Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46717 

Some commenters supported the 

proposed amendments because, among 

other reasons, local residents would 

benefit from such investments. Other 

commenters explained that the NPRM 

did not go far enough and should have 

included other types of preferences, in 

addition to geographic-based. 

The Department’s proposed NPRM 

did not make a distinction by project 

type (e.g., transit vs. maritime project). 

Many commenters, especially in the 

transit arena, expressed strong 

opposition to the application of the 

NPRM to rolling stock procurements 

because of the potential effect on 

existing manufacturing plants and the 

capital and personnel investments 

already made in specific parts of the 

country. 

Reason for Withdrawal 

The Department operates two 

experimental contracting pilot programs 

under FHWA and FTA’s existing 

authorities: (i) Innovative Contracting 

(Local Labor Hire) (80 FR 12257) and (ii) 

FHWA HUD Livability Local Hire 

Initiative (75 FR 36467). The Local 

Labor Hire pilot is conducted under 23 

U.S.C. 502 (i.e., FHWA’s Special 

Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP–14)) 

and 49 U.S.C. 5312, 5314 and 5325, and 

the FHWA HUD initiative is conducted 

under SEP–14. The Department has 

used these research authorities to 

advance non-traditional contracting 

practices for contracts awarded by FTA 

and FHWA. 

Under SEP–14 and 49 U.S.C. 5312, 

5314 and 5325, the Department has the 

flexibility to experiment with 

innovative approaches to highway and 

transit contracting. However, the 

Department is discontinuing these two 

pilot programs because of minimal 

interest from intended participants and 

the difficulty in evaluating cost 

effectiveness based upon objective 

criteria. 

For additional background, 23 U.S.C. 

112 requires a state transportation 

department to award contracts using 

federal highway funds by ‘‘competitive 

bidding, unless the State transportation 

department demonstrates . . . that 

some other method is more cost 

effective.’’ 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(1) (2006). 

For a bidding process to be 

‘‘competitive,’’ the state transportation 

department must award contracts for 

projects ‘‘only on the basis of the lowest 

responsive bid submitted by a bidder 

meeting established criteria of 

responsibility.’’ Id. section 112(b)(1). 

For example, a 1986 opinion from the 

Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the 

Department of Justice concluded that 

section 112 obligated the Secretary of 

Transportation to withhold federal 

funding for highway construction 

contracts that were subject to a New 

York City law imposing disadvantages 

on a class of responsible bidders, where 

the city failed to demonstrate that its 

departure from competitive bidding 

requirements was justified by 

considerations of cost effectiveness. See 

Compatibility of New York City Local 

Law 19 with Federal Highway Act 

Competitive Bidding Requirements, 10 

Op. O.L.C. 101 (1986) (‘‘Competitive 

Bidding Requirements’’). Since that 

1986 opinion, FHWA had taken the 

position that state or local bidding 

specifications or contract requirements 

that limit the pool of potential bidders 

violate section 112’s competition 

requirement unless they directly relate 

to the bidder’s performance of the 

necessary work in a competent and 

responsible manner. 

In 2013, OLC opined that a state or 

local requirement that has only an 

incidental effect on the pool of potential 

bidders or that imposes reasonable 

requirements related to the performance 

of the necessary work would not unduly 

limit competition. However, a 

requirement that has more than an 

incidental effect on the pool of potential 

bidders and does not relate to the work’s 

performance would unduly limit 

competition unless it promotes the 

efficient and effective use of federal 

funds. OLC stated that generally 

speaking, state or local government 

requirements that eliminate or 

disadvantage a class of potential 

responsible bidders (and thus have a 

non-trivial effect on the pool of such 

bidders) to advance objectives unrelated 

to the efficient use of federal funds or 

the integrity of the bidding process (or 

to the performance of the necessary 

work in a competent and responsible 

manner) are likely to unduly impede 

competition in contravention of the 

substantive component of section 112’s 

competitive bidding requirement. OLC 

further reaffirmed the view expressed in 

its 1986 opinion that ‘‘the efficient use 

of federal funds is the touchstone by 

which the legality of state procurement 

rules for federally funded highway 

projects is to be tested,’’ Competitive 

Bidding Requirements, 10 Op. O.L.C. at 

105. In 2013, OLC did not understand 

section 112’s competitive bidding 

requirement to compel FHWA to reject 

every state or local bidding specification 

or contract requirement that may have 

the effect of reducing the number of 

potential bidders for a particular 

contract. 

The stated purpose of this NPRM was 

to permit recipients and subrecipients of 

certain DOT grant program funds to 

impose geographic-based hiring 

preferences whenever not otherwise 

prohibited by Federal law. DOT agrees 

that the efficient use of federal funds is 

the touchstone by which the legality of 

state procurement rules, including any 

proposed geographic-based hiring 

preferences, for federally funded 

projects is to be tested. Here, in light of 

the responses to the NPRM, the lack of 

data on whether specific local 

geographic preferences would have an 

incidental effect on competition, the 

long-standing Federal government 

prohibition in the Common Rule on the 

use of in-State or local geographic-based 

preferences, the demonstrated minimal 

interest from intended participants 

under the two experimental programs, 

and the inability to evaluate costeffectiveness based upon objective 

criteria under the two experimental 

programs, the Department has 

determined that promulgating a 

regulation that would have deviated 

from the OMB guidance in the Common 

Rule, by allowing the use of geographicbased hiring preferences in some of the 

Department’s grant programs, is not 

practicable for the efficient and costeffective delivery of projects. The 

comments received did not include any 

data that demonstrates that the claimed 

benefits of the proposed rule justify the 

costs. The Department has also 

determined that an additional request 

for public comment based on the 

proposed NPRM would not provide the 

information needed to accomplish the 

stated purpose. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 

2017. 

Elaine L. Chao, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21574 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–115; NRC–2017–0132] 

Fire Protection Compensatory 

Measures 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of docketing and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has received a 

petition for rulemaking dated May 1, 

2017, from David Lochbaum with copetitioner Paul Gunter, on behalf of the 

Union of Concerned Scientists and 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
46718 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Beyond Nuclear (the petitioners), 

requesting that the NRC ‘‘promulgate 

regulations that establish acceptable 

conditions for use of compensatory 

measures (e.g., fire watches, 

surveillance cameras, etc.) during 

periods when fire protection regulations 

are not met.’’ The petition was docketed 

by the NRC on May 26, 2017, and has 

been assigned Docket No. PRM–50–115. 

The NRC is examining the issues raised 

in PRM–50–115 to determine whether 

they should be considered in 

rulemaking. The NRC is requesting 

public comment on this petition. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

20, 2017. 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: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0132. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 

415–1101. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

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

(Eastern Time) Federal workdays; 

telephone: 301–415–1677. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Kratchman, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulations, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

5112, email: Jessica.Kratchman@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0132 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0132. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

petition for rulemaking is available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17146A393. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0132 in your comment submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

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 into ADAMS. 

II. The Petitioner 

The petition was filed by David 

Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of 

Concerned Scientists and Beyond 

Nuclear, with one co-petitioner, Paul 

Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. 

III. The Petition 

On behalf of the Union of Concerned 

Scientists and Beyond Nuclear, David 

Lochbaum with co-petitioner Paul 

Gunter request that the NRC amend its 

regulations to establish acceptable 

conditions for the use of compensatory 

measures (e.g., fire watches, 

surveillance cameras) during periods 

when fire protection regulations are not 

met. 

IV. Discussion of the Petition 

The petitioners state that the NRC’s 

‘‘fire protection regulations were 

primarily established with the issuance 

of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 in 

1980 and the NFPA [National Fire 

Protection Association] 805 alternative 

regulations adopted in 2004.’’ The 

petitioners are referring to the final rule 

in 1980 that issued appendix R to part 

50 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) and revised 10 

CFR 50.48 (45 FR 76602; November 19, 

1980). The 2004 final rule (69 FR 33536; 

June 6, 2004) further revised 10 CFR 

50.48 and added alternative fire 

protection regulations based on National 

Fire Protection Association Standard 

805, ‘‘Performance-Based Standard for 

Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants.’’ The 

petitioners include as ‘‘Figure 1’’ in 

their petition a timeline including 

compensatory measure guidance 

documents that the NRC has issued. The 

NRC guidance documents from Figure 1 

in the petition include the following: 

(1) NRC Bulletin 1975–004, ‘‘Cable 

Fire at Browns Ferry Nuclear Power 

Station,’’ March 25, 1975 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070220189); 

(2) Nuclear Steam Supply System 

Vendor Standard Technical 

Specifications (NUREG–0103, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for 

Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water 

Reactors,’’ Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML17266A000), Revision 

1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17266A001); NUREG–0123, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for 

General Electric Boiling Water 

Reactors,’’ Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML17266A007), Revision 

1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17266A008); NUREG–0212, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for 

Combustion Engineering Pressurized 

Water Reactors,’’ Revision 0, 1976 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML17266A003), 

Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17266A004); and NUREG–0452, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications for 

Westinghouse Pressurized Water 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Proposed Rules 46719 

Reactors,’’ Revision 0, 1976 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML17266A005), Revision 

1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17266A006)); 

(3) Branch Technical Position 

Auxiliary Power Conversion Systems 

Branch 9.5–1, ‘‘Guidelines for Fire 

Protection for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ 

May 1, 1976 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML070660461), Revision 1, May 13, 

1979 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML070660450); and Appendix A, 

‘‘Guidelines for Fire Protection for 

Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Prior to 

July 1, 1976,’’ August 23, 1976 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15322A269), and 

February 24, 1977 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML070660458); 

(4) NUREG–0050, ‘‘Recommendations 

Related to Browns Ferry Fire,’’ February 

1976 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML070520452); 

(5) NRC Generic Letter 1980–100, 

‘‘Appendix R to 10 CFR Regarding Fire 

Protection—Federal Register Notice,’’ 

November 24, 1980 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML070220242); 

(6) NRC Generic Letter 1981–012, 

‘‘Fire Protection Rule (45 FR 76602, 

November 19, 1980),’’ February 20, 1981 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML031080537); 

(7) NRC Generic Letter 1986–010, 

‘‘Implementation of Fire Protection 

Requirements,’’ April 24, 1986 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML031150322); 

(8) NRC Generic Letter 1988–012, 

‘‘Removal of Fire Protection 

Requirements from Technical 

Specifications,’’ August 2, 1988 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML031150471); 

(9) NRC Information Notice No. 1997– 

048, ‘‘Inadequate or Inappropriate 

Interim Fire Protection Compensatory 

Measures,’’ July 9, 1997 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML070180068); 

(10) NRC Bulletin 1992–01, ‘‘Failure 

of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System 

to Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable 

Trays and Small Conduits Free from 

Fire Damage,’’ June 24, 1992 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML031250239); 

(11) NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 

2005–007, ‘‘Performance of Manual 

Actions to Satisfy the Requirements of 

10 CFR part 50 Appendix R Section 

III.G.2.,’’ April 19, 2005 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML042360547); 

(12) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.189, 

‘‘Fire Protection for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ Revision 2, October 2009 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML092580550); 

(13) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.205, 

‘‘Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire 

Protection for Existing Light-Water 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Revision 0, May 

2006 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML061100174); Revision 1, December 

2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092730314); and 

(14) NUREG/CR–7135, 

‘‘Compensatory and Alternative 

Regulatory Measures for Nuclear Power 

Plant Fire Protection (CARMEN–FIRE),’’ 

Final Report, August 2015 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15226A446). 

The petitioners assert that these 

guidance documents associated with the 

current regulations are deficient for 

three reasons: 

(1) They are not regulations and, 

therefore, convey unenforceable 

expectations; 

(2) They create confusion for 

licensees, NRC inspectors and 

reviewers, and the public about what 

constitutes an acceptable substitute for 

compliance with fire protection 

regulations following identification of a 

deficiency, as well as the permissible 

durations of the substitutions; and 

(3) They were not developed through 

an open process, so the public did not 

have opportunities to weigh in on the 

acceptability of various compensatory 

measures. 

The petitioners assert that a proposed 

rulemaking would ensure that 

compensatory measures are used 

appropriately following a violation in 

fire protection regulations, and that the 

rulemaking process would provide the 

public the opportunity to weigh in on 

the appropriateness of the use of various 

compensatory measures before the 

requirements are adopted as final. The 

petitioners also assert that a final rule 

would clear up any current confusion 

caused by the guidance documents for 

the NRC’s licensees and inspectors and 

would provide enforceable requirements 

for the NRC. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day 

of October 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21544 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0904; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–071–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 787–8 and 

787–9 airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of an in-service 

reliability issue of a latent flow sensor 

failure combined with single cabin air 

compressor (CAC) operation. This 

condition resulted in reduced airflow 

which led to a persistent single CAC 

surge condition that caused overheat 

damage to the CAC inlet. This proposed 

AD would require installing new pack 

control unit (PCU) software for the cabin 

air conditioning and temperature 

control system (CACTCS) and new CAC 

outlet pressure sensor J-tube hardware, 

and doing related investigative and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 20, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data 

Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster 

Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 

90740–5600; telephone: 562–797–1717; 

Internet: https://www.myboeing

fleet.com. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0904. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0904; 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS