27872

required by the regulations. The major cause of these losses was stress resulting from handling and transportation. Under the current 72hour identification requirement, birds are often not fully recovered from shipment-related stress before undergoing identification-a procedure involving the physical seizure and immobilization of the birds.

officials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart

V).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Canada, Imports. Livestock and Livestock Products, Mexico, Poultry and Poultry Products, Quarantine. Transportation. Wildlife. PART 92-IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

This document proposes to extend the ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND mandatory time period for

accomplishment of individual bird identifications by United States

Department of Agriculture and approved privately operated quarantine facilities, from the current 72-hours to 7-days. The Department believes that this additional time would significantly reduce facility overtime costs and bird stress, without reducing the effectiveness of the identification procedure.

Executive Order 12291 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act

This action has been reviewed in conformance with Executive Order 12291 and has been determined to be not a "major rule." The Department has determined that this action would not have a significant effect on the economy, would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and should have no significant adverse effects on competition, employment. investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreginbased enterprises in domestic or export markets.

Removal of the footnoted reference would have no impact on the importation of birds into the United States since the referenced importation limitation no longer exists. Extending the individual bird identification period from 72-hours to 7-days would relieve existing restrictions and should result in reduced costs for quarantine facilities and more healthful conditions for imported birds.

Under the circumstances explained above, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would 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 the provisions of Executive Order 12372. which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local

CERTAIN ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS: INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN

MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND

SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON Accordingly, it is proposed to amend 9 CFR Part 92 as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 92 would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306, 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 111, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d. 134f, and 135; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d). § 92.2 [Amended]

2. In § 92.2, footnote number 2a of paragraphs (c)(1). (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3) and the references thereto would be removed.

§ 92.11 [Amended]

3. Paragraph (e) of § 92.11 would be amended by changing "72 hours" to read "7 days".

4. Paragraph (1)(3)(ii)(E) of § 92.11 would be amended by changing "72 hours" to read "7 days".

Done at Washington, DC., this 29th day of July 1986.

J.K. Atwell,

Deputy Administrator. Veterinary Services. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 86-17442 Filed 8-1-86; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 3410-34-M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

Personnel With Unescorted Access to Protected Areas: Fitness for Duty AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: withdrawal. SUMMARY: The Commission is withdrawing a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 5. 1982. In this rule, the Commission proposed amending its regulations to require that certain licensees establish. document, and implement adequate written procedures designed to ensure that while on duty personnel with unescorted access to protected areas in commercial nuclear power plants are

not under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or otherwise unfit for duty. The Commission proposed this rule because of a concern that certain persons could become unfit for duty due to the effects of substances such as alcohol or other drugs and, thereby, adversely impact the health and safety of the public. Instead of this rule, the Commission is issuing a Policy Statement concurrent with this action to withdraw the proposed rule. The Commission has decided to defer rulemaking on fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel for a minimum of 18 months from the effective date of the

Policy Statement. The Commission's
decision is intended to recognize and
further encourage the initiatives
concerning fitness for duty being taken
by the nuclear power industry, the
Nuclear Utility Management and Human
Resources Committee.(NUMARC), and
by the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO). The Commission
will exercise this deference as long as
the industry programs produce the
desired results. The Commission will
reassess the possible need for further
action based on the success of those
programs during the 18-month period.
DATE: This withdrawal is effective
August 4, 1986.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loren Bush, Office of Inspection and
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
telephone (301) 492-8080.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognizes drug and alcohol abuse to be a social, medical, and safety problem affecting every segment of our society. Given the pervasiveness of the problem in our society, it seems reasonable to assume that drug and alcohol abuse, as well as other emotional and psychological factors, also exist in the nuclear industry. Prudence, therefore. requires that the Commission take appropriate precautionary measures to reduce the probability that a person. who is under the influence of alcohol, other drugs, or who is otherwise unfit for some task involving a nuclear power unit, may cause an accident or react inadequately to an accident.

The job performance of alcohol and drug abusers can be expected to be hindered by the presence of chemicals in their blood stream. For example, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), in its 1981 Report to Congress, reports that 46 percent of all nonfatal and 40 percent of all fatal

U.S. industrial accidents involve

alcohol, at an annual cost of $12 to $15 billion. More specifically, 4 ounces of alcohol in the blood steam of a 165pound male requires approximately 12 hours to metabolize. This is one reason that other regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation) mandate specific periods of abstinence (e.g., 4 or 8 hours) for interstate truck drivers, commercial airline pilots etc., before these persons come on duty. Drugs other than alcohol, such as cocaine and hashish, require as much as 24 to 72 hours to metabolize.

The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) 1979 report on its Alcohol and Drug Dependency Program states that the program served 350 employees during that year (one out of every 143). TVA estimates its annual cost due to alcohol abuse alone is approximately $18.5 million. As recently as mid-1981, approximately one-third of the Edison Electric Institute's (EEI) member companies operating nuclear stations had no programs to deal with this problem. More recently, NRC Inspection and Enforcement (IE) Information Notice No. 82-05, "Increasing Frequency of Drug-Related Incidents." reports a steadily increasing number of drugrelated arrests and terminations being reported by the nuclear industry since 1978. The reported incidents are widespread geographically and involve power reactor sites in each of the five NRC regions. The Commission determined, therefore, that a regulation may be needed to deal with this problem.

Proposed Rule

On August 5, 1982, NRC published in the Federal Register (47 FR 33980) its proposed "Fitness for Duty" Rule, amending 10 CFR 50.54. The proposed rule was a broad, non-prescriptive rule that would have required licensees to establish, document, and implement adequate written procedures to ensure that while on duty their personnel and their contractors' personnel with unescorted access to protected areas, while in those protected areas, are not under the influence of alcohol, other drugs, or otherwise unfit for duty. Various questions were posed in the proposed rule to which the Commission wanted responses in order to decide on its next course of action.

Comments

A total of 73 responses containing 310 comments were received, all of which were evaluated in the decision to proceed with the Policy Statement and are reflected in it. The following highlights the major issues raised in the

comments (a more complete discussion of the comments received is available for inspection or copying for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H. Street, NW., Washington, DC). Approximately two-thirds of the respondents disagreed with the need for a rule, stating in essence, that (1) NRC has not established a sufficient need for the rule, (2) the rule should be part of the proposed rule on the "Access Authorization Program" published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1984 (49 FR 30726), and that (3) the utilities are aware of the fitness for duty issue and are taking appropriate remedial action.

Several respondents commented that the development and implementation of "fitness for duty" procedures would cause a licensee legal and union-related liabilities, significant monetary costs, and would have a deleterious impact on employee morale.

Comments about implementation issues involving the rule, such as definition of terms, use of diagnostic tools such as breath testers, or establishment of fitness for duty standards, were received from 58 of 73 respondents. Most of these expressed a need for definitions and standards and objected to the use of breath tests.

Six specific recommendations for changes in the proposed rule were received from 56 of the 73 respondents. These involved (1) changing the word "ensure" to the term "provide reasonable assurance"; (2) extending the rule to all persons with unescorted access, thereby including NRC personnel as well as personnel of the Department of Energy, and othe Federal, State and local government agencies; (3) limiting the rule to "vital" areas, rather than having it apply to the more general "protected" areas of the plant; (4) eliminating the requirement for maintaining records of written procedures for the life of the plant; (5) providing an appropriate time for implementation; and (6) working the rule broadly and not making it prescriptive. Initial Response and Additional Comments

On July 5, 1984 the Commission approved publication of the rule, as revised by the staff in response to public comments and per direction provided by the Commission. However, the Commission asked, that prior to publishing the final rule, the staff explore with INPO and NUMARC their willingness to undertake the

development of detailed program elements and acceptance criteria for a fitness for duty program. NUMARC responded that they would be willing to develop guidance on fitness for duty as

27873

an alternative to the NRC promulgating the rule. Industry representatives stated they believed that any rulemaking.or other form of mandatory requirements would undermine the voluntary efforts of the industry toward self improvement in this area. NUMARC suggested the NRC issue a Policy Statement or generic letter on fitness for duty, which would not establish additional NRC requirements.

Response to Comments

The Commission met on October 12, 1984 to discuss the question of the extent to which it wished to seek industry commitments for self improvements versus promulgating the Fitness for Duty Rule. Previously the Commission had proposed a general rule whose detailed implementation would be left to the industry because it believed that a problem existed which must be solved, and that not all of its licensees were taking appropriate remedial action. The decision before the Commission as a result of public

.. comments and industry initiatives was whether (1) to issue a regulation which allows each licensee to develop written procedures that taken into consideration not only fairness to, and due process for, its employees, but also any condition or circumstances unique to its facility, or (2) to make sure that the industry develops and implements such procedures without the Commission promulgating a rule.

After careful consideration of the industry initiatives and all the public comments, the Commission has decided to withdraw the proposed rule. Instead of this rule, the Commission is publishing a Policy Statement concurrent with this notice withdrawing the proposed rule. In that statement, it is presenting its policy on fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel, incorporating many of the elements discussed in the comments, and describing the activities it will undertake to execute its responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of the public.

In the Policy Statement the Commission recognizes that the industry, through the initiatives of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). NUMARC, and INPO, has made progress in developing and implementing nuclear utility employee fitness for duty programs. While some of these efforts have only recently been initiated, the Commission realizes the importance of industry's initiative and wishes to further encourage such selfimprovement. Subject to the continued

27874

success of industry's programs and NRC's ability to monitor their effectiveness, the Commission will refrain from new rulemaking on fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel for a minimum of 18 months from the effective date of the Policy Statement. While the Commision is deferring rulemaking in this area in recognition of the industry's efforts to date, and the intent of the industry to utilize the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol/Fitness for Duty Policy Development", it will exercise this deference only as long as the industry's programs produce the desired results. NRC continues to have the responsibility for independently evaluating applicants' and licensees' efforts in the fitness for duty area to ensure that the desired results are

achieved and for evaluating the possible need for further NRC action based on the success of the industry's programs

during this 18-month period. Withdrawal of the proposed fitness for duty rule. therefore, does not preclude the Commission from initiating similar rulemaking actions in the future or from taking any other course of action deemed necessary with regard to fitness for duty.

The NRC will evaluate the effectiveness of utility fitness for duty programs by its normal review of industry activities, through reviews of INPO program status and evaluation reports, periodic NRC observation of the conduct of INPO evaluations, and direct inspections conducted by NRC's Performance Appraisal Team, Regional Offices, and Resident Inspectors. NRC will also monitor the progress of individual license fitness for duty programs.

The Commission hereby withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking published on August 5, 1982 (47 FR 33350).

Dated at Washington, DC, this 28th day of July, 1986.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commision.
Samuel J. Chilk,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Duc. 86-17498 Filed 8-1-86: 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 7500-01-M

A copy of the EEl's current guidelines is available for inspection or copying for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room. 1717 H street. NW.. Washington DC. Copies of the EEI guidelines may also be obtained for a fee from the Ordering and Billing Department. Edison Electric Institute, 1111-19th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 86-NM-156-AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 747 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that requires inspection of trailing edge flap tracks for cracking on certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This amendment would incorporate a decrease in the inspection intervals from 1.000 landings to 300 landings for the fourth fastener from the forward end of the flap track. This action is prompted by eight recent reports of cracking

adjacent to the fourth fastener hole prior

to the current 1.000 landing inspection interval. This recent service experience

has shown that the present 1,000 landing inspection interval is inadequate. Cracking could lead to failure of the flap track, and separation of the flap which would result in partial loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATE: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 1986. ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in duplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Office of the Regional Counsel (Attn: ANM-103), Attention: Airworthiness Rules Docket No. 86-NM156-AD, 17900 Pacific Highway South, C-68966, Seattle, Washington 98168. The service bulletin specified in this AD may be obtained from the Boeing

Commercial Airplane Company, P.O.
Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124. It
may be examined at the FAA,
Northwest Mountain Region, 17900
Pacific Highway South. Seattle,
Washington, or the Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 9010 East Marginal
Way South, Seattle, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Owen E. Schrader, Airframe Branch,
ANM-120S: telephone (206) 431-2923.
Mailing address: FAA, Northwest
Mountain Region. 17900 Pacific Highway
South, C-68966, Seattle, Washington

98168.

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 regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments specified above will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted wil be available, both before and after the closing date for comments. in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Availability of NPRM

Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the FAA, Northwest Mountain Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel (Attn: ANM-103).

Attention: Airworthiness Rules Docket
No. 88-NM-156-AD, 17900 Pacific

Highway South, C-68968, Seattle.
Washington 98168.
Discussion

Amendment 39-4917 (49 FR 36819; September 20, 1984), as amended by Amendment 39-5314 (51 FR 18308; May 19, 1986), AD 84-19-02, requires repetitive inspection of trailing edge flap tracks for cracking at intervals not to exceed 1.000 landings. The track web cracks are attributed to fatigue, stress corrosion pitting, and possible work hardening at the fail-safe bar fastener holes. Extensive cracking could result in separation of the flap. This failure could lead to partial loss of controllability of the airplane.

Since the issuance of AD 84-19-02. eight operators have reported 8 additional track web hole cracks adjacent to the fourth fail-safe bar fastener hole. The flap track is fabricated from high strength steel and testing has shown that the rate of crack growth is very fast once a crack is established. The recent finding of a number of cracks is an indication that the present 1,000 landing inspection interval is too long.

The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 747-57A2229. Revision 2, dated June 6, 1986, which reduces the inspection interval from 1.000 landings to 300 landings and clarifies the specific inspection procedures to be used to check for cracks in the trailing edge flap tracks on certain Model 747 series airplanes.

79-323 0 88 - 14