22802 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

to parents informing them of the 

availability of free and reduced price 

meal benefits, as specified in § 245.5(a), 

when that information is distributed by 

mail, individualized student packets, or 

other method which prevents overt 

identification of children eligible for 

direct certification. 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * Schools conducting an 

initial base year for Provision 2 that are 

approved to delay implementation as 

permitted under § 245.9(b)(6)(ii) are not 

required to carryover children’s prior 

year eligibility status as outlined in this 

paragraph (c). Carryover cannot be used 

when returning to standard meal 

counting and claiming under 

§ 245.9(c)(2)(i), when establishing a new 

base year under § 245.9(c)(2)(ii) or 

establishing a streamlined base year 

under § 245.9(c)(2)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(5) Categorical eligibility. (i) SNAP, 

FDPIR, TANF When a household 

submits an application containing the 

required SNAP, FDPIR or TANF 

documentation, as defined under 

Documentation in § 245.2, all children 

in that household shall be categorically 

eligible for free meals or free milk. 

Additionally, when the local 

educational agency obtains confirmation 

of eligibility for these programs through 

direct certification, all children who are 

identified as members of a Family, as 

defined in § 245.2, shall be categorically 

eligible for free meals or milk. 

(ii) Homeless, migrant, runaway 

children and Head Start enrollees. Upon 

receipt of Documentation, as defined in 

paragraph (2)(ii) and (2)(iv) of the 

definition in § 245.2, the local 

educational agency must approve such 

children for free benefits without further 

application. 

(6) * * * 

(ii) * * * The local educational 

agency must notify, in writing, 

households with children who are 

approved on the basis of documentation 

that they are Categorically eligible, as 

defined in § 245.2, that their children 

are eligible for free meals or free milk, 

and that no application is required. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 245.6a(a)(1)(i) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 245.6a Verification requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) SNAP, as defined in 245.2; 

* * * * * 

§ 245.9 [Amended] 

■ 27. Section 245.9 is amended by 

removing the term ‘‘Food Stamp 

Program’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘SNAP’’ paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(i). 

■ 28. Section 245.10 is amended by 

revising the last two sentences of 

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 245.10 Action by local educational 

agencies. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * Additionally, the local 

educational agency must include the 

specific procedures it will use for 

obtaining documentation for 

determining children’s eligibility 

through direct certification, in lieu of an 

application. Local educational agencies 

shall also provide households that are 

directly certified with a notice of 

eligibility, as specified in § 245.6(c)(2) 

and shall include in their policy 

statement a copy of such notice. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Section 245.11 is amended by 

removing the term ‘‘Food Stamp’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘SNAP’’ in paragraph 

(h)(4)(iv). 

Dated: April 13, 2011. 

Kevin W. Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9457 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 26 

[NRC–2011–0084] 

RIN 3150–AI94 

Interim Enforcement Policy for 

Minimum Days Off Requirements 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Policy statement; revision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is revising its Enforcement Policy to 

include a provision allowing licensees 

enforcement discretion if they 

implement an alternative approach to 

meet the NRC’s requirements for 

managing worker fatigue at operating 

nuclear power plants. This interim 

policy affects licensees subject to the 

minimum days off (MDO) requirements 

of the NRC’s fitness for duty regulations 

and will remain in place until the NRC 

publishes a revised rule associated with 

the MDO requirements for managing 

fatigue. 

DATES: This revision is effective April 

25, 2011. The NRC is not requesting 

comments on this revision to its 

Enforcement Policy at this time. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document 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, O1–F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

• 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. The Enforcement Policy is 

also accessible via ADAMS accession 

number ML093480037. 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, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: This 

revision to the NRC’s Enforcement 

Policy can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching on 

Docket ID NRC–2011–0084. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher, telephone: 301–492–3668, 

e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

The NRC also maintains the 

Enforcement Policy on its Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov; select Public 

Meetings and Involvement, then 

Enforcement, and then Enforcement 

Policy. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerry Gulla, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2872; e-mail: 

Gerald.Gulla@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 31, 2008 (73 FR 17176), the 

NRC published a final rule in the 

Federal Register amending Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, 

‘‘Fitness for Duty Programs.’’ The 

Commission updated the requirements 

in 10 CFR part 26 by reorganizing the 

rule and adding Subpart I, ‘‘Managing 

Fatigue.’’ Subpart I establishes 

requirements for managing worker 

fatigue at operating nuclear power 

plants, which was in response to a need 

for clear and enforceable requirements 

for the management of worker fatigue. 

Although the rule was effective on April 

30, 2008, the NRC permitted an 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 22803 

18-month implementation period for 

Subpart I. 

On September 3, 2010, the Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) submitted a 

petition for rulemaking (PRM–26–5) 

(ML102590440). The NEI stated that 

‘‘the new rule has resulted in 

consequences not originally envisioned 

when the rule was developed and that 

these consequences have diminished 

the safety benefits of the rule.’’ The NEI 

has stated that the unintended 

consequences stem from the minimum 

days off requirements, specifically 

§ 26.205(d)(3) through § 26.205(d)(6), 

which create an undue level of 

complexity and inflexibility in 

managing worker fatigue. The NEI 

requested, among other changes, that 

10 CFR part 26, Subpart I, be amended 

to replace the MDO requirements in 

§ 26.205(d) with a performance-based 

objective, consisting of an average of 54 

hours worked per week, averaged over 

a calendar quarter rather than over each 

shift cycle. The NEI also proposed 

changing the annual assessment in 

§ 26.205(e)(1) to a quarterly assessment 

to provide a more frequent review of 

hours worked. The NEI proposed to 

eliminate the MDO requirements 

addressed at § 26.205(d)(3) through 

§ 26.205(d)(6), while the work hour 

limits and break requirements 

(§ 26.205(d)(1)(i), § 26.205(d)(1)(ii), 

§ 26.205(d)(1)(iii), § 26.205(d)(2)(i), and 

§ 26.205(d)(2)(ii)), would remain 

unchanged and apply during on-line 

and outage periods. 

Separate from PRM–26–5, on 

September 23, 2010, the NEI submitted 

a request for enforcement discretion 

regarding the MDO provisions of 10 CFR 

part 26 (ML102710208). The request 

reiterates the NEI’s opinion that the 

regulations that govern fatigue 

management impede ‘‘many safetybeneficial practices at plant sites, 

adversely [impact] the quality of life of 

covered workers, and [result] in 

conflicts between rule requirements and 

represented bargaining unit 

agreements.’’ The letter requests that the 

NRC ‘‘exercise enforcement discretion 

from the [MDO] provisions of the rule’’ 

until the final disposition of PRM–26– 

5. 

The NRC held three public meetings 

(November 18, 2010, January 6, 2011, 

and January 25, 2011), during which the 

staff and stakeholders discussed 

alternatives to the MDO requirements. 

Although some of the stakeholders were 

comfortable with the MDO 

requirements, most focused their 

discussion on the unintended 

consequences, which they claim have 

diminished the safety benefits of the 

rule, along with the need for an 

alternative that is simpler and would 

provide greater scheduling flexibility. 

The staff’s goal was to develop an 

alternative approach that was 

responsive to the needs of stakeholders, 

would maintain clear and enforceable 

requirements, and would ensure that the 

effects of cumulative fatigue are 

appropriately managed by licensees. 

Discussion 

Cumulative fatigue is caused by 

consecutive days of restricted or poor 

quality sleep caused by such things as 

shift-work, extended work days, and 

extended work weeks. Currently, 

Subpart I requires licensees to manage 

cumulative fatigue primarily by 

providing workers with a minimum 

number of days off over the course of a 

period not to exceed 6 weeks. The 

distribution of the days off during the 

6-week period act to either prevent or 

mitigate fatigue. An alternative method 

for managing cumulative fatigue is to 

establish a requirement to limit actual 

hours worked. A limit on actual hours 

worked, when applied to schedules that 

require regular shift coverage, limits the 

number of work hours that can 

contribute to cumulative fatigue and 

provides indirect assurance of periodic 

days off for recovery rest. A schedule 

resulting in a weekly average of 54 

hours worked, calculated using a rolling 

window of up to 6 weeks, is such a 

schedule. In general, most individuals 

that work their normal shift duration 

and receive only the minimum number 

of days off required under the current 

MDO requirements could average up to 

54 hours per week. However, the NEI 

has indicated that implementation of 

the MDO requirements has reduced 

licensee scheduling flexibility and 

imposed a substantial administrative 

burden. By comparison, limiting work 

hours to an average of not more than 54 

hours per week by using a rolling 

window of up to 6 weeks limits the 

number of consecutive weeks of 

extended work hours that an individual 

can work by using a comparable but 

simpler and more flexible requirement. 

In addition, this alternative eliminates 

the burden of tracking the number of 

days off that an individual receives in 

each shift cycle. 

In summary, the maximum hours that 

can be worked under the alternative 

approach is comparable to the 

maximum hours worked under the 

current 10 CFR part 26 MDO 

requirements, except that the alternative 

approach provides for greater simplicity 

and flexibility. This alternative is only 

applicable to § 26.205(d)(3) and covered 

workers described in § 26.4(a). Neither 

the NEI’s PRM–26–5 nor its enforcement 

discretion request offered any 

comparably effective alternatives for 

§ 26.205(d)(4), § 26.205(d)(5), and 

§ 26.205(d)(6), nor were any identified 

during the public meetings; therefore, 

the staff is taking no action in regard to 

those regulations. 

The staff determined that replacing 

the current MDO requirements and 

requiring all licensees to adopt this 

interim alternative approach has the 

potential for introducing adverse 

consequences if those licensees satisfied 

with MDO requirements were forced to 

change. As a result, the interim 

enforcement policy would allow 

licensees to choose whether or not to 

implement this alternative approach. 

Licensees who properly implement this 

alternative approach will receive 

enforcement discretion for failing to 

meet the requirements of 10 CFR 

26.205(d)(3). 

Although the rolling schedule 

required under the alternative approach 

limits the number of consecutive 

extended work weeks and thereby limits 

the potential for cumulative fatigue, 

there are unusual potential 

circumstances where the average can be 

met and the schedule may be fatiguing; 

however, the industry has stated that 

these unusual schedules are improbable. 

Such schedules include having only one 

in every nine days off or consistently 

working the maximum allowable hours, 

which would likely result in cumulative 

fatigue. Nevertheless, the staff believes 

that this alternative approach, together 

with other aspects of the rule that will 

remain unchanged, will provide 

reasonable assurance that licensees 

manage cumulative fatigue consistent 

with the protection of public health, 

safety, and security. The staff will 

engage licensees during regularly 

scheduled public meetings in the 

coming months to identify problems 

and lessons learned from 

implementation of the alternative 

approach. 

Licensees must inform the NRC of 

their intent to adopt the alternative 

approach, and must comply with all 

requirements of Subpart I, as applicable. 

The interim policy will remain in place 

until the NRC publishes a new final rule 

associated with the MDO requirements 

in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. 

The NRC is not requesting public 

comment on this alternative approach at 

this time; instead, the NRC will seek 

public comment on the effectiveness of 

this approach during the comment 

period for a proposed rule associated 

with the MDO requirements in 10 CFR 

part 26, subpart I. 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
22804 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 79 / Monday, April 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term ‘‘covered workers’’ refers to those 

individuals indentified in § 26.4(a) who are subject 

to the requirements in § 26.205. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This policy statement does not 

contain new or amended information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing 

requirements were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Approval Number 3150–0136. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Congressional Review Act 

In accordance with the Congressional 

Review Act of 1996, the NRC has 

determined that this action is not a 

major rule and has verified this 

determination with the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Accordingly, the NRC Enforcement 

Policy is revised to read as follows: 

NRC Enforcement Policy 

* * * * * 

9.2 Enforcement Discretion for the 

Minimum Days Off Requirements of 

§ 26.205(d)(3) 

This section sets forth the interim 

policy that the NRC will follow to 

exercise enforcement discretion for 

licensees who pursue the alternative 

approach to the minimum days off 

(MDO) requirements of § 26.205(d)(3). 

This alternative approach is consistent 

with the bases and objectives of 10 CFR 

part 26, specifically managing 

cumulative fatigue, and provides 

licensees improved simplicity and 

flexibility for work scheduling. 

This interim policy is only applicable 

to licensees who inform the NRC of 

their intent to adopt the alternative 

approach. Licensees shall comply with 

all requirements of Subpart I, as 

applicable, unless explicitly replaced or 

amended in this interim policy. The 

alternative approach to the MDO 

requirements applies to the work hours 

of covered individuals 1 during normal 

(e.g., non-outage/emergency) plant 

operations. This interim policy will 

remain in place until the 

implementation date of a revised final 

rule associated with the MDO 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26, subpart 

I. 

A licensee who informs the NRC of its 

intent to transition to the alternative 

approach will receive enforcement 

discretion, and no enforcement action 

will be taken for the violation of 

§ 26.205(d)(3). If at any time while the 

licensee is implementing this alternate 

approach it does not meet the 

requirements, as stated in this interim 

policy, the licensee may be in violation 

of § 26.205(d)(3) and subject to 

enforcement action. Once a licensee has 

transitioned to the alternate approach, it 

has the option to revert back to the 

requirement of § 26.205(d)(3); however, 

the licensee is only allowed one 

opportunity to do so. 

A. Actions and Requirements for 

Transition 

A licensee must inform the NRC of its 

intent to transition to the alternative 

approach. Notification shall be made via 

a letter to the respective Regional 

Administrator and shall identify the 

implementation date which will be set 

by the licensee. The hours worked prior 

to the implementation date, must meet 

the requirement of § 26.205(d)(3), or 

enforcement action may be taken. Once 

the NRC has been notified of the 

implementation date, the licensee can 

commence its transition to the alternate 

approach. 

In order to receive continuous 

enforcement discretion once the 

alternate approach is implemented, each 

covered worker is limited to a weekly 

average of 54 hours worked, calculated 

using a rolling window of up to 6 

weeks. This alternative is not applicable 

to unit outages or security system 

outages. Any instance of an individual’s 

average weekly work hours exceeding 

the requirements for enforcement 

discretion may result in a violation of 

the MDO requirements. Typically, an 

instance of an isolated occurrence or 

occurrences with limited duration 

would generally be considered either a 

minor violation or a non-cited violation. 

B. Required Actions for Transition Back 

to the MDO Requirement 

At any time prior to the 

implementation date of a revised final 

rule associated with the MDO 

requirements in 10 CFR part 26, subpart 

I, ‘‘Managing Fatigue,’’ the licensee has 

the option to transition back to the MDO 

requirements. However, the licensee has 

this option only once. The licensee must 

submit a written notification to the 

respective Regional Administrator 

stating that it is reverting back to 

compliance with the MDO requirements 

as specified under § 26.205(d)(3), and 

shall give the NRC advance notice of its 

transition date. There will be no 

enforcement action taken on any MDO 

violations that occurred while the 

licensee was implementing the alternate 

approach, unless the licensee failed to 

meet the requirements as stated in 

Section 9.2.A of this policy. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of April 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9916 Filed 4–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR part 101 

[CBP Dec. 11–08] 

Technical Amendment to List of CBP 

Preclearance Offices in Foreign 

Countries: Addition of Dublin, Ireland 

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document amends U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

regulations to reflect that U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) has added 

a preclearance station in Dublin, 

Ireland. CBP officers at preclearance 

stations conduct inspections and 

examinations to ensure compliance with 

U.S. customs, immigration, and 

agriculture laws, as well as other laws 

enforced by CBP at the U.S. border. 

Such inspections and examinations 

prior to arrival in the United States 

generally enable travelers to exit the 

domestic terminal or connect directly to 

a U.S. domestic flight without 

undergoing further CBP processing. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 25, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Conway, Office of Field 

Operations, Preclearance Operations, 

(202) 344–1759. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

CBP preclearance operations have 

been in existence since 1952. 

Preclearance facilities are established 

through the cooperative efforts of CBP, 

foreign government representatives, and 

the local facility authorities and are 

evidenced with signed preclearance 

agreements. Each facility is staffed with 

CBP officers responsible for conducting 


jdjones on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES