13094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices 

(g) Batteries in the surveying 

equipment will be changed out or 

charged in fresh air out of the return. 

(h) Qualified personnel who use 

surveying equipment will be properly 

trained to recognize the hazards 

associated with the use of 

nonpermissible surveying equipment in 

areas where methane could be present. 

(i) The nonpermissible surveying 

equipment will not be put into service 

until MSHA has initially inspected the 

equipment and determined that it is in 

compliance with all the terms and 

conditions in this petition. 

The petitioner asserts that the 

proposed alternative method will at all 

times guarantee no less than the same 

measure of protection as that afforded 

by the existing standard. 

Docket Number: M–2013–013–C. 

Petitioner: Peabody Midwest Mining, 

LLC, Three Gateway Center, Suite 1500, 

401 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15222–1000. 

Mine: Wildcat Hills Underground 

Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 11–03156, located 

in Saline County, Illinois. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

75.1002(a) (Installation of electric 

equipment and conductors; 

permissibility). 

Modification Request: The petitioner 

requests a modification of the existing 

standard to permit an alternative 

method of compliance to allow the use 

of battery-powered nonpermissible 

surveying equipment within 150 feet of 

pillar workings, including, but not 

limited to, portable battery-operated 

mine transits, total station surveying 

equipment, distance meters, and data 

loggers. The petitioner states that: 

(1) To comply with requirements for 

mine ventilation maps and mine maps 

in 30 CFR 75.372 and 75.1200, use of 

the most practical and accurate 

surveying equipment is necessary. To 

ensure the safety of the miners in active 

mines and to protect miners in future 

mines that may mine in close proximity 

to these same active mines, it is 

necessary to determine the exact 

location and extent of the mine 

workings. 

(2) Application of the existing 

standard would result in a diminution 

of safety to the miners. Underground 

mining, by its nature and size and the 

complexity of mine plans, requires that 

accurate and precise measurements be 

completed in a prompt and efficient 

manner. The petitioner proposes the 

following as an alternative to the 

existing standard: 

(a) Nonpermissible electronic 

surveying equipment may be used. Such 

nonpermissible surveying equipment 

includes portable battery-operated total 

station surveying equipment, mine 

transits, distance meters, and data 

loggers. 

(b) All nonpermissible electronic 

surveying equipment to be used within 

150 feet of pillar workings will be 

examined by surveying personnel prior 

to use to ensure the equipment is being 

maintained in a safe operating 

condition. These examinations will 

include the following steps: 

(i) Checking the instrument for any 

physical damage and the integrity of the 

case. 

(ii) Removing the battery and 

inspecting for corrosion. 

(iii) Inspecting the contact points to 

ensure a secure connection to the 

battery. 

(iv) Reinserting the battery and 

powering up and shutting down to 

ensure proper connections. 

(v) Checking the battery compartment 

cover to ensure that it is securely 

fastened. 

(c) The results of such examinations 

will be recorded and retained for one 

year and made available to MSHA on 

request. 

(d) A qualified person as defined in 

30 CFR 75.151 will continuously 

monitor for methane immediately before 

and during the use of nonpermissible 

surveying equipment within 150 feet of 

pillar workings. 

(e) Nonpermissible surveying 

equipment will not be used if methane 

is detected in concentrations at or above 

one percent for the area being surveyed. 

When methane is detected at such levels 

while the nonpermissible surveying 

equipment is being used, the equipment 

will be deenergized immediately and 

the nonpermissible electronic 

equipment withdrawn further than 150 

feet from pillar workings. 

(f) All hand-held methane detectors 

will be MSHA-approved and 

maintained in permissible and proper 

operating condition as defined in 30 

CFR 75.320. 

(g) Batteries in the surveying 

equipment will be changed out or 

charged in fresh air more than 150 feet 

from pillar workings. 

(h) Qualified personnel who use 

surveying equipment will be properly 

trained to recognize the hazards 

associated with the use of 

nonpermissible surveying equipment in 

areas where methane could be present. 

(i) The nonpermissible surveying 

equipment will not be put into service 

until MSHA has initially inspected the 

equipment and determined that it is in 

compliance with all the terms and 

conditions in this petition. 

The petitioner asserts that the 

proposed alternative method will at all 

times guarantee no less than the same 

measure of protection as that afforded 

by the existing standard. 

Dated: February 21, 2013. 

George F. Triebsch, 

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations and 

Variances. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04370 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

United States Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2011–10] 

Remedies for Small Copyright Claims: 

Third Request for Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is requesting public comment for 

the third time on the topic of 

adjudicating small copyright claims. 

The Office is studying whether and, if 

so, how the current legal system hinders 

or prevents copyright owners from 

pursuing copyright claims that have a 

relatively small economic value and 

will discuss, with appropriate 

recommendations, potential changes in 

administrative, regulatory, and statutory 

authority. At this time, the Office seeks 

additional comments on possible 

alternatives to the current system to 

improve the adjudication of such 

claims. 

DATES: Comments are due April 12, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: All comments are to be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Office Web site at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims. 

The Web site interface requires 

commenting parties to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browser button. To 

meet accessibility standards, 

commenting parties must upload 

comments in a single file not to exceed 

six megabytes (MB) in one of the 

following formats: The Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The form and face of the 

comments must include both the name 

of the submitter and organization. The 

Office will post the comments publicly 

on the Office’s Web site exactly as they 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices 13095 

are received, along with names and 

organizations. If electronic submission 

of comments is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at 202–707–8350 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Charlesworth, Senior 

Counsel, Office of the Register, by email 

at jcharlesworth@loc.gov or by 

telephone at 202–707–8350; or 

Catherine Rowland, Senior Counsel, 

Office of Policy and International 

Affairs, by email at crowland@loc.gov or 

by telephone at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

At the request of Congress, the 

Copyright Office is conducting a study 

to assess whether and, if so, how the 

current legal system hinders or prevents 

copyright owners from pursuing 

copyright infringement claims that have 

a relatively small economic value 

(‘‘small copyright claims’’ or ‘‘small 

claims’’), and to recommend potential 

changes in administrative, regulatory, 

and statutory authority to improve the 

adjudication of such claims. To aid with 

this study, the Office has published two 

prior Notices of Inquiry seeking public 

comment, and the Office also has held 

public hearings on small copyright 

claims issues. The Office’s first general 

Notice of Inquiry, published in the fall 

of 2011, generated numerous comments 

regarding the current environment in 

which small copyright claims are (or are 

not) pursued, and possible alternatives 

to address concerns about the current 

system. See the original Notice of 

Inquiry, 76 FR 66758 (Oct. 27, 2011), 

and comments received in response 

thereto, which are posted on the 

Copyright Office Web site, at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/ 

comments/. The Copyright Office 

published a second Notice of Inquiry in 

the summer of 2012 that announced 

public hearings and set forth a list of 

specific topics relating to the small 

copyright claims process, which 

resulted in additional public comments. 

See the second Notice of Inquiry, 77 FR 

51068 (Aug. 23, 2012), and comments 

received in response thereto, posted on 

the Copyright Office Web site, at 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

smallclaims/comments/noi_10112012/ 

index.html. Finally, in November 2012, 

the Office held two two-day public 

hearings on small copyright claims in 

New York City and Los Angeles, during 

which participants provided their views 

on the adjudication of small copyright 

claims. 

At this time, the Copyright Office 

seeks additional comments regarding 

how a small copyright claims system 

might be structured and function, 

including from parties who have not 

previously addressed these issues, or 

those who wish to amplify or clarify 

their earlier comments, or respond to 

the comments of others. The Office is 

interested in additional comments about 

the potential benefits and risks of 

creating a new procedure for 

adjudicating small copyright claims, as 

well as how such a system might be 

implemented—for example, as a new 

adjudicative body, as part of the existing 

federal court system, by extending the 

jurisdiction of state courts, or as some 

form of arbitration or mediation system. 

Based on its review of previously 

submitted comments and statements at 

the public hearings, the Office in 

particular seeks further commentary on 

the specific subjects set forth below, as 

the Office believes they warrant further 

analysis. 

While commenting parties may 

address any matter pertinent to the 

adjudication of small copyright claims, 

they should be aware that the Office has 

studied and will take into consideration 

the comments already received, so there 

is no need to restate previously 

submitted material. A party choosing to 

respond to this Notice of Inquiry need 

not address every topic below, but the 

Office requests that responding parties 

clearly identify and separately address 

those subjects for which a response is 

submitted. 

II. Subjects of Inquiry 

1. Voluntary versus mandatory 

participation. Stakeholders voiced 

opinions in their comments and at the 

Office’s two public hearings regarding 

the benefits and risks of voluntary 

versus mandatory small copyright claim 

resolution systems. Specifically, 

members of the public expressed 

conflicting views concerning the 

efficacy of incentives for participation 

in a voluntary system and the 

constitutional implications of a 

mandatory system. The Office is 

interested in learning more about the 

feasibility and constraints of voluntary 

and mandatory systems, and how these 

alternatives might be implemented. 

Among other questions, the Office is 

interested in whether a voluntary 

system could be implemented on an 

‘‘opt out’’ basis—that is, whether a 

properly served defendant might be 

deemed to consent to participate in the 

voluntary process unless he or she 

affirmatively opts out within a certain 

time frame. Some stakeholders 

suggested that such a framework might 

be helpful to address the problem of 

alleged infringers who fail to respond to 

notices of infringement and thus might 

also be unlikely to respond to notice of 

a lawsuit. 

2. Eligible works. The previous round 

of comments and public hearings 

explored the issue of what types of 

works should be covered by a small 

copyright claims process; that is, 

whether the procedure should cover 

only certain types of copyrighted works, 

such as photographs, illustrations, and 

textual works, or should cover all types 

of works. For example, certain music 

organizations proposed that musical 

works and sound recordings be 

excluded from the process (at least for 

the time being) as, in their view, music 

publishers, performing rights societies, 

and record companies already 

adequately address small copyright 

claims on behalf of the songwriters and 

recording artists they represent. At the 

same time, others pointed out that some 

songwriters and recording artists—for 

example, those who are selfrepresented—may not have access to 

such resources and, even if they are 

represented through a larger 

organization, may not be successful in 

convincing that organization to take 

legal action. The Office invites further 

comment on whether musical works, 

sound recordings, or any other type of 

copyrighted work should be excluded 

from the small claims process and, if so, 

how it might impact individual and 

small copyright owners of that type of 

work. 

3. Permissible claims. Some of the 

comments and public hearing 

participants analyzed what types of 

claims should be eligible for the small 

copyright claims process. These 

comments and discussions raised 

questions regarding how to define what 

claims might or might not be amenable 

to the small copyright claims procedure. 

While it seems clear that a copyright 

small claims tribunal would address 

infringement matters, some 

infringement claims are intertwined 

with other issues, such as contractual or 

ownership disputes, thus suggesting a 

need for any such tribunal to address 

these additional types of claims and 

defenses as well. Some commenters 

indicated that plaintiffs should be 

limited to asserting infringement claims, 

with contractual or ownership issues to 

be adjudicated only when raised as 

defenses. Others suggested that certain 

types of issues, such as ownership 

disputes, should be excluded from the 

small claims process altogether. The 

Office is interested in further thoughts 

on the types of claims that should be 

included in a small copyright claims 

process and how the system might 

address situations where an allegedly 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices 

infringing act implicates an additional 

cause of action or defense, such as 

breach of contract, an ownership issue, 

a trademark violation, or some other 

claim. 

4. Injunctive relief. In the comments 

and during the public hearings, some 

stakeholders argued strongly that any 

small claims system should include the 

possibility of injunctive relief to end 

infringing behavior, including in 

situations where the infringing conduct 

exploits the work in a manner that the 

copyright owner would not license, or 

violates an exclusive arrangement 

between the copyright owner and a 

third party. However, others noted that 

injunctive relief could be a complicated 

undertaking in a small claims context, 

partly if the unauthorized use is but one 

part of a larger work such as a film, 

book, or sound recording. It was 

suggested that in such a case, a 

plaintiff’s monetary damages might be 

small but the economic consequences of 

an injunction may be considerably 

larger, perhaps exceeding in value any 

damages cap adopted for the small 

claims process. Stakeholders expressed 

differing views as to whether injunctive 

relief should be available through a 

small claims system and, if so, how the 

nature or scope of such relief might be 

tailored to the small claims context. 

Particular concerns raised in the 

comments and at the hearings included: 

whether preliminary injunctive relief is 

compatible with a small claims process; 

the procedural safeguards that would 

adequately protect parties against whom 

injunctive relief was sought; whether 

injunctive relief awarded through the 

small claims process should be 

reviewable by an Article III court; and 

whether Article III review would be a 

practical alternative for parties of 

limited means. A related consideration 

is how the question of injunctive relief 

might be affected by whether the small 

claims process is voluntary or 

mandatory. The Office welcomes 

additional thoughts on these issues. 

5. Secondary liability. Although much 

of the public commentary and 

discussion of small copyright claims has 

focused on direct infringement, it has 

also touched upon issues of secondary 

liability, including the relationship of a 

small claims procedure to the notice 

and takedown requirements of Section 

512 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512. 

The Office is interested in further views 

concerning the intersection of a small 

claims process with Section 512 and, 

more generally, any recommended 

approaches to claims of contributory 

and vicarious infringement within the 

small claims context. 

6. Role of attorneys. Written 

comments and discussion at the two 

hearings revealed a range of opinions as 

to the role of attorneys in a small 

copyright claims system. Some believe 

attorneys should be excluded from the 

proceedings as the ability to retain 

counsel would tend to favor defendants 

with greater resources over small 

copyright owner plaintiffs who are 

compelled to proceed pro se. Other 

commenters believe that access to legal 

representation would be important to 

both sides—especially in cases with a 

degree of legal complexity—and the 

system should be designed to encourage 

attorneys to take lower-value cases by 

offering fee awards. It was further 

suggested that such fee awards might be 

capped to reflect the streamlined 

procedures and lower recoveries of a 

small claims process. The Office 

welcomes further consideration of these 

issues. 

7. Guiding law. If the small claims 

tribunal was to be centrally located (or 

even if it were in multiple locations), 

what decisional law should it follow? In 

addition to the United States Supreme 

Court, should it look primarily to 

copyright decisions of any particular 

circuit—for example, based upon its 

location, the location of the infringing 

conduct, or the location of the parties? 

Should its own decisions have any 

precedential effect, at least with respect 

to future decisions of the small claims 

tribunal? In this regard, some expressed 

the concern that if small claims 

decisions had effect beyond the 

immediate dispute, defendants might be 

inclined to opt out of a voluntary 

system. The Office invites further 

thoughts on the decisional law that 

should guide the small claims tribunal. 

8. Willful and innocent infringement. 

At the hearings, it was suggested by 

some that a small claims process should 

not include a potential finding of 

willfulness, in part because it could be 

more difficult to establish the 

appropriate evidentiary record to 

support such a finding under a 

streamlined procedure. In addition, a 

damages cap for small copyright claims 

appreciably below the existing $150,000 

maximum in statutory damages for 

willful infringement—for example, a 

ceiling of $30,000, as has been suggested 

by some—would limit the economic 

significance of a willfulness finding. See 

17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2). If the willfulness 

element were to be eliminated in the 

small claims context, a question also 

arises as to whether the ‘‘innocent 

infringer’’ distinction—which permits a 

court to reduce statutory damages to as 

low as $200 for a defendant who was 

not aware and had no reason to believe 

his or her actions were infringing— 

should remain. See id. Should the small 

claims procedure eliminate distinctions 

as to the nature of the infringement, 

along with their potential impact on 

damages awards? 

9. Service of process. At the hearings, 

participants shared views on how 

potential small claims defendants might 

be notified of the action. A particular 

concern is that copyright owners of 

limited means may have difficulty 

effectuating traditional service on 

distant or elusive defendants. It was 

suggested that Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4, including the provision 

that permits a defendant to be notified 

of an action by mail or other means via 

a waiver of formal service of process, 

could be appropriate for the small 

claims system. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. It 

was also suggested that a Web site might 

properly be served by sending electronic 

notice to an agent designated to receive 

notifications of infringement pursuant 

to Section 512 of the Copyright Act. See 

17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2). In addition, it was 

observed that the small claims tribunal 

might handle service of defendants, as 

is sometimes the case in other contexts 

(including in some state courts). The 

Office seeks further comments on 

potential procedures to notify 

defendants that an action has been filed. 

10. Offers of judgment. Some 

commenters have suggested that a 

process such as that contemplated by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68— 

which allows a defendant to make an 

offer of judgment and recover certain 

costs if the plaintiff rejects the offer and 

fails to obtain a more favorable 

outcome—could play a useful role in 

the small claims setting. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 68. Others feel that once a plaintiff 

has filed an action, pretrial settlement 

procedures would merely delay the 

process in most cases. The Office is 

interested in additional comments as to 

whether and how a mechanism akin to 

Rule 68 might be useful in the small 

claims context. 

11. Default judgments. Current federal 

district court procedures allow a 

plaintiff to seek default judgments if a 

lawfully served defendant fails to 

appear. The Office is interested in 

whether such a procedure should be 

available in a small copyright claim 

proceeding. If plaintiffs are able to seek 

default judgments, what are the 

procedural safeguards that should 

apply, what type of remedies should be 

available, and what type of showing 

should be required to justify relief? 

12. Enforceability of judgments. A 

primary concern of commenters and 

participants at the small claims hearings 

is that a small claims judgment—in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2013 / Notices 13097 

particular one rendered through a 

voluntary system—should be 

enforceable. In addition to monetary 

damages, such a judgment might 

include some form of injunctive relief. 

Participants offered a range of 

suggestions on the matter of 

enforcement. Some indicated that the 

Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et 

seq., might to some degree serve as a 

model for obtaining an enforceable 

federal court judgment following 

adjudication by the small claims 

tribunal. Participants also commented 

on the practical aspects of collecting on 

judgments. Noting that the challenges of 

enforcing a judgment, once obtained, are 

not unique to the copyright context, 

some suggested that successful small 

claims plaintiffs could avail themselves 

of existing federal and state court 

procedures. The Office welcomes 

further discussion of existing or 

potential mechanisms that successful 

plaintiffs might employ to enforce small 

claims judgments without incurring 

prohibitive costs. 

13. Unknown defendants. Some 

hearing participants observed that in 

many instances—especially in the case 

of internet-based infringement—the 

infringer’s identity may not be known 

and/or the infringer may be difficult to 

locate. Web sites may lack usable 

contact data and/or may be registered 

anonymously. Should the small claims 

procedure permit parties to pursue 

claims against ‘‘John Doe’’ defendants, 

including, when appropriate, the means 

to subpoena an internet service provider 

to learn the identity and location of 

such a defendant? The Office invites 

comments on how such a process might 

work, with reference to existing 

practices in other courts as appropriate. 

14. Multiple tracks or proceedings. 

During the hearings, some participants 

discussed the possibility of having more 

than one type of small copyright claims 

proceeding—a highly simplified process 

for straightforward claims with perhaps 

only a few hundred or few thousand 

dollars at stake, and a more robust 

process for matters of greater complexity 

or economic consequence that are still 

too small to be practically pursued in 

federal district court. Stakeholders 

considered whether, even within the 

small claims context, there should be a 

greater amount of discovery and 

procedure in certain types of cases, for 

example, when an injunction is sought. 

The Office seeks further comment on 

whether a tiered system would be 

desirable, or whether a single, unified 

approach to small claims is the better 

alternative, perhaps with the possibility 

of developing additional ‘‘tracks’’ over 

time if warranted. 

15. Constitutional issues. The Office 

continues to be interested in learning 

more about the constitutional impact of 

any small copyright claims procedure. 

Thus, the Office requests additional 

comments on whether a small copyright 

claims system might implicate any one 

or more of the following constitutional 

concerns—or any other constitutional 

issue—and, if so, how the particular 

concern might be addressed: 

a. Separation of powers questions 

arising from the creation of specialized 

tribunals outside of the Article III 

framework, including how a right of 

review by an Article III court might 

impact the analysis; 

b. The Seventh Amendment right to 

have a copyright infringement case tried 

by a jury, as confirmed in Feltner v. 

Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 

U.S. 340 (1998); 

c. Constitutional requirements for a 

court’s assertion of personal 

jurisdiction, in particular when 

adjudicating claims of a defendant 

located in another state; and/or 

d. Due process considerations arising 

from abbreviated procedures that 

impose limitations on briefing, 

discovery, testimony, evidence, 

appellate review, etc. 

16. International issues. At the public 

hearings, some participants sought to 

ensure that the small claims procedure 

would be available to foreign plaintiffs 

seeking redress for infringing activity in 

the United States, as well as to U.S. 

plaintiffs seeking to take action against 

foreign defendants, as is permitted 

under the existing federal system. The 

operation of a small copyright claims 

system could have implications for the 

United States’ rights and responsibilities 

under the Berne Convention, the 

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of 

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 

and other instruments. The Office 

welcomes additional comments on the 

international implications of a small 

claims system, including how the 

voluntary or mandatory nature of such 

a system might affect the analysis. 

17. Empirical data. Previous 

comments provided helpful empirical 

data relevant to the adjudication of 

small copyright claims, including 

surveys by the American Bar 

Association Section on Intellectual 

Property Law and the Graphic Artists 

Guild. The Office welcomes additional 

surveys and empirical studies bearing 

upon: 

a. Whether copyright owners are or 

are not pursuing small infringement 

claims through the existing federal court 

process, and the factors that influence 

copyright owners’ decisions in that 

regard, including the value of claims 

pursued or forgone; 

b. The overall cost to a plaintiff and/ 

or a defendant to litigate a copyright 

infringement action to conclusion in 

federal court, including costs and 

attorneys’ fees, discovery expenditures, 

expert witness fees and other expenses 

(with reference to the stage of 

proceedings at which the matter was 

concluded); 

c. The frequency with which courts 

award costs and/or attorneys’ fees to 

prevailing parties pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

505, and the amount of such awards in 

relation to the underlying claim or 

recovery; and/or 

d. The frequency with which litigants 

decline to accept an outcome in state 

small copyright claims court and seek 

de novo review (with or without a jury 

trial) or file an appeal in a different 

court. 

Parties considering the submission of 

additional survey or empirical data may 

wish to review the studies mentioned 

above, which are available at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/. 

18. Other issues. Please comment on 

any other issues the Copyright Office 

should consider in conducting its small 

copyright claims study. 

Dated: February 20, 2013. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–04466 Filed 2–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2013–0038] 

Electric Power Research Institute; 

Seismic Evaluation Guidance 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Endorsement letter; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing an 

endorsement letter with clarifications of 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)- 

1025287, ‘‘Seismic Evaluation 

Guidance: Screening, Prioritization and 

Implementation Details (SPID) for the 

Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term 

Task Force Recommendation 2.1: 

Seismic,’’ Revision 0, hereafter referred 

to as the SPID report. This SPID report 

provides guidance and clarification of 

an acceptable approach to assist nuclear 

power reactor licensees when 

responding to the NRC staff’s request for 

information dated March 12, 2012, 

Enclosure 1, ‘‘Recommendation 2.1: 

Seismic.’’ The NRC staff’s endorsement 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES