Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66007 

be the potential for regional effects to 

biological resources, however, it would 

be limited by the anticipated minor 

amount of conversion of nonagricultural lands (for example, NIPF 

converted to herbaceous cropland) and 

native grasslands, not native sod (for 

example, expired CRP acres that had 

been planted to native grass) to 

dedicated energy crops; however, those 

effects could be avoided and minimized 

through the use of accepted BMPs and 

BCAP environmental screening. On 

balance the Proposed Action, with the 

BMPs and practical mitigation measures 

associated in the BCAP conservation 

plan or forest stewardship plan (or the 

equivalent) in conjunction with project 

level NEPA analysis and the sitespecific environmental evaluations prior 

to accepting contact holdings, would 

create a beneficial environment for the 

establishment of long-term dedicated 

energy crop industry in local and 

regional areas based on their unique 

dynamics, while growing those crops in 

a diverse and environmentally 

sustainable manner. 

The Decision 

FSA would implement the Selected 

Alternative as described in this ROD. 

This alternative provides overall 

benefits to the environment, allows for 

flexibility in implementation, and 

follows the intent and language of the 

statute when compared to the other 

alternatives analyzed. FSA would 

ensure impacts are minimized by 

employment of appropriate practice 

standards in conservation plans and 

forest stewardship plans (or equivalent), 

site-specific environmental evaluations 

prior to each approved contract, and 

supplemental EAs or EISs for those 

areas requiring further NEPA analyses. 

After the publication of the Final PEIS 

on June 25, 2010, the later enactment of 

the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations 

Act (Pub. L. 111–212) on July 29, 2010, 

provided a limitation of funding for 

BCAP of $552,000,000 in fiscal year 

2010 and $432,000,000 in fiscal year 

2011. FSA does not have the authority 

to limit the scope of BCAP to a smaller 

or more restrictive program than the 

2008 Farm Bill authorizes, except as 

may be needed to confine the program 

within these newly provided spending 

limits. Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9, 

FSA has determined that a 

Supplemental PEIS may be required for 

changes to BCAP. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on October 19, 

2010. 

Carolyn B. Cooksie, 

Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation and Administrator, Farm Service 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26872 Filed 10–22–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket Nos. PRM–50–93 and PRM–50–95; 

NRC–2009–0554] 

Mark Edward Leyse; Mark Edward 

Leyse and Raymond Shadis, on Behalf 

of the New England Coalition; Petitions 

for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of consolidation of 

petitions for rulemaking and re-opening 

of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing for 

public comment a notice of 

consolidation of petitions for 

rulemaking (PRM). The PRMs to be 

consolidated are PRM–50–93 filed by 

Mark Edward Leyse on November 17, 

2009, and PRM–50–95 filed on June 7, 

2010, by Mark Edward Leyse and 

Raymond Shadis, on behalf of the New 

England Coalition (the Petitioners). 

PRM–50–95 was docketed by the NRC 

on September 30, 2010. In PRM–50–95, 

the Petitioners request that the NRC 

order Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station (Vermont Yankee) to lower the 

licensing basis peak cladding 

temperature in order to provide a 

necessary margin of safety in the event 

of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). 

The NRC is considering PRM–50–95 in 

conjunction with existing PRM–50–93 

that the NRC is reviewing on the same 

issues, and is re-opening the public 

comment period to consider the matters 

raised by PRM–50–95. 

DATES: Submit comments by November 

26, 2010. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0554 in the subject line of 

your comments. For instructions on 

submitting comments and accessing 

documents related to this action, see 

‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing 

Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

You may submit comments by any one 

of the following methods. 

Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2009–0554. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

301–492–3668, e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive a reply e-mail confirming 

that we have received your comments, 

contact us directly at 301–415–1677. 

Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 

Federal workdays (telephone 301–415– 

1677). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, 

Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, Telephone: 301–492– 

3667 or Toll Free: 800–368–5642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments and Requesting 

Information 

Comments submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be posted on the 

NRC Web site and on the Federal 

Rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. The NRC requests that any 

party soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this action using 

the following methods: 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents by the NRC’s PDR, Room 

O–1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
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