Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24249

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12057 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 72

[Docket No. PRM–72–3]

Fawn Shillinglaw; Receipt of Petition

for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice

of receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has received and

requests public comment on a petition

for rulemaking filed by Fawn

Shillinglaw. The petition has been

docketed by the Commission and has

been assigned Docket No. PRM–72–3.

The petitioner requests that the NRC

amend its regulations which govern

independent storage of spent nuclear

fuel in dry storage casks to require that

the safety analysis report for a cask

design fully conforms with the

associated NRC safety evaluation report

and certificate of compliance before

NRC certification of the cask design.

The petitioner also requests that the

revision date and number of a safety

analysis report be specified whenever

that report is referenced in documents.

The petitioner believes that her proposal

would eliminate confusion among

licensees, vendors, fabricators, and

others who often refer to only the safety

analysis report as the relevant document

when there may be revisions that must

be included to ensure compliance with

the NRC safety evaluation report and

certificate of compliance. The petitioner

also believes that the NRC must clarify

the process for modification of a safety

analysis report after a cask has been

certified.

DATES: Submit comments by July 29,

1996. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but assurance of consideration

cannot be given except as to comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45

am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write:

Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

For information regarding electronic

submission of comments, see the

language in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll Free:

800–368–5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

received a petition for rulemaking

submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw in the

form of two letters addressed to

Chairman Jackson dated December 9

and December 29, 1995. A

determination by the Office of the

General Counsel on March 5, 1996,

specified that the issues presented

would be treated as a petition for

rulemaking. The petition was docketed

as PRM–72–3 on March 14, 1996. The

petitioner requests that the NRC amend

its regulations in 10 CFR Part 72

entitled, ‘‘Licensing Requirements for

the Independent Storage of Spent

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level

Radioactive Waste.’’

Specifically, the petitioner requests

that 10 CFR Part 72 be amended to

require that the safety analysis report

(SAR) for a spent fuel dry storage cask

design fully conforms with the

associated NRC safety evaluation report

(SER) and certificate of compliance

(COC) before NRC certification of the

cask design. The petitioner also requests

that 10 CFR Part 72 be amended to

require that the revision date and

number of an SAR be specified

whenever that report is referenced in

documents. The petitioner believes

there is confusion among licensees,

vendors, fabricators, and others who

often refer to only the safety analysis

report as if it is the only relevant

document when there may be revisions

that must be included to prevent

discrepancies between versions of the

SAR and the NRC SER and COC for a

specific cask design.

The petitioner cites the VSC–24 cask,

designed by Sierra Nuclear Corporation,

as an example where revisions to the

SAR occurred after the NRC SER and

COC were issued. The petitioner

believes that no procedures are

currently in place to permit a cask

vendor to make changes to its SAR after

issuance of the NRC SER and COC. The

petitioner also believes that this

situation creates confusion and the

possibility that an SAR version is being

used that directly contradicts SER and

COC requirements. The petitioner asks

for an explanation of the process that

the NRC used for allowing changes to be

made by the vendor to the VSC–24 cask

after NRC certification, what were those

changes, and how this was

accomplished without rulemaking. The

petitioner also recommends that the

NRC make cask unloading procedures

publicly available.

The NRC is soliciting public comment

on the petition for rulemaking

submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw that

requests the changes to the regulations

in 10 CFR Part 72 as discussed below.

Discussion of the Petition

The petitioner notes that the

regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 establish

requirements and criteria for the

certification of spent fuel dry storage

cask designs by the NRC. The petitioner

is concerned that no process exists in

the regulations for a cask vendor to

make changes to a generically approved

and certified dry storage cask design.

The petitioner cites the VSC–24 cask as

an example where NRC certification was

issued for a design that was modified

after the actual certification took place.

The petitioner notes that NRC certified

the design for the VSC–24 cask on May

7, 1993. The vendor of the VSC–24 cask,

Sierra Nuclear Corporation (Sierra),

agreed to submit a revision to its SAR

(Rev. OA) for this cask in July 1993,

about 3 months after NRC certification,

because changes were necessary to meet

requirements contained in the NRC SER

and COC.

The petitioner states that this revision

was never completed and cites an NRC

letter to Sierra dated November 28,

1994, which indicated that the SAR still

needed modification to eliminate

contradictions and differences between

the VSC–24 cask SAR and the NRC SER

and COC. The petitioner cites a Sierra

submittal dated June 5, 1995, as the first

instance where a revision (Rev. 0AA)

appears with the necessary changes. The

petitioner also cites a letter from NRC to

Sierra which states that Revs. O and OA

insert material into the SAR that NRC

asked Sierra to perform. However, the

petitioner believes that the material

appears in the licensing record but not

in the SAR. The petitioner indicates that

constant references to the SAR exist in

various documents but is concerned that

the references do not specify the

revision number. The petitioner believes

this creates confusion and the

possibility that an SAR version is being
24250 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

used that may even contradict or differ

from SER and COC requirements.

The petitioner has concluded that a

final SAR for a spent fuel dry storage

cask design should be accepted which

completely fulfills all NRC SER and

COC requirements before the cask is

certified. The petitioner also believes

that the NRC must address how the final

vendor SAR can be modified as needed

after a cask design is certified.

Currently, the only way an SAR can be

amended is through rulemaking. The

petitioner has also concluded that the

SAR revision number and date should

be required whenever that document is

referenced to eliminate confusion and

prevent a situation where an SAR does

not meet NRC SER and COC

requirements. Lastly, the petitioner is

concerned that the NRC is withholding

cask unloading procedures from the

public and recommends that the NRC

make these procedures publicly

available. The petitioner cites an

example of a faulty dry cask at the

Palisades facility where the licensee has

been waiting to have a final unloading

procedure approved by the NRC. The

petitioner has concluded that dry cask

storage issues should be addressed and

resolved by the NRC to set the proper

precedent for the national nuclear waste

disposal program.

Electronic Submission of Comments

Comments may be submitted

electronically, in either ASCII text or

WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or

later), by calling the NRC Electronic

Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The

bulletin board may be accessed using a

personal computer, a modem, and one

of the commonly available

communications software packages, or

directly via Internet. Background

documents on this rulemaking are also

available for downloading and viewing

on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and

modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem

on FedWorld can be accessed directly

by dialing the toll free number (800)

303–9672. Communication software

parameters should be set as follows:

parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop

bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT–100

terminal emulation, the NRC

rulemaking subsystem can then be

accessed by selecting the ‘‘Rules Menu’’

option from the ‘‘NRC Main Menu.’’

Users will find the ‘‘FedWorld Online

User’s Guides’’ particularly helpful.

Many NRC subsystems and data bases

also have a ‘‘Help/Information Center’’

option that is tailored to the particular

subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can

also be accessed by a direct dial phone

number for the main FedWorld BBS,

(703) 321–3339, or by using Telnet via

Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703)

321–3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC

subsystem will be accessed from the

main FedWorld menu by selecting the

‘‘Regulatory, Government

Administration and State Systems,’’

then selecting ‘‘Regulatory Information

Mall.’’ At that point, a menu will be

displayed that has an option ‘‘U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ that

will take you to the NRC Online main

menu. The NRC Online area also can be

accessed directly by typing ‘‘/go nrc’’ at

a FedWorld command line. If you access

NRC from FedWorld’s main menu, you

may return to FedWorld by selecting the

‘‘Return to FedWorld’’ option from the

NRC Online Main Menu. However, if

you access NRC at FedWorld by using

NRC’s toll-free number, you will have

full access to all NRC systems, but you

will not have access to the main

FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet,

you will see the NRC area and menus,

including the Rules Menu. Although

you will be able to download

documents and leave messages, you will

not be able to write comments or upload

files (comments). If you contact

FedWorld using FTP, all files can be

accessed and downloaded but uploads

are not allowed; all you will see is a list

of files without descriptions (normal

Gopher look). An index file listing all

files within a subdirectory, with

descriptions, is available. There is a 15-

minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can be

accessed through the World Wide Web,

like FTP, that mode only provides

access for downloading files and does

not display the NRC Rules Menu.

For more information on NRC bulletin

boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems

Integration and Development Branch,

NRC, Washington, DC 20555, telephone

(301) 415–5780; e-mail AXD3@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of May, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–12027 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–25–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 767 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, that

currently requires inspections to detect

cracking and corrosion of the aft

trunnion of the outer cylinder of the

main landing gear (MLG) and various

follow-on actions. That action also

provides for the optional termination of

the inspections by repairing the outer

cylinder and installing new aft trunnion

bushings. That AD was prompted by

reports of failure of several MLG due to

fractures of the aft trunnion outer

cylinders. The actions specified by that

AD are intended to prevent the collapse

of the MLG due to stress corrosion

cracking of the aft trunnion of the outer

cylinder. This proposed action would

require operators to implement the

previously optional terminating action.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

25–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

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James G. Rehrl, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2783;

fax (206) 227–1181.