Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 23685 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment submissions into 

ADAMS. 

The Petition 

Ellen C. Ginsburg, vice president, 

general counsel, and secretary, NEI, 

submitted a PRM dated January 25, 2013 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13035A186), 

requesting that the NRC amend its 

personnel access authorization 

regulations to ensure that denials cannot 

be overturned by a third party. The NRC 

has determined that the petition meets 

the threshold sufficiency requirements 

for a petition for rulemaking under 

§ 2.802 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Petition for 

rulemaking,’’ and the petition has been 

docketed as PRM–73–16. The NRC is 

requesting public comment on the 

petition for rulemaking. 

The Petitioner 

The petition states that NEI ‘‘is the 

organization responsible for establishing 

unified industry policy on matters 

affecting the nuclear energy industry, 

including the regulatory aspects of 

generic operational and technical 

issues.’’ The petition further states that 

NEI ‘‘endeavors to bring matters to the 

NRC’s attention that might frustrate the 

agency’s statutory and regulatory 

objectives.’’ The NEI believes that the 

issue raised in this petition is a generic 

matter and ‘‘has the potential to affect 

the ability of NRC reactor licensees to 

control access to the protected and vital 

areas of their sites.’’ 

Discussion of the Petition 

The NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR part 

73, ‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ require a nuclear power 

plant to have access authorization 

programs in place to evaluate an 

employee’s suitability for unescorted 

access to the plant. Specifically, 10 CFR 

73.56(c) contains the requirement that 

all licensees have access authorization 

programs in place that provide a high 

degree of assurance that all employees 

granted unescorted access to nuclear 

power plants ‘‘are trustworthy and 

reliable, such that they do not constitute 

an unreasonable risk to public health 

and safety or the common defense and 

security, including the potential to 

commit radiological sabotage.’’ 

Regulations at 10 CFR 73.56(d) require 

licensees to perform background 

investigations of those employees 

seeking unescorted access, and 

regulations at 10 CFR 73.56(l) requires 

licensees to implement a notification 

and review process for those employees 

who are denied unescorted access. For 

the employee whose denial may provide 

an adverse impact on employment, the 

review ‘‘must provide for an impartial 

and independent internal management 

review.’’ 

The petitioner states that the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 7th 

Circuit decided, in Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC v. Local 15, International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 676 

F.3d 566 (7th Cir. Ill. 2012), that the 

NRC’s access authorization regulations 

do not prohibit the use of third-party 

arbitrators in cases where employees 

have been denied access. The petitioner 

states that one effect of the court’s 

decision is that a person who has been 

determined not to be trustworthy and 

reliable by a licensee and denied 

unescorted access to a nuclear power 

plant could have that determination 

overturned by a third party. Therefore, 

according to the petitioner, the 7th 

Circuit court’s decision ‘‘undermines 

the NRC’s ability to demonstrate that 

adequate protection is assured if 

licensees are impeded in their ability to 

comply with NRC regulations to 

maintain ‘high assurance’.’’ 

Furthermore, the petitioner believes 

that the 7th Circuit court’s conclusion 

that NRC regulations do not explicitly 

prohibit third-party arbitration of 

denials of unescorted access could have 

been prevented had the regulations 

contained more ‘‘clarity regarding the 

proper scope of the review process and 

the ultimate responsibility of the 

licensee for plant safety and security.’’ 

The petitioner states that in order to 

provide the necessary clarity, the NRC 

regulations should be modified to 

‘‘expressly prohibit the restoration or 

grant of unescorted access by third 

parties (including arbitrators), to remove 

all doubt that the licensee is solely 

responsible for making final unescorted 

access decisions, and to prescribe a 

clearly-articulated scope of review for 

third-party reviewers.’’ The petitioner 

provided proposed modifications to the 

regulations at 10 CFR 73.56(a)(4), 10 

CFR 73.56(a)(5), and 10 CFR 73.56(l), 

that the petitioner believes would 

clarify the process and limit the scope 

on third-party reviews of access denials, 

and strengthen the authority of licensees 

to approve or deny unescorted access to 

nuclear power plants. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of April 2013. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09375 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0153; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–022–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed a new airworthiness directive 

(AD) for certain The Boeing Company 

Model 777–200 and –300 series 

airplanes. The proposed AD would have 

required removing the electrical system 

control panel, changing the wiring, 

installing a new electrical power control 

panel, and installing new operational 

software for the electrical load 

management system and configuration 

database. Since the proposed AD was 

issued, we have received new data that 

indicates the unsafe condition would 

not be adequately addressed by the 

proposed action. Subsequently, we are 

considering issuing new rulemaking 

that positively addresses the unsafe 

condition identified in the NPRM and 

eliminates the need for the actions 

proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, 

the proposed AD is withdrawn. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD action, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is the Document 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Mei, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and 

Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6467; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: 

raymont.mei@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We proposed to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for 

certain Model 777–200 and –300 series 

airplanes. That NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on March 8, 2011 (76 

FR 12617). The NPRM would have 

required removing the electrical system 

control panel, changing the wiring, 

installing a new electrical power control 

panel, and installing new operational 

software for the electrical load 

management system and configuration 

database. The NPRM resulted from an 

in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems 

review. The proposed actions were 

intended to ensure that the flightcrew is 

able to turn off electrical power to the 

IFE system and other non-essential 

electrical systems through a switch in 

the flight compartment in the event of 

smoke or flames. In the event of smoke 

or flames in the airplane flight deck or 

passenger cabin, the flightcrew’s 

inability to turn off electrical power to 

the IFE system and other non-essential 

electrical systems could result in the 

inability to control smoke or flames in 

the airplane flight deck or passenger 

cabin during a non-normal or 

emergency situation. 

Actions Since NPRM (76 FR 12617, 

March 8, 2011) Was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM (76 FR 

12617, March 8, 2011), we have 

received new data that indicates the 

unsafe condition would not be 

adequately addressed by the proposed 

action. Subsequently, we are 

considering issuing new rulemaking 

that positively addresses the unsafe 

condition identified in the NPRM and 

eliminates the need for the actions 

proposed in the NPRM. 

FAA’s Conclusions 

Upon further consideration, we have 

determined that the unsafe condition 

still exists, however, we intend to 

address it with new AD rulemaking. 

Accordingly, the NPRM (76 FR 12617, 

March 8, 2011) is withdrawn. 

Withdrawal of the NPRM (76 FR 

12617, March 8, 2011) does not 

preclude the FAA from issuing another 

related action or commit the FAA to any 

course of action in the future. 

Regulatory Impact 

Since this action only withdraws an 

NPRM (76 FR 12617, March 8, 2011), it 

is neither a proposed nor a final rule 

and therefore is not covered under 

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 

February 26, 1979). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, 

Docket No. FAA–2011–0153, Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–022–AD, which 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12617). 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 

1, 2013. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09418 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0353; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–SW–029–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter 

France Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model 

AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, 

and EC225LP helicopters to require 

inspecting for the presence of blind 

holes in the tail gearbox (TGB) 

attachment fittings, and, if they are 

missing, installing an additional washer 

under the head of the attachment bolt 

until the attachment fitting is replaced 

with an airworthy attachment fitting. 

This proposed AD was prompted by the 

discovery of interference between the 

TGB aft attachment bolt and the 

structure fitting, caused by a 

manufacturing anomaly that omitted the 

blind hole required for proper fit of the 

attachment bolt. This condition, if not 

detected and corrected, could result in 

insufficient tightening of the TGB 

casing, damage to the TGB attachment, 

cracking under the attachment bolt, and 

loss of the TGB, resulting in loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 21, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact American 

Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 

telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 

0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http:// 

www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may 

review a copy of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

gary.b.roach@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS