Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 92 / Monday, May 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 27069 

mandated by NEPA, the regulations of 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), and in particular, the Ninth 

Circuit decision in San Luis Obispo 

Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 

1016 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S. 

Ct. 1124 (2007). The petitioner further 

asserts that the requested rulemaking 

actions are warranted by the facts and 

legal arguments set forth in the 

rulemaking petition filed by the 

Attorney General of the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, docketed by the NRC 

as Docket No. PRM–51–10 on 

September 19, 2006, followed by a 

subsequent publication of a notice of 

receipt of a petition for rulemaking on 

November 1, 2006 (71 FR 64169), which 

the petitioner incorporates by reference. 

The petitioner requests that NRC’s 

current regulations be amended as these 

regulations, in the petitioner’s view, 

determine that the effects of high 

density storage of spent fuel rods may 

never be significant for purposes of 

NEPA. The petitioner asserts that the 

NRC has not properly evaluated the 

significance of storing spent fuel 

assemblies in pools that were designed 

for a smaller number of spent nuclear 

fuel assemblies, thereby, increasing the 

possibility of catastrophic accidents 

involving fire. In this regard, the 

petitioner asserts that there is new and 

significant information showing that 

significant impacts can occur from high 

density pool storage of spent nuclear 

fuels, namely, a 2006 National Academy 

of Sciences study (NAS Committee on 

the Safety and Security of Commercial 

Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, Safety and 

Security of Commercial Spent Fuel 

Storage (the National Academies Press 

2006)). The petitioner also asserts that 

current regulations bar a finding of 

significance for high density storage 

despite the threats posed by potential 

acts of terrorism, as the President of the 

United States and various other Federal 

officials have articulated those threats 

after the September 11, 2001 attacks. 

Conclusion 

The petitioner asserts that the current 

NRC regulations preclude the NRC from 

carrying out its obligations under NEPA 

by forbidding it from disclosing and 

analyzing reasonably foreseeable 

significant risks that will affect the 

environment. The petitioner states that 

under NEPA and the Administrative 

Procedure Act, the NRC has a duty to 

amend those regulations as requested by 

the State of California. 

Consolidation With Docket No. PRM– 

51–10 

The NRC has determined that this 

petition raises issues that are 

substantially similar to those raised by 

the petition of the Attorney General of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

which was docketed by the NRC as 

PRM–51–10 on September 19, 2006, 

followed by a subsequent publication of 

a notice of receipt of a petition for 

rulemaking on November 1, 2006 (71 FR 

64169). Therefore, the NRC, after the 

public comment period, may 

consolidate its response to both 

petitions in one action. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of May 2007. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–9211 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement 

30 CFR Chapter VII 

RIN 1029–AC54 

Placement of Coal Combustion 

Byproducts in Active and Abandoned 

Coal Mines 

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We are extending the 

comment period for the advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

published in the March 14, 2007 

Federal Register for 30 days. The ANPR 

is related to the placement of coal 

combustion byproducts (CCBs) in active 

and abandoned coal minesites. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your comments on or 

before June 13, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number 1029–

AC54, by any of the following methods 

to the indicated address: 

• E-mail: 

rules_comments@osmre.gov. Please 

include docket number 1029–AC54 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier to the 

OSM Administrative Record Room: 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, Administrative 

Record, Room 252–SIB, 1951 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20240. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. The notice 

is listed under the agency name 

‘‘SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION 

AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICE.’’ Click 

‘‘Add Comments’’ to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Craynon, P.E., Chief, Division of 

Regulatory Support, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

1951 Constitution Ave., NW., MS–202, 

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone 202–

208–2866; E-mail: jcraynon@osmre.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

14, 2007, we published the ANPR that 

invited comment on how we should 

revise the regulations implementing 

Titles IV and V of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA or the Act) to regulate the 

placement of CCBs on active and 

abandoned coal minesites and what 

type of guidance documents we should 

issue, if any. (72 FR 12026). We also 

sought comment on whether section 

405(i) of the Act provides sufficient 

latitude to require that abandoned mine 

land reclamation project submissions 

include site-specific plans and 

requirements concerning the placement 

of CCBs. The comment period was 

originally scheduled to close May 14, 

2007. 

After publishing the ANPR, we 

received requests from several parties to 

extend the comment period. We 

reviewed the requests and have decided 

to extend the public comment period for 

the ANPR for 30 days. The public 

comment period will now close June 13, 

2007. 

Comments received in response to the 

ANPR will help us scope and frame the 

proposed rule. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: May 4, 2007. 

C. Stephen Allred, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 07–2359 Filed 5–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS