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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

51786 

Vol. 71, No. 169 

Thursday, August 31, 2006 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. PRM–40–29] 

Terrence O. Hee, Ion Technology; 

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking (PRM–40–29) submitted 

by Terrence O. Hee, Ion Technology. 

The petitioner requested that the NRC 

amend its regulations regarding 

unimportant quantities of source 

material to exempt end users of a 

catalytic device containing thorium 

from the NRC’s licensing requirements. 

ADDRESSES: Publicly available 

documents related to this petition may 

be viewed electronically on the public 

computers located at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Selected 

documents, including comments, may 

be viewed and downloaded 

electronically via the NRC rulemaking 

Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. 

The NRC maintains an Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. These documents may be 

accessed through the NRC’s Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

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

adams.html. If you do not have access 

to ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff at: 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to: 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Torre Taylor, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

7900, e-mail: tmt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On October 15, 2003, (68 FR 59346), 

the NRC published a notice of receipt of 

a petition for rulemaking filed by 

Terrence O. Hee, Ion Technology. The 

petitioner requested that the NRC 

amend its regulations in 10 CFR 40.13, 

‘‘Unimportant quantities of source 

material,’’ to exempt end users from 

NRC’s regulatory requirements to the 

extent that such person receives, 

possesses, uses or transfers, any 

patented catalytic device containing 

thorium. 

The petitioner stated that the device 

is part of a ‘‘new technology for the 

reduction of air pollution chemicals’’ 

produced by mobile and industrial 

combustion processes and that granting 

his petition would contribute to the 

reduction in air pollution. Mr. Hee also 

identified his monetary interest, as his 

company has secured distribution rights 

for this patented catalytic device in the 

United States. 

The petitioner asserts that there are 

potentially millions of users for this 

device, and that obtaining ‘‘an 

individual license for each application 

would prove to be burdensome for the 

state agencies issuing the individual 

licenses and to those wishing to use the 

devices.’’ The petitioner requested an 

exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(c) for his 

product, a catalytic device containing 

thorium. Thorium is a type of source 

material licensed by the NRC. The 

exemptions in 10 CFR 40.13(c) apply to 

the end user, who is exempt from the 

licensing requirements set forth in 

section 62 of the Atomic Energy Act. 

The petitioner suggested the following 

language be added to 10 CFR 40.13(c) 

for the requested exemption: 

Any patented catalyst used in the 

treatment of fuel, gas or air streams for 

combustion processes, or other processes 

provided that the thorium content does not 

exceed 6 percent by weight. The weight 

percentage to be calculated for either a 

homogeneous mixture or as a coating on a 

substrate base, with the base and the coating 

being considered the same as a homogeneous 

mixture, and the finished product is 

constructed in a manner that will prevent the 

exposure of the public to any radiation 

during the normal application and use of this 

technology. 

The petitioner offered the following 

rationale in support of the petition: (1) 

The ‘‘environmental and quality of life 

benefits’’ derived from the application 

of this technology are ‘‘currently 

enjoyed by the citizens of Japan.’’ The 

petitioner stated that this technology is 

proposed for license in China as a way 

to reduce air pollution; (2) 

Implementation of these devices can 

reduce the cost of air emissions 

pollution control to U.S. industry over 

the cost of current methods, thus 

enhancing the ability of industry to 

meet strict air emission standards; (3) 

Workers involved with the devices will 

be protected from the low levels of 

radiation exposure by a metal housing 

encasing the thorium-bearing material; 

(4) The devices are manufactured in 

Japan, so no U.S. workers will have 

direct contact with the thorium-bearing 

material; and (5) The long-term effect on 

the environment would be ‘‘reduced 

emissions of air pollutants from mobile 

and stationary combustion sources.’’ 

The petitioner also stated that the 

device ‘‘could also lead to a reduction 

in the volume of hydrocarbon fuels 

used.’’ In addition, the petitioner 

explained that the public is protected by 

housings shielding the radiationemitting material, and that the housings 

are designed not to be ‘‘readily 

disassembled by the curious.’’ 

The petitioner stated the product will 

have warning labels which instruct 

users in the proper disposal method, 

which is only by return of the product 

to the distributor. The petitioner 

anticipated that these labels would 

prevent long-term negative effects on 

the environment. The petitioner noted 

that disposal instructions would also be 

in the ‘‘Material Safety Data Sheet’’ 

delivered with each device. The 

petitioner projects the product to have 

a 30-year life cycle, and expected no 

short-term negative effects on the 

environment from disposal of the 

devices. The petitioner believes that the 

product is a safe and cost-effective 

method for contributing to the reduction 

of air pollution chemicals in the air in 

the United States and claims that it 

poses no adverse risk to the public or to 

workers involved in installing or 

removing the devices. 

The petitioner stated that Honda 

Motor Company is currently installing 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 51787 

the technology as a factory-installed 

device on their diesel-powered vehicles, 

and claims use of this technology in 

Japan has demonstrated a reduction of 

air pollution chemicals and a reduction 

in fuel consumption. The petitioner 

submitted test data showing reductions 

of soot emissions after installation of the 

device on diesel bus engines on the 

Okayama Bus Line company and a 

Caterpillar/Mitsubishi diesel-powered 

shovel. The petitioner also submitted 

data showing reductions in nitrogen 

oxides, carbon monoxide, and 

hydrocarbons for a 1989 gasoline-fueled 

Mercedes Benz, and similar data for a 

1998 Mitsubishi van. The petitioner also 

presented ‘‘fuel usage reduction 

examples’’ comparing various makes 

and models of vehicles before and after 

installation of the catalytic device. 

The petitioner believes that the 

proposed change to the Commission’s 

regulations to allow the use of catalytic 

devices containing thorium in the 

United States is appropriate because it 

will benefit citizens by increasing the 

efficiency of combustion processes, 

reducing the use of hydrocarbon fuels, 

and lowering air pollutant emissions. 

The petitioner concludes that this 

technology poses no hazard to users or 

the public. 

Public Comments on the Petition 

The notice of receipt of the petition 

for rulemaking invited interested 

persons to submit comments. The 

comment period closed on December 

29, 2003. NRC did not receive any 

comments on the petition. 

Reasons for Denial 

The petition is being denied because 

the petitioner did not submit 

information of sufficient scope and 

depth for NRC to find that authorizing 

this exemption would adequately 

ensure protection of public health and 

safety and the environment. 

The NRC staff evaluated the technical 

merits of the petition for: (1) The 

appropriateness of this product for 

distribution to persons exempt from 

licensing and regulatory requirements; 

(2) Whether public health and safety 

would be adequately protected; and (3) 

The potential environmental impacts. 

After reviewing the petition, NRC has 

determined that there are unresolved 

questions related to technical aspects of 

the device, safety, and the potential 

impact to the environment. These 

questions would have to be resolved 

before the petition could be granted. 

To fully evaluate a product designed 

for distribution to persons exempt from 

licensing and regulatory requirements, 

NRC needs for its review detailed 

descriptions and drawings that clearly 

illustrate the components of the 

product, materials of construction, 

dimensions, assembly methods, source 

containment and shielding, operation of 

the product and tamper resistance. NRC 

also needs to review prototype testing 

that demonstrates the integrity of the 

product during normal use and likely 

accident conditions (physical testing, 

engineering analysis, or operational 

history). A quality assurance program is 

also needed to ensure that the product 

will be manufactured and distributed in 

accordance with the information 

provided in the application. 

This information was not provided by 

the petitioner, or was not of sufficient 

detail for NRC to conduct a thorough 

evaluation. For example, while the 

petitioner provided a description and 

drawings of the catalytic device, NRC 

could not determine the exact materials 

of construction, assembly methods, 

source containment and shielding, 

operation of the product and tamper 

resistance features. Prototype testing, 

both methodology and results, was not 

submitted. Additionally, the petition 

did not include any information 

regarding a quality assurance program. 

The petition did not contain support 

for all uses of the device requested in 

the petition (i.e., buses and industrial 

facilities). NRC could not determine the 

actual isotope of thorium or the amount 

of thorium to be used in the device, as 

different percentages by weight 

concentrations were given in different 

sections of the information provided. 

The petitioner provided statements on 

the benefit of catalytic converting 

devices to substantially reduce air 

pollution chemicals. However, there 

was no data to support the results 

provided. Additionally, there was not 

enough detailed information to support 

the claim that the metal housing 

enclosure which prevents access to 

radioactive material is sufficient 

protection from radiation exposure. 

There were statements that the device is 

designed for a 30 year working life, with 

no repair. However, information was 

provided regarding 5, 10, and 15 year 

maintenance cycles with no description 

of what the maintenance involves. 

The petitioner provided a description 

of the worst case scenario for an 

accident condition but did not include 

a description of other possible accident 

conditions during installation and 

normal use. There was a summary of 

radiological impacts under normal and 

accident conditions, but there was no 

description of how this information was 

obtained. 

As part of the petitioner’s request, the 

petitioner included language for the 

proposed amendment to the regulations 

that limited the exemption to ‘‘Any 

patented catalyst * * *’’ It is not NRC’s 

practice to authorize exemptions that 

are limited to a certain patented device/ 

product. If NRC determined that a 

catalytic device containing thorium was 

appropriate for distribution to persons 

exempt from licensing and regulatory 

requirements, the exemption would 

authorize distribution of such a device/ 

product, regardless of the manufacturer 

or patent status. Therefore, anyone that 

developed a catalytic device that met 

the required criteria and any technical 

and licensing requirements for the 

exemption would be authorized to 

distribute that device/product. 

Because the petitioner is requesting 

an amendment to add an exemption in 

10 CFR 40.13(c), an environmental 

report is required in accordance with 10 

CFR 51.68. Section 51.68, 

‘‘Environmental report—rulemaking,’’

requires petitioners for rulemaking 

requesting amendments of certain parts 

of the regulations concerning 

exemptions from licensing and 

regulatory requirements of any device, 

commodity or other product containing 

source material to submit with the 

petition a separate ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Environmental Report.’’ The purpose of 

an environmental review is to identify 

and evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

a request. NRC’s evaluation relies on 

information provided by the petitioner, 

as well as staff’s own independent 

assessment. As part of the 

environmental review, several issues are 

evaluated: (1) Why is the action 

proposed and what need will it meet; (2) 

How can the need be met; and (3) What 

aspects of the environment would be 

impacted? Alternatives to a proposed 

action are also evaluated. Radiological 

and non-radiological impacts, as well as 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

are part of this environmental review. 

Staff requested an environmental report 

from the petitioner by letter dated May 

12, 2004. The environmental report was 

submitted by the petitioner in January 

2005. 

This report failed to include detailed 

information related to: (1) Testing 

conditions and supporting data to 

evaluate the short-term and long-term 

impacts and benefits of the device; (2) 

Supporting data for accident analysis, 

such as accident rates, device failure 

rates and modes; (3) Supporting data for 

assumptions, such as market 

penetration and recovery rate; and (4) 

Data to support how the product would 

be more effective or efficient than 

alternative products. NRC must be able 

to independently assess the data 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS
51788 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 169 / Thursday, August 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

submitted in support of a petition. NRC 

was not able to do this with the 

information submitted. 

The petitioner also stated that there 

would be label warnings on the device 

that instruct any person who handles, 

uses or comes in contact with the 

product to dispose of it only by 

returning it to the distributor for safe 

disposal. Products that are distributed 

under an exemption must meet health 

and safety requirements without any 

regulatory requirements on the end user. 

Therefore, the petition must address the 

environmental aspects of disposal of the 

catalytic device presuming that none of 

the devices would be returned to the 

distributor for disposal. 

In summary, the petitioner did not 

submit information of sufficient scope 

and depth for NRC to determine the 

adequacy of this product to be 

distributed to persons exempt from 

licensing and regulatory requirements. 

NRC could not ensure that the public 

health and safety, and the environment, 

would be protected based on the 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. 

For the reasons cited in this 

document, the NRC denies this petition. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of August, 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Luis A. Reyes, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 06–7284 Filed 8–30–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[COTP San Diego 06–055] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Blue Water Resort and 

Casino 60th Thanksgiving Regatta, 

Colorado River, Parker, AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone within 

the Lake Moovalya Region on the 

navigable waters of the Colorado River 

in Parker, Arizona for the Blue Water 

Resort and Casino 60th Thanksgiving 

Regatta. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, sponsor 

vessels of the race, and general users of 

the waterway. Persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within this safety 

zone unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to U.S. Coast Guard 

Sector San Diego, Waterways 

Management, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San 

Diego, CA 92101–1064. Waterways 

Management maintains the public 

docket for this rulemaking. Comments 

and material received from the public, 

as well as documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket, will become part of this docket 

and will be available for inspection or 

copying at Waterways Management 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Junior Grade Jose ́ Caballero, 

USCG, c/o U.S. Coast Guard Captain of 

the Port, at (619) 278–7277. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking COTP San Diego 06–

055, indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to Waterways 

Management at the address under 

ADDRESSES explaining why one would 

be beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

The Southern California Speedboat 

Club is sponsoring the Blue Water 

Casino and Resort 60th Thanksgiving 

Regatta, which is held on the Lake 

Moovalya region on the Colorado River 

in Parker, AZ. This temporary safety 

zone is necessary to provide for the 

safety of the participants, crew, 

spectators, sponsor vessels, and other 

users of the waterway. 

This event involves powerboats racing 

along a circular track in the Lake 

Moovalya region of the Colorado River. 

The size of the boats varies from 11 to 

21 feet. Approximately sixty to eighty 

boats will participate in this event. The 

sponsor has provided two (2) water 

rescue and three (3) patrol vessels to 

patrol this event. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The proposed temporary safety zone 

would be comprised of the following 

area: that portion of the navigable 

waterway of Lake Moovalya from 

Headgate Dam to 0.5 nautical miles 

north of Blue Water Marina, Parker, 

Arizona. 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

one (1) safety zone that will be enforced 

from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. from November 24, 

2006 through November 26, 2006. This 

safety zone is necessary to provide for 

the safety of the crews, spectators, and 

participants of the Blue Water Casino 

and Resort Thanksgiving Regatta and to 

protect other vessels and users of the 

waterway. Persons and vessels will be 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring within this safety 

zone unless authorized by the Captain 

of the Port, or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

U.S. Coast Guard personnel will 

enforce this safety zone. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local agencies, including the 

Coast Guard Auxiliary. Section 165.23 

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 

prohibits any unauthorized person or 

vessel from entering or remaining in a 

safety zone. Vessels or persons violating 

this section will be subject to both 

criminal and civil penalties. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

This determination is based on the 

size and location of the safety zone. 

Commercial vessels will not be 

hindered by the safety zone. 

Recreational vessels will not be allowed 


erjones on PROD1PC72 with PROPOSALS