Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13385

statements prepared by State association

staff members or individuals who

prepare annual financial statements,

provided that such statements are

certified by two members of the State

association. In addition, State

associations that receive less than

$10,000 annually must submit to the

Board a CPA audited financial statement

at least every 5 years. Financial

statements of SPPAs that receive less

than $2,000 annually in distributed

assessments are audited by the Board.

The annual minimum dollar amounts

of distributed assessments of $10,000

and $2,000 referenced above were

established effective August 11, 1988

(53 FR 30243). These minimum dollar

requirements were established to enable

the smaller SPPAs that receive relatively

smaller amounts of annual assessments

to minimize the cost of CPA audits,

which could represent a significant

proportion of their total assessments.

Since then, the annual amount of

assessments distributed by the Board to

the SPPAs has increased as a result of

an increase in the assessment rate

effective December 1, 1991 (56 FR

51635), and some annual increases in

domestic hog prices and in the number

of hogs marketed. Consequently, it is the

Board’s view that the minimum dollar

amount now is not high enough to

enable a sufficient number of the

smaller SPPAs to minimize the costs of

preparing and submitting annual

financial reports and thus have

additional funds available to finance

promotion and research projects.

The amount of annual assessments

distributed to the 45 SPPAs in 1993

ranged from less than $1,000 to nearly

$1.4 million. Seventeen State

associations received less than $30,000,

and four of those State associations

received less than $2,000. To minimize

the costs of CPA audits for the 13 State

associations whose annual assessments

are more than $2,000, but less than

$30,000, the Board has recommended

that the annual minimum dollar amount

of distributed assessments that triggers

the requirement of an annual CPA audit

be increased from $10,000 to $30,000.

The provision that the Board audits

financial statements of SPPAs that

receive less than $2,000 in annual

distributed assessments would remain

unchanged.

Since the establishment in 1988 of the

initial minimum dollar amount of

assessments for which a CPA audit is

required, neither the Board nor the

Department has encountered any

problems with SPPAs preparing and

submitting financial statements or the

safeguarding of assessments.

Accordingly, based on the Board’s

findings and its recommendations

discussed above, we propose that the

provisions of § 1230.74(c) of the Order

containing the requirements for the

SPPA’s submission of annual financial

audits to the Board be terminated.

Further, we propose that the

requirements for submission of annual

audits be revised based on the Board’s

recommendations and published in the

rules and regulations implementing the

Order. The revised requirements would

provide that SPPAs that receive less

than $30,000 in assessments would be

required to submit unaudited financial

statements to the Board. The other

requirements of § 1230.74(c) would

remain unchanged.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1230

Administrative practice and

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural

research, Marketing agreement, Meat

and meat products, Pork and pork

products.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR Part

1230 be amended as set forth below:

PART 1230—PORK PROMOTION,

RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER

INFORMATION

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1230 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4801–4819.

2. In § 1230.74, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1230.74 [Amended]

* * * * *

(b) Organizations receiving

distributions of assessments from the

Board shall furnish the Board with

annual financial statements audited by

a certified public accountant of all funds

distributed to such organizations

pursuant to this subpart and any other

reports as may be required by the

Secretary or the Board in order to verify

the use of such funds.

* * * * *

3. A new § 1230.115 would be added

to Subpart B—Rules and Regulations, to

read as follows.

§ 1230.115 Submission of annual financial

statements.

State Pork Producer Associations, as

defined in § 1230.25, that receive

distributions of assessments pursuant to

§ 1230.72 and that receive less than

$30,000 in assessments annually, may

satisfy the requirements of § 1230.74(b)

by providing to the Board unaudited

annual financial statements prepared by

State association staff members or

individuals who prepare annual

financial statements, provided that two

members of the State association attest

to and certify such financial statements.

Notwithstanding any provisions of the

Order to the contrary, State associations

that receive less than $30,000 in

distributed assessments annually and

submit unaudited annual financial

statements to the Board shall be

required to submit an annual financial

statement audited by a certified public

accountant at least once every 5 years,

or more frequently if deemed necessary

by the Board or the Secretary. The Board

may elect to conduct its own audit of

the annual financial statements of State

Pork Producer Associations that receive

less than $2,000 in distributed

assessments annually, every 5 years in

lieu of the required financial statements.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6096 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. PRM–20–23]

Steve Gannis, Denial of Petition for

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition

for rulemaking (PRM–20–23) from Steve

Gannis. The petition is being denied on

the basis that the proposed action is not

necessary because: current public dose

limits adequately protect the health and

safety of the public; the requirement

that doses are as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) provides an ample

margin of safety; and the proposed 1

mrem/yr limit is not supported by the

recommendations of the International

Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP), the National Council on

Radiation Protection and Measurements

(NCRP), or Presidential guidance.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for

rulemaking, the public comments

received, and the NRC’s letter to the

petitioner are available for public

inspection or copying in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charleen T. Raddatz, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear
13386 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, telephone (301) 415–6215.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

By letter dated January 8, 1994, Mr.

Steve Gannis filed a petition for

rulemaking with the NRC. The

petitioner requested that the NRC

reduce the limit for radiation dose to

members of the public from the current

100 mrem/yr to 1 mrem/yr.

As a basis for the requested action, the

petitioner cited the NRC policy

statement on radiation doses that should

be considered ‘‘Below Regulatory

Concern’’ (BRC)(issued July 3, 1990; FR

27522, and withdrawn August 24, 1993;

58 FR 44610). Table 1 (July 3, 1990; 55

FR 27527 and 55 FR 27232) of that

policy statement shows that if a person

received the maximum allowable dose

every year of the average 70-year lifespan, he or she would have an

additional 1 in 285 chance of death from

cancer as a result of that dose. The

petitioner further contends that nonfatal cancers would result at the same

rate.

Public Comments on the Petition:

Summary and Analysis

On April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17746), the

NRC published a notice of the receipt of

a petition for rulemaking in the Federal

Register. Interested persons were

invited to submit written comments

concerning the petition by June 28,

1994. The NRC received 34 letters of

comment from 30 individuals in

response to the notice. Two commenters

submitted addenda to their comments

which were docketed separately. These

are summarized in Table 1. Table 1.

TABLE 1

Comments Category For Against

6 ............. Individuals 4 2

5 ............. Radiation

Protection Professional

Organizations

Representatives.

............. 5

TABLE 1—Continued

Comments Category For Against

12 ........... Environmental

Group

Representatives.

11 1

7 ............. NRC Licensee

Representatives.

............. 7

Comments in Favor of the Petition

Several commenters in favor of the

petition gave no reasons for their

support. These commenters only

repeated the position in the petition.

One commenter believed that no more

than 2.5 mrem/yr limit was reasonable.

One commenter said that only a zero

dose limit was acceptable. Another

commenter said that having reviewed

the application for a low-level waste

storage facility, it is evident that 1

mrem/yr is achievable for that facility

and, therefore, reasonable for all

facilities under NRC jurisdiction. Many

of those who commented in support of

the petition stated that they were

appalled that NRC would condone the

thousands of unnecessary deaths caused

each year by doses to members of the

public from exposure to NRC-licensed

material.

NRC Response

None of the commenters in favor of

the petition presented any information

that was convincing concerning the

need for a lower dose limit for members

of the public. Annual doses to members

of the public from natural and manmade sources are summarized in Table

2 (from NCRP Reports, Numbers 92, 93,

94, and 95).

TABLE 2

Source

Average annual

dose

in mSv mrem

Naturally occurring

radon ....................... 2.0 200.0

Other naturally occurring .......................... 1.0 100.0

All occupational exposures ........................ 0.009 0.9

Nuclear fuel cycle ....... 0.0005 0.1

Other consumer products .......................... 0.1 10.0

Diagnostic medical xrays .......................... 0.39 39.0

Nuclear medicine ........ 0.14 14.0

Total ................. 3.64 364.0

Inspection data since 1982 shows that

effluents and direct radiation dose rates

continue to decline. As doses to

members of the public are calculated

from these, it is reasonable to assume

that public doses have continued to

decline as well.

While those who live nearest to NRClicensed facilities are in principle

allowed to receive up to the limit of 100

mrem/yr, most receive only a small

fraction of this. The reason for this is

that ALARA programs in place to

supplement the dose limit result in a

system of dose control which achieves

doses significantly below the limit. As

a consequence of this approach, the

average dose to most members of the

public from NRC-licensed facilities is

well below 1 mrem/yr. Naturally

occurring radioactivity is responsible for

an average of 300 mrem/yr. In some

areas, the dose from naturally occurring

radioactivity is considerably higher (up

to 900 mrem/yr according to NCRP

Report No. 93). The ICRP, in its 1990

recommendations on dose limits in

Report Number 60, confirmed that there

is no new biological evidence that

suggests that there should be a

reduction in the limit for members of

the public. The ICRP recommendation

for dose to members of the public is 100

mrem/yr with certain provisions for

deviations up to 500 mrem/yr. The

NCRP reached the same conclusions in

Report Number 116.

One commenter stated that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

limit for members of the public is only

10 mrem/yr. Therefore, the NRC limit of

100 mrem/yr does not protect the health

and safety of the public. However, 10

mrem/yr is the EPA Clean Air Act limit

for dose from a single pathway of

exposure; namely, the dose a member of

the public might receive from airborne

releases of radioactive material from a

facility. Members of the public might

receive doses from other pathways as

well, including radioactive material in

food, water, on the ground, and in the

soil, and direct radiation from the

facility in which the radioactive

material is stored or used. Presidential

Guidance to Federal Agencies on dose

limits for Public Exposure (May 18,

1960; 25 FR 4402), signed by former

President Eisenhower, recommends a

value of 500 mrem/yr for all pathways.

This guidance is currently under

consideration for revision and is

expected to be revised to 100 mrem/yr

from all pathways (see proposed

revision published December 23, 1994

(59 FR 66414). NRC’s limit of 100

mrem/yr from all pathways, from

licensed and unlicensed sources, under

the control of the licensee, including the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13387

provision that any dose must be as low

as is reasonably achievable, has the

effect of being at least as protective as

EPA regulations. In a survey conducted

by the EPA to determine if NRC

licensees were releasing radioactive

materials to the environment in excess

of EPA Clean Air Act limits, the EPA

found that none of the NRC licensees

surveyed had airborne effluents

resulting in doses greater than 10 mrem/

yr and the vast majority resulted in

doses less than 1 mrem/yr to the

member of the public likely to receive

the highest dose.

Comments Opposed to the Petition

Commenters opposed to the petition

presented a variety of reasons for their

opposition. Most commenters stated

that some current uses of radioactive

materials could not continue under a 1

mrem/yr limit for members of the

public. Further, some of the commenters

stated that it would be impossible to

demonstrate compliance with a limit so

low that it could not be measured. Many

commenters stated that there would be

no significant increase in the protection

of public health and safety. Other

commenters concluded that the lower

limit would result in a significant

decrease in protection of the health and

safety of the public. Some commenters

came to this conclusion based on the

estimated risks from effluents, waste,

and radiation dose from alternate

methods for production of electric

power (e.g., coal, oil). Other commenters

based the conclusion on the increased

risk from surgical procedures and

alternate chemical treatments for

patients now treated with radioactive

materials. Some commenters argued that

economic considerations would

preclude certain uses of radioactive

material such as some medical uses.

Therefore, the mortality risk from

certain cancers would be much higher

without the use of radioactive materials

in treatment. Radioactive treatments

performed to reduce pain and suffering

in the last months of life for many

cancer patients would also have to be

stopped.

Many commenters opposed to the

petition believed that the risk was

exaggerated in the petition. They stated

that the risk estimate referenced by the

petitioner assumed that every

individual would receive the maximum

allowable dose every year of his or her

life. Some commenters believed it

inappropriate to use the conservative

linear non-threshold model to

extrapolate from doses between a few

thousand mrem and millions of mrem,

delivered in a fraction of a second, to

the 100 mrem/yr limit. They believed it

unreasonable to give no consideration to

possible repair mechanisms or to the

existence of any tolerance to radiation

dose. Further, commenters contended

that licensees must demonstrate

compliance with the limit for members

of the public by assuming that a member

of the public is present at the location

of highest dose rate, 24 hours a day, 365

days a year. The commenter therefore

concluded that the actual risk is much

smaller than the petitioner believes.

Most commenters opposed to the

petition cited the recent

recommendations of both the ICRP and

the NCRP. Both organizations

recommend that dose to members of the

public not exceed 500 mrem in any one

year and not average more than 100

mrem/yr. NCRP states that a dose of 500

mrem in a year is not especially

hazardous if the same group does not

receive that dose year after year.

One commenter compared 1 mrem/yr

exposure to common radiation sources.

Some of the examples given were: (1)

Flying from New York City to Los

Angeles exposes each passenger and

crew member to 5 mrem; (2) a one week

Colorado ski trip raises your annual

exposure by 11 mrem; and (3) sleeping

in bed with another person exposes

each person to 0.1 mrem/yr from

exposure to radioactive material in the

other person’s body. This commenter

argued that radiation is the most studied

hazard agent on earth. This commenter

stated that after 99 years and billions of

research dollars, no statistically

significant negative effects of low levels

of radiation have been shown in well

controlled studies, and in fact, some

studies suggest that there may be

benefits from chronic, low level

radiation exposure, possibly because, by

stimulating enzyme production, the

organism is protected from damage by

stronger radiation and toxic chemicals.

This commenter’s argument is based, in

part, on the observation that background

radiation levels in Colorado are about

twice that of the rest of the United

States, yet cancer rates are tied for the

third lowest in the nation.

NRC Response

For the reasons stated as the basis for

the denial, the NRC agrees with those

commenters who were opposed to the

petition.

Reasons for Denial

The NRC has considered the petition,

the public comments received, and

other related information and has

concluded that the issues raised by the

petition are insufficient to justify

rulemaking to reduce the limit for

members of the public. The following is

a discussion of the details of that

conclusion.

The primary concern of the petition is

the perception that the 100 mrem/yr

limit for radiation exposure from

radioactive sources under the control of

NRC licensees poses an unacceptable

risk to the population of the United

States. In 1994, the ICRP Main

Commission fully discussed the issue of

dose limits for members of the public

together with the statements to the 1994

United Nations Scientific Committee on

the Effects of Atomic Radiation

(UNSCEAR). The ICRP confirmed that

there was no new biological evidence

that suggested that there should be a

revision to the cancer risk estimates in

ICRP Publication 60 and no reason to

revise the recommendation that the

average dose over a five year period not

exceed 100 mrem/yr for members of the

public (allowing for infrequent

exposures up to 500 mrem/yr). The

NCRP examined the UNSCEAR 1988

report, the report by the National

Academy of Sciences/National Research

Council Committee on the Biological

Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V)

(NAS/NRC, 1990), and the

recommendations of the ICRP and

issued recommendations that United

States regulatory agencies establish

limits for exposure to man-made

radiation sources by members of the

public to an annual average not to

exceed 100 mrem/yr with allowances

for infrequent exposures up to 500

mrem/yr.

The petitioner contends that the NRC

limit of 100 mrem/yr doubles the

average background radiation dose to

which members of the public are

exposed. In fact, the NRC system of dose

control includes the ALARA concept

that doses should be controlled below

the dose limits and to levels which are

as low as reasonably achievable. As a

consequence, the actual doses from

licensed activities are only a very small

fraction of the annual background dose

to members of the public which

averages 300 mrem/yr in the United

States.

The petitioner states that ‘‘Federal

Government standards on how much

cancer can be caused among the public

by cancer-causing pollutants and

contaminants generally permit, at most,

approximately 1 cancer per million

people.’’ However, the EPA National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPS); Radionuclides

(54FR51655) states that ‘‘a principle that

accompanies these numerical goals is

that the state of art of risk assessment

does not enable numerical risk estimates

to be made with comparable confidence.

Therefore, judgment must be used in
13388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,

the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and

the Office of Thrift Supervision.

deciding how numerical risk estimates

are considered with respect to these

goals.’’ The NESHAPS standard for

emissions of radioactive material from

NRC licensed facilities is 10 mrem/yr

for the air effluent release pathway

alone. While the results of the 1993

reports to EPA have not been provided

to NRC, a survey of NRC licensed

facility air emissions performed by EPA

in 1992 revealed that no NRC licensed

facility surveyed exceeded that value.

Almost all of the facilities surveyed in

1992 had air effluents which resulted in

doses an order of magnitude lower for

the maximally exposed individuals.

Taking these considerations into

account, with respect to reducing the

radiation dose limit to members of the

public from 100 mrem/yr to 1 mrem/yr,

the petition fails to recognize the net

effect of the NRC’s system of dose

control and the role played by the dose

limit and ALARA programs.

When these are taken into account,

NRC’s judgment is that the public is

adequately protected, the health risks

from NRC licensed activities are low,

and no change in basic radiation

protection standards, as petitioner

suggests, is warranted.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of March, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–6069 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 722

Appraisals

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Proposed amendments.

SUMMARY: The NCUA Board is

proposing amendments to its regulation

regarding the appraisal of real estate,

adopted pursuant to Title XI of the

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery

and Enforcement Act of 1989. The

proposed amendments simplify

compliance with regulatory

requirements for credit unions by

changing provisions of the appraisal

regulation that govern: the publication

of the Uniform Standards of

Professional Appraisal Practice;

minimum appraisal standards;

appraisals to address safety and

soundness concerns; unavailable

information; additional appraisal

standards developed by credit unions;

and appraiser independence. The

proposed amendments should reduce

costs without affecting the reliability of

appraisals used in connection with

federally related transactions.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

or received by May 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Becky

Baker, Secretary of the Board, National

Credit Union Administration, 1775

Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314

or via NCUA’s electronic bulletin board

to Becky Baker at 703–518–6480.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent

Buckham, Deputy Director, (703) 518–

6360, Herbert Yolles, Director,

Department of Risk Management, Office

of Examination and Insurance, (703)

518–6360 or Michael McKenna, Staff

Attorney, Office of General Counsel,

(703) 518–6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Title XI of the Financial Institutions

Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act

of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. 3331 et

seq., directed NCUA and the other

financial institution regulatory agencies

to publish appraisal rules for federally

related real estate transactions within

the jurisdiction of each agency. Section

1121(4) of FIRREA, 12 U.S.C 3350(4),

defines a federally related transaction as

a real estate-related financial transaction

that, among other things, requires the

services of an appraiser. A real estaterelated financial transaction is defined

as any transaction that involves (i) the

sale, lease, purchase, investment in or

exchange of real property, including

interests in property, or the financing

thereof; (ii) the refinancing of real

property or interests in real property;

and (iii) the use of real property or

interests in real property as security for

a loan or investment, including

mortgage-backed securities. See 12

U.S.C. 3350(5).

In July of 1990, the Board published

regulations to meet the requirements of

Title XI of FIRREA. See 55 FR 30199,

July 25, 1990. The Board recognized that

not all real estate-related financial

transactions would require an appraisal.

Accordingly, in the original appraisal

regulation, NCUA did not require a

state-certified or -licensed appraiser for

real estate-related transactions having a

transaction value less than or equal to

$50,000. In July of 1993, the Board

raised the de minimus amount for an

appraisal performed by a state-certified

or -licensed appraiser to $100,000 (See

58 F.R. 40040, July 27, 1993). The dollar

threshold was raised because NCUA had

not found any evidence indicating that

there had been a significant increase in

the defaults on real estate-related loans

of less than $50,000 and that the

increase would not represent a threat to

the safety and soundness of credit

unions but rather would reduce

unnecessary costs and paperwork

requirements.

Recently, the other federal financial

institution regulatory agencies 1 have

increased the threshold to $250,000. See

59 FR 29482, June 7, 1994. The Board

has considered whether the de minimus

level should be increased for federallyinsured credit unions. At this time, the

Board does not perceive a need to

increase the threshold. Many credit

unions do not have the on-staff

expertise to prepare appraisals. In

addition, although credit unions are

well capitalized, they are generally

much smaller than other financial

institutions. As a result, the relative size

of an average real estate loan to capital

is generally much higher for a credit

union, which translates to much greater

relative risk. A major portion of the

losses to the National Credit Union

Share Insurance Fund in the past ten

years has been associated with real

estate lending.

For credit unions that do engage in

real estate lending, the greatest single

risk protection they can obtain is a

licensed or certified appraisal to support

the loan-to-value ratio. The current

thresholds of $100,000 for residential

real estate and $50,000 for commercial

property are sufficiently high to

preclude most home equity or second

trust lending from the appraisal

requirement, but are low enough to

ensure that professional appraisals are

obtained for higher-dollar value real

estate lending. Therefore, the Board is

not proposing to increase either of these

dollar thresholds. However, the Board

believes that the appraisal regulation

can be revised to provide clarity and

ease the regulatory burden on credit

unions for some categories of

transactions.

B. Proposed Amendments

While in most cases an appraisal is an

essential part of a sound underwriting

decision, the Board believes that NCUA

should not require Title XI appraisals

where they impose costs without

significantly promoting the safety and

soundness of credit unions or furthering

the purposes of Title XI of FIRREA.

Accordingly, the Board is proposing to

amend its appraisal regulation to clarify