### 30437 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1 Robert Prior, et al., OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations, ‘‘Core Exit Temperature (CET) Effectiveness in Accident Management of Nuclear Power Reactor,’’ NEA/CSNI/R(2010)9, November 26 2010, p. 128.

2 Charles Miller, et al., NRC, ‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,’’ SECY–11–0093, July 12, 2011, available at: www.nrc.gov, NRC Library, ADAMS Documents, Accession Number: ML 111861807, p. 47.

3 John G. Kemeny, et al., ‘‘Report of the
President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island: The Need for Change: The Legacy of TMI,’’ p. 72. 4 Charles Miller, et al., ‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,’’ p. 47. tool that was used to detect inadequate core cooling and core uncover.’’ The petitioner states ‘‘[t]he problem with using a predetermined core-exit temperature measurement to signal the time for NPP operators to transition from EOPs [Emergency Operating Procedures] to implementing SAMGs [Severe Accident Management Guidelines] is that experimental data indicates that core-exit temperature (‘‘CET’’) measurements have significant limitations: (1) ‘[t]he use of the CET
measurements has limitations in detecting inadequate core cooling and core uncovery;’ (2) ‘[t]he CET indication displays in all cases a significant delay (up to several 100 [seconds]);’ and (3) ‘[t]he CET reading is always significantly lower (up to several 100 [Kelvin]) than the actual maximum cladding temperature.’ ’’ 1 The petitioner continues by asserting that ‘‘despite the fact that ‘the nuclear industry developed SAMGs during the 1980s and 1990s in response to the [Three Mile Island] accident and followup activities,’ which ‘included extensive research and study (including several [probabilistic risk assessments]) on severe accidents and severe accident phenomena,’ 2 NRC and the nuclear industry have ignored experimental data indicating that CET measurements have significant limitations. And ignored the President’s
Commission recommendations that
NPPs have ‘instruments that can provide proper warning and diagnostic information; for example, the measurement of the full range of temperatures within the reactor vessel
under normal and abnormal
conditions.’ ’’ 3

The petitioner cites the NRC’s July 2011 ‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident,’’ by stating that ‘‘‘EOPs typically cover accidents to the point of loss of core cooling and initiation of inadequate core cooling ( e.g., core exit temperatures in PWRs greater than 649 degrees Celsius (1200 degrees Fahrenheit)).’ ’’ 4 The petitioner continues by stating ‘‘[u]nfortunately, NRC and Westinghouse do not consider that experimental data from tests
conducted at four facilities indicates
that CET measurements would not be an adequate indicator for when to transition from EOPs to implementing
SAMGs in a severe accident.’’

The petitioner cites findings of experiments, including a LOFT LP–FP– 2 experiment, and states that ‘‘[t]he
results of LOFT LP–FP–2 and other experiments demonstrate the need for NPPs to operate with in-core thermocouples at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core to enable NPP operators toaccurately measure a large range of incore temperatures in NPP steady-state
and transient conditions.’’

The petition states that the ‘‘[p]etitioner is submitting this 10 CFR 2.802 petition because if NPPs were to operate with in-core thermocouples at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core to enable NPP operators to accurately measure a large range of in-core temperatures in NPP steady-state and transient conditions, it would help improve public and plant-worker safety. In the event of a severe accident, in-core thermocouples would enable NPP operators to accurately measure in-core temperatures, providing crucial information to help operators manage the accident; for example, indicating the
time to transition from EOPs to implementing SAMGs.’’ The petitioner also asserts that ‘‘[i]f implemented, the regulation proposed in this petition for rulemaking would help improve public and plant-worker safety.’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May 2012.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012–12475 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 7590–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 71**

**[Docket No. FAA–2012–0287; Airspace Docket No. 11–AWP–21]** 

**RIN 2120–AA66**

**Proposed Amendment of Air Traffic Service Routes; Southwestern United** 
**States**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.

**SUMMARY :**  This action corrects the description of VOR Federal airway V–16 to include a previous amendment to the description that was inadvertently
omitted in the NPRM.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before June 7, 2012.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On April 23, 2012, Docket No. FAA–2012–0287; Airspace Docket No. 11–AWP–21 was published in the Federal Register proposing to amend various Air Traffic
Service Routes in the Southwestern United States (77 FR 24156). The description of V–16 in the NPRM did not reflect a previous amendment of the route that was published on September 19, 2011 (76 FR 57902). The incorrect part of the V–16 description in the NPRM reads ‘‘* * * Kennedy; Dear Park, NY; Calverton, NY; Norwich, CT
* * *’’ The correct version is ‘‘* * * Kennedy; INT Kennedy 040 ° and Calverton, NY 261 ° radials; Calverton; Norwich, CT * * *’’ The corrected airspace description is rewritten for clarity.

Correction to Proposed Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the NPRM for the proposed amendment of Air Traffic Service Routes; Southwestern United States as published in the Federal Register of April 23, 2010 (77 FR 24156) FR Doc. 2012–9675, is corrected as
follows:

By removing the description of V–16 starting at line 16, column 3, on page 24157, and inserting the following:

V–16 [Amended]

From Los Angeles, CA; Paradise, CA; Palm Springs, CA; Blythe, CA; Buckeye, AZ;


### 30438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules

Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 155 ° and Stanfield, AZ, 105 ° radials; Tucson, AZ; San Simon, AZ; INT San Simon 119 ° (T)/106 ° (M) and Columbus, NM, 277 ° (T)/265 ° (M) radials; Columbus; El Paso, TX; Salt Flat, TX; Wink, TX; INT Wink 066 ° and Big Spring, TX, 260 ° radials; Big Spring; Abilene, TX; Bowie, TX; Bonham, TX; Paris, TX; Texarkana, AR; Pine Bluff, AR; Marvell, AR; Holly Springs, MS; Jacks Creek, TN; Shelbyville, TN; Hinch Mountain, TN; Volunteer, TN; Holston Mountain, TN; Pulaski, VA; Roanoke, VA; Lynchburg, VA; Flat Rock, VA; Richmond, VA; INT Richmond 039 ° and Patuxent, MD,

228 ° radials; Patuxent; Smyrna, DE; Cedar Lake, NJ; Coyle, NJ; INT Coyle 036 ° and Kennedy, NY, 209 ° radials; Kennedy; INT Kennedy 040 ° and Calverton, NY 261 ° radials; Calverton; Norwich, CT; Boston, MA. The airspace within Mexico and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The airspace within Restricted Areas R–5002A, R–5002C, and R– 5002D is excluded during their times of use. The airspace within Restricted Areas R–4005
and R–4006 is excluded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16,

2012. Ellen Crum, Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.

[FR Doc. 2012–12571 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 71**

**[Docket No. FAA–2012–0386; Airspace Docket No. 12–AEA–6]** 

**Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Quakertown, PA** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Quakertown, PA, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Quakertown Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800– 647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA– 2012–0386; Airspace Docket No. 12– AEA–6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)

305–6364.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 2012–0386; Airspace Docket No. 12– AEA–6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see

**ADDRESSES** section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2012–0386; Airspace Docket No. 12–AEA–6.’’ The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be
filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http:// www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA’s web page at http://www.faa.gov/ airports

_airtraffic/air

_traffic/ publications/airspace

_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the

**ADDRESSES** section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia

30337.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Quakertown, PA, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Quakertown Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface would be established for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated,