28906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

conductivity of layers of crud and oxide 

to be factored into calculations of the 

stored energy in the fuel. The petitioner 

states that because a heavy crud layer 

would increase the quantity of stored 

energy in the fuel, the PCT would also 

increase above that of fuel with the 

same burnup sheathed in clean 

cladding. The petitioner also states that 

instructions specified in Appendix K for 

calculating the quantity of stored energy 

that contains heavy layers of crud and 

oxide are non-conservative. 

The petitioner notes that values of 

stored energy in BOL fuel or fuel with 

burnups between 30 to 35 Gwd/MTU 

are used to calculate PCTs during 

postulated LOCAs. However, the 

petitioner cites a January 2007 ACRS 

Subcommittee on Materials, Metallurgy, 

and Reactor Fuels during which a 

Westinghouse official cited data from 

LOCA calculations showing that single 

cycle fuel with burnups from zero to 

approximately 20 or 25 GWd/MTU 

yielded the highest PCTs. Westinghouse 

also stated that at burnups of about 30 

GWd/MTU, there is approximately a ten 

percent reduction in achievable power, 

which yields PCTs approximately 100 

°C lower than those of fresh fuel. The 

petitioner concludes it is significant that 

an ECCS design based on Appendix K 

requirements is non-conservative and 

hazardous for calculating the quantity of 

stored energy in one-cycle fuel that has 

heavy crud on the cladding. 

The petitioner states that an increase 

in hydrogen content in cladding 

contributes to cladding embrittlement. 

The petitioner cites an April 4, 2001, 

ACRS Reactor Fuels Subcommittee 

meeting during which an expert from 

Argonne National Laboratory stated that 

a reduction of ductility occurs when 

hydrogen levels reach about 600 to 700 

parts-per-million (ppm) in Zircaloy 

cladding. According to the petitioner, 

another expert from the Atomic Energy 

Research Institute stated that a 

threshold for a reduction of ductility in 

Zircaloy cladding occurs at even a lower 

hydrogen level of about 150 to 200 ppm. 

The petitioner also cites the TMI–1 

Cycle 10 event that included massive 

hydrogen absorption in fuel cladding. 

The petitioner notes that hydrogen 

content in the cladding of a rod that did 

not fail measured 700 ppm at TMI–1 

and that this level of hydrogen content 

in one-cycle cladding is similar to the 

800 ppm level measured in fuel 

cladding at the H.B. Robinson, Unit 2 

facility, a PWR. The petitioner states 

that some of the cladding at TMI–1 

Cycle 10 contained levels of hydrogen 

that Argonne National Laboratory found 

would have caused a loss of cladding 

ductility in addition to the 

embrittlement resulting from excessive 

oxide levels. 

The Petitioner’s Proposed Actions 

The petitioner states that new 

regulations are needed for reactor 

operation parameters, uranium-oxide 

and mixed-oxide fuel, and fuel cladding 

to ensure that cladding does not contain 

unsafe amounts of crud and oxide to 

help ensure that nuclear power plants 

operate in compliance with 10 CFR 

50.46(b). The petitioner also states that 

nuclear power plant licensees should be 

required to factor the thermal resistance 

effects of crud and oxide layers on 

cladding into calculations of PCTs for 

postulated LOCAs at their facilities. 

Also, the NRC needs to consider effects 

of crud and oxide when reviewing 

power plant operations reports under 10 

CFR 50.46, and before approving power 

uprates at existing facilities and new 

nuclear power plant designs, such as the 

recently certified Westinghouse AP1000 

design. 

The petitioner requests that Appendix 

K to Part 50 be amended to require that 

the steady state temperature distribution 

and stored energy in the fuel at the 

onset of a postulated LOCA be 

calculated by factoring in the role that 

the thermal resistance of crud and oxide 

layers on cladding plays in increasing 

the stored energy in nuclear fuel. The 

petitioner also states that Appendix K 

should specify instructions to more 

accurately calculate the role that 

thermal resistance of crud and oxide 

layers on cladding plays in determining 

the stored energy in the fuel and the 

PCT during a postulated LOCA. 

Lastly, the petitioner requests that 

§ 50.46 be amended to include a 

requirement that stipulates a maximum 

allowable percentage of hydrogen 

content in cladding because there is 

extensive evidence that excessive 

hydrogen levels and oxidation on 

cladding contributes to cladding 

embrittlement. The petitioner concludes 

that the requested amendments should 

also apply to any NRC-approved, bestestimate ECCS evaluations used instead 

of Appendix K calculations. The 

petitioner believes its requested 

amendments would ensure that nuclear 

power facilities prevent unsafe amounts 

of crud and oxide layers on cladding 

from occurring during operation to 

reduce risks to plant workers and the 

public, and help nuclear power facility 

operations to comply with 10 CFR 

50.46(b). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of May 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–9910 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 24 

Guides for Select Leather and Imitation 

Leather Products 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is requesting public comments on its 

Guides for Select Leather and Imitation 

Leather Products (‘‘Leather Guides’’). 

The Commission is soliciting the 

comments as part of its systematic 

review of all current Commission 

regulations and guides. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Guides for 

Select Leather and Imitation Leather 

Products, Matter No. P078008’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

A comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission/ 

Office of the Secretary, Room H–135 

(Annex L), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material, 

however, must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’

and must comply with Commission 

Rule 4.9(c).1 The FTC is requesting that 

any comment filed in paper form be sent 

by courier or overnight service, if 

possible, because postal mail in the 

Washington area and at the Commission 

is subject to delay due to heightened 

security precautions. Comments filed in 

electronic form must be submitted by 

accessing the following site: https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcleatherguides, and following the 

instructions on the web-based form. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28907 

2 61 FR 51577 (October 3, 1996). 

3The Luggage Guides, the Shoe Content Guides, 

and the Handbag Guides were repealed in 1995. 60 

FR 48027 (September 18, 1995). On the same day, 

the Commission requested public comment 

regarding proposed Leather Guides. 60 FR 48056 

(September 18, 1995). 

4The Commission had previously repealed the 

Waist Belt Rule. 61 FR 25560 (May 22, 1966). 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC Web 

site, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan E. Arthur, (214) 979–9370, 

Attorney, Southwest Region, Federal 

Trade Commission, 1999 Bryan Street, 

Suite 2150, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission’s Leather Guides 

address misrepresentations regarding 

the composition and characteristics of 

specific leather and imitation leather 

products. The Guides apply to the 

manufacture, sale, distribution, 

marketing, or advertising of leather or 

simulated leather purses, luggage, 

wallets, footwear, and other similar 

products. Importantly, the Leather 

Guides state that disclosure of nonleather content should be made for 

material which has the appearance of 

leather but is not leather. 

The Leather Guides ‘‘are 

administrative interpretations of laws 

administered by the Commission for the 

guidance of the public in conducting its 

affairs in conformity with legal 

requirements. They provide the basis for 

voluntary and simultaneous 

abandonment of unlawful practices by 

members of industry.’’ 16 CFR 1.5. 

Conduct inconsistent with the Guides 

may result in corrective action by the 

Commission under applicable statutory 

provisions. 

The Commission adopted the Leather 

Guides in 1996, as part of its periodic 

review of its rules and guides.2 The 

Leather Guides consolidated portions of 

the Guides for the Luggage and Related 

Products Industry (‘‘Luggage Guides’’), 

the Guides for Shoe Content Labeling 

and Advertising (‘‘Shoe Content 

Guides’’), and the Guides for the Ladies’

Handbag Industry (‘‘Handbag Guides’’).3

The Leather Guides also included 

provisions previously contained in the 

Commission’s Trade Regulation Rule 

Concerning Misbranding and Deception 

as to Leather Content of Waist Belts 

(‘‘Waist Belt Rule’’).4

The language of the Luggage Guides, 

the Shoe Content Guides, the Handbag 

Guides, and the Waist Belt Rule was 

updated and clarified in the Leather 

Guides, and unnecessary provisions 

were deleted. Further, the Leather 

Guides modified a number of provisions 

from the older Guides and the Waist 

Belt Rule. Among these modifications 

were an expansion of the scope of the 

Leather Guides to include 

misrepresentations in the marketing and 

advertising of industry products, the 

removal of the restriction that only top 

grain leather could be called ‘‘Leather’’

without qualification, and the inclusion 

of a requirement that manufacturers 

disclose the percentage of non-leather 

and leather material contained in 

bonded leather. 

II. Regulatory Review Program 

The Commission has determined, as 

part of its oversight responsibilities, to 

review all Commission rules and guides 

periodically. These reviews seek 

information about the costs and benefits 

of the Commission’s rules and guides 

and their regulatory and economic 

impact. The information obtained 

assists the Commission in identifying 

rules and guides that warrant 

modification or rescission. Therefore, 

the Commission solicits comment on, 

among other things, the economic 

impact of and the continuing need for 

the Leather Guides; possible conflict 

between the Guides and state, local, 

federal, or international laws; and the 

effect of any technological, economic, 

environmental, or other industry 

changes on the Guides. 

III. Request for Comment 

The questions below are designed to 

assist the public and should not be 

construed as a limitation on the issues 

on which public comment may be 

submitted: 

(1) Is there a continuing need for the 

Leather Guides as currently 

promulgated? 

(2) Have the leather and imitation 

leather industries adopted the Leather 

Guides as part of their routine business 

practices? If so, how, and what effect, if 

any, does this have on the continuing 

need for the Guides? 

(3) What benefits have the Leather 

Guides provided to purchasers of the 

products affected by the Guides? 

(4) Are there costs imposed on 

purchasers when businesses follow the 

Leather Guides? If so, explain. 

(5) How have the leather and 

imitation leather industries been 

affected by the Leather Guides’

modifications to provisions previously 

contained in the Luggage Guides, the 

Shoe Content Guides, the Handbag 

Guides, and the Waist Belt Rule? How 

have those modifications affected 

purchasers? 

(6) What burdens or costs, including 

costs of compliance, are imposed on 

businesses that follow the Leather 

Guides? In particular, what burdens or 

costs are imposed on small businesses 

that follow the Guides? Do the Guides 

provide benefits to businesses that 

follow them? If so, what benefits? 

(7) What changes, if any, should be 

made to the Leather Guides to increase 

their benefits to purchasers? How would 

these changes affect any burdens or 

costs to businesses that follow the 

Leather Guides? How would these 

changes benefit purchasers? 

(8) What changes, if any, should be 

made to the Leather Guides to reduce 

the burdens or costs to businesses that 

follow the Guides? How would these 

changes affect the benefits provided by 

the Guides? 

(9) Do the Leather Guides overlap or 

conflict with other federal, state, or local 

laws or regulations? If so, explain. Do 

the Guides overlap or conflict with any 

foreign or international laws or 

regulations? If so, explain. 

(10) Have consumer perceptions or 

preferences changed since the Leather 

Guides were issued, and, if so, do these 

changes warrant revising the Guides? If 

you believe that these changes warrant 

revisions, how should the Guides be 

revised? 

(11) Since the Leather Guides were 

issued, what effects, if any, have 

changes in relevant technology, 

economic conditions, or environmental 

conditions had on the Guides? 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 24 

Advertising, Belts, Distribution, 

Footwear, Imitation leather products, 

Labeling, Ladies’ handbags, Leather and 

leather products industry, Luggage and 

related products, Shoes, Trade practices, 

Waist belts. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–9965 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS