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

441 

Vol. 77, No. 3 

Thursday, January 5, 2012 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 50, 52, and 100 

[Docket No. PRM–50–103; NRC–2011–0189] 

Measurement and Control of 

Combustible Gas Generation and 

Dispersal 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

has received a petition for rulemaking 

(PRM), dated October 14, 2011, from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

(NRDC or the petitioner). The petitioner 

requests that the NRC amend its 

regulations regarding the measurement 

and control of combustible gas 

generation and dispersal within a power 

reactor system. The NRC is not 

instituting a public comment period for 

this PRM at this time. 

DATES: January 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

action, including the petition for 

rulemaking, using the following 

methods: 

• NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR): The public may examine and 

have copies made, for a fee, publicly 

available documents at the NRC’s PDR, 

Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available online in the NRC Library at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. From this page, the public 

can gain entry into ADAMS, which 

provides text and image files of the 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1– (800) –397– 

4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The PRM is 

available in ADAMS under ADAMS 

Accession Number ML11301A094. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: 

Supporting materials related to the 

petition for rulemaking can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID NRC–2011–0189. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: (301) 492–3668; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 492– 

3667, email: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On October 14, 2011, Mr. C. Jordan 

Weaver, a Project Scientist for the 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

(NRDC or petitioner) submitted a cover 

letter and a petition for rulemaking 

(PRM) to revise 10 CFR 50.44 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML11301A094). The 

PRM, which was an attachment to the 

NRDC cover letter signed by Mr. 

Weaver, was itself signed by Mr. Mark 

Edward Leyse. Mr. Leyse has previously 

filed several other petitions for 

rulemaking with the NRC on matters 

related to the NRC’s requirements on the 

emergency core cooling system (ECCS). 

See PRM–50–73 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML012560310); PRM–50–73A 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML020300271); 

PRM–50–76 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML022240009); PRM–50–84 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070871368); PRM– 

50–93 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML093290250); PRM–50–95 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102770018). The 

NRDC PRM was docketed by the NRC 

on October 27, 2011 as PRM–50–103. 

II. Petitioner 

The NRDC is a national, nonprofit, 

membership environmental 

organization incorporated in New York 

in 1970. The NRDC has offices in 

Washington, DC, New York City, San 

Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, and 

Beijing. The staff membership of NRDC 

consists of lawyers, scientists, and 

policy experts. The NRDC states that its 

purpose is to maintain and enhance 

environmental quality and monitor 

Federal agency actions to ensure that 

Federal statutes enacted to protect 

human health and the environment are 

fully and properly implemented. With 

regard to the NRC, the NRDC asserts 

that, since its inception in 1970, it has 

sought to improve the environmental, 

health, and safety conditions at the 

nuclear facilities licensed by the NRC 

and its predecessor agency. 

III. Petition 

Mark Leyse, an NRDC consultant, 

researched and authored the PRM. The 

PRM requests that the NRC amend its 

regulations ‘‘to enhance hydrogen 

mitigation at all [nuclear power plants] 

regulated by NRC.’’ The PRM includes 

six separate rulemaking requests 

pertaining to pressurized water reactors 

(PWRs) and boiling water reactors 

(BWRs). 

First, the petitioner requests that the 

NRC ‘‘revise 10 CFR 50.44 to require 

that all PWRs (with large dry 

containments, sub-atmospheric 

containments, and ice condenser 

containments) and BWR Mark IIIs 

operate with systems for combustible 

gas control that would effectively and 

safely control the potential total 

quantity of hydrogen that could be 

generated in different severe accident 

scenarios.’’ The petitioner states that the 

total quantity of hydrogen could exceed 

the amount generated from the metalwater reaction of 100 percent of the fuel 

cladding because of contributions 

produced by the metal-water reaction 

with non-fuel components of the 

reactor. The petitioner presents 

information from various analyses and 

reports to support this request. 

Second, the petitioner requests that 

the NRC revise 10 CFR 50.44 to ‘‘require 

that BWR Mark Is and BWR Mark IIs 

operate with systems for combustible 

gas control or inerted containments that 

would effectively and safely control the 

potential total quantity of hydrogen that 

could be generated in different severe 

accident scenarios.’’ The petitioner 

states that the total quantity of hydrogen 

could exceed the amount generated 

from the metal-water reaction of 100 

percent of the fuel cladding because of 

contributions produced by the metalwater reaction with non-fuel 

components of the reactor. The 

petitioner presents information from 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

various analyses and reports to support 

this request. 

Third, the petitioner requests that the 

NRC revise 10 CFR 50.44 ‘‘to require 

that PWRs and BWR Mark IIIs operate 

with systems for combustible gas 

control that would be capable of 

precluding local concentrations of 

hydrogen in the containment from 

exceeding concentrations that would 

support combustions, fast deflagrations, 

or detonations that could cause a loss of 

containment integrity or loss of 

necessary accident mitigating features.’’ 

The petitioner presents information 

from various analyses and reports to 

support this request. 

Fourth, the petitioner asserts that 

‘‘[t]he current requirement that 

hydrogen monitors be functional within 

90-minutes after the initiation of safety 

injection is inadequate for protecting 

public and plant worker safety.’’ Thus, 

the petitioner requests that the NRC 

revise 10 CFR 50.44 to ‘‘require that 

PWRs and BWR Mark IIIs operate with 

combustible gas and oxygen monitoring 

systems that are qualified in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.49. Petitioner also 

requests that NRC revise 10 CFR 50.44 

to require that after the onset of a severe 

accident, combustible gas monitoring 

systems be functional within a 

timeframe that enables the proper 

monitoring of quantities of hydrogen 

indicative of core damage and indicative 

of a potential threat to the containment 

integrity.’’ The petitioner presents 

information from various analyses and 

reports to support this request. 

Fifth, the petitioner requests that the 

NRC revise 10 CFR 50.44 to ‘‘require 

that licensees of PWRs and BWR Mark 

IIIs perform analyses that demonstrate 

containment structural integrity would 

be retained in the event of a severe 

accident.’’ Additionally, the petitioner 

requests that the NRC revise 10 CFR 

50.44 to require licensees of BWR Mark 

Is and BWR Mark IIs to perform 

analyses ‘‘using the most advanced 

codes, which demonstrate containment 

structural integrity would be retained in 

the event of a severe accident.’’ The 

petitioner presents information from 

various analyses and reports to support 

this request. 

Sixth, the petitioner requests that the 

NRC revise 10 CFR 50.44 to ‘‘require 

that licensees of PWRs with ice 

condenser containments and BWR Mark 

IIIs (and any other NPPs that would 

operate with hydrogen igniter systems) 

perform analyses that demonstrate 

hydrogen igniter systems would 

effectively and safely mitigate hydrogen 

in different severe accident scenarios.’’ 

The petitioner presents information 

from various analyses and reports 

regarding hydrogen igniter systems to 

support this request. 

IV. Determination of Petition 

In PRM 50–103, the petitioner raises 

six issues regarding the measurement 

and control of combustible gas 

generation and dispersal within a 

reactor system. The Commission is 

currently reviewing the 

‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing 

Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The 

Near-Term Task Force Review of 

Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

Accident’’ (Fukushima Task Force 

Report, ML111861807), dated July 12, 

2011. The six requests included in the 

PRM relate to Recommendation 6 of the 

Fukushima Task Force Report: ‘‘[t]he 

task force recommends, as part of the 

longer term review, that the NRC 

identify insights about hydrogen control 

and mitigation inside containment or in 

other buildings as additional 

information is revealed through further 

study of the Fukushima Dai-ichi 

accident.’’ 

The Commission has recently directed 

staff to engage promptly with 

stakeholders to review and assess the 

recommendations of the Fukushima 

Task Force Report for the purpose of 

providing the Commission with fullyinformed options and 

recommendations. See U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, ‘‘Near-Term 

Report and Recommendations for 

Agency Actions Following the Events in 

Japan,’’ Staff Requirements 

Memorandum SECY–11–0093, August 

19, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML112310021) and U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, ‘‘Engagement 

of Stakeholders Regarding the Events in 

Japan,’’ Staff Requirements 

Memorandum COMWDM–11–0001/ 

COMWCO–11–0001, August 22, 2011 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML112340693). 

The NRC has, therefore, decided to 

consider the issues raised by the PRM 

in a manner consistent with the process 

the Commission has established for 

addressing the recommendations from 

the Fukushima Task Force Report. Thus, 

the NRC will defer review of this PRM 

until the Commission gives further 

direction on Recommendation 6, to 

determine whether review of this PRM 

should be integrated with the effort 

related to the NRC staff’s review of 

Fukushima Task Force 

Recommendation 6. The NRC is not 

requesting public comment at this time 

but may do so in the future, if it decides 

public comment would be appropriate. 

V. Conclusion 

The NRC will coordinate 

consideration of the issues raised by 

PRM 50–103 in a manner consistent 

with the process the Commission has 

established for addressing the 

recommendations from the Fukushima 

Task Force Report and is not providing 

a separate opportunity for public 

comment on this PRM at this time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of December 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrew L. Bates, 

Acting Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33817 Filed 1–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

37 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0072] 

RIN 0651–AC66 

Changes To Implement Miscellaneous 

Post Patent Provisions of the LeahySmith America Invents Act 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act expands the scope of 

information that any party may cite in 

a patent file, to include written 

statements made by a patent owner 

before a Federal court or the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office 

(Office) regarding the scope of any claim 

of the patent, and it provides for how 

such information may be considered in 

ex parte reexamination, inter partes 

review, and post grant review. The 

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act also 

provides for an estoppel that may attach 

with respect to ex parte reexamination 

based on an inter partes review or post 

grant review proceeding. The Office is 

revising the rules of practice to 

implement these post-patent provisions, 

as well as other miscellaneous 

provisions of the Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act. 

DATES: Comment Deadline Date: To be 

ensured of consideration, written 

comments must be received on or before 

March 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

by electronic mail addressed to: 

post_patent_provisions@uspto.gov. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

mail addressed to: Mail Stop 

Comments—Patents, Commissioner for 

Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 

22313–1450, marked to the attention of 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS