574 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

the size requirements would allow 

Colorado Area 2 handlers to market 

more of their potatoes and enable them 

to better compete with the other 

domestic potato producing regions. All 

other requirements in the Order’s 

handling regulations would remain 

unchanged. Authority for this action is 

contained in §§ 948.20, 948.21, and 

948.22 of the Order. 

This proposed rule is expected to 

benefit the producers, handlers, and 

consumers of Colorado Area 2 potatoes 

by allowing a greater quantity of 

potatoes from the production area to 

enter the fresh market. The anticipated 

increase in volume is expected to 

translate into greater returns for 

handlers and producers, and more 

purchasing options for consumers. 

After discussing possible alternatives 

to this proposed rule, the Committee 

determined that a change in the size 

requirements for U.S. No. 2 or better 

grade round potatoes, and U.S. 

Commercial grade or better potatoes, 

would meet the industry’s current needs 

while maintaining the integrity of the 

Order’s quality objectives. During its 

deliberations, the Committee considered 

making no changes to the handling 

regulation, as well as further changing 

the size requirements for all potatoes. 

The Committee believes that a revision 

to the Order’s size requirements is 

necessary to allow handlers to pursue 

all available markets, but further 

revising the size requirements for all 

other types and varieties of potatoes 

could erode the quality reputation of the 

area’s production. Therefore, the 

Committee found that there were no 

other viable alternatives to the proposal 

as recommended. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the Order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by OMB and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No 

changes would be necessary in those 

requirements as a result of this action. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

size requirements established under the 

Order. Accordingly, this action would 

not impose any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large potato handlers and 

importers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

The Committee’s July 18, 2018, 

meeting was widely publicized 

throughout the Colorado Area 2 potato 

industry, and all interested persons 

were invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, the meeting was public, and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express their views on this issue. 

Interested persons are invited to submit 

comments on this proposed rule, 

including the regulatory and 

information collection impacts of this 

action on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Richard Lower 

at the previously mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 948—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN COLORADO 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 948 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 948.386, remove paragraph 

(a)(1), redesignate paragraphs (a)(2) 

through (a)(5) as paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4), and revise new 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 948.386 Handling regulation. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) All varieties. U.S. No. 2 or better 

grade, 2 inches minimum diameter or 4 

ounces minimum weight. 

* * * * * 

(3) 3⁄4-inch minimum to 17⁄8-inch 

maximum diameter. U.S. Commercial 

grade or better. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 26, 2019. 

Bruce Summers, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2019–00553 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 40 

[NRC–2008–0421] 

RIN 3150–AI40 

Ground Water Protection at Uranium In 

Situ Recovery Facilities 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is requesting views 

from interested stakeholders on whether 

the NRC should resume rulemaking to 

amend its regulations governing the 

domestic licensing of source material by 

codifying general requirements to 

address ground water protection at 

uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities. 

The NRC currently regulates ISR 

operations through application of 

regulations that primarily focus on 

conventional uranium mills and sitespecific license conditions. The NRC 

initiated rulemaking in 2006 to develop 

requirements to provide regulatory 

consistency and improve the efficiency 

of the ISR licensing process but placed 

this rulemaking on hold in 2010. 

Information provided to the NRC during 

the public comment period will be 

factored into the decision as to whether 

the NRC will continue this rulemaking. 

DATES: Submit comments by March 4, 

2019. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. The NRC 

will not prepare written responses to 

each individual comment but will 

consider each in determining the path 

forward for this rulemaking. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules 575 

1The term ‘‘source material’’ is defined as ‘‘(1) 

Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in 

any physical or chemical form or (2) ores which 

contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent 

(0.05%) or more of: (i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) 

any combination thereof.’’ 10 CFR 40.4, 

‘‘Definitions’’. 

2AEA, § 62, 42 U.S.C. 2092 (‘‘Unless authorized 

by a general or specific license issued by the 

[Nuclear Regulatory] Commission . . . no person 

may transfer or receive in interstate commerce, 

transfer, deliver, receive possession of or title to, or 

import into or export from the United States any 

source material after removal from its place of 

deposit in nature . . .’’). 

for Docket ID NRC–2008–0421. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individuals 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: 

Andrew G. Carrera, telephone: 301– 

415–1078; email: Andrew.Carrera@

nrc.gov; or Gary Comfort, telephone: 

301–415–8106; email: Gary.Comfort@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008– 

0421 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 Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2008–0421. 

• 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 

‘‘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. For the convenience of the 

reader, instructions about obtaining 

materials referenced in this document 

are provided in the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section. 

• 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–2008– 

0421 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. Background 

In situ recovery is a method used to 

extract uranium from underground ore 

bodies without physical excavation. It is 

also known as ‘‘solution mining’’ or in 

situ leaching. In the ISR process, a 

solution called lixiviant is pumped into 

the subsurface. In the United States, 

lixiviant typically contains water mixed 

with oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide, 

as well as sodium carbonate or carbon 

dioxide. The lixiviant dissolves the 

uranium, located in the underground 

ore body, into the solution. The solution 

is then pumped to the surface, where it 

undergoes additional processing and 

concentration to produce a solid form of 

uranium called ‘‘yellowcake.’’ The 

yellowcake is ultimately used in the 

manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors. 

The licensed area of a typical uranium 

ISR facility covers several square miles 

and may include several discrete or 

contiguous wellfields, some of which 

may be operating while others may be 

in restoration or decommissioning. Each 

ISR wellfield is composed of a series of 

injection and extraction wells drilled 

into a uranium ore body that has been 

identified in a subsurface geologic 

formation within the wellfield. The 

aquifer within the formation where the 

ore body is located is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘ore zone aquifer’’. 

Currently, there are six ISR facilities 

operating in the United States. 

Uranium ISR was introduced in the 

late 1970s as an alternative to 

conventional uranium recovery, which 

involves extracting uranium ore from 

the earth, typically through deep 

underground shafts or shallow open 

pits. Ore extracted by conventional 

uranium recovery is transported to a 

mill, where it is crushed and undergoes 

a chemical process to remove the 

uranium. The uranium is then 

concentrated to produce yellowcake. 

The sandy waste resulting from 

crushing the uranium ore is known as 

‘‘uranium mill tailings’’ or ‘‘tailings.’’ 

Tailings contain heavy metals and 

radioactive constituents, such as 

radium. Alternatively, uranium may be 

recovered from the ore using a heap 

leach process. In the heap leach process, 

the ore is placed on an engineered 

barrier and sprayed with acid. The 

uranium dissolves into solution and is 

collected at the engineered barrier. The 

solution undergoes additional chemical 

processing to produce yellowcake. 

Currently, there is one operating 

conventional uranium mill and there are 

no operating heap leach facilities in the 

United States. 

The NRC licenses ISR facilities under 

part 40 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Source Material,’’ because 

these facilities possess and use source 

material.1 The possession and use of 

source material are activities that 

require a license from the NRC under 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (AEA).2 The waste (tailings) 

generated as a result of the ISR process 

falls within a category of byproduct 

material defined in section 11e.(2) of the 

AEA. Specifically, in section 11e.(2), 

byproduct material is defined as ‘‘the 

tailings or wastes produced by the 

extraction or concentration of uranium 

or thorium from any ore processed 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
576 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

3AEA, § 11e.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2). In 10 CFR 

40.4, the NRC further defines section 11e.(2) 

byproduct material as ‘‘the tailings or wastes 

produced by the extraction or concentration of 

uranium or thorium from any ore processed 

primarily for its source material content, including 

discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium 

solution extraction processes. Underground ore 

bodies depleted by such solution extraction 

operations do not constitute ‘byproduct material’ 

within this definition.’’ 

4 42 U.S.C. 2022(b). 

5 42 U.S.C. 2114. 

6Section 274 of the AEA authorizes the NRC to 

relinquish or discontinue its regulatory authority 

over certain categories of radioactive material to a 

State following a duly executed agreement between 

the NRC and the governor of the State. 42 U.S.C. 

2021. After the agreement is entered into, the State, 

now an ‘‘Agreement State,’’ must promulgate or 

adopt regulations compatible to those NRC 

regulations that govern the subject matter areas 

relinquished to the Agreement State. 

7AEA § 275b.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(2) (‘‘no permit 

issued by the [EPA] Administrator is required under 

this Act or the [Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] for the 

processing, possession, transfer, or disposal of 

[section 11e.(2)] byproduct material’’). 

8Substantive amendments include 52 FR 43553 

(November 13, 1987) (NRC conforming amendments 

not covered in the October 16, 1985 rule); 53 FR 

19240 (May 27, 1988) (record retention periods); 59 

FR 28220 (June 1, 1994) (emplacement of final 

radon barrier on conventional mill tailings piles); 

and 76 FR 35512 (June 17, 2011) (financial 

assurance requirements associated with 

decommissioning planning). 

primarily for its source material 

content.’’ 3

Under the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act of 1978 

(UMTRCA) (Pub. L. 95–604), the NRC is 

responsible for regulating section 11e.(2) 

byproduct material at sites where such 

material is generated. Congress enacted 

UMTRCA to provide public health, 

safety, and environmental protection 

from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the 

processing, possession, transfer, and 

disposal of AEA section 11e.(2) 

byproduct material. The UMTRCA 

amended the AEA by adding to it the 

section 11e.(2) definition of byproduct 

material and sections 84 and 275. 

The AEA, as amended by UMTRCA, 

established a dual regulatory scheme 

over the domestic uranium milling 

industry between the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the NRC. Under section 275b. of the 

AEA, the EPA is authorized to issue 

standards of general applicability for the 

protection of health, safety, and the 

environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the 

processing of section 11(e)(2) byproduct 

material.4 Under AEA section 84,5 the 

NRC or the appropriate Agreement 

State 6 is responsible for implementing 

the EPA’s generally applicable 

standards. In this regard, the NRC or the 

applicable Agreement State entity is the 

regulatory or licensing agency for all 

uranium recovery facilities, including 

ISR facilities, and is responsible for 

inspecting the facility and enforcing the 

terms and conditions of the operating 

license.7

The EPA first issued generally 

applicable standards on October 7, 1983 

(48 FR 45926) and updated these 

standards on November 15, 1993 (58 FR 

60340). The EPA codified these 

standards into its regulations at 40 CFR 

part 192, ‘‘Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and 

Thorium Mill Tailings,’’ subpart D, 

‘‘Standards for Management of Uranium 

Byproduct Materials Pursuant to Section 

84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended.’’ The NRC issued its 

implementing regulations on October 

16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) and further 

amended them in subsequent 

rulemakings.8 The NRC codified its 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

40, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Source 

Material,’’ appendix A, ‘‘Criteria 

Relating to the Operation of Uranium 

Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or 

Wastes Produced by the Extraction or 

Concentration of Source Material from 

Ores Processed Primarily for their 

Source Material Content.’’ 

In the 1990s, ISR operations became 

the predominant means of extracting 

uranium in the United States. In 

COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of 

Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach 

Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated 

January 17, 2006 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML060830041), NRC Commissioner 

Merrifield stated: 

[W]hile the staff has done its best to regulate 

[ISR] licensees through the generally 

applicable requirements in Part 40 and 

imposition of license conditions, our failure 

to promulgate specific regulations for [ISRs] 

has resulted in an inconsistent and 

ineffective regulatory program. We have been 

attempting to force a square peg into a round 

hole for years, and I believe we should finally 

remedy this situation through notice and 

comment rulemaking. In developing a 

proposed rule, the staff should formulate a 

regulatory framework that is tailored 

specifically to this unique group of licensees. 

In the Commission’s subsequent staff 

requirements memorandum, dated 

March 23, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML060820503), the Commission 

approved the initiation of a rulemaking 

for the purpose of providing clarity, 

predictability, and consistency to the 

licensing and regulation of ISR facilities. 

In 2010, the EPA informed the NRC 

that it would undertake its own 

rulemaking effort to issue generally 

applicable standards for ISRs. The NRC 

then deferred its ongoing ISR 

rulemaking effort, prior to the 

publication of a proposed rule, in 

anticipation of the need to conform its 

implementing regulations to the 

generally applicable standards to be 

issued by the EPA. The EPA issued its 

proposed rule on January 26, 2015 (80 

FR 4156). Subsequently, the EPA 

decided to re-propose the rule and seek 

additional public comment. The EPA 

issued the re-proposed rule, superseding 

the January 2015 proposed rule, on 

January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7400). The NRC 

had jurisdictional and technical 

concerns with both the January 2015 

and January 2017 proposed rules and 

submitted comments addressing these 

concerns on July 18, 2017 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML17173A638). 

On October 30, 2018 (83 FR 54543), 

the EPA withdrew its proposed rule. 

The EPA concluded, based on 

comments from stakeholders, that it had 

serious questions concerning whether it 

has the legal authority under UMTRCA 

to issue the regulations as provided in 

the 2017 proposed rule. The EPA also 

concluded that the existing regulatory 

framework was sufficient to ensure the 

protection of public health and the 

environment at existing ISRs. Finally, 

the EPA stated that, given current and 

foreseeable market conditions, the 

uranium recovery industry was not 

likely to have the robust growth that 

was anticipated in the 2000s. Given the 

EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed rule, 

the NRC must now decide whether to 

proceed with its 2006 ISR-specific 

rulemaking, held in abeyance since 

2010. 

III. Discussion 

The current version of appendix A to 

10 CFR part 40 provides a generic set of 

regulations for the operation of 

conventional uranium mills. With 

respect to the NRC’s licensing of ISR 

facilities, the current regulations in 

appendix A, coupled with the 

conditions of ISR site-specific licenses 

and the NRC’s ongoing oversight of the 

licensees’ operations, provide adequate 

protection to the public health and 

safety and the environment. The NRC’s 

purpose in promulgating a generic set of 

regulations for the operation of ISRs is 

to standardize existing NRC ISR 

licensing and oversight practices and to 

ensure consistency in the NRC staff’s 

evaluation and approval of ISR license 

applications. In addition, the 

promulgation of generic regulations for 

ISR facilities would provide a national 

regulatory framework from which 

Agreement States can, in turn, 

promulgate their own compatible 

regulatory standards. If the NRC 

continues with this rulemaking, the 

amendments to appendix A would be 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules 577 

9Agreement State Program Policy Statement, 82 

FR 48535–39 (October 18, 2017); see also id. at 

48536–37 (‘‘The NRC and the Agreement States 

have the responsibility to ensure that the radiation 

control programs are compatible. Such radiation 

control programs should be based on a common 

regulatory philosophy including the common use of 

definitions and standards. The programs should be 

effective and cooperatively implemented by the 

NRC and the Agreement States and also should 

provide uniformity and achieve common strategic 

outcomes in program areas of national 

significance.’’). 

10Based upon the compatibility category (see id. 

at 48538–39) that the NRC assigns to each new or 

amended regulation, Agreement States should have 

a substantial degree of flexibility in promulgating 

their conforming regulations. Id. at 48537 (‘‘With 

the exception of those compatibility areas where 

programs should be essentially identical, 

Agreement State radiation control programs have 

flexibility in program implementation and 

administration to accommodate individual State 

preferences, State legislative direction, and local 

needs and conditions.’’). 

based upon many of the license 

conditions that are contained in current 

NRC-issued site-specific ISR licenses 

and would be further informed by the 

approved methodologies and best 

practices set forth in those NRC 

guidance documents that are applicable 

to ISR activities. 

ISR operations are substantially 

different from those of conventional 

uranium milling, including the 

measures taken to ensure the protection 

of groundwater. The requirements for 

groundwater protection at conventional 

uranium mills are mainly concerned 

with the prevention, detection, and 

correction of contamination in shallow 

aquifers from seepage and leaks 

associated with the long-term 

management of mill tailings 

impoundments. At ISR facilities, 

however, the main concern is 

contamination of the surrounding 

groundwater by the short-term 

degradation of the water quality in the 

ore zone aquifer during ISR operations. 

Specifically, the groundwater chemistry 

in the ore zone aquifer is altered by the 

injection of lixiviant, which along with 

dissolving the uranium located in the 

underground ore body, also mobilizes 

hazardous constituents such as metals 

and radionuclides like radium. If the 

lixiviant is not controlled within the ore 

zone aquifer, then these hazardous 

constituents may migrate outside the 

ISR wellfield and potentially 

contaminate surrounding groundwater 

and connected surface water. Therefore, 

the NRC and the Agreement States have 

included license conditions in ISR 

licenses requiring ISR licensees to 

satisfy certain technical criteria that will 

protect surrounding groundwater during 

ISR operations and restore the water 

quality in ore zone aquifers after ISR 

operations. Unlike conventional mill 

tailings impoundments that require 

long-term management for groundwater 

protection, ISR wellfields may be 

decommissioned and the ISR license 

terminated once groundwater 

restoration requirements are met. 

The NRC initiated the ISR rulemaking 

in 2006 to provide regulatory 

predictability and consistency to the 

licensing process for ISRs. By 

establishing a generic set of 

requirements for ISR activities, the rule 

would improve regulatory efficiency 

and make the NRC’s review process for 

ISR license applications and 

amendments more consistent and 

transparent to the public and industry. 

Most ISR facilities currently in 

operation are licensed by Agreement 

States. One of the requirements of the 

NRC’s Agreement State program is that 

the regulations of an Agreement State 

must be ‘‘compatible’’ with the NRC’s 

regulatory program.9 Therefore, in 

accordance with the NRC’s Agreement 

State program, the promulgation of an 

NRC rulemaking specific to ISR 

facilities would require Agreement 

States to conform their regulations, to 

the extent appropriate, to the new or 

amended NRC regulations. The benefit 

of having Agreement States conform 

their regulations would be the 

establishment of a relatively uniform 10

set of both groundwater protection and 

radiation health and safety requirements 

for ISR facilities nationwide. 

In light of the EPA’s withdrawal of its 

January 2017 proposed rule, the NRC is 

now conducting an assessment of the 

requirements in 10 CFR part 40 

appendix A pertaining to the licensing 

of ISRs and is requesting input from 

members of the public about the topics 

discussed in the ‘‘Request for 

Comments’’ section. The information 

received from this request will be 

factored into the decision whether to 

continue this rulemaking. 

IV. Request for Comments 

The NRC welcomes general comments 

and seeks comments in response to the 

numbered items in this section. In 

responding to these numbered items, 

please provide your rationale or 

justification for your position. In 

addition, please provide a discussion of 

any factors that you considered in 

providing your opinion and any 

recommendations to assist the NRC in 

improving its regulatory process. The 

factors that the NRC must consider in 

determining whether to proceed with 

this rulemaking include technical 

feasibility, a cost-benefit analysis, and 

consistency and clarity of applicable 

regulations for the adequate protection 

of the health and safety and the 

environment. 

1. If the NRC were to proceed with its 

ISR rulemaking that has been held in 

abeyance since 2010, the NRC would 

amend its current uranium milling 

regulations in appendix A to 10 CFR 

part 40 to add ISR-specific 

requirements. Should the NRC proceed 

with this rulemaking? 

2. Please identify any issues that 

should be addressed to protect 

groundwater at ISR facilities, in either 

this rulemaking or through the 

development of guidance documents. 

3. Please identify any issues that 

should be addressed to enhance public 

or occupational safety at ISR facilities, 

in either this rulemaking or through the 

development of guidance documents. 

4. Please identify any issues that 

should be addressed to establish a 

relatively uniform set of requirements 

for ISR facilities nationwide (both in 

Agreement States and in non-Agreement 

States). 

VI. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document 

ADAMS 

accession No./ 

Federal Register 

citation 

COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated January 

17, 2006.

ML060830041 

Staff Requirements Memorandum-COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated March 23, 2006.ML060820503 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
578 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules 

Document 

ADAMS 

accession No./ 

Federal Register 

citation 

‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,’’ 

January 19, 2017.

82 FR 7400 

‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule; 

Withdrawal,’’ October 30, 2018.

83 FR 54543 

NUREG–1569, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications: Final Report,’’ June 2003 ML032310005 

‘‘NRC Staff’s Comments on EPA Proposed Rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 192 Rule, 82 FR 7400,’’ July 17, 2017 ..................... ML17173A638 

‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing 

Sites; Final Rule,’’ October 7, 1983.

48 FR 45926 

‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing 

Sites; Final Rule,’’ November 15, 1993.

58 FR 60340 

‘‘Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards; Final Rule,’’ October 16, 1985 .......... 50 FR 41852 

‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,’’ 

January 26, 2015.

80 FR 4156 

Throughout the development of this 

assessment, the NRC may post related 

documents, including public comments, 

on the Federal rulemaking website at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket ID NRC–2008–0421. The Federal 

rulemaking website allows you to 

receive alerts when changes or additions 

occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: 

(1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC– 

2008–0421); (2) click the ‘‘Sign up for 

Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) enter your 

email address and select how frequently 

you would like to receive emails (daily, 

weekly, or monthly). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day 

of January 2019. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Theresa V. Clark, 

Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking, 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 

Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. 2019–00435 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 

[NRC–2017–0032; Docket No. PRM–170–7; 

NRC–2018–0172] 

RIN 3150–AJ99 

Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee 

Recovery for Fiscal Year 2019 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend the licensing, inspection, special 

project, and annual fees charged to its 

applicants and licensees. These 

proposed amendments are necessary to 

implement the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended 

(OBRA–90), which requires the NRC to 

recover approximately 90 percent of its 

annual budget through fees less certain 

amounts excluded from this feerecovery requirement. President Trump 

signed the Energy and Water, Legislative 

Branch, and Military Construction and 

Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 

2019 on September 21, 2018. That Act 

appropriated approximately $911.0 

million to the NRC, which is a decrease 

of approximately $11.0 million from FY 

2018. Based on that total budget 

authority, the NRC is proposing to 

collect $781.9 million in fees in FY 

2019. 

DATES: Submit comments by March 4, 

2019. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received before this date. Because 

OBRA–90 requires the NRC to collect 

the FY 2019 fees by September 30, 2019, 

the NRC will not grant any requests for 

an extension of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2017–0032. 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 

proposed rule. 

• 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: 

Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415– 

5256; email: Michele.Kaplan@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting 

Comments 

II. Background; Statutory Authority 

III. Specific Request for Comment: Petition 

for Rulemaking 

IV. Discussion 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality 

VIII. Plain Writing 

IX. National Environmental Policy Act 

X. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Public Protection Notification 

XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

XII. Availability of Guidance 

XIII. Public Meeting 

XIV. Availability of Documents 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– 

0032 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: 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS