53844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

production of potatoes measuring less 

than 17⁄8 inches in diameter. The 

Committee has relied on information 

provided by producers and handlers 

familiar with the small potato market for 

its recommendation. 

As small potatoes have grown in 

popularity with consumers, high quality 

potatoes from Colorado have been in 

demand. The Committee believes that 

modifying the size requirements for 

such small potatoes would maintain 

their consistency and increase their 

quality reputation in the market. The 

proposed changes are expected to 

increase sales of Colorado potatoes and 

to benefit the Colorado potato industry. 

The benefits of this rule are not 

expected to be disproportionately 

greater or lesser for small entities than 

for large entities. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this recommendation, including 

taking no action on the matter. One 

alternative discussed was to use other 

size ranges other than the ranges 

proposed. The Committee believed that 

the size ranges proposed offered the best 

compromise between regulatory control 

and accommodation for the marketing 

needs of the handlers. Another 

alternative was to establish just one 3⁄4- 

inch to 17⁄8 inches size range for small 

potatoes. However, that alternative was 

rejected because it would not have 

accommodated the mid-size range 

potatoes that some handlers prefer to 

ship. Thus, the Committee unanimously 

agreed that their recommendation 

reflected the best alternative available to 

achieve the desired result. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are necessary. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This action would not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

potato 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. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this proposed rule. 

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. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

potato industry, and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations. Like all Committee 

meetings, the May 12, 2011, meeting 

was a public meeting and all entities, 

both large and small, were able to 

express their views on this issue. 

Finally, interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

informational impacts of this action on 

small businesses. 

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 Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 948—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN COLORADO 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 948 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. In § 948.387, revise paragraph (a) 

and add paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 948.387 Handling regulation. 

* * * * * 

(a) Minimum grade and size 

requirements—All varieties. (1) U.S. No. 

2 or better grade, 17⁄8 inches minimum 

diameter or 4 ounces minimum weight. 

(2) U.S. No.1 grade, Size B (11⁄2 inches 

minimum to 21⁄4 inches maximum 

diameter). 

(3) U.S. No.1 grade, 3⁄4-inch minimum 

to 17⁄8 inches maximum diameter. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 19, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22111 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1150 

[Document No. AMS–DA–11–0007; DA–11– 

02] 

National Dairy Promotion and 

Research Program; Invitation To 

Submit Comments on Proposed 

Amendments to the Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document invites 

comments on a proposed amendment to 

the Dairy Promotion and Research Order 

(Dairy Order). The proposal would 

modify the number of National Dairy 

Promotion and Research Board (Dairy 

Board) members in eight regions, merge 

Region 8 and Region 10, merge Region 

12 and Region 13, and apportion Idaho 

as a separate region. The total number 

of domestic Dairy Board members 

would remain the same at 36 and the 

total number of regions would be 

reduced from 13 to 12. This 

modification was requested by the Dairy 

Board, which administers the Dairy 

Order, to better reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production in the 

United States. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

rule should be identified with the 

docket number AMS–DA–11–0007; DA– 

11–02. Commenters should identify the 

date and page number of the issue of the 

Proposed Rule. Interested persons may 

comment on this proposed rule using 

either of the following procedures: 

• Mail: Comments may be submitted 

by mail to Whitney A. Rick, Chief, 

Promotion and Research Branch, Dairy 

Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Room 2958–S, 

Stop 0233, Washington, DC 20250– 

0233. 

• Fax: Comments may be faxed to 

(202) 720–0285. 

• E-mail: Comments may be e-mailed 

to Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov. 

• Internet: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

All comments to this proposed rule, 

submitted by the above procedures will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53845 

be available for viewing at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or at USDA, AMS, 

Dairy Programs, Promotion and 

Research Branch, Room 2958–S, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, (except on official 

Federal holidays). Persons wanting to 

view comments in Room 2958–S are 

requested to make an appointment in 

advance by calling (202) 720–6909. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Whitney A. Rick, Chief, Promotion and 

Research Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., 

Room 2958–S, Stop 0233, Washington, 

DC 20250–0233. Phone: (202) 720–6909. 

E-mail: Whitney.Rick@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rule is issued pursuant to the 

Dairy Production Stabilization Act 

(Dairy Act) of 1983 [7 U.S.C. 4501– 

4514], as amended. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has waived the review process required 

by Executive Order 12866 for this 

action. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This proposed rule is 

not intended to have a retroactive effect. 

If adopted, nothing in this rule would 

preempt or supersede any other program 

relating to dairy product promotion 

organized and operated under the laws 

of the United States or any State. 

The Dairy Act provides that 

administrative proceedings must be 

exhausted before parties may file suit in 

court. Under section 4509 of the Dairy 

Act, any person subject to the Dairy 

Order may file with the Secretary a 

petition stating that the Dairy Order, any 

provision of the Dairy Order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the Dairy Order is not in accordance 

with the law and request a modification 

of the Dairy Order or to be exempted 

from the Dairy Order. Such person is 

afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After a hearing, the 

Secretary would rule on the petition. 

The Dairy Act provides that the district 

court of the United States in any district 

in which the person is an inhabitant or 

has his principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s 

ruling on the petition, provided a 

complaint is filed not later than 20 days 

after the date of the entry of the ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities and has certified 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The purpose of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions 

to the scale of businesses subject to such 

actions so that small businesses will not 

be disproportionately burdened. 

The Dairy Production Stabilization 

Act of 1983 authorizes a national 

program for dairy product promotion, 

research and nutrition education. 

Congress found that it is in the public 

interest to authorize the establishment 

of an orderly procedure for financing 

(through assessments on all milk 

produced in the United States for 

commercial use and on imported dairy 

products) and carrying out a 

coordinated program of promotion 

designed to strengthen the dairy 

industry’s position in the marketplace 

and to maintain and expand domestic 

and foreign markets and uses for fluid 

milk and dairy products. 

The Small Business Administration 

[13 CFR 121.201] defines small dairy 

producers as those having annual 

receipts of not more than $750,000 

annually. Most of the producers subject 

to the provisions of the Dairy Order are 

considered small entities. 

The proposed rule would amend the 

Dairy Order by modifying the number of 

National Dairy Promotion and Research 

Board (Dairy Board) members in eight 

regions, merge Region 8 and Region 10, 

merge Region 12 and Region 13, and 

apportion Idaho as a separate region. 

The total number of domestic Dairy 

Board members would remain the same 

at 36 and the total number of regions 

would be reduced from 13 to 12. This 

modification was requested by the Dairy 

Board, which administers the Dairy 

Order, to better reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production in the 

United States. 

The Dairy Order is administered by a 

38-member Dairy Board, 36 members 

representing 13 geographic regions 

within the United States and 2 

representing importers. The Dairy Order 

provides in section 1150.131 that the 

Dairy Board shall review the geographic 

distribution of milk production 

throughout the United States and, if 

warranted, shall recommend to the 

Secretary a reapportionment of the 

regions and/or modification of the 

number of members from the regions in 

order to better reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production volume 

in the United States. The Dairy Board is 

required to conduct the review at least 

every 5 years and not more than every 

3 years. The Dairy Board was last 

modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk 

production. 

Based on a review of the 2010 

geographic distribution of milk 

production, the Dairy Board has 

concluded that the number of Dairy 

Board members for eight regions should 

be changed. Additionally, the Dairy 

Board proposes to merge Region 8 and 

Region 10, merge Region 12 and Region 

13, and apportion Idaho as a separate 

region. The Dairy Board was last 

modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk 

production. 

The proposed amendment should not 

have a significant economic impact on 

persons subject to the Dairy Order. The 

proposed changes merely would allow 

representation of the Dairy Board to 

better reflect geographic milk 

production in the United States. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which 

implements the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35], the 

information collection requirements and 

record keeping provisions imposed by 

the Dairy Order have been previously 

approved by OMB and assigned OMB 

Control No. 0581–0093. No relevant 

Federal rules have been identified that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this 

rule. 

Statement of Consideration 

The Dairy Order is administered by a 

38-member Dairy Board, 36 members 

representing 13 geographic regions 

within the United States and 2 

representing importers. The Dairy Order 

provides in section 1150.131 that the 

Dairy Board shall review the geographic 

distribution of milk production volume 

throughout the United States and, if 

warranted, shall recommend to the 

Secretary a reapportionment of regions 

and/or modification of the number of 

producer members from regions in order 

to best reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production in the 

United States. The Dairy Board is 

required to conduct the review at least 

every 5 years and not more than every 

3 years. The Dairy Board was last 

modified in 2008 based on 2007 milk 

production. 

Since the Dairy Board’s last 

reapportionment, the Dairy Order was 

amended by a final rule [76 FR 14777, 

March 18, 2011] to implement an 

assessment on imported dairy products 

to fund promotion and research and to 

add importer representation, initially 

two members, to the Dairy Board. 

Additionally, the final rule amended the 

term ‘‘United States’’ in the Dairy Order 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

to mean all States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. Assessments on producers 

in these areas were effective April 1, 

2011. These amendments to the Dairy 

Order were implemented pursuant to 

the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 

110–246). 

In order to complement the current 

geographical makeup of the existing 

regions of the Dairy Board, the final rule 

added these four new jurisdictions to 

the region of closest proximity. Alaska 

was added to Region 1, currently 

comprised of Oregon and Washington; 

Hawaii was added to Region 2, currently 

California; and the District of Columbia 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

were added to Region 10, currently 

comprised of Florida, Georgia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. 

These regional modifications were 

effective March 18, 2011, and are 

reflected in this proposed rule. 

The final rule also modified the 

language in section 1150.131 of the 

Dairy Order to remove the specific 

formula for calculating the factor of 

pounds of milk per member, which 

divided total pounds of milk produced 

by 36, as the Dairy Board is now 

comprised of 38 members (36 domestic 

producers and 2 importer 

representatives). While the Dairy Order 

no longer specifies the procedure for 

calculating the factor of pounds of milk 

per member, for the purposes of the 

current reapportionment analysis, the 

procedure will remain the same. 

The final rule also added new 

language that requires the Secretary to 

review the average volume of imports of 

dairy products into the United States 

and, if warranted, reapportion the 

importer representation on the Dairy 

Board to reflect the proportional shares 

of the United States market served by 

domestic production and imported 

dairy products. This review will take 

place at least once every 3 years, after 

the initial appointment of importer 

representatives on the Dairy Board. 

The last reapportionment, conducted 

in 2008, was calculated by using 2007 

milk production data and dividing by 36 

to determine a factor of pounds of milk 

represented by each domestic Dairy 

Board member. The resulting factor was 

then divided into the pounds of milk 

produced in each region to determine 

the number of Dairy Board members for 

each region. Accordingly, the same 

process using 2010 milk production 

data was employed for the current 

reapportionment calculations. Table 1 

summarizes by region the volume of 

milk production distribution for 2010, 

the percentage of total milk production 

and the current number of Dairy Board 

seats per region. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT REGIONS AND NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS

Current regions and states 

Milk 

production 

(mil. lbs.) 

Percentage of 

total milk 

production 

Current 

number of 

board seats 

1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington ......................................................................................... 8,307 .1 4 .3 1 

2. California, Hawaii ........................................................................................................... 40,410 .3 21 .0 8 

3. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming ..................................... 22,592 .4 11 .6 4 

4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ..................................................... 20,321 10 .4 4 

5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ...................................................................... 11,370 5 .8 2 

6. Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................... 26,035 13 .5 5 

7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska .................................................................................. 8,867 4 .6 2 

8. Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee .............................................. 2,624 1 .4 1 

9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia ......................................................................... 17,188 8 .9 3 

10. District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 

Virginia ........................................................................................................................... 7,039 3 .6 1 

11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ........................................................ 11,965 6 .2 2 

12. New York ..................................................................................................................... 12,713 6 .6 2 

13. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont ........ 4,036 .5 2 .1 1 

Total ............................................................................................................................ 193,468 .3 100 36 

* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011. 

** Puerto Rico—Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011. 

In 2010, total milk production was 

193,468 million pounds and each of the 

Dairy Board members would represent 

5,374 million pounds of milk. For 2007, 

total milk production was 185,558 

million pounds of milk and each of the 

Dairy Board members represented 5,154 

million pounds of milk. 

Based on the 2010 milk production 

data, the Dairy Board proposes that 

member representation in Region 1 

(Alaska, Oregon, and Washington) be 

increased by one member. Milk 

production in Region 1 increased to 

8,307 million pounds in 2010, up from 

7,764 million pounds in 2007, 

indicating two Dairy Board members 

(8,307 divided by 5,374 = 1.545) 

compared to one Dairy Board member 

based on 2007 milk production data. 

Milk production in Region 2 

(California and Hawaii) decreased from 

40,683 million pounds in 2007 to 40,410 

million pounds in 2010. The Dairy 

Board proposes that seven Dairy Board 

members (40,410 divided by 5,374 = 

7.519) represent Region 2, compared to 

eight Dairy Board members based on 

2007 milk production data. 

Milk production in Region 3 (Arizona, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

Utah, and Wyoming) increased from 

21,212 million pounds in 2007 to 22,592 

million pounds in 2010. Specifically, in 

Idaho, milk production increased from 

10,905 million pounds in 2007 to 12,779 

pounds in 2010 and represents more 

than half of the production of Region 3. 

Due to the increase in Idaho production, 

the Dairy Board proposes apportioning 

Idaho as its own region with two Dairy 

Board members. 

Milk production in Region 8 

(Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Tennessee) decreased 

from 3,119 million pounds in 2007 to 

2,624 million pounds in 2010. The 

Dairy Board concluded that Region 8 no 

longer supports one Dairy Board 

member (2,624 divided by 5,374 = 

0.488) and proposes to merge Region 8 

into Region 10 (District of Columbia, 

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto 

Rico, South Carolina, and Virginia) to 

create a new region with two Dairy 

Board members. 

Similarly, milk production in Region 

13 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 53847 

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont) decreased from 4,046 million 

pounds in 2007 to 4,036 million pounds 

in 2010. The Dairy Board concluded 

that Region 13 no longer supports one 

Dairy Board member (4,036 divided by 

5,374 = 0.751) and proposes to merge 

Region 13 into Region 12 (New York), 

creating a new region with three Dairy 

Board members. 

Table 2 summarizes by region, the 

volume of milk production distribution 

for 2010, the percentage of total milk 

production and the proposed regions 

and States and proposed Dairy Board 

members. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED REGIONS AND NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS

Proposed regions and states 

Milk 

production 

(mil. lbs.) 

Percentage of 

total milk 

production 

Proposed 

number of 

board seats 

1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington ......................................................................................... 8,307 .1 4 .3 2 

2. California, Hawaii ........................................................................................................... 40,410 .3 21 .0 7 

3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming ................................................ 9,813 .4 5 .0 2 

4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ..................................................... 20,321 10 .4 4 

5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ...................................................................... 11,370 5 .8 2 

6. Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................... 26,035 13 .5 5 

7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska .................................................................................. 8,867 4 .6 2 

8. Idaho .............................................................................................................................. 12,779 6 .6 2 

9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia ......................................................................... 17,188 8 .9 3 

10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia .............................. 9,663 5 .0 2 

11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ........................................................ 11,965 6 .2 2 

12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, 

Vermont .......................................................................................................................... 16,749 .5 8 .7 3 

Total ............................................................................................................................ 193,468 .3 100 36 

* Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011. 

** Puerto Rico—Various Agricultural Statistics, 2010 Summary, NASS, 2011. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

for interested persons to comment on 

this proposed rule. Twelve terms of 

existing Dairy Board members will 

expire on October 31, 2011. Thus a 

15-day comment period is provided to 

provide for a timely appointment of new 

Dairy Board members based on the 

current geographic distribution of milk 

production in the United States. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1150 

Dairy products, Milk, Promotion, 

Research. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 

1150 be amended as follows: 

PART 1150—DAIRY PROMOTION 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1150 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4501–4514 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

2. In § 1150.131, paragraph (b) is 

amended by revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), 

(b)(8), (b)(10), (b)(12), and removing 

paragraph (b)(13) to read as follows: 

§ 1150.131 Establishment and 

membership. 

(a) * * * 

(b) Thirty-six members of the Board 

shall be United States producers. For 

purposes of nominating producers to the 

Board, the United States shall be 

divided into twelve geographic regions 

and the number of Board members from 

each region shall be as follows: 

(1) Two members from region number 

one comprised of the following States: 

Alaska, Oregon and Washington. 

(2) Seven members from region 

number two comprised of the following 

States: California and Hawaii. 

(3) Two members from region number 

three comprised of the following States: 

Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, 

Utah and Wyoming. 

* * * * * 

(8) Two members from region number 

eight comprised of the following State: 

Idaho. 

* * * * * 

(10) Two members from region 

number 10 comprised of the following 

States: Alabama, District of Columbia, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, South 

Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. 

* * * * * 

(12) Three members from region 

number 12 comprised of the following 

States: Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

York, Rhode Island and Vermont. 

Dated: August 22, 2011. 

David Shipman, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22154 Filed 8–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P; 3410–20–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Chapter I 

[NRC–2009–0279] 

New International Commission on 

Radiological Protection; 

Recommendations on the Annual Dose 

Limit to the Lens of the Eye 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is continuing its stakeholder outreach of 

possible changes to the radiation 

protection standards by seeking public 

comment on the newly released 

International Commission on 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) 

recommendations for the limitation of 

annual dose to the lens of the eye. This 

significant new recommendation has 

not yet been the subject of any 

stakeholder or public interactions on 

any potential changes to the NRC’s 

radiation protection regulations. The 

NRC has not initiated rulemaking on 

this subject, and is seeking early input 

and views on the benefits and impacts 

of options to be considered before 

making any decision on whether to 

consider this issue for future 

rulemaking. Stakeholders and the public 

are encouraged to submit comments 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS