This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

13267

Vol. 66, No. 43

Monday, March 5, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Chapter I

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

7 CFR Chapter VIII

[Docket Number FGIS–2000–001b]

RIN 0580–AA73

Request for Public Comments on How

USDA Can Best Facilitate the

Marketing of Grains, Oilseeds, Fruits,

Vegetables, and Nuts in Today’s

Evolving Marketplace

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reopening and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing

Service and the Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register on November 30, 2000, asking

for comments on how USDA can best

facilitate the marketing of grains,

oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and nuts in

today’s evolving marketplace. The 90-

day comment period provided in the

ANPRM closed February 28, 2001. It has

been brought to our attention that

several potential commenters need

additional time to formulate their

responses to the ANPRM. Therefore, we

are reopening and extending the

comment period to provide interested

parties with additional time in which to

comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments on

this notice to Richard Hardy, GIPSA,

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW., Room 0757–S, Washington, DC

20250–3650. Comments may also be

sent by fax to (202) 720–2459; filed via

the Internet through the GIPSA

homepage at www.usda.gov/gipsa; or emailed to anpr@gipsadc.usda.gov.

It is our intention to have all

comments on the advance notice of

proposed rulemaking available for

viewing on the GIPSA homepage at

www.usda.gov/gipsa in a timely

manner.

Comments are also available for

viewing in room 0757–S from 9 a.m. to

12 noon and from 1p.m. to 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday (except official

Federal holidays) (7 CFR 1.27). Persons

wanting to visit the USDA South

Building to view the comments are

requested to make an appointment in

advance by calling (202) 720–4848.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marianne Plaus, Assistant to the Deputy

Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection

Service, GIPSA, 202–690–3460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Agricultural Marketing Service and the

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration published an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) in the Federal Register on

November 30, 2000 (65 FR 71272),

asking for comments on how USDA can

best facilitate the marketing of grains,

oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and nuts in

today’s evolving marketplace.

Comments on the ANPRM were

required to be received on or before

February 28, 2001. Several potential

commenters have indicated a need for

additional time to formulate their

responses to the ANPRM. Therefore, we

are reopening and extending the

comment period for the ANPRM for an

additional 45 days. This action will

allow interested persons additional time

to prepare and submit comments.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. and 7 U.S.C.

1621 et seq.

David R. Shipman,

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration.

Kenneth C. Clayton,

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5236 Filed 3–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM–50–72]

Union of Concerned Scientists;

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 David Lochbaum

of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The petition, docketed on December 13,

2000, has been assigned Docket No.

PRM–50–72. The petitioner requests

that the NRC revise its regulations to

require nuclear power plant owners to

submit the performance indicator

information needed for the NRC’s

revised reactor oversight program.

DATES: Submit comments by May 21,

2001. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

so, but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write to

Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief, Rules

and Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

This site allows you to upload

comments as files in any format, if your

web browser supports the function. For

information about the interactive

rulemaking website, contact Carol

Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 email:cag@nrc.gov.

The petition and copies of comments

received may be inspected, and copied

for a fee, at the NRC Public Document

Room, (first floor) 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

13268 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘‘Staff

Requirements Memorandum SRM–00–0049, Staff

Requirements—SECY–00–0049—Results of the

Revised Reactor Oversight Process Pilot Program

(Part 1),’’ March 28, 2000. Available on the internet

at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SRM/

2000–0049srm.html).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief, Rules

and Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll

Free: 1–800–368–5642 or email:mtl@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Petitioner

The Union of Concerned Scientists

(UCS) states that it was actively

involved in the development of the

reactor oversight program. UCS served

on the Pilot Program Evaluation Panel

formally established by the NRC to

independently assess the trial

implementation of the reactor oversight

program at eight nuclear plant sites in

1999. UCS presented its views on the

reactor oversight process to the NRC

Chairman and Commissioners during a

public meeting. UCS presented the

criticism that the public perceives that

the NRC allows the nuclear industry to

regulate itself through the collection and

voluntary submittal of performance

indicator information. UCS

recommended that: ‘‘the NRC must

appear more authoritative to gain the

confidence of the public. The NRC

should obtain an irrevocable

commitment from all plant owners to

participate in the revised reactor

oversight process before industry-wide

implementation.’’

The petitioner asserts that no

commitment has been obtained by the

NRC, and that despite the importance of

the performance indicators in the

reactor oversight program and the fact

that the NRC’s revised inspection

program, by itself, cannot provide a

complete evaluation of safety levels,

nuclear plant owners are not required to

submit the performance indicator

information to the NRC.

Discussion

The petitioner states that on March

28, 2000, the NRC approved the

implementation of a revised reactor

oversight program 1 at all operating

nuclear power plants, except DC Cook.

The petitioner states that, according to

the NRC, the revised oversight process

calls for—

1. Focusing inspections on activities

where the potential risks are greater;

2. Applying greater regulatory

attention to nuclear power plants with

performance problems, while

maintaining a normal level of regulatory

attention on facilities that perform well;

3. Using objective measurements of

the performance of nuclear power

plants;

4. Giving both the public and the

nuclear industry timely and

understandable assessments of plant

performance;

5. Reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden on nuclear facilities; and

6. Responding to violations of

regulations in a predictable and

consistent manner that reflects the

potential safety impact on the

violations.

According to the petitioner, these

objectives are to be achieved by a

combination of objective performance

indicators and by the NRC inspection

program. The petitioner states that

according to the NRC—

Performance indicators use objective data

to monitor performance within each of the

‘cornerstone’ areas. The data which make up

the performance indicators will be generated

by the utilities and submitted to the NRC on

a quarterly basis. Each performance indicator

is measured against established thresholds

which are related to their effect on safety.

While performance indicators can provide

insights into plant performance for selected

areas, the NRC’s inspection program provides

a greater depth and breadth of information

for consideration by the NRC in assessing

plant performance.

The petitioner states that the NRC

supplements the insights from the

performance indicators with the

baseline inspection program. The

baseline inspection program covers

three parts:

(1) Inspection of areas not covered by

performance indicators or where a

performance indicator does not fully

cover the inspection area;

(2) Inspections to verify the accuracy

of a licensee’s reports on performance

indicators; and

(3) A thorough review of the utility’s

effectiveness in finding and resolving

problems on its own.

Under the new reactor oversight

process, the petitioner also notes that

the NRC revised the procedures used by

its inspectors. The revised procedures

define how often areas must be

inspected, i.e. certain areas must be

inspected four times a year while other

areas need only be inspected once every

three years. The petitioner states that

the scope of the inspection program is

directly affected by the availability of

the performance indicators. Therefore,

the petitioner asserts that the NRC

inspection program is not a fully

redundant backup to the performance

indicators, and that both the inspection

program results and the performance

indicators must be available to get a full

picture of nuclear plant safety levels.

The petitioner states that if the

performance indicator information is

not available, the NRC cannot get an

accurate assessment of plant safety

levels.

The petitioner further states that the

performance indicators and the results

from the baseline inspection programs

are used by the NRC to evaluate safety

levels at each nuclear plant and to

identify areas for future inspections.

The petitioner provided the following

detail:

Each calendar quarter, the resident

inspectors and the staff in the regional

office will review the performance of all

nuclear power plants in that region, as

measured by the performance indicators

and by inspection findings. Every six

months, this review will be expanded to

include planning of inspections for the

following 12-month period.

Each year, the final quarterly review

will involve a more detailed assessment

of plant performance over the previous

12 months and preparation of a

performance report, as well as the

inspection plan for the following year.

This review will include NRC

headquarters staff members, the regional

staff, and the resident inspectors.

These annual performance reports

will be available to the public on the

agency’s web site, and the NRC staff will

hold public meetings with utilities to

discuss the previous year’s performance

at each plant.

The Petitioner’s Requested Amendment

The petitioner requests that the NRC

revise its regulations to require nuclear

reactor licensees to submit the

performance indicator information. In

support of the requested amendment,

the petitioner included NRC’s stated

objectives for its mission as follows: (1)

Maintaining safety, (2) enhancing public

confidence, (3) improving the

effectiveness and efficiency of NRC

processes, and (4) reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden. The petitioner

believes that the requested amendment

satisfies all four objectives of the NRC’s

mission and offers the summary below

to support this conclusion.

Maintaining Safety—The petitioner

states that the NRC’s new assessment

program (reactor oversight program) is

substantially different from the previous

process. It makes greater use of objective

performance indicators. Together, the

indicators and inspection findings

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13269

provide the information needed to

support reviews of plant performance,

to be conducted on a quarterly basis,

with the results posted on the NRC’s

Internet site.

The petitioner believes that

performance indicators are an essential

element of the reactor oversight program

and that their omission would degrade

the ability of the reactor oversight

program to assess nuclear plant

performance levels. According to the

petitioner, the current NRC staff may be

able to compensate for missing

performance indicators from one or two

nuclear plants by conducting additional

inspections. Also, the petitioner states

that NRC inspectors could be expected

to revert to broader inspection

procedures that they used as recently as

last spring. However, the petitioner

states that as time passes and familiarity

with the old ways fades, that capability

also diminishes. In addition, the

petitioner asserts that it is uncertain that

the NRC staff has, or will continue to

have, sufficient inspection staff to

compensate for the eventuality where an

owner operating numerous reactors

suddenly decides not to submit the

performance indicator information for

any plant. The petitioner believes that

the suggested amendment would satisfy

the objective of maintaining safety by

ensuring that the NRC continues to

receive the vital information that it

needs to assess nuclear plant

performance levels.

Enhancing Public Confidence—The

petitioner believes that public

confidence only can be enhanced by

requiring plant owners to submit

information that is needed for the NRC

to conduct its oversight program. As an

analogy, the petitioner offers that, just as

the Internal Revenue Service does not

rely on the voluntary submission of tax

returns by American taxpayers, the NRC

should not rely on voluntary submission

of vital safety information by nuclear

plant owners.

Improving the Effectiveness and

Efficiency of NRC Processes—The

petitioner indicates that the substantive

changes made by the NRC within its

reactor oversight program were

predicated on the assumption that

nuclear plant owners would submit the

performance indicator information. For

example, the NRC inspection program

was scaled back to only confirmatory

checks in areas covered by performance

indicators. The petitioner believes that

any effectiveness and efficiency gains

realized from the reactor oversight

program would be sacrificed if one or

more plant owners opted not to submit

performance indicator information and

that NRC’s effectiveness would be

impaired by having to inspect what had

been covered by the performance

indicator.

Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory

Burden—The petitioner states that all

nuclear plant owners in the U.S. today

must consider the submission of the

performance indicator information as a

necessary regulatory burden; otherwise

they would not have participated in the

voluntary program that has been in

place since April 2000. The petitioner

believes that if the performance

indicator information showed that

safety levels declined, that plant owners

must not have the option of viewing the

submission as an unnecessary

regulatory burden to avoid NRC scrutiny

of the problem areas. The petitioner

states that by merely codifying current

industry practice, no unnecessary

regulatory burden is introduced.

Conclusion

The petitioner believes that the NRC

must require performance indicator

information from all nuclear power

plant owners if the NRC is to meet its

stated objectives of maintaining safety,

enhancing public confidence, improving

the effectiveness and efficiency of its

processes, and reducing regulatory

burden. The petitioner notes that the

recent example of the vehicle tire safety

issue emphasizes the need for definitive

requirements for submission of safety

information to Federal regulators. The

petitioner states that Congressional

hearings revealed that the tire company

had information on potential safety

problems that it delayed transmitting to

the Federal regulator. The petitioner

further states that the tire company was

not aggressive in responding to requests

by the Federal regulator for information.

The petitioner concludes that the NRC

must revise its regulations to prevent

similar abuses.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–5215 Filed 3–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–SW–50–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Kaman

Aerospace Corporation Model K–1200

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) for Kaman Aerospace

Corporation (Kaman) Model K–1200

helicopters. The AD would require

reducing the life limit of the rotor shaft

and teeter pin assembly, and

establishing a life limit for the flap

clevis. This proposal is prompted by the

discovery of cracks in parts that were

returned to the manufacturer. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent failure of the

rotor shaft, teeter pin assembly, or flap

clevis due to fatigue cracks, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 4, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–SW–

50–AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may

also send comments electronically to

the Rules Docket at the following

address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.

Comments may be inspected at the

Office of the Regional Counsel between

9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Noll, Aviation Safety Engineer,

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12

New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781)

238–7160, fax (781) 238–7199.

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