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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42949

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–21120 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–49–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9–10, –20, –30, –40,

and –50 Series Airplanes, and C–9

(Military) 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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC–

9–10, –20, –30, –40, and –50 series

airplanes, and C–9 (military) airplanes.

This proposal would require a one-time

visual inspection to determine if all

corners of the aft lower cargo doorjamb

have been previously modified. This

proposal also would require low

frequency eddy current inspections to

detect cracks of the fuselage skin and

doubler at all corners of the aft lower

cargo doorjamb, various follow-on

repetitive inspections, and modification,

if necessary. This proposal is prompted

by fatigue cracks found in the fuselage

skin and doubler at the corners of the aft

lower cargo doorjamb. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to detect and correct such

fatigue cracking, which could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

September 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

49–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

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855

Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1–L51 (2–60). This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (562) 627–

5324; fax (562) 627–5210.

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–49–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–49–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin and

doubler at the corners of the aft lower

cargo doorjamb on Model DC–9 series

airplanes. These cracks were discovered

during inspections conducted as part of

the Supplemental Structural Inspection

Document (SSID) program, required by

AD 96–13–03, amendment 39–9671 (61

FR 31009, June 19, 1996). Investigation

revealed that such cracking was caused

by fatigue-related stress. Fatigue

cracking in the fuselage skin or doubler

at the corners of the aft lower cargo

doorjamb, if not detected and corrected

in a timely manner, could result in

rapid decompression of the fuselage and

consequent reduced structural integrity

of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–53–278, dated November 4, 1996.

The service bulletin describes the

following procedures:

1. For certain airplanes: Performing

low frequency eddy current (LFEC)

inspections to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners

of the aft lower cargo doorjamb;

2. For certain other airplanes:

Contacting the manufacturer for

disposition of certain conditions;

3. Conducting repetitive inspections,

or modifying the corner skin of the aft

lower cargo doorjamb and performing

follow-on LFEC inspections, if no

cracking is detected;

4. Performing repetitive LFEC

inspections to detect cracks on the skin

adjacent to any corner that has been

modified; and

5. Modifying any crack that is found

to be 2 inches or less in length at all

corners that have not been modified and

performing follow-on repetitive LFEC

inspections.

Accomplishment of the modification

will minimize the possibility of cracks

in the fuselage skin and doubler.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require, for certain airplanes, LFEC

inspections to detect cracks of the

fuselage skin and doubler at all corners

of the aft lower cargo doorjamb, various

follow-on repetitive inspections, and

modification, if necessary. The actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

The proposed AD also would require

a one-time visual inspection to

determine if all corners of the aft lower

cargo doorjamb have been previously

modified. The FAA finds that the LFEC

inspections described in the referenced

service bulletin are dependent on