51958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

administrative expenses shared between 

the Committee and the CDPB in recent 

years. The assessment rate of $0.27 per 

ton of salable dried prunes was derived 

by considering the handler assessment 

revenue needed to meet anticipated 

expenses, the estimated salable tons of 

California dried prunes, excess funds 

carried forward into the 2010–11 crop 

year, and estimated interest income. An 

alternative to this action would to be to 

continue with the $0.16 per ton 

assessment rate. However, an 

assessment rate of $0.27 per ton of 

salable dried prunes, along with excess 

funds from the 2009–10 crop year, is 

needed to provide enough income to 

fund the Committee’s operations. 

A review of historical and preliminary 

information pertaining to the upcoming 

crop year indicates that the grower price 

for the 2008–09 crop year was $1,500 

per ton, that the grower price for the 

2009–10 crop year was $1,200 per ton, 

and that the grower price for the 2010– 

11 crop year could range between 

$1,000 and $1,100 per ton of salable 

dried prunes. Based on an estimated 

150,000 salable tons of dried prunes, 

assessment revenue as a percentage of 

producer prices during the 2010–2011 

crop year is expected to range between 

.027 and .025 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 

Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the California 

dried prune industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the June 24, 2010, 

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 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including 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 prune 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. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

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/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously-mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2010–11 crop begins on August 1, 2010, 

and the marketing order requires that 

the rate of assessment for each crop year 

apply to all assessable dried prunes 

handled during such crop year; (2) the 

Committee 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 

Committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 993 

Marketing agreements, Plum, Prunes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 993 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 993—DRIED PRUNES 

PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 993 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 993.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 993.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2010, an 

assessment rate of $0.27 per ton of 

salable dried prunes is established for 

California dried prunes. 

Dated: August 17, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20981 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 26 

[Docket No. PRM–26–4; NRC–2010–0269] 

California Association of Marriage and 

Family Therapists; Notice of 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 dated March 24, 2010, 

and supplemented on July 12, 2010, 

filed by the California Association of 

Marriage and Family Therapists 

(CAMFT) (petitioner). The petition was 

docketed by the NRC and has been 

assigned Docket No. PRM–26–4. The 

petitioner requests that the NRC amend 

its regulations to add marriage and 

family therapists (MFT) as substance 

abuse experts (SAEs). 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

8, 2010. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0269 in the subject line of 

your comments. For instructions on 

submitting comments and accessing 

documents related to this action, see 

‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

You may submit comments by any one 

of the following methods. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0269. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

telephone 301–492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@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. 

Hand Deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

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

during Federal workdays (Telephone 

301–415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 51959 

For a copy of the petition, write to 

Betty Golden, Rules, Announcements, 

and Directives Branch (MS TWB–5 

B1M), Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, Telephone 301–492– 

3667, toll free 800–368–5642, 

Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be posted on the 

NRC Web site and on the Federal 

rulemaking Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. The NRC requests that any 

party soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document, 

including the following documents, 

using the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O– 

1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into 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’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS 

accession numbers for the petition are 

ML102030370 (March 24, 2010 letter) 

and ML102000432 (July 12, 2010 letter). 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this action, including the 

petition for rulemaking, can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID NRC–2010–0269. 

Background 

On March 24, 2010, the NRC received 

a request submitted by CAMFT for the 

NRC to amend its regulations at 10 CFR 

26.187(b) to add marriage and family 

therapists (MFTs) as substance abuse 

experts (SAE). The NRC requested 

additional information on the 

petitioner’s request. The petitioner 

provided this supplementary 

information to the NRC in a letter dated 

July 12, 2010, and the request has been 

docketed as a petition for rulemaking 

and assigned Docket No. PRM–26–4. 

The petitioner states that its interest in 

the requested action is to pursue 

changes in law, whether statutory or 

regulatory, that increase professional 

opportunities for MFTs, and that treat 

the profession on par with the other 

mental health disciplines. 

The Petition 

The petitioner states that MFTs 

should be included as SAEs for the 

following reasons: 

(1) The petitioner believes that this 

amendment would enable MFTs who 

are qualified to address substance abuse 

issues by virtue of their education, 

training, and experience to evaluate 

individuals who have violated the 

NRC’s fitness for duty policies. The 

petitioner states that these MFTs would 

also be able to make recommendations 

concerning education, treatment, return 

to duty, follow-up drug and alcohol 

testing, and aftercare. The petitioner 

states that many MFTs in California 

perform this work on a daily basis, both 

in inpatient and outpatient treatment 

settings. The petitioner states that 

‘‘qualified’’ means that the MFT 

providing these services would meet the 

‘‘basic knowledge’’ requirement 

presented in 10 CFR 26.187(c) (i.e., 

demonstrated knowledge of and clinical 

experience in the diagnosis and 

treatment of alcohol and substance 

abuse disorders), and would comply 

with any continuing education 

requirements. The petitioner states that, 

in California, MFTs receive the same 

amount of required instruction in 

substance abuse issues that 

psychologists receive. MFTs also receive 

the same amount of required instruction 

that licensed clinical social workers 

receive. 

(2) The petitioner believes that the 

role of a SAE should be open to any 

mental health professional, regardless of 

licensure, who can demonstrate that he 

or she is qualified to be a SAE. The 

petitioner states that in the NRC’s 

response to Industry Comment 2 (in the 

10 CFR Part 26 proposed rule, ‘‘Fitness 

for Duty Programs,’’ published on 

August 26, 2005; 70 FR 50441), the NRC 

addressed the question of whether only 

licensed physicians could be SAEs. The 

petitioner states that the NRC concluded 

that the ‘‘SAE need not be a licensed 

physician, but would be required to 

have extensive expertise, such as a 

licensed or certified social worker, 

psychologist, or others listed in 

§ 26.187(b), and additional 

qualifications specifically related to 

substance abuse disorders.’’ 

Consequently, the petitioner believes 

that under the NRC’s own rationale for 

the position of SAE, the emphasis is not 

on a particular license designation. 

Rather, the emphasis is on whether the 

individual licensee has ‘‘extensive 

expertise’’ in diagnosing and treating 

alcohol and substance abuse issues. The 

petitioner states that MFTs should be 

included in the list of credentialed 

professionals because they are 

recognized by the Department of Health 

and Human Services, along with 

psychiatry, psychology, clinical social 

work and psychiatric nursing as one of 

the five core mental health disciplines 

in the United States, and they are 

trained to assess and treat substance 

abuse issues. 

(3) The petitioner states that 

California law allows MFTs and 

licensed clinical social workers to 

diagnose and treat mental disorders. 

The petitioner believes that if licensed 

clinical social workers are included on 

the list of professionals to diagnose and 

treat mental disorders, then MFTs 

should also be included. The petitioner 

states that in California there is much 

overlap of the professional duties and 

responsibilities of marriage and family 

therapists, psychologists, and clinical 

social workers, especially in the area of 

alcohol and substance abuse counseling. 

The petitioner believes that all of these 

professions have licensees who, by 

virtue of their education, training, and 

experience, have ‘‘extensive expertise’’ 

in diagnosing and treating alcohol and 

substance abuse issues. The petitioner 

believes that, if the NRC allows licensed 

or certified social workers and licensed 

or certified psychologists to be SAEs, it 

should also allow MFTs to be SAEs. 

(4) The petitioner believes that the 

trend of the Federal Government is to 

include MFTs as providers of substance 

abuse services within government 

programs. The petitioner states that the 

Department of Transportation recently 

amended its regulations to allow MFTs 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
51960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to be ‘‘substance abuse professionals’’ 

and to perform counseling services with 

its employees, and the Federal Health 

Resources Services Administration has 

included MFTs on its list of five core 

mental health disciplines. 

(5) The petitioner states that the 

licensing and regulation of MFTs is 

done by all fifty states. The petitioner 

states that although licensing is 

conducted by individual states, the vast 

majority of states require candidates to 

pass the national MFT examination, 

which is administered by the 

Association of Marital and Family 

Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB). 

The National MFT examination tests 

prospective MFTs on their knowledge of 

substance abuse issues and treatment. 

The petitioner states that in terms of 

substance abuse issues, the AMFTRB 

tests prospective MFTs on their 

knowledge of how substance abuse and 

dependency affect the individual and 

the functioning of his or her family; the 

effects of addictive behavior on the 

individual and the family system; and 

addiction treatment modalities. 

The petitioner provided the following 

documents as attachments to its petition 

for rulemaking. These documents are 

not included in this publication. (See 

the ADDRESSES section of this document 

for instructions on accessing a copy of 

the petition for rulemaking.) 

• California Business & Professions 

Code § 498.36, § 1887.3, § 29, § 2914, 

§ 1382.3, and § 4996.2; 

• Yale School of Medicine Bulletin; 

• NAADAC Guide to Certification; 

and 

• Employee Assistance Professionals 

Association, ‘‘How to Become a CEAP’’. 

In summary, the petitioner believes 

that MFTs should be included in the list 

of credentialed professionals presented 

in 10 CFR 26.187(b). The petitioner 

states that it realizes the importance of 

the role SAEs play in safeguarding the 

United States and its citizens, and 

believes that the members of CAMFT 

who are qualified to be SAEs would be 

a credit to the NRC. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of August 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21022 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0462, FRL–9192–7] 

RIN 2060–AP30 

Proposed Rule To Implement the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard: New Source Review 

Anti-Backsliding Provisions for Former 

1-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed action would 

clarify the obligation to retain 1-hour 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

program requirements for certain areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA 

proposes to revise the rule for 

implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to address how NSR 

requirements that applied by virtue of 

the area’s 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

classification should apply under the 

anti-backsliding provisions of the 1997 

8-hour implementation rule. This 

proposed rule responds to the ruling by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit that the 1-hour 

major NSR program, as it applies to 

areas that were designated 1-hour 

nonattainment on the date of 

designation for the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS, is a required control to prevent 

backsliding. EPA has separately 

proposed to remove the vacated 

provisions of the rule that allowed 

States to remove (or not include, if not 

yet adopted) 1-hour major NSR for 

nonattainment areas from their State 

implementation plans (SIPs). 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before September 23, 

2010. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting a public hearing by 

September 3, 2010, we will hold a 

public hearing approximately 30 days 

after publication of this proposal in the 

Federal Register. Additional 

information about the hearing would be 

published in a subsequent Federal 

Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0462, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0462, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Mail Code: 2822T. Please 

include two copies if possible. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0462, Environmental 

Protection Agency in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room hours of operation will 

be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time (EST), Monday through 

Friday, Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0462. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web Site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For 

additional instructions on submitting 

comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1