Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63725 

this action. USDA has therefore 

determined to withdraw this rule. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule 

regarding the establishment of an 

estimated trade demand figure to 

compute volume regulation percentages 

for 2010–11 crop NS raisins published 

in the Federal Register on August 6, 

2010 (75 FR 47490), is hereby 

withdrawn. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

Dated: October 8, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26163 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 70 

[Docket No. PRM–70–8; NRC–2009–0184] 

Nuclear Energy Institute; 

Consideration of Petition in the 

Rulemaking Process 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: 

Resolution and closure of petition 

docket. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) will consider five of 

the issues raised in a petition submitted 

by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 

and is denying the remaining four issues 

of the petition. The petition requests the 

NRC amend its regulations to clarify 

existing event reporting requirements 

based on experience gained since the 

requirements were revised. 

DATES: The docket for the petition for 

rulemaking PRM–70–8 is closed on 

October 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Further NRC action on the 

issues raised by this petition will be 

accessible at the Federal rulemaking 

portal, http://www.Regulations.gov, by 

searching on rulemaking docket ID 

NRC–2010–0271. The NRC also tracks 

all rulemaking actions in the ‘‘NRC 

Regulatory Agenda: Semiannual Report 

NUREG–0936.’’ 

You can access publically available 

documents related to this petition for 

rulemaking using the following 

methods: 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.Regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under the following 

rulemaking docket ID: NRC–2009–0184. 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room, Room O–1F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 

NRC’s Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

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

NRC/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 Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Young, Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

5795, e-mail: thomas.young@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

The NRC received and docketed a 

petition for rulemaking (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML091110449) dated 

April 16, 2009, filed by the NEI 

(petitioner). On June 4, 2009 (74 FR 

26814), the NRC published a notice of 

receipt requesting comment on the 

petition. The petitioner requested that 

the NRC amend its regulations to clarify 

safety event reporting requirements 

listed in Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. 

The petitioner stated that in a June 2007 

white paper, NEI documented 

challenges posed by implementation of 

the 2000 version of 10 CFR part 70, 

Appendix A. The petitioner stated that 

the NRC had also observed inconsistent 

reporting of events under Appendix A 

and had developed a matrix of reporting 

issues based on actual events. A 

working group, consisting of NRC and 

industry representatives, was formed to 

achieve a common understanding of 

reports required under Appendix A. The 

petitioner stated that industry endorses 

and is ready to support the suggested 

modifications to Appendix A that were 

indicated in the petition. 

The NRC identified nine issues in the 

petition, as follows: 

(1) In the introductory text of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70, remove 

‘‘except for (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(4), after 

they have submitted an ISA [Integrated 

Safety Analysis] Summary in 

accordance with § 70.62(c)(3)(ii). 

Licensees must comply with (a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (b)(4) after October 18, 2000.’’ 

(2) In paragraph (a) of Appendix A to 

10 CFR part 70, change the time 

requirement to submit a written report 

on events reported to the NRC 

Operations Center within 1 hour of 

discovery from 30 days to 60 days. 

(3) Revise paragraph (a)(2) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to clarify 

that the intake is associated with a 

person located outside the controlled 

area, in order to make the reporting 

requirements commensurate with the 

performance requirements described in 

10 CFR 70.61(b)(3). 

(4) Revise paragraph (a)(3) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to read: 

An acute chemical exposure to an 

individual inside the controlled area 

from licensed material or hazardous 

chemicals produced from licensed 

material that could endanger the life of 

a worker; or, a chemical release 

involving licensed material or 

hazardous chemicals produced from 

licensed materials that results in a 

concentration outside of the controlled 

area that exceeds the quantitative 

standards established as required by 10 

CFR 70.61(b)(4)(ii). 

(5) Remove paragraph (a)(5) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which 

states: ‘‘Loss of controls such that only 

one item relied on for safety, as 

documented in the Integrated Safety 

Analysis summary, remains available 

and reliable to prevent a nuclear 

criticality accident, and has been in this 

state for greater than eight hours.’’ 

(6) In paragraph (b) of Appendix A to 

10 CFR part 70, change the time 

requirement to submit written reports 

on events reported to the NRC 

Operations Center within 24 hours of 

discovery, supplemented with the 

information in 10 CFR 70.50(c)(1) as it 

becomes available, from 30 days to 60 

days. 

(7) Revise paragraph (b)(3) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 to read, 

‘‘An acute chemical exposure to an 

individual inside the controlled area 

from licensed material or hazardous 

chemicals produced from licensed 

materials that requires medical 

treatment at an off-site medical facility.’’ 

(8) In paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A 

to 10 CFR part 70, remove ‘‘or may have 

affected’’ to clarify the NRC’s 

expectation on reporting any natural 

phenomenon or other external event, 

including fires internal and external to 

the facility. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
63726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Remove paragraph (b)(5) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70 which 

states: 

An occurrence of an event or process 

deviation that was considered in the 

Integrated Safety Analysis and (i) was 

dismissed due to its likelihood; or (ii) 

was categorized as unlikely and whose 

associated unmitigated consequences 

would have exceeded those in § 70.61(b) 

had the item(s) relied on for safety not 

performed their safety function(s). 

Public Comments on the Petition 

The notice of receipt of the petition 

for rulemaking invited interested 

persons to submit comments. The 

comment period closed on August 18, 

2009, and the NRC received four 

comment letters from individuals 

associated with the industry. The letters 

approve of the petitioner’s request and 

state that adoption of the proposed 

amendments would allow a greater level 

of clarity and consistency without 

compromising the ability to assess (and 

respond, if necessary) to a radiological 

emergency. 

Reasons for Consideration 

The petition raised nine issues. Two 

issues requested an additional 30 days 

to submit a written report of a reportable 

safety event, and the remaining seven 

issues addressed specific types of 

reportable safety events. The NRC will 

consider five of the issues in the 

rulemaking process and is denying 

consideration of the remaining four 

issues in rulemaking. 

The first issue requested removal of 

text in the introductory paragraph of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. This 

issue will be considered in the 

rulemaking process, because the 

exemption expired on October 18, 2004, 

and the text is no longer necessary. 

The second and sixth issues requested 

an additional 30 days to submit written 

reports for reportable events. The 

requirement to notify the NRC 

Operations Center within 1 hour or 24 

hours of discovery of an event would 

remain the same; however, the 

petitioner requested to extend the time 

limit to submit a written report from 30 

days to 60 days. Both of these issues 

will be considered in the rulemaking 

process because allowing additional 

time would not impact the regulatory 

performance requirements, and would 

provide an opportunity for a licensee to 

complete a more thorough investigation 

without compromising the timely 

implementation of corrective actions. 

Although there have been no late 

reports, allowing an additional 30 days 

may reduce the number of amended 

reports. 

The fifth issue requested removal of 

paragraph (a)(5) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 because reporting this type 

of event within 1 hour (e.g., the loss of 

controls) is also required to be reported 

within 24 hours by paragraph (b)(2) of 

Appendix A to 10 CFR part 70. In 

addition, a 1-hour reporting requirement 

for nuclear criticality safety is not 

consistent with the allowed risk for 

other high consequence events for 

which a single item relied on for safety 

is allowed. This issue will be 

considered in the rulemaking process 

because the licensee would still be 

required to report these events within 

24 hours of discovery in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(2) of Appendix A to 

10 CFR part 70. In addition, each facility 

is required to submit a safety plan (ISA, 

or Integrated Safety Analysis), and all 

components (known as controls) of this 

plan are thoroughly evaluated to ensure 

safety of the workers, the public, and 

the environment. 

The ninth issue requested removal of 

paragraph (b)(5) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 because it is redundant 

with paragraph (b)(1) of Appendix A to 

10 CFR part 70. This issue will be 

considered in the rulemaking process 

because removing the paragraph would 

not negatively impact the regulatory 

performance requirements. 

Reasons for Denial 

The NRC is denying four of the nine 

issues raised in the petition because 

each issue raised is inconsistent with 

the purpose of the reporting 

requirement to keep NRC informed 

about conditions that could result in an 

imminent danger to a worker, a member 

of the public, or the environment. As 

previously stated in the Federal 

Register Notice for the proposed rule 

(64 FR 41349, July 30, 1999) the 

regulation requires a licensee to inform 

NRC about licensee efforts to address 

potential emergencies. Once safe 

conditions have been restored after an 

event NRC will disseminate information 

on the event to the nuclear industry to 

reduce the likelihood of recurrence of 

the event in the future. Also, in the 

event of an emergency, NRC will 

accurately respond to requests for 

information from the public and the 

media. Finally, NRC must have 

information that enables it to evaluate 

licensee and industry performance to 

fulfill its statutory mandate to protect 

the health and safety of the worker and 

the public, and to protect the 

environment. The reporting requirement 

is based on consideration of the risk and 

consequences established in 10 CFR 

70.61(b) and is intended to replace and 

expand the way in which licensees were 

reporting events prior to the effective 

date of the rule on October 18, 2000. 

The regulation requires a licensee to 

report events based on two criteria: 

(1) Whether actual consequences have 

occurred or a potential for such 

consequences exists, and (2) the 

seriousness of the actual or potential 

consequences. 

The third issue raised by the 

petitioner requested that the NRC revise 

paragraph (a)(2) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 to clarify that the acute 

intake of 30 milligrams or greater of 

uranium in soluble form is by an 

individual located outside the 

controlled area to conform this reporting 

requirement to the performance 

requirement in 10 CFR 70.61(b)(3). This 

request is denied because such a change 

would only include an individual 

outside the controlled area and would 

not include a worker or an individual 

located inside the controlled area. The 

NRC intends the reporting requirement 

in paragraph (a)(2) to be broader than 

the performance requirement in 10 CFR 

70.61(b). The reporting requirement 

applies to workers and all individuals 

regardless of location whether outside 

or inside the controlled area. The NRC 

continues to expect a licensee to notify 

the NRC within 1 hour of discovery 

whenever the uranium intake limit is 

exceeded by any individual regardless 

of location. 

The fourth issue raised by the 

petitioner requested revision of 

paragraph (a)(3) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 to eliminate potential 

confusion about quantitative values for 

acute chemical exposure of individuals 

located inside the controlled area. In 

addition, the petitioner stated that the 

proposed revision would require a 

licensee to report a chemical release 

concentration exceeding a quantitative 

standard for an individual outside the 

controlled area, rather than requiring a 

licensee to determine whether an acute 

chemical exposure to an individual 

outside the controlled area actually 

occurred before reporting the event. 

This request is denied because the 

proposed change would include 

reporting an acute chemical exposure 

only for an individual located inside the 

controlled area. The petitioner’s 

proposed change is inconsistent with 

the intent of the reporting requirement 

in paragraph (a)(3) that applies to 

workers and all individuals regardless 

of location whether outside or inside the 

controlled area. The NRC intends the 

reporting requirement in paragraph 

(a)(3) to be broader than the 

performance requirement in 10 CFR 

70.61(b)(4)(ii). The NRC should be 

informed when such events occur, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Proposed Rules 63727 

regardless of the licensee’s 

determination with respect to the 

performance requirements. This enables 

the NRC to independently evaluate the 

licensee’s assessment of whether the 

performance requirement was met, on 

the basis of supplemental information as 

it becomes available under 10 CFR 

70.50(c)(1), followed by the written 

report. 

The seventh issue raised by the 

petitioner requested revision of 

paragraph (b)(3) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 to limit the 24-hour 

reporting requirement for an acute 

chemical exposure to an individual 

inside the controlled area and only if 

the individual required treatment at an 

offsite medical facility. The petitioner 

proposed that this change would ensure 

event reporting at a threshold that the 

NRC would generally want to know 

about. This issue is denied for the same 

reasons as stated in the preceding 

paragraphs and because the current 

regulation requires a report within 24 

hours of discovery of an acute chemical 

exposure described in 10 CFR 

70.61(c)(4) regardless of the location of 

the exposed individual. Section 

70.61(c)(4) specifically refers to both 

workers and individuals outside the 

controlled area. However, the proposed 

change would include reporting an 

acute chemical exposure only for an 

individual located inside the controlled 

area. Additionally, the location where 

the injured person is treated (e.g., an 

offsite medical facility) should not be a 

factor whether to notify the NRC. It is 

the intent of the NRC to ensure the 

safety of individuals inside and outside 

the controlled area and has focused the 

reporting requirements on potential 

impacts on both workers and members 

of the public. To achieve this goal, a 

licensee must notify the NRC of an acute 

chemical exposure that requires medical 

treatment, regardless of where the 

treatment is administered. 

The eighth issue raised by the 

petitioner requested the removal of the 

text ‘‘or may have affected’’ from 

paragraph (b)(4) of Appendix A to 10 

CFR part 70 because the phrase is 

subjective when considering the safety 

function or availability of an item relied 

on for safety. This issue is denied 

because the full impact of natural 

phenomena or other external events 

such as a tornado, earthquake, flood, or 

fire external or internal to the facility 

could prove difficult for a licensee to 

fully assess and determine the status of 

all items relied on for safety. Since these 

events could affect a licensee’s facility, 

the NRC needs to be informed about 

such events to assess a licensee’s 

conclusion of whether any detrimental 

effects did in fact occur, or could have 

occurred in the absence of controls that 

were present but not part of the safety 

basis. To achieve our safety goal to 

ensure adequate protection of health 

and safety of individuals and the 

environment and to implement the 

strategy to effectively respond to certain 

conditions and a licensee’s actions, it 

would be in the best interest of the 

licensee and the surrounding 

community to report to the NRC the 

occurrence of any natural phenomenon 

or external event that is severe enough 

to potentially impact the intended safety 

function or availability or reliability of 

one or more items relied on for safety. 

For the reasons cited in this 

document, the NRC will consider five of 

the nine issues raised in this petition in 

the rulemaking process, and is denying 

the remaining four issues. The NRC will 

consider the five issues in the 

rulemaking process; however, the 

petitioner’s concerns may not be 

addressed exactly as the petitioner has 

requested. During the rulemaking 

process the NRC will solicit comments 

from the public and will consider all 

comments before finalizing the rule. 

Future actions for PRM–70–8 will be 

reported in NUREG–0936, ‘‘NRC 

Regulatory Agenda’’ which is publicly 

available on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ 

regulatory/rulemaking.html. The 

regulatory agenda is a semiannual 

compilation of all rules on which the 

NRC has recently completed action, or 

has proposed action, or is considering 

action, and of all petitions for 

rulemaking that the NRC is working to 

resolve. Further information on the five 

issues raised in this petition may be 

tracked through http:// 

www.Regulations.gov under rulemaking 

docket ID NRC–2010–0271. Existing 

NRC regulations provide the basis for 

reasonable assurance that the common 

defense and security and public health 

and safety are adequately protected. For 

the reasons cited in this document, the 

NRC closes the docket on PRM–70–8. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, September 

30, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

R.W. Borchardt, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26154 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0162; Directorate 

Identifier 2004–NE–19–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc (RR) RB211–524 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This action revises an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD), 

applicable to certain RR RB211–524 

series turbofan engines. That proposal 

would have required initial and 

repetitive borescope inspections of the 

head section and meterpanel assembly 

of the combustion liner, and 

replacement if necessary with 

serviceable parts. That proposal was 

prompted by an inquiry submitted by an 

operator, which resulted in RR 

performing a complete review of the 

affected front combustion liner part 

numbers (P/Ns). This action revises the 

proposed rule by clarifying the 

applicability paragraph (c) of the 

proposed AD. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent deterioration of the engine 

combustion liner, which can result in 

combustion liner breakup, case burnthrough, engine fire, and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 17, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, 

Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; 

telephone: 011–44–1332–242424; fax: 

011–44–1332–249936 for the service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

The Docket Operations office is 

located at Docket Management Facility, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS