42426 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Copies are available for inspection or copying

for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at

2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555; the

PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL–6; telephone

(202) 634–3273, fax (202) 634–3343. Interim

Revision 8 is also available for downloading from

the Internet at ‘‘http://www.nrc.gov.’’

2Copies are available for inspection or copying

for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at

2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555; the

PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL–6; telephone

(202) 634–3273; fax (202) 634–3343.

(c) The requirements for establishing

an exception for a withdrawal by a

separated participant or an in-service

withdrawal by a participant in the

Federal service and the one-year period

of validity of an approved exception

also apply to exceptions for loans under

5 CFR 1655.18.

[FR Doc. 97–20729 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6760–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 55

RIN 3150–AF62

Initial Licensed Operator Examination

Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations to require all

nuclear power facility licensees to

prepare, proctor, and grade the written

examinations and prepare the operating

tests that the NRC currently uses to

evaluate the competence of individuals

applying for operator licenses at those

plants. The proposed amendment would

require the licensee to submit each

examination and test for the NRC’s

review and approval and would

preserve the NRC’s authority to prepare

the examinations and tests, as

necessary, if it loses confidence in a

licensee’s ability to prepare these

examinations acceptably. In addition,

the NRC would periodically invoke this

authority in order to maintain the

proficiency of its own license

examiners.

DATES: Submit comments by October 21,

1997. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications

Staff. Hand deliver comments to 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on

Federal workdays. For information on

submitting comments electronically, see

the discussion under Electronic Access

in the Supplementary Information

section.

Single copies of this proposed

rulemaking may be obtained by written

request or telefax ((301) 415–2260) from

Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555. Certain documents related to this

rulemaking, including comments

received, may be examined at the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

These same documents may also be

viewed and downloaded electronically

via the Electronic Bulletin Board

established by NRC for this rulemaking

as indicated in the Supplementary

Information section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6231; email hst@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) of 1954, as amended, requires the

NRC to determine the qualifications of

individuals applying for an operator

license, to prescribe uniform conditions

for licensing such individuals, and to

issue licenses as appropriate. Pursuant

to the AEA, 10 CFR part 55 requires

applicants for operator licensees to pass

an examination that satisfies the basic

content requirements specified in the

regulation. Although neither the AEA

nor part 55 specifies who must prepare,

proctor, or grade these examinations,

the NRC has traditionally performed

those tasks itself or through its contract

examiners. In accordance with 10 CFR

170.12(i), NRC staff and contractual

costs are recovered from facility

licensees who receive examination

services. The NRC and its contract

examiners have used the guidance in

NUREG–1021, ‘‘Operator Licensing

Examination Standards for Power

Reactors,’’ to prepare the initial operator

licensing examinations. This document

has been revised as experience has been

acquired in preparing these

examinations. The current version is

designated Interim Revision 8. 1

The intended modifications to 10 CFR

part 55 would allow facility licensees to

have greater participation in the initial

operator licensing process and enable

the NRC to eliminate contractor

assistance in this area. Between $3

million and $4 million in contractor

support for the preparation and

administration of the initial operator

licensing examinations and for support

of requalification program inspections

would be eliminated.

On April 18, 1995, the Commission

approved the NRC staff’s proposal to

initiate a transition process to revise the

operator licensing program and directed

the NRC staff to carefully consider

experience from pilot examinations

before fully implementing the changes.

On August 15, 1995, the NRC staff

issued Generic Letter (GL) 95–06,

‘‘Changes in the Operator Licensing

Program,’’2 outlining the revised

examination development process and

soliciting volunteers to participate in

pilot examinations to evaluate and

refine the methodology.

Between October 1, 1995, and April 5,

1996, the NRC staff reviewed and

approved 22 operator licensing

examinations, including both the

written examinations and the operating

tests, prepared by facility licensees as

part of a pilot program. These

examinations were prepared using the

guidance in Revision 7 (Supplement 1)

of NUREG–1021 and the additional

guidance in GL 95–06. 2 These

examinations were used to test 146

reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor

operator (SRO) applicants.

The results of the pilot examinations

were discussed in SECY–96–123,

‘‘Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator

Licensing Program,’’ dated June 10,

1996. Based on the results of the pilot

program, the staff recommended that the

Commission approve the

implementation of the new examination

process on a voluntary basis until

rulemaking could be completed to

require all power reactor facility

licensees to prepare the entire initial

examination for reactor operators and

senior reactor operators and to proctor

the written portion of the examination.

On July 23, 1996, the Commission

authorized the staff to continue the pilot

examination process on a voluntary

basis and requested the staff to develop

a detailed rulemaking plan to justify the

changes that may be necessary to 10

CFR part 55. The Commission also

directed the staff to address a number of

additional items (e.g., pros, cons, and

vulnerabilities) regarding the revised

examination process to facilitate a

Commission decision on whether to

implement the revised process on an

industry-wide basis.

On September 25, 1996, the staff

forwarded the requested rulemaking
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42427

plan and a response to the additional

items to the Commission in SECY–96–

206, ‘‘Rulemaking Plan For

Amendments to 10 CFR part 55 to

Change Licensed Operator Examination

Requirements.’’ On December 17, 1996,

the Commission directed the staff to

proceed with the proposed rulemaking.

With Commission approval, the staff

resumed conducting pilot-style

examinations on August 19, 1996, and

by the end of December 1996 had

reviewed, approved, and administered

12 additional examinations that were

developed by facility licensees based on

the guidance in GL 95–06. This raised

the total number of examinations

completed using the pilot process to 34

and the number of applicants tested to

84 ROs and 144 SROs.

Discussion

The pilot program demonstrated that

the revised process, using licensee

developed examinations, can be both

effective and efficient. Comments from

the NRC staff and industry personnel

who participated in the pilot

examinations were generally favorable.

The quality of the licensee-developed

examinations (as modified by the NRC)

was generally comparable to the

examinations prepared by the NRC staff

or its contractors. All of the licenseedeveloped examinations required some

modifications subsequent to NRC

review; however, several of these

examinations required significant

rework, indicating that some licensees

did not fully understand the criteria for

preparing examinations which meet

NRC standards. With training and

experience, it is expected that the

industry would gain proficiency in

preparing the examinations. The

monitoring and assessment of this

voluntary pilot program has

demonstrated that facility licensee

developed examinations, as modified by

the NRC, are comparable in terms of

their quality to those prepared by the

NRC and its contract examiners under

the existing process; therefore, the safe

operation of the facility in question is in

no way compromised. The fact that the

pass/fail results on the 34 pilot

examinations administered to the 84

ROs and 144 SROs through the end of

December 1996 were comparable to the

power reactor licensing examination

results during Fiscal Year 1995, when

all the examinations were prepared by

the NRC or its contractors, supports this

conclusion. The provisions of the

proposed rule in § 55.40(a)(2), which

require NRC staff review and approval

of facility licensee developed tests and

examinations, should facilitate the

monitoring of the quality of the

submittals and the modification of those

which do not meet NRC standards.

The fact that NRC examiners will be

administering all of the operating tests

without contractor assistance is

expected to improve the NRC staff’s

focus on operator performance and its

core of experience because every

applicant will be directly observed by

an NRC employee. Before beginning the

transition process, contract examiners

administered about half of the operating

tests and collected the observations that

formed the basis for the NRC’s licensing

actions. The contractors’ efforts focused

primarily on task completion, so any

broader insights and experience that

might have been gained while giving the

examinations was of little benefit to the

NRC.

The Commission has assessed the

pros and cons associated with the

revised examination process, as

discussed in SECY–96–206, and

considered the measures that the NRC

staff has taken to mitigate the

vulnerabilities. The Commission

acknowledges that the revised

examination process increases the risk

of lapses in examination quality

(including level of difficulty),

consistency, and security and wishes to

emphasize the NRC’s resolve to

maintain the existing standards of

performance in each of these areas.

With regard to examination security,

in particular, applicants, licensees

(operators), and facility licensees are

reminded that 10 CFR 55.49 prohibits

their engagement in any activity that

compromises the integrity (security) of

any application, test, or examination

required by 10 CFR part 55 and that

examination will need to be proctored

in accordance with 10 CFR 55.40. These

provisions require facility licensees to

maintain proper examination security.

The Commission expects that licensees

will meet the security provisions in ES–

201 and ES–402 of NUREG–1021 or

similar NRC-approved standards.

Consistent with NUREG–1021, facility

employees with specific knowledge of

any NRC examination before it is given

may not communicate the examination

contents to unauthorized individuals

and may not participate in any further

instruction of the students scheduled to

take the examination. Before they are

given access to the examination, the

facility employees are expected to sign

a statement acknowledging their

understanding of the restrictions and

the potential consequences of

noncompliance and sign a postexamination statement certifying that

they did not knowingly compromise the

examination. In addition to the

restrictions on personnel, NUREG–1021

also discusses a number of physical

security precautions, including

protecting and mailing the examination

materials and simulator considerations.

The guidance also cautions NRC

examiners to be attentive to examination

security measures and requires them to

review the security expectations with

the facility licensee at the time the

examination arrangements are

confirmed.

The Commission considers a violation

of 10 CFR 55.49 for compromising an

examination has occurred when (1) a

failure to control the integrity of an

examination occurs such that there is a

potential for an applicant to have an

unauthorized advantage in the

examination process or (2) an applicant

obtains an unauthorized advantage.

Both facility licensees and applicants

for examinations may be subject to

enforcement action for violations of 10

CFR 55.49 commensurate with the

nature and seriousness of the

compromise.

As part of the final rulemaking in this

matter, the Commission intends to

modify its ‘‘General Statement of Policy

and Procedures for NRC Enforcement

Actions’’ (Enforcement Policy),

NUREG–1600. Security compromises

will normally be considered at least at

Severity Level IV. A violation where it

was likely that an applicant obtained

unauthorized access to examination

material will be considered a significant

regulatory concern and categorized at

least at Severity Level III. The NRC

intends to utilize its full enforcement

authority including, as warranted, civil

penalties and orders against persons

found to have been involved in willful

compromises of examinations in

violation of 10 CFR 55.49. This will

include use of the rule on Deliberate

Misconduct (10 CFR 50.5). In addition,

cases involving willful violations will

be referred to the Department of Justice.

Availability of Guidance Document for

License Examination Preparation

Although 10 CFR part 55 does not

specify who will prepare, administer,

and grade the written examinations and

operating tests for reactor operator and

senior reactor operator licenses, the

NRC or its contract examiners have

traditionally performed these tasks. As a

consequence of performing the tasks

associated with preparing and

administering the initial licensing

examinations, the NRC has developed a

substantial body of guidance, which has

been published in various versions of

NUREG–1021 to aid both NRC and its

contract examiners. The latest version of

NUREG–1021 (Interim Revision 8)

incorporates the pilot examination
42428 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

criteria in GL 95–06, lessons learned

during the pilot examinations, and a

number of refinements prompted by the

comments submitted in response to the

Federal Register notice dated February

22, 1996 (61 FR 6869), which solicited

public comments on the proposed

NUREG changes. A copy of Interim

Revision 8 of NUREG–1021 has been

mailed to each facility licensee. Copies

may be inspected and/or copied for a fee

at the NRC’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. NUREG–1021 is also

electronically available for downloading

from the Internet at ‘‘http://

www.nrc.gov.’’ All interested parties are

invited to comment on Interim Revision

8 of NUREG–1021 in addition to the

proposed rule. These public comments

will be addressed, and Revision 8 will

be published as a final NUREG

document.

The NRC plans to prepare, administer,

and grade initial operator licensing

examinations at least four times per

year, using NUREG–1021 as guidance.

Licensees would also be expected to use

the guidance contained in NUREG–1021

to prepare the licensing examinations.

The NRC staff would review and

approve any deviations from this

guidance. The NRC will not approve

any deviation that would compromise

its statutory responsibility of prescribing

uniform conditions for the operator

licensing examinations. Examples of

unacceptable deviations include, but are

not limited to, the use of essay questions

in place of multiple choice questions

and the administration of open book

examinations.

Proposed Rule

This proposed regulation would add a

new section, § 55.40, ‘‘Implementation,’’

to Subpart E of 10 CFR part 55 which

would require power reactor facility

licensees to prepare the written

examinations and operating tests, to

submit them to the NRC for review and

approval, and to proctor and grade the

written examinations. These

requirements would be contained in

§§ 55.40(a)(1), (2), and (3), respectively.

Each power reactor facility licensee

would be required to prepare and

submit the proposed examinations

(including the written examination, the

walk-through, and the dynamic

simulator tests) to the NRC consistent

with the guidance contained in

NUREG–1021. The NRC staff would

review the entire examination and

direct whatever changes are necessary to

ensure that adequate levels of quality,

difficulty, and consistency are

maintained. After the NRC staff reviews

and approves an examination, the

facility licensee would proctor and

grade the written portion consistent

with the guidance in NUREG–1021. The

NRC staff would continue to

independently administer and grade the

operating tests, review and approve the

written examination results, and make

the final licensing decisions. The

facility licensee would not conduct

parallel operator evaluations during the

dynamic simulator or the walk-through

tests.

Pursuant to proposed requirements in

§ 55.40(b), the NRC staff would maintain

the authority to prepare the

examinations and tests and to proctor

and grade the site-specific written

examinations. This proposed rule would

allow NRC to maintain its staff

capability to perform these activities.

Also, if the NRC has reason to question

a licensee’s ability to prepare an

acceptable examination, § 55.40(b)

provides the NRC authority to prepare

and administer the examinations and

tests.

Paragraph (c) of § 55.40 reasserts that

the NRC would continue to prepare and

administer the written examinations

and operating tests at non-power reactor

facilities. The NRC has taken this

position because the non-power reactor

community does not have an

accreditation process for training and

qualification or the resources to prepare

the examinations. However, the process

will be implemented using only NRC

examiners, thereby allowing the

elimination of all routine contract

assistance in that area.

Electronic Access

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic

Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld or

connecting to the NRC interactive

rulemaking web site, ‘‘Rulemaking

Forum.’’ The bulletin board may be

accessed using a personal computer, a

modem, and one of the commonly

available communications software

packages, or directly via Internet.

Background documents on the

rulemaking are also available, as

practical, for downloading and viewing

on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and

modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem

on FedWorld can be accessed directly

by dialing the toll free number (800)

303–9672. Communication software

indicators should be set as follows:

Parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop

bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT–100

terminal emulation, the NRC

rulemaking subsystem can then be

accessed by selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’

option from the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’

Users will find the ‘‘FedWorld Online

User’s Guides’’ particularly helpful.

Many NRC subsystems and data bases

also have a ‘‘Help/Information Center’’

option that is tailored to the particular

subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can

also be accessed by a direct dial phone

number for the main FedWorld BBS,

(703) 321–3339, or by using Telnet via

Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703)

321–3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC

subsystem will be accessed from the

main FedWorld menu by selecting the

‘‘Regulatory, Government

Administration and State Systems,’’

then selecting ‘‘Regulatory Information

Mall.’’ At that point, a menu will be

displayed that has an option ‘‘U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ that

will take you to the NRC Online main

menu. The NRC Online area also can be

accessed directly by typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ at

a FedWorld command line. If you access

NRC from FedWorld’s main menu, you

may return to FedWorld by selecting the

‘‘Return to FedWorld’’ option from the

NRC Online Main Menu. However, if

you access NRC at FedWorld by using

NRC’s toll-free number, you will have

full access to all NRC systems, but you

will not have access to the main

FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet,

you will see the NRC area and menus,

including the Rules Menu. Although

you will be able to download

documents and leave messages, you will

not be able to write comments or upload

files (comments). If you contact

FedWorld using FTP, all files can be

accessed and downloaded but uploads

are not allowed; all you will see is a list

of files without descriptions (normal

Gopher look). An index file listing all

files within a subdirectory, with

descriptions, is available. There is a 15-

minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can be

accessed through the World Wide Web,

like FTP, that mode only provides

access for downloading files and does

not display the NRC Rules Menu.

You may also access the NRC’s

interactive rulemaking web site through

the NRC home page (http://

www.nrc.gov). This site provides the

same access as the FedWorld bulletin

board, including the facility to upload

comments as files (any format), if your

web browser supports that function.

For more information on NRC bulletin

boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems

Integration and Development Branch,

NRC, Washington, DC 20555–0001,

telephone (301) 415–5780; e-mail

AXD3@nrc.gov. For information about

the interactive rulemaking site, contact
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42429

Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415–5905; email CAG@nrc.gov.

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

proposed rule is the type of action

described as a categorical exclusion in

10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither

an environmental impact statement nor

an environmental assessment has been

prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This proposed rule amends

information collection requirements that

are subject to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This

rule has been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval of the information collection

requirements.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 500 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information

(i.e., preparing the examinations). The

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

seeking public comment on the

potential impact of the collection of

information contained in the proposed

rule and on the following issues:

1. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

NRC, including whether the information

will have practical utility?

2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the

collection of information be minimized,

including the use of automated

collection techniques?

Send comments on any aspect of this

proposed collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to the Information and Records

Management Branch (T–6F–33), U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by

Internet electronic mail at bjs1@nrc.gov;

and to the Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

NEOB–10202, (3150–0018, and 3150–

0101), Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the collections

of information or on the above issues

should be submitted by September 8,

1997. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given to comments received

after this date.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a draft

regulatory analysis on this proposed

regulation. The analysis examines the

costs and benefits of the alternatives

considered by the Commission. The

draft analysis is available for inspection

in the NRC Public Document Room,

2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies of the

analysis may be obtained from Harry S.

Tovmassian at (301) 415–6231.

The Commission requests public

comment on the draft regulatory

analysis and the following specific

questions.

1. Are there portions of the operator

exams that are common to all licensees,

and would therefore be more efficiently

developed by the NRC?

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory

analysis correct that it would be less

costly for each licensee to prepare their

own initial operator examinations to be

reviewed, revised, and administered by

the NRC, than to have one NRC

contractor prepare these exams for all

licensed operators with the costs to be

reimbursed by licensee fees.

Comments on the draft analysis may

be submitted to the NRC as indicated

under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that

this rule will not, if promulgated, have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the

licensing and operation of nuclear

power plants. The companies that own

these plants do not fall within the scope

of the definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set

forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or

the Small Business Size Standards set

out in regulations issued by the Small

Business Administration at 13 CFR part

121.

Backfit Analysis

The pertinent part of 10 CFR 50.109

(a)(1) defines backfitting as ‘‘the

modification of or addition to ... the

procedures or organization required to

... operate a facility; any of which may

result from a new or amended provision

in the Commission rules or the

imposition of a regulatory staff position

interpreting the Commission rules that

is either new or different from a

previously applicable staff position....’’

Although part 55 addresses the

qualifications and requirements for

operators’ licenses and changes are not

per se subject to the backfit rule in part

50, changes to these requirements could

be included within the backfit

definition of ‘‘procedures or

organization required to ... operate a

facility.’’ However, in this case, the

proposed shift of responsibility from the

NRC staff (or its contractors) to the

facility licensee for developing and

administering the initial written

examination for the operator license

exam would not constitute a

‘‘modification of the procedures

required to operate a facility’’ within the

scope of the backfit rule; therefore, no

backfit analysis needs to be prepared.

The proposed rule does not affect the

basic procedures for operator license

qualification, i.e., the required training

programs, the required testing, the

content and format of the exams, the

grading of the exams, or the basis for

issuing an operator license. The shift in

responsibility for preparing the initial

exam does not affect the content or

format of the exam. The proposed rule

is designed to ensure that the format,

content, and quality of the initial

written examination will not be

modified. The proposed rule requires

the NRC to provide oversight of facility

licensees’ development and

administration of initial written

examinations. The NRC would also

retain its discretion to determine

whether to administer the initial written

examination itself, as well as continuing

to determine whether to grant or deny

an application for an RO or SRO license

and to consider candidates’ appeals.

The licensee’s organizational

structure required to operate the facility

will not be modified. All reactor

licensees have a training component as

part of their organizational structure,

and the proposed rule does not alter that

organizational structure. Although, the

proposed rule could have an ‘‘effect’’ on

the licensee’s organization, it does not

require any modification to the

organizational structure.

Finally, the proposed rule does not

impose any new costs on licensees since

the NRC’s costs to develop examinations

are presently recovered in the fee base.

These costs are basically the same as the

costs that will be incurred by licensees

to develop the examinations under the

proposed rule.
42430 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55

Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC

proposes to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 55.

PART 55—OPERATOR’S LICENSES

1. The authority citation for part 55

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat.

939, 948, 953, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.

444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232,

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat.

1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also

issued under sec. 306, Pub. L. 97–425, 96

Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61

also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955

(42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

2. In § 55.8 paragraph (b) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 55.8 Information collection

requirements; OMB approval.

* * * * *

(b) The approved information

collection requirements contained in

this part appear in §§ 55.31, 55.40,

55.45, 55.53, and 55.59.

* * * * *

3. A new § 55.40 is added to read as

follows:

§ 55.40 Implementation.

(a) Power reactor facility licensees

shall —

(1) Prepare the required site-specific

written examinations and operating

tests;

(2) Submit the written examinations

and operating tests to the Commission

for review and approval; and

(3) Proctor and grade the NRCapproved site-specific written

examinations.

(b) In lieu of requiring a specific

power reactor facility licensee to

prepare the examinations and tests or to

proctor and grade the site-specific

written examinations, the Commission

may elect to perform those tasks.

(c) The Commission will prepare and

administer the written examinations

and operating tests at non-power reactor

facilities.

Dated at Rockville, MD. this 31st day of

July, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–20645 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–167–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A320 and A321 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Airbus Model A320 and A321

series airplanes. This proposal would

require a one-time inspection for

discrepancies of the release cable of the

forward and rear passenger doors, and

replacement of any discrepant release

cable with a new release cable. This

proposal is prompted by the issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent failure of the

passenger door to open and consequent

inability of the slide/slide raft to deploy,

which could delay or impede

passengers when exiting the airplane

during an emergency.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

167–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(425) 227–2589; fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 97–NM–167–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

97–NM–167–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

recently notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A320 and A321 series airplanes.

The DGAC advises that, during a routine

deployment of the aft right-hand

passenger door slide, the passenger door

failed to open fully. Investigation

revealed that the attachment ball nipple

of the release cable detached from the

cable end due to a production process

error. Failure of the passenger door to

open could result in the inability to

deploy the slide/slide raft. This