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

57785

Vol. 64, No. 207

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 30

[Docket No. PRM–30–62]

Employee Protection Training; Receipt

of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice

of receipt.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is publishing for

public comment a notice of receipt of a

petition for rulemaking dated August

13, 1999, that was filed with the

Commission by the Union of Concerned

Scientists. The petition was docketed by

the NRC on August 18, 1999, and has

been assigned Docket No. PRM–30–62.

The petitioner requests that the NRC

amend its regulations concerning

deliberate misconduct to require

licensees to provide specific training to

management, i.e., first line supervisors,

managers, directors, and officers, on

their obligations under the employee

protection regulations. The petitioner

believes that the amendment would

prevent nuclear energy management

from using ‘‘ignorance of the law’’ as an

excuse for a violation and allow the

NRC to take enforcement actions against

individuals who violate the employee

protection regulations.

DATES: Submit comments by January 10,

2000. 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: Submit written comments

to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal

workdays.

For a copy of the petition, write to

David L. Meyer, 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 provides the capability to

upload comments as files (any format),

if your web browser supports that

function. For information about the

interactive rulemaking website, contact

Ms. 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, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower

Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7162 or Toll

Free: 1–800–368–5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Petitioner

The Union of Concerned Scientists

(UCS) has had a nuclear safety program

for over two decades and continue to

work with nuclear workers—including

employees of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission—who raise safety

concerns. The UCS notes examples of

anonymous concerns received by its

organization that have led to significant

improvements in safety levels, e.g.,

concerns that UCS forwarded to the

State of Maine in December 1996 that

led to the identification of faults in the

safety analyses for the Maine Yankee

plant. Other concerns received by UCS

and presented to the NRC in January

1998 led to the discovery of serious

defects in the ice condenser

containment at the Donald C. Cook

nuclear plant.

Grounds for Interest

The petitioner states that on May 14,

1996 (61 FR 24336) the NRC issued a

policy statement that set forth its

expectation that licensees and other

employers subject to NRC authority will

establish and maintain a safetyconscious environment in which

employees feel free to raise safety

concerns, both to their management and

to the NRC, without fear of retaliation.

The responsibility for maintaining such

an environment rests with each NRC

licensee, as well as with contractors,

subcontractors and employees in the

nuclear industry. This policy statement

is applicable to NRC regulated activities

of all NRC licensees and their

contractors and subcontractors.

The petitioner also notes that Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations

contains regulations to protect such

conscientious workers from

discrimination. The petitioner asserts

that these regulations are frequently

violated, yet the individuals determined

by the NRC staff as being responsible for

these illegal activities are seldom held

accountable.

Fitness-for-Duty Rule

The petitioner states that 10 CFR Part

26 that contains the ‘‘Fitness-For-Duty’’

regulations requires nuclear workers to

be free from impairment by drugs and

alcohol. The petitioner states that of the

111 individual enforcement actions

listed in Attachment 1 to the petition,

17 involved violation of the fitness-forduty rule. The petitioner stated that the

NRC did not take actions against the

licensees for these cases, but limited its

sanctions to those individuals

responsible for the violations.

To the contrary, the petitioner states

that NRC treats violations of employee

protection regulations differently. As an

example, in Attachment 2 to the

petition, the petitioner states that when

the NRC establishes that a violation of

an employee protection regulation has

occurred such as the May 20, 1999,

enforcement action that the NRC

imposed against FirstEnergy, the NRC

seldom takes enforcement action against

the individuals responsible for the

violations, but limits its enforcement

actions to the licensees.

The petitioner believes that nuclear

safety demands that workers not be

impaired by drug and alcohol and that

when any worker violates the fitnessfor-duty rule, that individual should be

held accountable. The petitioner

believes it is equally important that

nuclear workers feel free to raise safety

issues without fear of discrimination

and believes that when a nuclear worker

violates the employee protection
57786 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 207 /Wednesday, October 27, 1999 / Proposed Rules

regulations, that individual should be

held accountable.

The petitioner offers that the NRC

holds individuals who violate the

fitness-for-duty rule accountable.

However, the agency is not holding

individuals who violate the employee

protection regulations accountable. The

petitioner is attempting to remedy this

inequity by this petition for rulemaking.

The petitioner believes that by requiring

licensees to train management on their

obligations under the employee

protection regulations, the NRC staff

would no longer be able to claim that

individuals were unaware that their

actions were illegal.

Supporting Information

The petitioner states that ‘‘10 CFR

Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71,

72, 110, and 150 each contain a

regulation against deliberate misconduct

by employees and/or contractors of NRC

licensees.’’ The petitioner specifically

set out in the petition the text from 10

CFR 50.5 to reflect the scope and

content of the deliberate misconduct

regulations.

The petitioner included three

attachments to the petition that

summarize the enforcement actions that

NRC imposed against individuals,

nuclear power plant owners, and nonnuclear power plant licensees between

March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The

enforcement data contained in the

attachments were obtained from the

website of the NRC Office of

Enforcement, http://nrc.gov.OE/.

Sanctions Against Individuals

Attachment 1 to the petition indicates

that NRC took enforcement action

against individuals 111 times between

March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The

petitioner notes that only four cases

involved enforcement actions taken by

the NRC because the individual

discriminated against nuclear workers

raising safety concerns. The petitioner

states that Federal regulations protect

nuclear workers from being

discriminated against for raising safety

concerns and cites as an example the

text of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee

Protection, that applies to workers at

nuclear power plants. The petitioner

further states that 10 CFR contains

equivalent regulations that apply to

workers at non-power nuclear facilities.

The petitioner specifies that the four

cases listed in Attachment 1 to the

petition where NRC imposed

enforcement action against individuals

for their discriminatory actions against

nuclear workers clearly demonstrate

that the NRC can take such actions.

However, according to the petitioner,

the evidence is just as clear that the

NRC seldom imposes enforcement

actions against individuals even when it

concludes that individuals were

responsible for illegal discriminatory

actions.

Sanctions Against Nuclear and NonNuclear Licensees

Attachment 2 to the petition lists

eighteen enforcement actions imposed

against nuclear power plant owners for

discrimination against nuclear power

plant workers. The petitioner states that

in 12 of the 18 enforcement actions

against the owners, the NRC also

imposed a civil penalty. The penalties

ranged between $55,000 and $200,000

with the average being $104,417.

Attachment 3 to the petition lists five

enforcement actions imposed against

non-nuclear power plant licensees for

discrimination against workers. The

petitioner states that in four of the five

enforcement actions against non-nuclear

plant licensees, the NRC also imposed a

civil penalty. The penalties ranged

between $4,400 and $10,000 with the

average being $7,800.

The petitioner states that from March

1996 to August 5, 1999, the NRC took

23 enforcement actions against licensees

for discriminating against nuclear

workers. The petitioner notes that before

taking the enforcement actions and

imposing the fines, the NRC staff’s

investigations determined who did what

to whom. According to the petitioner,

the NRC concluded that the ‘‘what’’

violated the employee protection

regulations of 10 CFR.

The petitioner states that despite

identifying ‘‘who’’ was responsible for

violating Federal regulations in the 23

cases, the NRC staff only took

enforcement action against individuals

on four occasions. The petitioner further

adds that the fact that the NRC took

actions against four individuals

demonstrates that it has the statutory

authority to do so and in fact revised its

regulations on January 13, 1998 (63 FR

1890) to extend the Deliberate

Misconduct Rule to six categories of

persons. These categories included

applicants for NRC licenses; applicants

for, or holders of, certificates of

compliance; applicants for, or holders

of, early site permits, standard design

certifications, or combined licenses for

nuclear power plants; applicants for, or

holders of, certificates of registration;

applicants for, or holders of, quality

assurance program approvals; and the

employees, contractors, subcontractors

and consultants of the above five

categories of persons.

10 CFR 2.206 Petition

On May 25, 1999, the petitioner filed

a petition with the NRC under 10 CFR

2.206. The petition requested that the

individual who was the Radiation

Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear

Power Plant be banned by the NRC from

participation in licensed activities at

and for any nuclear power plant for a

period of at least five years.

An NRC News Announcement RIII–

99–31 dated May 24, 1999, stated that

an NRC investigation found that the

Radiation Protection Manager at the

Perry Nuclear Power Plant

discriminated against a supervisor in

1997 for testifying in a United States

Department of Labor hearing involving

possible discrimination against another

plant worker. The Announcement stated

that the NRC has banned individuals in

the recent past for five years for

retaliation.

By letter dated June 23, 1999, the NRC

denied the petition. According to the

letter, the NRC stated that while

consideration was given to taking

enforcement action against the manager,

it determined that the manager was not

familiar with the requirements of 10

CFR 50.7. The NRC issued the manager

a letter stating that the manager’s

actions contributed to the enforcement

action against FirstEnergy. Additionally,

the letter informed the manager that

involvement in a future discrimination

violation could result in enforcement

action against the manager. The NRC

proposed a $110,000 fine against

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company, for violation of the employee

protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.7.

Conclusion

The petitioner states NRC’s decision

regarding its 2.206 petition makes little

sense. The petitioner asserts that NRC

inaction endorses the view that

ignorance of the law is an excuse—at

least when it comes to violating

regulations promulgated to protect

nuclear workers from discrimination.

The petitioner noted that when the NRC

revised the Deliberate Misconduct rule

in January, 1998, it stated—

The objective of the rule is to explicitly put

those persons encompassed by this

modification of the Deliberate Misconduct

Rule on notice that enforcement action may

be taken against them for deliberate

misconduct or deliberate submission of

incomplete or inaccurate information, in

relation to NRC licensed activities. Under

Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the

Commission may impose civil penalties on

any person who violates any rule, regulation,

or order issued under any one of the

enumerated provisions of the Act, or who

commits a violation for which a license may
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 207 /Wednesday, October 27, 1999 / Proposed Rules 57787

be revoked. The enforcement actions that

may be taken, including orders limiting

activities of wrongdoers in the future and

civil penalties, will serve as a deterrent to

others throughout the industry. [emphasis

added by Petitioner]

The petitioner states that the NRC

staff believes that people will be aware

that the deliberate misconduct

regulation was expanded to apply to

them, but that these same people will be

oblivious to all of the other regulations

that define proper conduct. Further, the

petitioner believes that rather than

debating whether the NRC staff can

really excuse illegal activities of nuclear

industry management based on their

ignorance of Federal regulations, UCS,

the petitioner, is opting for this petition

for rulemaking change to disallow the

ignorance excuse.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of October, 1999.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 99–28050 Filed 10–26–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–183–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerospatiale

Model ATR42 and ATR72 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Aerospatiale Model ATR42 and ATR72

series airplanes. This proposal would

require modification of the alerting

capability of the anti-icing advisory

system to improve crew awareness of

icing conditions, replacement of the

median wing de-icing boots with

extended de-icing boots, and

installation of de-icing boots on the

metallic wing leading edge. This

proposal is prompted by issuance of

mandatory continuing airworthiness

information by a foreign civil

airworthiness authority. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent degradation of lift

and drag characteristics in prolonged

severe icing exposure, which could

result in loss of lift and consequent

reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

183–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Aerospatiale, 316 Route de Bayonne,

31060 Toulouse, Cedex 03, France. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

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 shall

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

summarizing 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 Number 99–NM–183–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, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

99–NM–183–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on all Aerospatiale

Model ATR42 and ATR72 series

airplanes. The DGAC advises that, in

several instances, crews have failed to

activate the de-icing boots, despite the

fact that ice accretion had been detected

by the Anti-icing Advisory System

(AAS). This failure to activate the deicing boots may indicate that the current

design of the AAS may not provide

adequate alerting to the flight crew in all

instances of ice accretion. In addition,

the existing wing de-icing boots may not

be adequate to protect the airplane

during prolonged exposure to severe

icing conditions. Such prolonged

exposure could result in degradation of

lift and drag characteristics, which

could result in loss of lift and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Aerospatiale has issued Service

Bulletins ATR42–30–0064, Revision 1,

dated May 7, 1999, and ATR42–30–

0063, Revision 1, dated May 7, 1999 (for

Model ATR42 series airplanes); and

Service Bulletins ATR72–30–1032,

Revision 1, dated May 7, 1999, and

ATR72–30–1033, Revision 1, dated May

7, 1999 (for Model ATR72 series

airplanes). These service bulletins

describe procedures for replacing the

median wing de-icing boots with

extended de-icing boots and installing

de-icing boots on the metallic wing

leading edge.

Additionally, Aerospatiale has issued

Service Bulletin ATR42–30–0065,

Revision 1, dated May 17, 1999 (for

Model ATR42 series airplanes), and

Service Bulletin ATR72–30–1034,

Revision 1, dated May 17, 1999 (for

Model ATR72 series airplanes). These

service bulletins describe procedures for

modifying the ICING light flashing logic

of the AAS.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in the service bulletins is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition. The DGAC

classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued French