42944 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

It is impracticable to examine for

positions associated with studentstipend programs because position

incumbents are selected by the school

where they are enrolled. When a nonFederal organization controls the

selection process, there is no

examination by a Federal agency.

Conforming Amendment

In 5 CFR 213.104, positions filled

under single-agency authorities for

fellowship and related programs are

exempt from the service limits for

making temporary appointments and

the refilling of these positions by

temporary appointment. We are adding

the new appointing authorities to the

list of exceptions cited in 5 CFR

213.104(b)(3)(ii).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

(including small businesses, small

organizational units, and small

governmental jurisdictions) because the

regulations apply only to appointment

procedures used to appoint certain

employees in Federal agencies.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 213

Government employees, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

James B. King,

Director, Office of Personnel Management.

Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend

5 CFR part 213 as follows:

PART 213—EXCEPTED SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 213

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302, E.O.

10577, 3 CFR 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218;

§ 213.101 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 2103;

§ 213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301,

3302, 3307, 8337(h) and 8456; E.O. 12364, 47

FR 22931, 3 CFR 1982 Comp., p. 185; and 38

U.S.C. 4301 et seq.

2. In § 213.104 paragraph (b)(3)(ii) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 213.104 Special provisions for

temporary, intermittent, or seasonal

appointments in Schedule A, B, or C.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Positions are filled under an

authority established for the purpose of

enabling the appointees to continue or

enhance their education, or to meet

academic or professional qualification

requirements. These include the

authorities set out in paragraphs (r) and

(s) of § 213.3102 and paragraph (c) of

§ 213.3202, and authorities granted to

individual agencies for use in

connection with internship, fellowship,

residency, or student programs.

* * * * *

3. In § 213.3102, paragraphs (r) and (s)

are added to read as follows:

§ 213.3102 Entire executive civil service.

* * * * *

(r) Positions established in support of

fellowship and similar programs that are

filled from limited applicant pools and

operate under specific criteria

developed by the employing agency

and/or a non-Federal organization.

These programs may include: internship

or fellowship programs that provide

developmental or professional

experiences to individuals who have

completed their formal education;

training and associateship programs

designed to increase the pool of

qualified candidates in a particular

occupational specialty; professional/

industry exchange programs that

provide for a cross-fertilization between

the agency and the private sector to

foster mutual understanding, an

exchange of ideas, or to bring

experienced practitioners to the agency;

residency programs through which

participants gain experience in a

Federal clinical environment; and

programs that require a period of

Government service in exchange for

educational, financial or other

assistance. Appointments under this

authority may not exceed 4 years.

(s) Positions with compensation fixed

under 5 U.S.C. 5351–5356 when filled

by student-employees assigned or

attached to Government hospitals,

clinics or medical or dental laboratories.

Employment under this authority may

not exceed 4 years.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21048 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 56

[Docket No. PY–97–003]

Voluntary Shell Egg Regulations

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS) proposes to amend the

regulations governing the voluntary

shell egg grading program. The

proposed revisions would require

electronic digital-display scales be

provided to the grader; provide an

alternative grademark for shell eggs;

provide for the use of a ‘‘Produced

From’’ grademark to officially identify

products that originate from officially

graded shell eggs; and remove the

requirement for continuous overflow of

water during the egg washing process.

From time to time, sections in the

regulations are affected by changes in

egg processing technology. This rule

updates the regulations to reflect these

changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Douglas C. Bailey, Chief,

Standardization Branch, Poultry

Division, Agricultural Marketing

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Stop 0259, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250–0259.

Comments received may be inspected at

this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through

Friday, except holidays. State that your

comments refer to Docket No. PY–97–

003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rex

A. Barnes, Chief, Grading Branch, 202–

720–3271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposed rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866 and has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB).

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. This

rule will not preempt any State or local

laws, regulations, or policies, unless

they present an irreconcilable conflict

with this rule. There are no

administrative procedures which must

be exhausted prior to any judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

AMS has considered the economic

impact of this action on small entities as

defined in the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601). There

are almost 200 plants using the

Agency’s shell egg grading services and

many of them are small entities.

The proposal to require electronic

digital-display scales will affect some

processors by requiring the purchase of

one or more scales that cost from $150

to $1,000 each. This equipment will

improve the accuracy of egg weight

determinations, allowing processors to

avoid the expense incurred when

product is unnecessarily retained and

re-processed.

One proposal to establish an

alternative form of the USDA grademark
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42945

would allow shell egg processors to use

a shield displayed in three colors to

officially identify USDA graded eggs.

Similarly, another proposal would allow

producers of products originating from

officially graded shell eggs to use a

‘‘Produced From’’ grademark on

packaging materials. These proposals

would have no adverse economic

impact on processors.

The proposal to remove the

requirement for the continuous overflow

of water during egg washing would

conserve water and energy resources,

decrease operating expenses of

processors, and lessen the

environmental impact of shell egg

processing. This is expected to have a

significant positive economic impact on

processors.

Other editorial-type changes would

clarify or update the existing regulations

and would have no economic impact on

entities using voluntary shell egg

grading services.

For the above reasons, the Agency has

certified that this action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

The information collection

requirement in § 56.37 to be amended

by this rule has been previously

approved by OMB and assigned OMB

Control Number 0581–0127 under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Background and Proposed Changes

Shell egg grading is a voluntary

program provided under the

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as

amended, and is offered on a fee-forservice basis. It is designed to assist the

orderly marketing of shell eggs by

providing for the official certification of

egg quality, quantity, size, temperature,

packaging, and other factors. Changing

technology in egg processing requires

that the regulations governing shell egg

grading be updated.

Grading personnel certify egg weights

according to the official U.S. weight

classes. Today, the highly mechanized,

state-of-the-art equipment used to

package shell eggs weighs individual

eggs with high precision to satisfy

container weight requirements. For

processors to receive fair, uniform,

accurate weight certification, graders

need to have similarly precise scales to

certify egg weights. The Agency is

proposing to amend § 56.17(a) by

requiring plants to replace balance or

spring-type scales for weighing

individual eggs and consumer packages

with electronic digital-display scales.

Many processors want to identify

their consumer-pack USDA graded shell

eggs, or products prepared from those

eggs, with a USDA grademark. The

Agency is proposing to amend § 56.36 to

allow processors additional flexibility.

The proposal would permit the use of a

new grademark that contains horizontal

bands of three colors. It would also

provide for the use of a new ‘‘Produced

From’’ grademark to officially identify

products for which there are no U.S.

grade standards (e.g., pasteurized shell

eggs) that are produced from U.S. Grade

AA or Grade A shell eggs. The proposal

would also remove the option of using

terms such as ‘‘Federal-State Graded’’

within the grademark because this

option is no longer used. Finally, the

proposal would clarify the organization

and wording of § 56.36 and would

correct references to § 56.36 that are in

§ 56.37 and § 56.40.

Egg wash tanks are designed to permit

the continuous inflow of water and,

when tank capacity is exceeded, the

continuous outflow of water. Because

some water is lost during egg washing

due to evaporation and other causes, a

continuous supply of fresh replacement

water is required in order to maintain a

proper volume of wash water. A

continuous overflow of water is

required by AMS to indicate that an

adequate amount of fresh replacement

water is being added. However,

replacement water is not always of a

sufficient volume to provide for

continuous overflow, especially at the

beginning of shifts or when the washing

equipment is stopped and restarted.

This situation, in addition to new

washing and egg cleaning technologies

and better production practices, brought

the requirement for a continuous

overflow into question. Therefore, AMS

is proposing to amend § 56.76(e)(5) by

omitting the requirement for a

continuous overflow of water in shell

egg washers.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 56

Eggs and egg products, Food grades

and standards, Food labeling, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

For reasons set forth in the preamble,

it is proposed that 7 CFR part 56 be

amended as follows:

PART 56—VOLUNTARY GRADING OF

SHELL EGGS

1. The heading for part 56 is revised

to read as set forth above.

1a. The authority citation for part 56

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

2. In § 56.17, paragraphs (a)(2) and

(a)(3) are revised and new paragraphs

(a)(4) and (a)(5) are added to read as

follows:

§ 56.17 Facilities and equipment for

graders.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) Electronic digital-display scales

graduated in increments of 1/10-ounce

or less for weighing individual eggs and

test weights for calibrating such scales.

Plants packing product based on metric

weight must provide scales graduated in

increments of 1-gram or less;

(3) Electronic digital-display scales

graduated in increments of 1/4-ounce or

less for weighing the lightest and

heaviest consumer packages packed in

the plant and test weights for calibrating

such scales;

(4) Scales graduated in increments of

1/4-pound or less for weighing shipping

containers and test weights for

calibrating such scales;

(5) An acceptable candling light.

* * * * *

3. Section 56.36 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 56.36 Form of grademark and

information required.

(a) Form of official identification

symbol and grademark. (1) The shield

set forth in Figure 1 of this section shall

be the official identification symbol for

purposes of this part and when used,

imitated, or simulated in any manner in

connection with shell eggs, shall be

deemed prima facia to constitute a

representation that the product has been

officially graded for the purposes of

§ 56.2.

(2) Except as otherwise authorized,

the grademark permitted to be used to

officially identify USDA consumergraded shell eggs shall be of the form

and design indicated in Figures 2

through 4 of this section. The shield

shall be of sufficient size so that the

printing and other information

contained therein is legible and in

approximately the same proportion as

shown in Figures 2 through 4 of this

section.

(3) The ‘‘Produced From’’ grademark

in Figure 5 of this section may be used

to identify products approved by the

Agency for which there are no U.S.

grade standards (e.g., pasteurized shell

eggs) that are prepared from U.S.

Consumer Grade AA or A shell eggs

under the continuous supervision of a

grader.

(b) Information required on

grademark. (1) Except as otherwise

authorized by the administrator, each

grademark used shall include the letters

‘‘USDA’’ and the U.S. grade of the

product it identifies, such as ‘‘A Grade,’’

as shown in Figure 2 of this section.

Such information shall be printed with

the shield and the wording within the
42946 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

shield in contrasting colors in a manner

such that the design is legible and

conspicuous on the material upon

which it is printed.

(2) The size or weight class of the

product, such as ‘‘Large,’’ may appear

within the grademark as shown in

Figure 3 of this section. If the size or

weight class is omitted from the

grademark, it must appear prominently

on the main panel of the carton.

(3) Except as otherwise authorized,

the bands of the shield in Figure 4 of

this section shall be displayed in three

colors, with the color of the top, middle,

and bottom bands being blue, white,

and red, respectively.

(4) The ‘‘Produced From’’ grademark

in Figure 5 of this section may be any

one of the designs shown in Figures 2

through 4 of this section. The text

outside the shield shall be conspicuous,

legible, and in approximately the same

proportion and close proximity to the

shield as shown in Figure 5 of this

section.

(5) The plant number of the official

plant preceded by the letter ‘‘P’’ must be

shown on each carton or packaging

material.

Figures to § 56.36

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42947

BILLING CODE 3410–02–C
42948 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

4. In § 56.37, the first sentence is

revised to read as follows:

§ 56.37 Lot marking of officially identified

product.

Each carton identified with the

grademarks shown in § 56.36 shall be

legibly lot numbered on either the

carton or the consumer package. * * *

5. In § 56.40, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 56.40 Grading requirements of shell

eggs identified with consumer grademarks.

(a) Shell eggs to be identified with the

grademarks illustrated in § 56.36 must

be individually graded by a grader or by

authorized personnel pursuant to

§ 56.11 and thereafter check graded by

a grader.

* * * * *

6. In § 56.76, the first sentence in

paragraph (e)(5) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 56.76 Minimum facility and operating

requirements for shell egg grading and

packing plants.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(5) Replacement water shall be added

continuously to the wash water of

washers. * * *

* * * * *

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–20901 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

RIN 3150–AF44

Reporting Requirements for

Unauthorized Use of Licensed

Radioactive Material

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a

notice of proposed rulemaking that was

published in the Federal Register on

January 31, 1996, regarding the

intentional unauthorized use of licensed

radioactive material by individuals. The

majority of commenters stated that the

costs of implementing the proposed rule

would outweigh the benefits that might

result from the rule. After reviewing

these comments, the Commission has

reconsidered the need for the proposed

rule and is withdrawing it.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary L. Thomas, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6230, E-mail MLT1@NRC.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 31, 1996, the NRC published a

proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 20,

in the Federal Register (61 FR 3334),

that would have required licensees to

report events involving intentional

unauthorized use of licensed radioactive

material to the NRC Operations Center

within 24 hours of discovery.

Eighty-six comment letters were

received on the proposed rule: 12 from

power reactor licensees, 11 from

industry representative groups, 8 from

Agreement States, 14 from Agreement

State licensees, 30 from NRC material

licensees, 10 from private citizens, and

one from a public interest group. Eightytwo of the commenters opposed the

proposed rule; four were in favor of the

proposed rule. In addition, comments

were received from the Advisory

Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes

(ACMUI) at a meeting held on February

22, 1996.

The commenters addressed the

regulatory analysis, the severity level

that would be assigned to violations for

failure to report, and the backfit analysis

as well as the proposed rule itself.

Because the proposed rule is being

withdrawn, only the comments received

on the proposed rule itself are discussed

here. All of the comments received on

the rule are available for review in the

NRC’s Public Document Room.

Comment: Forty commenters stated

that the concept presented in this rule

was not consistent with the ALARA

principle. They also stated that the rule

would require every event of

contamination and exposure to be

reported regardless of the level of

contamination or exposure. Several

commenters argued that using a

reporting threshold that included any

‘‘allegedly intentional’’ unauthorized

use was too broad and would result in

licensees spending more time and

money than the 20 hours to evaluate an

incident estimated in the proposed

regulatory analysis for the proposed

rule, and would detract from their

ability to perform their other duties.

They stated that this would place an

undue burden on small licensees whose

resources are already limited. Thirtytwo commenters suggested that the

requirement to report events where

unauthorized use could not be ruled out

within 48 hours be deleted. They stated

that it was too vague, burdensome, and

restrictive, and they would be forced to

report every contamination to avoid a

Severity Level III violation. Forty-nine

commenters suggested that the NRC be

more specific with respect to the type of

events to be reported. Thirty-six

commenters suggested that the proposed

rule be withdrawn. They stated that

basing a rulemaking on only two

incidents was not justified. Of this

group, 26 commenters stated that

regulations already exist to cover such

incidents, such as 10 CFR 30.10,

Deliberate misconduct, 10 CFR 20.2201,

Reports of theft or loss of licensed

material, 10 CFR 20.2202, Notification

of incidents, and 10 CFR 30.50(a),

Reporting requirements.

Of the eight Agreement States that

provided comments, all stated that the

proposed rule should be withdrawn.

One Agreement State commented that

this rule may violate the intent of that

State’s Regulatory Reform Act of 1995

that requires the State’s regulatory

system not impose excessive,

unreasonable, or unnecessary

obligations.

Four comments were received in favor

of the proposed rule. One commenter

supported the proposed rule without

changes; the other three supported the

intent of the proposed rule but

suggested changes to further clarify the

intent and to make the rule less

burdensome. As discussed below, the

Commission recognizes that regulations

already exist requiring reporting of

events when certain established dose

thresholds have been reached. The

Commission believes that a requirement

to report events below these established

thresholds would not provide any

additional protection and the cost

would not be justified.

Response: The Commission examined

the comments received on the proposed

rule, and concluded that a sufficient

basis does not exist to promulgate a rule

at this time. The Commission recognizes

that regulations already exist requiring

reporting of events when certain dose

thresholds have been reached. The

established thresholds in these existing

requirements capture any event where

the occupational dose limits have been

exceeded. Therefore, any additional

protection achieved from reporting

events below the established thresholds

would be low and the costs of both the

reporting by licensees and the

subsequent follow-up actions by the

NRC staff would not be justified. For the

above reasons, the Commission is

withdrawing the proposed rule.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day

of August, 1997.