66008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC, including petitions 

for rulemaking PRM–50–93 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093290250) and 

PRM–50–95 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML101610121), are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, 

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR Reference staff at 800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public 

comments and supporting materials 

related to this action, including the 

petitions for rulemaking, can be found 

at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching on Docket ID NRC–2009– 

0554. 

Summary of PRM–50–93 

Mark Edward Leyse submitted a 

petition for rulemaking dated November 

17, 2009. Mr. Leyse states that he is 

aware that data from multi-rod 

(assembly) severe fuel damage 

experiments indicates that the current 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 are nonconservative in their peak cladding 

temperature limit of 2200 °F, and that 

the Baker-Just and Cathcart-Pawel 

equations are also non-conservative for 

calculating the metal-water reaction 

rates that would occur in the event of a 

LOCA. As a result, Mr. Leyse requests 

that the NRC revise its regulations in 10 

CFR 50.46(b)(1) and Appendix K to 10 

CFR Part 50 based on this data. Mr. 

Leyse also requests that the NRC 

promulgate a regulation that will 

stipulate minimum allowable core 

reflood rates in the event of a LOCA. 

The NRC determined that the petition 

met the threshold sufficiency 

requirements for a petition for 

rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, and the 

petition was docketed as PRM–50–93. 

The NRC published a notice of receipt 

on January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3876), and 

requested public comment on PRM–50– 

93. The comment period closed on April 

12, 2010. 

Summary of PRM–50–95 

On June 7, 2010, Mark Edward Leyse 

and Raymond Shadis, on behalf of the 

New England Coalition, submitted a 

petition requesting consideration under 

the NRC’s requirements for a petition for 

an enforcement action, which are in 10 

CFR 2.206. The Petitioners request that 

enforcement action be taken against 

Vermont Yankee, and that the NRC 

order the licensee of Vermont Yankee to 

lower the licensing basis peak cladding 

temperature in order to provide a 

necessary margin of safety (to help 

prevent a meltdown) in the event of a 

LOCA. The Petitioners represent the 

New England Coalition, a non-profit 

educational organization based in 

Brattleboro, Vermont. 

The Petitioners offer the following as 

the basis for their request: 

(1) The emergency core cooling 

system evaluation calculations that 

helped qualify the 20 percent uprate for 

Vermont Yankee are non-conservative; 

(2) The peak cladding temperature 

limit of 2200 °F used in the NRC’s 

regulations in § 50.46(b)(1) is nonconservative; and 

(3) Experiments indicate that Vermont 

Yankee’s licensing basis peak cladding 

temperature of 1960 °F for GE14 fuel 

would not provide a necessary margin 

of safety to help prevent a partial or 

complete meltdown in the event of a 

LOCA. 

The petition discusses at length a 

number of experiments, including 

several multi-rod severe fuel damage 

experiments and a multi-rod thermal 

hydraulic experiment, and states that 

the data indicates that the licensing 

basis peak cladding temperature for 

Vermont Yankee should be decreased to 

a temperature lower than 1832 °F in 

order to provide a necessary margin of 

safety. The petition attachments include 

additional data in support of the 

discussion on these experiments. 

The NRC’s Consideration and 

Conclusion 

The petition request was referred to 

the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation’s enforcement Petition 

Review Board (PRB) and on June 23, 

2010, the Petitioners participated in a 

teleconference with the PRB to provide 

information in support of the petition. A 

transcript of this teleconference is 

available at ADAMS Accession No. 

ML101890014. The PRB’s initial 

recommendation was that the petition 

did not meet the criteria for reviewing 

petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, because 

there is another NRC proceeding in 

which the Petitioners could be a party 

and through which the NRC could 

address their concerns. 

On July 26, 2010, the Petitioners 

participated in another teleconference 

with the PRB during which the initial 

recommendation was discussed and the 

Petitioners provided additional 

information. The transcript of this 

teleconference is available at ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102140405. The PRB’s 

final recommendation was that the 

petition did not meet the criteria for 

review under 10 CFR 2.206 because the 

petition submitted generic concerns that 

would require revisions to existing NRC 

regulations. Such concerns are handled 

through the petition for rulemaking 

process in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.802. The PRB noted that Mr. Leyse 

had previously submitted a petition for 

rulemaking on this topic, dated 

November 17, 2009, and docketed as 

PRM–50–93. Therefore, the PRB 

forwarded the 10 CFR 2.206 petition so 

that any additional information 

contained in the petition could be 

included in the review of PRM–50–93. 

The NRC has determined that the 

petition filed by Mr. Leyse and Mr. 

Shadis on behalf of the New England 

Coalition meets the threshold 

sufficiency requirements for a petition 

for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802, and 

the petition has been docketed as PRM– 

50–95. The NRC is requesting public 

comments on the petition for 

rulemaking, and has decided to consider 

any comments received on PRM–50–95 

in conjunction with comments received 

on the related petition, PRM–50–93. In 

order that both petitions for rulemaking 

can be considered and resolved in a 

timely manner, the NRC is limiting the 

public comment period for PRM–50–95 

to 30 days, and will only be accepting 

comments on matters raised in PRM– 

50–95 during this time. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of October 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27164 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 433 and 435 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0031] 

RIN 1904–AB96 

Fossil Fuel-Generated Energy 

Consumption Reduction for New 

Federal Buildings and Major 

Renovations of Federal Buildings; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects the 

number assigned to the Environmental 

Assessment (EA) referenced in the 

October 15, 2010, notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) regarding the fossil 

fuel-generated energy consumption 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66009 

requirements for new Federal buildings 

and Federal buildings undergoing major 

renovations. The correction is necessary 

because the proposed rulemaking 

referenced the EA number as (DOE–EA– 

1463). The correct EA number in the 

NOPR should be (DOE/EA–1778). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margo Appel, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9495, e-mail: margo.appel@hq.doe.gov, 

or Ami Grace-Tardy, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–5709, 

e-mail: Ami.Grace-Tardy@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register on October 15, 2010 

(75 FR 63404), announcing a public 

meeting and seeking comments 

regarding the fossil fuel-generated 

energy consumption requirements for 

new Federal buildings and major 

renovations of Federal buildings. 

DOE prepared a draft EA for this 

rulemaking. The draft EA has been 

added to the docket for this rulemaking. 

The NOPR incorrectly referenced the EA 

Number as (DOE–EA–1463) on page 

63413, third column, fourth paragraph, 

third line. The correct EA number in the 

NOPR should be (DOE/EA–1778). 

For additional information regarding 

the NOPR and the public meeting, 

including detailed instructions for the 

submission of comments and access to 

the docket to read background 

documents or comments received, 

please refer to the October 15, 2010, 

notice (75 FR 63404). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 

2010. 

Joseph Hagerman, 

Acting Program Manager, Building 

Technologies Program, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27152 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1186; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–065–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Columbia Aircraft 

Manufacturing (Previously the Lancair 

Company)) Models LC40–550FG, 

LC41–550FG, and LC42–550FG 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for the products listed above. That 

NPRM proposed to retain the inspection 

requirements of AD 2009–09–09 and 

add a terminating action for the 

repetitive inspection requirements. That 

NPRM resulted from the manufacturer 

developing a modification that, when 

incorporated, would terminate the 

repetitive inspections required by AD 

2009–09–09. Since we issued the earlier 

NPRM, the manufacturer revised the 

service information to include 

additional airplane serial numbers into 

the Effectivity section and revised the 

modification kit instructions. This 

action revises that NPRM by adding 

airplanes to the Applicability section 

and incorporating new service 

information. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to retain the 

inspection requirements of AD 2009– 

09–09 and add a terminating action for 

the repetitive inspection requirements 

using the revised service information. 

Since these actions impose an 

additional burden over that proposed in 

the NPRM, we are reopening the 

comment period to allow the public the 

chance to comment on these proposed 

changes. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by December 

13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft 

Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 

7706; Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: 

(316) 517–5800; fax: (316) 942–9006; 

Internet: http://www.cessna.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Small 

Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 816–329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Park, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita 

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 

Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, 

Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946– 

4123; fax: (316) 946–4107; e-mail: 

gary.park@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2009–1186; Directorate Identifier 

2009–CE–065–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS