Erik Erb; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 71368-71369 [2010-29480]

Download as PDF 71368 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 225 Tuesday, November 23, 2010 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 26 [Docket No. PRM–26–6; NRC–2010–0310] Erik Erb; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt. AGENCY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) dated August 17, 2010, submitted by Erik Erb (the Petitioner) and 91 co-signers. The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 17, 2010, and has been assigned PRM–26–6. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to decrease the minimum days off (MDO) requirement for security officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week. The NRC is also requesting public comments on the PRM. SUMMARY: Submit comments by February 7, 2011. 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–2010–0310 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–2010–0310. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:36 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 223001 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 301–415–1966. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays (telephone: 301–415–1966). 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, toll free: 800–368–5642, e-mail: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments and Accessing 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 document using the following methods: NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at 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): Publicly available documents created or PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 received at the NRC 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, then contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff at 800–397– 4209, or 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for the petition is ML102630127. Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this action, including the petition for rulemaking, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC–2010–0310. Petitioner The petitioner is Erik Erb, a nuclear security officer at Constellation’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Oswego, New York. Mr. Erb has held this position since April 2004. The petition has 91 co-signers; most co-signers have identified their position as nuclear security officer or guard. Background Grounds for Action Requested The Petitioner proposes that the NRC amend its regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26, subpart I, to decrease the MDO requirement for security officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the MDO requirement of 3 days per week has led to unintended detrimental consequences at the Nine Mile Point facility. The Petitioner states that the MDO requirement has reduced the amount of overtime available to security officers at Nine Mile Point. The Petitioner states that this may provide the impetus for security officers to seek additional parttime employment. The Petitioner claims that hours worked at another place of employment would most likely be unrecorded, unmonitored, and unreported to the licensee. The Petitioner states that security officers working additional part-time hours to supplement lost income would ‘‘seem to be counterproductive to the aim of the MDO requirement.’’ E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM 23NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules The Petitioner states that officers who previously did not work much overtime must now ‘‘pick up the slack,’’ sometimes to the point of being forced to work overtime. The Petitioner also states that training sometimes has to be rescheduled or canceled, because the officers facilitating the training have reached their MDO mandate. The Petitioner states that nonmanagement/non-supervisor security chiefs have been impacted by the use of the fatigue software, EmpCenter, at the Nine Mile Point facility. The Petitioner claims that when an employee is asked to work overtime, the chiefs must use the software to determine whether that employee will exceed the MDO requirement. The petitioner describes this extra step as a burden on the chiefs. According to the petition, the attention/ focus of the chiefs is diverted by the need to coordinate with their supervisors in order to ensure compliance with the MDO requirement. The Petitioner also claims that licensees have had to increase their staffing across affected departments, in part due to the MDO requirement, thus increasing their costs. The Petitioner claims that licensees may be required to pass these extra costs onto the rate payer. Alternatively, the Petitioner claims that licensees may explore the option of contract security as a costsaving measure. The Petition erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 The Petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 26, Subpart I, to decrease the MDO requirement for security officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week. The Petitioner claims that such a decrease in MDO would (1) bring the requirement in line with MDO requirements for Operations, Maintenance, and other personnel subject to the MDO requirements; and (2) have a sizeable impact on alleviating some of the issues the MDO requirements have caused or may cause in the future. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2010–29480 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:36 Nov 22, 2010 Jkt 223001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2010–1157; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–137–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–102, –103, –106, –201, –202, –301, –311, –315, –401, and –402 Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: SUMMARY: There have been several in-service reports of finding trapped water on the bottom of the cockpit windshield frames (or lower windshield frames) that resulted in either corrosion or water ingress into the cockpit. In one occurrence, the trapped water caused severe corrosion of numerous anchor nuts that secure the windshield to the lower windshield frame, such that the intended fastening function was seriously compromised. Corrosion of the lower windshield frames, including the anchor nuts that secure the windshield to the aircraft structure, can result in a serious structural degradation possibly leading to the loss of the windshield during flight. Also, water could leak into the cockpit and cause either a malfunction or failure of the electrical and electronics systems in the area of the cockpit instrument panels. * * * * * The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 2011. 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, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 71369 M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 4000; fax 416–375–4539; e-mail thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228– 7355; fax (516) 794–5531. 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–2010–1157; Directorate Identifier 2010–NM–137–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 based on 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. E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM 23NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71368-71369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29480]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 71368]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 26

[Docket No. PRM-26-6; NRC-2010-0310]


Erik Erb; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a 
petition for rulemaking (PRM) dated August 17, 2010, submitted by Erik 
Erb (the Petitioner) and 91 co-signers. The petition was docketed by 
the NRC on September 17, 2010, and has been assigned PRM-26-6. The 
petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to decrease the 
minimum days off (MDO) requirement for security officers working 12-
hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per 
week. The NRC is also requesting public comments on the PRM.

DATES: Submit comments by February 7, 2011. 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-2010-0310 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-2010-0310. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 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 301-415-1966.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays 
(telephone: 301-415-1966).
    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, toll free: 800-368-
5642, e-mail: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Submitting Comments and Accessing 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 
document using the following methods:
    NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have 
copied for a fee publicly available documents at 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): 
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 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, then contact the NRC's PDR 
reference staff at 800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for the petition is 
ML102630127.
    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this action, including the petition for 
rulemaking, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on 
Docket ID NRC-2010-0310.

Petitioner

    The petitioner is Erik Erb, a nuclear security officer at 
Constellation's Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Oswego, New York. 
Mr. Erb has held this position since April 2004. The petition has 91 
co-signers; most co-signers have identified their position as nuclear 
security officer or guard.

Background

Grounds for Action Requested

    The Petitioner proposes that the NRC amend its regulations in Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26, subpart I, to 
decrease the MDO requirement for security officers working 12-hour 
shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 days per week. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claims that the MDO requirement of 3 days 
per week has led to unintended detrimental consequences at the Nine 
Mile Point facility.
    The Petitioner states that the MDO requirement has reduced the 
amount of overtime available to security officers at Nine Mile Point. 
The Petitioner states that this may provide the impetus for security 
officers to seek additional part-time employment. The Petitioner claims 
that hours worked at another place of employment would most likely be 
unrecorded, unmonitored, and unreported to the licensee. The Petitioner 
states that security officers working additional part-time hours to 
supplement lost income would ``seem to be counterproductive to the aim 
of the MDO requirement.''

[[Page 71369]]

    The Petitioner states that officers who previously did not work 
much overtime must now ``pick up the slack,'' sometimes to the point of 
being forced to work overtime. The Petitioner also states that training 
sometimes has to be rescheduled or canceled, because the officers 
facilitating the training have reached their MDO mandate.
    The Petitioner states that non-management/non-supervisor security 
chiefs have been impacted by the use of the fatigue software, 
EmpCenter, at the Nine Mile Point facility. The Petitioner claims that 
when an employee is asked to work overtime, the chiefs must use the 
software to determine whether that employee will exceed the MDO 
requirement. The petitioner describes this extra step as a burden on 
the chiefs. According to the petition, the attention/focus of the 
chiefs is diverted by the need to coordinate with their supervisors in 
order to ensure compliance with the MDO requirement.
    The Petitioner also claims that licensees have had to increase 
their staffing across affected departments, in part due to the MDO 
requirement, thus increasing their costs. The Petitioner claims that 
licensees may be required to pass these extra costs onto the rate 
payer. Alternatively, the Petitioner claims that licensees may explore 
the option of contract security as a cost-saving measure.

The Petition

    The Petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 
CFR part 26, Subpart I, to decrease the MDO requirement for security 
officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 
2.5 or 2 days per week. The Petitioner claims that such a decrease in 
MDO would (1) bring the requirement in line with MDO requirements for 
Operations, Maintenance, and other personnel subject to the MDO 
requirements; and (2) have a sizeable impact on alleviating some of the 
issues the MDO requirements have caused or may cause in the future.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-29480 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P