Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28323

Federal Register. After the comment

period closes, we will publish another

document in the Federal Register. It

will include a discussion of any

comments we receive and any

amendments we are making to the rule

as a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

Cattle moved interstate are moved for

slaughter, for use as breeding stock, or

for feeding. Changing the brucellosis

status of Nebraska from Class A to Class

Free will promote economic growth by

reducing certain testing and other

requirements governing the interstate

movement of cattle from the State.

Testing requirements for cattle moved

interstate for immediate slaughter or to

quarantined feedlots are not affected by

this change. Cattle from certified

brucellosis-free herds moving interstate

are not affected by this change.

The groups affected by this action will

be herd owners in Nebraska, as well as

buyers and importers of cattle from the

State.

There are an estimated 24,000 cattle

herds in Nebraska that would be

affected by this rule. Ninety-eight

percent of these are owned by small

entities. Test-eligible cattle offered for

sale interstate from other than certifiedfree herds must have a negative test

under present Class A status

regulations, but not under regulations

concerning Class Free status. If such

testing were distributed equally among

all herds affected by this rule, Class Free

status would save approximately $4.60

per herd.

Therefore, we believe that changing

the brucellosis status of Nebraska would

not have a significant economic impact

on the small entities affected by this

interim rule.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

in conflict with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 78 is

amended as follows:

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS

1. The authority citation for part 78

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–114a–1, 114g,

115, 117, 120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f;

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

§ 78.41 [Amended]

2. In § 78.41, paragraph (a) is

amended by adding ‘‘Nebraska,’’

immediately after ‘‘Montana,’’.

3. In § 78.41, paragraph (b) is

amended by removing ‘‘Nebraska,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of

May 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–13365 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 34

RIN 3150–AF28

Performance Requirements for

Radiography Equipment

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending the

regulations pertaining to performance

requirements for radiography

equipment. The amended provision

permits a licensee to use an alternate

value of torque for the performance

testing criteria. The specified torque test

for the drive cable that is currently in

the regulations is not practical to meet,

given the design of radiographic

equipment. Further, the amendment

allows for the use of engineering

analysis to demonstrate that a modest

change in an already approved design is

acceptable without the need to perform

prototype tests. The amendment is

necessary to relieve licensees from

compliance with an impractical and

unnecessary test criterion.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Rich or J. Bruce Carrico, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

telephone (301) 415–7893 or (301) 415–

7826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 10, 1990 (55 FR 843) the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

published a revision to 10 CFR 34.20.

This regulation required that significant

safety improvements be made to

radiography equipment. Some of these

are stated explicitly in the regulation

and some are required through an

incorporation by reference of American

National Standards Institute N432–1980

(ANSI–N432). All newly manufactured

radiographic exposure devices and

associated equipment acquired by NRC

licensees after January 10, 1992, must

meet the requirements specified in 10

CFR 34.20, including the provisions of

ANSI–N432. All equipment in use after

January 10, 1996, must meet these

requirements. Vendors of source

assemblies, associated equipment, and

radiography exposure devices have

registered their designs with the NRC or

an Agreement State. This process allows

both the user and regulatory agency to

determine if the equipment meets the

applicable safety requirements. Two

vendors are located in Agreement States

and three are under NRC jurisdiction.

It has come to the attention of the

NRC staff that one of the test criteria

specified in section 8.9.2(c) of ANSI–

N432 is not practical and cannot be

implemented. This test criterion is also

not needed for demonstration of safety,

given the current design and use of

radiography equipment. The test in

question is a prototype endurance test of

the entire radiography system and, in

particular, is intended to ensure the

integrity of the source assembly for

20,000 operating cycles. The tests have

been performed for the specified

number of cycles and at the proper

rotational speed, but not at the value of
28324 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

torque specified in ANSI–N432. The

specific torque translates to

approximately 1345 newtons (300

pounds-force) tensile/compressive load

on the teleflex cable. It is apparently not

possible to actually test at the torque

values specified in the ANSI standard.

The torque requirement specified in

the ANSI test is not a reasonable

standard. First, it exceeds by a

considerable amount the torque that a

human can exert on the radiography

system while cranking the source in and

out by hand. Second, it would require

that the drive cable (Type 187 teleflex

cable used in radiography cameras for

the past decade) be operated beyond the

working load recommended by the

supplier of that component. The

recommended working load for the

standard cable for 10,000 cycles is less

than 583 newtons (130 pounds-force).

For 20,000 cycles, which the ANSI

endurance test specifies, the working

load would be lower.

The design of the drive cable system

in most radiography cameras has been

unchanged for more than a decade. The

NRC staff is not aware of any cable

failures as a result of fatigue. Cable

failures of this type would be clearly

visible to the radiographer and 10 CFR

34.30 requires reporting to NRC. Based

on the good operating experience with

the standard cable and the fact that an

individual is highly unlikely to generate

1345 newtons of force continuously on

the cable, the NRC staff believes that

testing equipment to the high torque

requirement of ANSI–N432 is not

needed to ensure system safety.

The NRC staff requested the American

National Standards Institute Committee

N43, the organization responsible for

development of the standard, to clarify

the basis for the test criterion. The

committee’s response indicates that the

requirement was adopted from an

International Standards Organization

standard, that it was not aware of the

severity of the requirement, and that it

was not aware of any manufacturer that

has tested equipment to this

requirement. Based on further

discussion with the N43’s working

group subcommittee chairman, the NRC

staff understands that the working group

intends to revise the standard to

incorporate a more realistic torque

requirement for the endurance test.

However, considering the approval and

publication process, a revised standard

would not be issued for at least 18

months. At that time the NRC staff will

evaluate the revised ANSI standard and

consider revising its regulations, if

necessary and appropriate for

maintaining public safety, when

radiography equipment is used.

The Amendment

Section 34.20 is being amended, first,

by inserting a new sentence in

paragraph (a) that will permit an

applicant or licensee to submit an

engineering analysis to demonstrate the

applicability of previously performed

testing on similar individual

radiography equipment components.

This addition codifies a long-standing

staff practice in evaluating radiography

equipment. For example, an engineering

analysis can demonstrate that a modest

change in design is acceptable without

repeating a prototype test.

Second, because of the flaw in the

ANSI standard criteria, the Commission

is amending its regulation in 10 CFR

34.20 to eliminate the impractical

torque test. In its place, a radiography

exposure device and associated systems

will be considered to be in compliance

with the performance requirements if

the prototype equipment was tested

using a value of a torque representative

of the torque that an individual using

the radiography equipment can

realistically exert, provided the

exposure device and associated

equipment are in compliance with all

other criteria in the referenced ANSI

standard. To accomplish this objective,

a new paragraph (f) is being added to 10

CFR 34.20, to specify that compliance

with the ANSI-N432–1980 torque value

for the endurance test is not required,

and that use of a realistic torque value

will satisfy the performance

requirement. Furthermore, all

radiography equipment currently shown

and sold by vendors meeting the current

part 34 requirements, will meet the

revised § 34.20. These vendors have

previously provided test results or

engineering analysis to either the

Agreement State or NRC to demonstrate

the products meet § 34.20. The revision

imposes a practical performance

requirement that is consistent with

industry practice while meeting NRC’s

objective to provide radiographers with

safe equipment. Therefore, the filing of

additional information with the

Commission to demonstrate compliance

with the revised § 34.20 requirement is

not necessary.

The Commission finds that public

comment on this rule is unnecessary

because the purpose of the rule is to

remove from the regulations an

impractical requirement and to stipulate

in its stead a practical standard that will

permit continued use of a specific

component, the drive cable, of

industrial radiography equipment long

in use without violating the

Commission’s regulation. The rule

change preserves the status quo for the

particular component.

Compatibility of Agreement State

Regulations

Section 34.20 is currently designated

as a Division II Matter of Compatibility

for Agreement State regulations. The

revisions addressed in this rule correct

a flaw in the regulations. The rule does

not affect the current compatibility

designations and therefore, 10 CFR

34.20 continues to be designated as a

Division II Matter of Compatibility.

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

final rule is the type of action described

in categorical exclusion 10 CFR

51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared for this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule does not contain a new

or amended information collection

requirement subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.). Existing requirements were

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget approval number 3150–

0007.

Regulatory Analysis

The NRC has prepared this final rule

to cure a defect in its regulations that

places an unnecessary and unwarranted

burden on certain of its licensees that

use sources and devices for radiography.

There is no other procedure available to

the NRC to efficiently and effectively

rectify the matter. There is no cost to the

licensed and regulated community in

the promulgation of this rule. This

discussion constitutes the regulatory

analysis for this rule.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this final rule, and therefore,

that a backfit analysis is not required for

this final rule because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions that would impose backfits

as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 34

Criminal penalties, Incorporation by

reference, Packaging and containers,

Radiation protection, Radiography,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Scientific equipment,

Security measures.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 28325

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,

the Commission is adopting the

following amendments to 10 CFR Part

34.

PART 34—LICENSES FOR

RADIOGRAPHY AND RADIATION

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR

RADIOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 34

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 81, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat.

935, 948, 953, 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); sec. 201, 88 Stat.

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

Section 34.32 also issued under sec. 206,

88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).

2. Section 34.20 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and adding a new

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 34.20 Performance requirements for

radiography equipment.

* * * * *

(a) Each radiographic exposure device

and all associated equipment must meet

the requirements specified in American

National Standards Institute N432–

1980, ‘‘Radiological Safety for the

Design and Construction of Apparatus

for Gamma Radiography,’’ (published as

NBS Handbook 136, issued January

1981). This publication has been

approved for incorporation by reference

by the Director of the Federal Register

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). This

publication may be purchased from the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402. Copies of the

document are available for inspection at

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

library, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, 20852–2738. A copy of the

document is also on file at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC

20408.

Engineering analyses may be

submitted by an applicant or licensee to

demonstrate the applicability of

previously performed testing on similar

individual radiography equipment

components. Upon review, the

Commission may find this an acceptable

alternative to actual testing of the

component pursuant to the referenced

standard.

* * * * *

(f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a),

(d), and (e) of this section, equipment

used in industrial radiographic

operations need not comply with

section 8.9.2(c) of the Endurance Test in

American National Standards Institute

N432–1980, if the prototype equipment

has been tested using a torque value

representative of the torque that an

individual using the radiography

equipment can realistically exert on the

lever or crankshaft of the drive

mechanism.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 17th day of

May, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–13205 Filed 5–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

24 CFR Part 135

[Docket No. R–95–1677; FR–2898–F–03]

RIN 2529–AA49

Economic Opportunities for Low- and

Very Low-Income Persons; Notice of

Extension of Effective Date for Interim

Rule

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity, HUD.

ACTION: Final rule; Extension of effective

period of interim rule.

SUMMARY: This rule extends the effective

period for HUD’s interim rule that

amended part 135 to implement the

comprehensive changes made to section

3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 by the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1992, until HUD publishes the

final rule for this program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule, which

extends the effective period of the

interim rule, is effective June 30, 1995.

The effective period for 24 CFR part

135 is extended from June 30, 1995 until

the final rule implementing the

comprehensive changes made to section

3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 by the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1992, is published and becomes

effective.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Waller, Office of Economic Opportunity,

Room 5232, Department of Housing and

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone

(202) 708–2251 (voice/TDD). (This is

not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Justification for Final Rulemaking

In general, HUD publishes a rule for

public comment before issuing a rule for

effect, in accordance with its own

regulations on rulemaking, 24 CFR part

10. However, part 10 provides for

exceptions from that general rule where

the agency finds good cause to omit

advance notice and public participation.

The good cause requirement is satisfied

when prior public procedure is

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest’’ (24 CFR 10.1).

HUD finds that good cause exists to

publish this rule for effect without first

soliciting public comment, because

prior public procedure is unnecessary.

This final rule is technical, in that it

merely extends the effective period for

existing regulations, and it effects no

substantive change to those regulations.

The public has had an opportunity to

comment on the substance of the

regulations, as the interim rule for this

program was published subject to the

normal 60-day public comment period,

and the interim rule was preceded by a

proposed rule which also provided a 60-

day public comment period.

II. Background

On June 30, 1994 (59 FR 33866), HUD

published an interim rule that amended

24 CFR part 135 to implement

comprehensive changes made to section

3 of the Housing and Urban

Development Act of 1968 by the

Housing and Community Development

Act of 1992. Section 3, as amended,

requires that economic opportunities

generated by certain HUD financial

assistance for housing (including public

and Indian housing) and community

development programs shall, to the

greatest extent feasible, be given to lowand very low-income persons,

particularly those who are recipients of

government assistance for housing, and

to businesses that provide economic

opportunities for these persons.

The preamble to the interim rule

described HUD’s policy of setting an

expiration date for an interim rule that

is effective unless a final rule is

published before that date. This

‘‘sunset’’ provision appears in § 135.2 of

the interim rule, and provides that the

interim rule will expire on June 30,

1995, which is 12 months after the

publication date.

The final rule amending 24 CFR part

135 to implement the comprehensive

changes made to section 3 of the

Housing and Urban Development Act of

1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), by the Housing

and Community Development Act of

1992, is in its last stages of review, and

publication is anticipated in June 1995.

However, in order to prevent a period in

which the Department will be without

effective regulations, HUD is extending

the effective period of the interim rule