic

submission of comments, see the

language in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll Free:

800–368–5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

received a petition for rulemaking

submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw in the

form of two letters addressed to

Chairman Jackson dated December 9

and December 29, 1995. A

determination by the Office of the

General Counsel on March 5, 1996,

specified that the issues presented

would be treated as a petition for

rulemaking. The petition was docketed

as PRM–72–3 on March 14, 1996. The

petitioner requests that the NRC amend

its regulations in 10 CFR Part 72

entitled, ‘‘Licensing Requirements for

the Independent Storage of Spent

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level

Radioactive Waste.’’

Specifically, the petitioner requests

that 10 CFR Part 72 be amended to

require that the safety analysis report

(SAR) for a spent fuel dry storage cask

design fully conforms with the

associated NRC safety evaluation report

(SER) and certificate of compliance

(COC) before NRC certification of the

cask design. The petitioner also requests

that 10 CFR Part 72 be amended to

require that the revision date and

number of an SAR be specified

whenever that report is referenced in

documents. The petitioner believes

there is confusion among licensees,

vendors, fabricators, and others who

often refer to only the safety analysis

report as if it is the only relevant

document when there may be revisions

that must be included to prevent

discrepancies between versions of the

SAR and the NRC SER and COC for a

specific cask design.

The petitioner cites the VSC–24 cask,

designed by Sierra Nuclear Corporation,

as an example where revisions to the

SAR occurred after the NRC SER and

COC were issued. The petitioner

believes that no procedures are

currently in place to permit a cask

vendor to make changes to its SAR after

issuance of the NRC SER and COC. The

petitioner also believes that this

situation creates confusion and the

possibility that an SAR version is being

used that directly contradicts SER and

COC requirements. The petitioner asks

for an explanation of the process that

the NRC used for allowing changes to be

made by the vendor to the VSC–24 cask

after NRC certification, what were those

changes, and how this was

accomplished without rulemaking. The

petitioner also recommends that the

NRC make cask unloading procedures

publicly available.

The NRC is soliciting public comment

on the petition for rulemaking

submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw that

requests the changes to the regulations

in 10 CFR Part 72 as discussed below.

Discussion of the Petition

The petitioner notes that the

regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 establish

requirements and criteria for the

certification of spent fuel dry storage

cask designs by the NRC. The petitioner

is concerned that no process exists in

the regulations for a cask vendor to

make changes to a generically approved

and certified dry storage cask design.

The petitioner cites the VSC–24 cask as

an example where NRC certification was

issued for a design that was modified

after the actual certification took place.

The petitioner notes that NRC certified

the design for the VSC–24 cask on May

7, 1993. The vendor of the VSC–24 cask,

Sierra Nuclear Corporation (Sierra),

agreed to submit a revision to its SAR

(Rev. OA) for this cask in July 1993,

about 3 months after NRC certification,

because changes were necessary to meet

requirements contained in the NRC SER

and COC.

The petitioner states that this revision

was never completed and cites an NRC

letter to Sierra dated November 28,

1994, which indicated that the SAR still

needed modification to eliminate

contradictions and differences between

the VSC–24 cask SAR and the NRC SER

and COC. The petitioner cites a Sierra

submittal dated June 5, 1995, as the first

instance where a revision (Rev. 0AA)

appears with the necessary changes. The

petitioner also cites a letter from NRC to

Sierra which states that Revs. O and OA

insert material into the SAR that NRC

asked Sierra to perform. However, the

petitioner believes that the material

appears in the licensing record but not

in the SAR. The petitioner indicates that

constant references to the SAR exist in

various documents but is concerned that

the references do not specify the

revision number. The petitioner believes

this creates confusion and the

possibility that an SAR version is being