26852 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

products that would compete with the

potential imports from Spain. A small

portion of these producers are very

large, and these specialty products

constitute only a small fraction of their

overall business. Therefore, we expect

the impact of the proposed change on

these large companies would be

minimal. However, the small producers

may be impacted by additional imports.

Yet, without specific information on (1)

the quantity of additional imports

generated by the rule change, (2) the

quantity of domestic production, and (3)

the degree to which Spanish imports

will displace other imports rather than

domestic production, the impact on

small domestic producers cannot be

predicted.

An alternative to this proposed rule is

to make no changes in the regulations.

We rejected this alternative because

Spain has had no reported cases of ASF

since September 1994, and, therefore,

we have no scientific reason to continue

considering Spain to be a country where

ASF exists.

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 would be

amended as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC

VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.8 [Amended]

2. In § 94.8, the introductory text

would be amended by removing the

words ‘‘, and Spain’’ and by adding the

word ‘‘and’’ immediately preceding the

word ‘‘Portugal’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

May 1996.

Donald Husnik,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13406 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 150

RIN 3150–AC57

Reasserting NRC’s Authority for

Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste

Disposal in Agreement States;

Withdrawal

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a

notice of proposed rulemaking that

would have reasserted the NRC’s

jurisdiction in Agreement States over

the disposal of licensed material

generated and disposed of at nuclear

reactor sites. The proposed rule would

also have clarified the jurisdiction over

disposal of noncritical waste quantities

of special nuclear material at reactors

and fuel cycle facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 22, 1988 (53 FR 31880),

the Commission published a notice of

proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register entitled ‘‘Reasserting NRC’s

Authority for Approving Onsite LowLevel Waste Disposal in Agreement

States.’’ This rule would have reasserted

the NRC’s jurisdiction in the Agreement

States over the disposal of low-level

radioactive waste generated and

disposed of at reactor sites. The

proposed rule would also have clarified

the jurisdiction over the disposal of

noncritical waste quantities of special

nuclear material at fuel cycle facilities.

The NRC would have authorized this

disposal under 10 CFR 20.302, but 10

CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection

Against Radiation,’’ was revised in May

1991 (56 FR 23360). The applicable

regulation is now 10 CFR 20.2002.

The purpose of the proposed rule was

to provide for a more centralized and

consistent regulatory review of all onsite

waste management activities and to

avoid duplication of regulatory effort by

the NRC and the Agreement States. The

uniform review process that would

result from the proposed rule was

intended to provide greater assurance

that onsite disposal of radioactive

material will not present a health hazard

and that the disposal of this waste in

this manner will not unnecessarily

complicate or delay decommissioning.

As a result of publishing the proposed

rule in the Federal Register, the NRC

received 49 comment letters. Twelve

commenters (24 percent) favored the

proposal, 37 commenters (76 percent)

opposed the proposal. Comments were

submitted by private citizens,

Agreement and Non-Agreement States,

nuclear utilities, nuclear utilities’

representatives, and various

conservation and public interest groups.

The vast majority of the comments

favoring the proposal were from nuclear

utilities and their representatives.

Comments opposed to the proposal

came from private citizens, Agreement

and Non-Agreement States, and

conservation and public interest groups.

Nineteen of the commenters questioned

the need for the proposed rule, six

commenters wanted the States’

participation in the approval process to

be specified, and a few States

questioned the NRC’s authority to

promulgate the rule. The remaining

commenters were concerned with better

definitions of the protected and

exclusion areas, the type of waste to be

covered by the rule, existing onsite

disposal, and the impact on regional

low-level waste disposal facilities. Some

States commented that the Agreement

States were more familiar with local

conditions and that their requirements

were more strict than the NRC’s. Of the

10 Agreement States that commented, 9

States were opposed to the

amendments. The remaining Agreement

State that commented supported the

rule but reserved the right to participate

in the approval process with full review

privileges and expected their concerns

to be addressed.

As a result of the public comments

received and the relatively low hazards
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26853

associated with onsite disposal of lowlevel waste radioactive material, the

NRC reevaluated the merits of the

proposed rule. In the 7 years since this

rulemaking was originally proposed,

there have been a number of approvals

granted by Agreement States for onsite

disposal of low-level waste material

under the equivalent of 10 CFR 20.2002

(successor to 20.302). The NRC staff is

not aware of any problems with the

Agreement States’ approvals of any

onsite burials of low-level waste

material.

Based on the comments received, the

relatively low hazards associated with

onsite disposal of this type of

radioactive material, and current

experience with disposals, the NRC has

reevaluated the issues and concluded

that it is not necessary to reassert its

regulatory jurisdiction over onsite

disposal at reactor sites in the

Agreement States.

Therefore, the proposed rule is not

required and is being withdrawn.

Withdrawal of the proposed rule does

not affect the current NRC jurisdiction

over disposal of special nuclear material

by reactor or fuel cycle licensees. With

the withdrawal of the proposed rule, the

Agreement States will maintain

jurisdiction over the disposal of lowlevel radioactive waste on nuclear

reactor sites.

Dated at Rockville, Md, this 22nd day of

May, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–13384 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–CE–99–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Don

Luscombe Aviation History Foundation

Model 8 Series Airplanes.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to The Don

Luscombe Aviation History Foundation

(referred to as Luscombe from hereon)

Model 8 series airplanes. The proposed

action would require installing new

inspection holes, modifying the wing tip

fairings, and inspecting the wing spars

for intergranular corrosion. Reports of

intergranular corrosion occurring in the

wings prompted the proposed action.

The actions specified by the proposed

AD are intended to prevent wing spar

failure resulting from intergranular

corrosion, which, if not detected and

corrected, could result in structural

failure of the wings and loss of control

of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 31, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–CE–99–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from The

Don Luscombe Aviation History

Foundation, P.O. Box 63581, Phoenix,

Arizona 85082; telephone (602) 917–

0969 and facsimile (602) 917–4719. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Lirio L. Liu, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd.,

Lakewood, California, 90712; telephone

(310) 627–5229; facsimile (310) 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

should 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 that

summarizes 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 No. 95–CE–99–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, Central Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 95–CE–99–AD, Room

1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106.

Discussion

The FAA has received reports of

corrosion occurring on both the metal

covered wing spars and the fabriccovered wing spars of the Luscombe

Model 8 series airplanes. The service

history of these airplanes indicates there

is a problem of limited access holes to

the interior of the metal covered wings

to look for any corrosion, which inhibits

inspecting the area around the wing

spar extrusions. The fabric covered

wings on the Luscomb Model 8

airplanes have adequate access holes for

inspecting purposes. Routine

maintenance inspections have reported

intergranular corrosion in the front and

rear spar extrusion in the wings of these

airplanes.

The Don Luscombe Aviation History

Foundation has issued Service

Recommendation No. 2, dated

December 15, 1993, Revised November

21, 1995, which specifies installing new

inspection holes, modifying the wing tip

fairings, and inspecting the wing spars

for intergranular corrosion.

After examining the circumstances

and reviewing all available information

related to the incidents described above,

the FAA has determined that AD action

should be taken to detect intergranular

corrosion in the wing spars, which, if

not detected and corrected, could result

in structural failure of the wings and

loss of control of the airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop in other Luscombe Model 8

series airplanes of the same type design,

the proposed AD would require

installing a total of four additional wing

inspection holes in the metal covered

wings to assist in conducting a more

thorough examination of the wing spars,

modifying the wing tip fairing so that it

is removable, and providing easier

access to the interior of the wings. A one