4258 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

another scenario without volume 

regulation. If volume regulation were to 

be implemented, the assessment rate 

would remain at $7.50 per ton. If 

volume regulation were not to be 

implemented, some costs typically 

allocated to a reserve pool budget would 

be absorbed by the administrative 

budget, thus necessitating an increased 

assessment rate to $14.00 per ton. The 

committee unanimously approved these 

alternative budget and assessment 

recommendations on July 22, 2010. 

The committee met again on October 

5, 2010, and determined that volume 

regulation was not warranted for the 

2010–11 season. This triggered 

recommendation of the committee’s 

proposal for an administrative budget of 

$4,628,960 and an assessment rate of 

$14.00 per ton, since the current 

assessment rate of $7.50 would not 

provide enough funds to cover 

anticipated expenses of $4,423,500. 

A review of statistical data on the 

California raisin industry indicates that 

assessment revenue has consistently 

been less than one percent of grower 

revenue in recent years. A minimum 

grower price of $1,500 per ton of raisins 

for the 2010–11 crop year has been 

announced by the Raisin Bargaining 

Association. If this price is realized, 

assessment revenue would continue to 

represent less than one percent of 

grower revenue in the 2010–11 crop 

year, even with the increased 

assessment rate. 

Regarding the impact of this action on 

affected entities, this action would 

increase the assessment obligation 

imposed on handlers. While increased 

assessments impose additional costs on 

handlers regulated under the order, the 

rates are uniform on all handlers, and 

proportional to the size of their 

businesses. However, these costs would 

be offset by the benefits derived by the 

operation of the marketing order. 

In addition, the Audit Subcommittee 

and the full committee’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

California raisin industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and encouraged to 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all subcommittee and 

committee meetings, the July 22 and 

October 5, 2010, meetings were public 

meetings, and all entities, both large and 

small, were able to express views on 

this issue, if they chose to do so. Based 

upon the discussions and the 

unanimous vote by the committee, the 

increased assessment is reasonable and 

necessary to maintain the program. 

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 raisin 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 10-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Ten days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2010–11 crop year began on August 1, 

2010, and the order requires the rate of 

assessments for each crop year to apply 

to all assessable raisins handled during 

the 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. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED 

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 989 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 989.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 989.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2010, an 

assessment rate of $14.00 per ton is 

established for assessable raisins 

produced from grapes grown in 

California. 

Dated: January 19, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1427 Filed 1–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 835 

[Docket No. HS–RM–09–835] 

RIN 1901–AA–95 

Occupational Radiation Protection; 

Revision 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and opportunity 

for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) proposes to revise the values in 

an appendix to its Occupational 

Radiation Protection requirements. The 

derived air concentration values for air 

immersion are calculated using several 

parameters. One of these, exposure time, 

is better represented by the hours in the 

workday, rather than the hours in a 

calendar day, and is therefore used in 

the revised calculations. 

DATES: Public comments on the 

proposed revisions must be received on 

or before February 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. HS–RM–09– 

835 and/or RIN 1901–AA–95, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Judy.Foulke@hq.doe.gov. 

Include Docket Number HS–RM–09–835 

and/or RIN 1901–AA–95 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Dr. Judith D. Foulke, Office of 

Worker Safety and Health Policy (HS– 

11), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Judith Foulke, (301) 903–5865, e-mail: 

Judy.Foulke@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The requirements in title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 835 (10 CFR 

part 835), Occupational Radiation 

Protection, are designed to protect the 

health and safety of workers at DOE 

facilities. One situation that must be 

addressed is the exposure of workers to 

radioactive material dispersed in the air. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 4259 

Based on calculations involving doses to 

the organs of the body, levels of 

contamination in the air that will not 

cause the dose limits for workers to be 

exceeded are established for specified 

radionuclides. These values are given in 

appendix C. 

DOE first published, a final rule on 

December 14, 1993, (58 FR 65485), 

amending 10 CFR part 835. In the June 

8, 2007, (72 FR 31903) amendment to 

part 835, DOE revised the values in 

appendix C to part 835, Derived Air 

Concentration (DAC) for Workers from 

External Exposure during Immersion in 

a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive 

Material. The calculations done for the 

2007 amendment were based on a 24- 

hour day. However, to be consistent 

with other occupational exposure 

scenarios, such as those used in 

developing the appendix A DACs, an 8- 

hour per day exposure scenario is more 

reasonable. 

Need for Revisions 

This proposed rule revises the values 

in appendix C to part 835, Derived Air 

Concentration (DAC) for Workers from 

External Exposure during Immersion in 

a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive 

Material. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 835 

Federal buildings and facilities, 

Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, 

Nuclear power plants and reactors, 

Nuclear safety, Occupational safety and 

health, Radiation protection, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 

2011. 

Glenn S. Podonsky, 

Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 835 of Chapter III 

of 10 CFR is proposed to be amended as 

set forth below: 

PART 835—OCCUPATIONAL 

RADIATION PROTECTION 

1. The authority citation for part 835 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 7191; 50 U.S.C. 

2410. 

2. Amend appendix C to part 835, by 

revising the table to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Part 835—Derived Air 

Concentration (DAC) for Workers From 

External Exposure During Immersion in 

a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive 

Material 

* * * * * 

AIR IMMERSION DAC 

Radionuclide Half-Life (μCi/mL) (Bq/m3) 

Ar–37 ........................................................... 35.02 d ........................................................ 3E+00 ......................................................... 1E+11 

Ar–39 ........................................................... 269 yr .......................................................... 1E–03 ......................................................... 5E+07 

Ar–41 ........................................................... 1.827 h ........................................................ 3E–06 ......................................................... 1E+05 

Kr–74 ........................................................... 11.5 min ...................................................... 3E–06 ......................................................... 1E+05 

Kr–76 ........................................................... 14.8 h .......................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 3E+05 

Kr–77 ........................................................... 74.7 h .......................................................... 4E–06 ......................................................... 1E+05 

Kr–79 ........................................................... 35.04 h ........................................................ 1E–05 ......................................................... 6E+05 

Kr–81 ........................................................... 2.1E+05 yr .................................................. 7E–04 ......................................................... 2E+07 

Kr–83m ........................................................ 1.83 h .......................................................... 7E–02 ......................................................... 2E+09 

Kr–85 ........................................................... 10.72 yr ....................................................... 7E–04 ......................................................... 2E+07 

Kr–85m ........................................................ 4.48 h .......................................................... 2E–05 ......................................................... 1E+06 

Kr–87 ........................................................... 76.3 min ...................................................... 4E–06 ......................................................... 1E+05 

Kr–88 ........................................................... 2.84 h .......................................................... 1E–06 ......................................................... 7E+04 

Xe–120 ......................................................... 40.0 min ...................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 4E+05 

Xe–121 ......................................................... 40.1 min ...................................................... 2E–06 ......................................................... 8E+04 

Xe–122 ......................................................... 20.1 h .......................................................... 8E–05 ......................................................... 3E+06 

Xe–123 ......................................................... 2.14 h .......................................................... 6E–06 ......................................................... 2E+05 

Xe–125 ......................................................... 16.8 h .......................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 6E+05 

Xe–127 ......................................................... 36.406 d ...................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 6E+05 

Xe–129m ...................................................... 8.89 d .......................................................... 2E–04 ......................................................... 7E+06 

Xe–131m ...................................................... 11.84 d ........................................................ 5E–04 ......................................................... 1E+07 

Xe–133 ......................................................... 5.245 d ........................................................ 1E–04 ......................................................... 5E+06 

Xe–133m ...................................................... 2.19 d .......................................................... 1E–04 ......................................................... 5E+06 

Xe–135 ......................................................... 9.11 h .......................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 6E+05 

Xe–135m ...................................................... 15.36 min .................................................... 1E–05 ......................................................... 3E+05 

Xe–138 ......................................................... 14.13 min .................................................... 3E–06 ......................................................... 1E+05 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–1500 Filed 1–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
4260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0030; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–183–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 and A310 Series Airplanes, and 

Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4– 

600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4– 

605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively 

Called A300–600 Series Airplanes) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above that would 

supersede three existing ADs. This 

proposed AD results from mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) originated by an aviation 

authority of another country to identify 

and correct an unsafe condition on an 

aviation product. The MCAI describes 

the unsafe condition as: 

The airworthiness limitations applicable to 

the Damage Tolerant Airworthiness 

Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently listed 

in Airbus ALI Documents, which are 

referenced in the A300, A310, and A300–600 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 

2. Airbus has recently revised the ALI 

Documents, which have been approved by 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA). 

* * * * * 

The actions contained in these revised 

documents, which introduce more restrictive 

maintenance requirements and/or 

airworthiness limitations, have been 

identified as mandatory actions for continued 

airworthiness. * * * 

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, 

damage, or corrosion in principal 

structural elements, which could result 

in reduced structural integrity of the 

airplane. The proposed AD would 

require actions that are intended to 

address the unsafe condition described 

in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by March 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS— 

EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan 

Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2125; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0030; Directorate Identifier 

2009–NM–183–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On February 6, 2007, we issued AD 

2007–04–11, Amendment 39–14943 (72 

FR 8604, February 27, 2007). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on Airbus Model A300 

B2 and B4 series airplanes. 

On September 19, 2007, we issued AD 

2007–20–03, Amendment 39–15213 (72 

FR 54536, September 26, 2007). That 

AD required actions intended to address 

an unsafe condition on Airbus Model 

A300–600 series airplanes. 

On November 23, 2007, we issued AD 

2007–25–02, Amendment 39–15283 (72 

FR 69612, December 10, 2007). That AD 

required actions intended to address an 

unsafe condition on Airbus Model A310 

series airplanes. 

Since we issued ADs 2007–04–11, 

2007–20–03, and 2007–25–02, we have 

determined that the airworthiness 

limitations for these airplanes must be 

updated in order to adequately address 

the unsafe condition. The European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which 

is the Technical Agent for the Member 

States of the European Community, has 

issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 

2009–0155, dated July 17, 2009 (referred 

to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

The airworthiness limitations applicable to 

the Damage Tolerant Airworthiness 

Limitation Items (DT ALI) are currently listed 

in Airbus ALI Documents, which are 

referenced in the A300, A310, and A300–600 

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 

2. Airbus has recently revised the ALI 

Documents, which have been approved by 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA). 

—Airbus A300 ALI Document issue 04. 

—Airbus A310 ALI Document issue 07 and 

—Airbus A300–600 ALI Document issue 12 

The actions contained in these revised 

documents, which introduce more restrictive 

maintenance requirements and/or 

airworthiness limitations, have been 

identified as mandatory actions for continued 

airworthiness. EASA issued ADs 2006–0071, 

2006–0260, and 2006–0374 [which 

correspond to FAA ADs 2007–04–11, 2007– 

25–02, and 2007–20–03] to require 

compliance with the maintenance 

requirements and associated airworthiness 

limitations defined in previous issues of 

these Airbus ALI documents. 

For the reason described above, [the] EASA 

AD supersedes existing ADs 2006–0071, 

2006–0260, and 2006–0374 and requires an 

update to the approved aircraft maintenance 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS