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

32018 

Vol. 72, No. 111 

Monday, June 11, 2007 

1The NRC staff intends to make those draft access 

procedures available for public comment as soon as 

practicable to coincide with the publication of this 

proposed rule. 

2See ‘‘Protection of Safeguards Information,’’ (71 

FR 64004; Oct. 31, 2006). The comment period on 

that proposed rule expired January 2, 2007, and a 

final rule is under development. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 2 

RIN 3150–AI08 

Interlocutory Review of Rulings on 

Requests by Potential Parties for 

Access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and 

Safeguards Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

proposing to amend its regulations to 

provide for expedited (and in this case, 

‘‘interlocutory’’) review by the 

Commission of orders on requests by 

potential parties for access to certain 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI) and Safeguards 

Information (SGI). 

DATES: The comment period expires on 

July 11, 2007. 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. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods. 

Please include the following number 

RIN 3150–AI08 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments on 

rulemakings submitted in writing or in 

electronic form will be made available 

for public inspection. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

personal information such as social 

security numbers and birth dates in 

your submission. 

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

E-mail comments to: SECY@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. You may also submit 

comments via NRC’s rulemaking Web 

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

questions about our rulemaking Web 

site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–5905; 

e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also 

be submitted via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

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

Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 

415–1966). 

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 

415–1101. 

Publicly available documents related 

to this rulemaking 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. 

Publicly available documents created 

or received at the NRC after November 

1, 1999, are available electronically at 

NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

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

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (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, 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: 

Patrick Moulding, Attorney, Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415– 

2549, e-mail pam3@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

III. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical 

Exclusion 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

VII. Backfit Analysis 

VIII. Plain Language 

I. Background 

Commission regulations in 10 CFR 

part 2, ‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of 

Orders,’’ govern the conduct of NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings. Potential 

parties who may request a hearing or 

petition to intervene in a hearing under 

10 CFR part 2 may need access to 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information (SUNSI) (including, but not 

limited to, proprietary, confidential 

commercial, and security-related 

information) and to Safeguards 

Information (SGI) as defined in 10 CFR 

73.2 to meet Commission requirements 

for hearing requests or for intervention. 

In order to facilitate access to the 

information described above, the NRC 

staff has developed, and the 

Commission has approved for public 

comment,1 draft access procedures to 

address receipt of such information by 

potential parties. In addition, the 

Commission is completing a final 

rulemaking to update its regulations 

governing access to and protection of 

SGI.2 Development of the draft 

procedures for access by potential 

parties and of the SGI rule is separate 

from, and not a part of, the proposed 

rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 2.311, 

which is the subject of this document. 

The proposed revisions to 10 CFR 2.311 

would provide for interlocutory review 

by the Commission of access 

determinations made pursuant to those 

procedures, but § 2.311 would not 

control how the initial access 

determinations are made. However, a 

brief discussion of the purpose of those 

procedures is necessary to explain the 

Commission’s intent in revising § 2.311. 

Under the draft procedures for 

information access, a Federal Register 

notice of hearing, or a notice of 

opportunity for hearing on a licensing or 

other regulatory action, would instruct 

persons who claim a need for access to 

SUNSI or SGI in order to prepare a 

hearing request or intervention petition 

to submit a request by letter to specified 

Commission offices, within a specified 

time period from the issuance of the 


rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32019 

3See Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, 

Units 1 and 2), CLI–01–8, 53 NRC 225, 231 (2001); 

Power Authority of the State of New York (James 

A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant; Indian Point, 

Unit 3), CLI–00–22, 52 NRC 266, 292 (2000). In 

these decisions, the Commission established a 

procedure for making confidential commercial 

information available to petitioners to intervene in 

which the applicant and petitioners may negotiate 

a confidentiality agreement or a proposed protective 

order. If no agreement can be reached, one or more 

individuals may move for issuance of a protective 

order. 

4The Commission has directed that the draft 

procedures for access to SUNSI and SGI not apply 

to the pending PAPO proceeding or the subsequent 

proceeding on the HLW repository. 

5The term ‘‘Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’’ 

would be deleted because the definition of 

‘‘presiding officer’’ in 10 CFR 2.4 includes that term. 

6See discussion in Section I regarding the 

inapplicability of the interlocutory appeal process 

that is the subject of this proposed rule to the 

pending HLW PAPO proceeding or to any 

subsequent adjudication regarding the expected 

application by DOE for a construction authorization 

for a HLW repository. 

notice. The letter request for either 

SUNSI or SGI would have to contain 

certain elements, such as a description 

of the NRC licensing or enforcement 

action at issue (with citations to the 

relevant FRN); a description of the 

proposed party’s particular interest that 

could be harmed by the potential NRC 

action; and the identity of the 

individual requesting access to the 

information and that individual’s need 

for the information in order to 

meaningfully participate in the 

adjudicatory proceeding. It is 

anticipated that access to SGI also 

would require: (1) A showing of the 

technical competence of the requester to 

understand and use the requested 

information to provide the basis and 

specificity for a proffered contention 

and (2) completion of a background 

check to establish trustworthiness and 

reliability (including fingerprinting for a 

criminal history records check and a 

credit check release). Because such 

background checks may take up to 

several months to complete, the 

Commission has also approved 

development of a ‘‘pre-clearance’’ 

process by which potential parties who 

may seek access to SGI could request 

initiation of the background check prior 

to a notice of hearing and thus minimize 

delays in the preparation (and, if 

appropriate, adjudication) of securityrelated contentions. The NRC staff 

intends to propose such a process in 

conjunction with the aforementioned 

draft access procedures that will be 

made available for public comment. 

Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted, the NRC staff 

would determine whether (1) There is a 

reasonable basis to believe that a 

potential party is likely to establish 

standing to intervene or to otherwise 

participate as a party in an adjudicatory 

proceeding and (2) the proposed 

recipient of the information has 

demonstrated (i) A need for SUNSI or 

(ii) ‘‘need to know’’ for SGI and that the 

proposed recipient is trustworthy and 

reliable. If the request for access to 

SUNSI or SGI is granted, the terms and 

conditions for this access would be set 

forth in a draft protective order and 

affidavit of non-disclosure. If the request 

for access to SUNSI or SGI is denied by 

the NRC staff, the staff would briefly 

state the reasons for the denial. The 

requester could challenge the staff’s 

adverse determination or denial of 

access. Depending on the applicable 

access procedures and provisions of the 

SGI rule (once they become effective), 

such a challenge would be filed with 

any presiding officer assigned to the 

proposed NRC licensing action; or if no 

presiding officer has yet been assigned, 

with the Chief Administrative Judge of 

the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

Panel, or if he or she is unavailable, 

with another administrative judge, or 

with an administrative law judge with 

jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or, if another officer has been 

designated to rule on information access 

issues, with that officer. 

As explained above, requests for such 

information at this stage of a proceeding 

would initially be made to and decided 

by the NRC staff. However, that feature 

of the draft access procedures would not 

apply to: (1) License transfer 

adjudications (for which the 

Commission has already chosen a 

different procedural approach),3 and (2) 

the pending High Level Waste (HLW) 

Pre-License Application proceeding 

(PAPO), or any subsequent adjudication 

regarding the Department of Energy’s 

expected application for a construction 

authorization for a HLW repository.4

It is expected that the draft access 

procedures also would include time 

periods for submission of requests for 

access, for staff determinations, for 

filing of contentions, and for challenges 

to appeal adverse staff determinations. 

These periods would be intended to 

minimize the potential for delay in the 

admission of contentions. 

As evident in the discussion that 

follows, this proposed rulemaking deals 

with interlocutory review (review 

permitted immediately rather than at 

the end of a proceeding) by the 

Commission of an order on such an 

‘‘appeal.’’ The proposed amendments to 

10 CFR 2.311 recognize the importance 

of access to information on the proposed 

licensing action by potential parties in 

determining whether to request a 

hearing or to intervene in a hearing or 

to support these requests. Extending the 

opportunity to seek interlocutory review 

by the Commission of orders relating to 

these requests could enhance both 

public involvement in NRC adjudicatory 

proceedings and the effectiveness and 

efficiency of these proceedings. 

II. Discussion 

Section 2.311 provides for 

‘‘interlocutory’’ review by the 

Commission of Orders issued by a 

presiding officer or Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board 5 on requests for 

hearing or petitions to intervene and 

selection of hearing procedures. 

However, there is no comparable 

provision for interlocutory Commission 

review of orders relating to requests by 

potential parties for access to 

information described previously. To 

address this omission, the Commission 

is proposing changes to the rules of 

practice in Part 2 as described below. 

The definitions in § 2.4 would be 

modified to add a definition of Potential 

party as follows: Potential party means 

any person who has requested, or who 

may intend to request, a hearing or 

petition to intervene in a hearing under 

10 CFR part 2, other than hearings 

conducted pursuant to Subparts J and M 

of Part 2. 

This proposed definition does not rely 

on the definition of Party in § 2.1001 of 

Subpart J, applicable to a party in a 

proceeding for the issuance of licenses 

related to a high-level radioactive waste 

(HLW) geologic repository. As stated in 

§ 2.1001, the term Party is defined only 

for purposes of Subpart J of part 2.6

Similarly, the proposed definition by its 

terms, does not apply to a proceeding 

conducted pursuant to Subpart M 

(‘‘Procedures for Hearings on License 

Transfer Applications’’). 

The proposed § 2.311 would allow 

potential parties (persons who may 

intend to request a hearing or petition 

for leave to intervene in a hearing), to 

seek expedited review by the 

Commission of certain orders. Among 

these are orders relating to a request by 

potential parties for access to SUNSI 

and SGI. This amendment is necessary 

to provide these requesters or 

petitioners an avenue for promptly 

obtaining Commission review of such 

determinations, which might ultimately 

result in denial of a request for a hearing 

or for leave to intervene for failure to 

meet the requirements for standing and 

admissibility of contentions. Specific 

proposed changes to § 2.311 are 

discussed below. 


rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
32020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed rule would amend 10 

CFR 2.311(a) by making the following 

changes. In addition to deletion of the 

reference in paragraph (a) to the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Board, paragraph 

(a) would be further modified. First, 

language would be added to include 

orders other than those issued by the 

presiding officer: e.g., if a presiding 

officer has not been designated, orders 

of the Chief Administrative Judge, or if 

he or she is unavailable, of another 

administrative judge, or of an 

administrative law judge with 

jurisdiction pursuant to § 2.318(a). This 

proposed change recognizes that a 

presiding officer might not have been 

designated at the stage in which a 

potential party is seeking interlocutory 

review by the Commission. Also, 

paragraph (a) would be divided into 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3), and 

a new paragraph (b). Paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) would retain orders on a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene as orders on which 

interlocutory review by the Commission 

may be sought. New paragraph (a)(3) 

would add to these categories an order 

relating to a request for access to SUNSI 

(including, but not limited to, 

proprietary, confidential commercial, 

and security-related information) and 

SGI. Access to this information could be 

necessary for a potential party to 

determine whether to request a hearing 

or petition to intervene or to support 

such requests. This paragraph would 

also add language authorizing an 

appeal, in connection with such a 

request, of an order of an officer 

designated to rule on information access 

issues. This language is necessary 

because, as is contemplated by the draft 

access procedures discussed in Section 

I above and by the Commission’s final 

rule in development concerning SGI, a 

judge may be specifically designated to 

adjudicate information access issues. 

The remainder of paragraph (a), 

addressing requirements relating to such 

matters as the initiation and filing of 

appeals, would be redesignated as 

paragraph (b). 

In light of the above modifications, 

current paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 

would be redesignated as paragraphs (c), 

(d), and (e), respectively. In 

redesignated paragraph (c), an order 

denying a request for access to the 

information described in paragraph (a), 

would be included as an order 

appealable by the petitioner/requester 

on the question as to whether the 

request and/or petition should have 

been granted. Former paragraph (c), 

redesignated as paragraph (d), concerns 

appeals by a party other than the 

requester/petitioner. This paragraph 

would be modified to address in 

paragraph (d)(1) appeals of orders 

granting a petition to intervene and/or 

hearing and in paragraph (d)(2), appeals 

of orders granting requests for access to 

information. The appealable issue in 

paragraph (d)(2) is whether the request 

for access should have been denied in 

whole or in part. Paragraph (d) in the 

current rule is redesignated as 

paragraph (e) but would be otherwise 

unchanged. 

III. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 

104–113, requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless 

using such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. The NRC is proposing to 

permit potential parties to seek 

interlocutory Commission review of 

orders denying a request for access to 

information for the preparation of 

contentions. This action does not 

constitute the establishment of a 

government-unique standard as defined 

in the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–119 (1998). 

IV. Environmental Impact: Categorical 

Exclusion 

The NRC has determined that this 

proposed regulation is the type of action 

described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). 

Therefore, neither an environmental 

impact statement nor an environmental 

assessment has been prepared for this 

proposed regulation. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection requirements 

and, therefore, is not subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

VI. Regulatory Analysis 

A regulatory analysis has not been 

prepared for this regulation because it 

applies to the procedures to be used in 

NRC adjudicatory proceedings, and 

would not involve any provisions that 

would impose any economic burdens on 

licensees or the public. 

VII. Backfit Analysis 

The NRC has determined that the 

backfit rules (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 

76.76) do not apply to this proposed 

rule because these amendments would 

not involve any provisions that would 

impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 

Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis 

is not required. 

VIII. Plain Language 

The Presidential memorandum dated 

June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language in 

Government Writing,’’ published on 

June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883) directed 

that the Government’s documents be in 

plain, clear, and accessible language. 

The NRC requests comments on the 

proposed rule specifically with respect 

to the clarity and effectiveness of the 

language used. Comments should be 

sent to the NRC as explained in the 

ADDRESSES caption of this document. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 

material, Classified information, 

Environmental protection, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, 

Source material, Special nuclear 

material, Waste treatment and disposal. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is 

proposing to adopt the following 

amendments to 10 CFR part 2. 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 

AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409 

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 

62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 

935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); 

sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2213, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)), sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 

2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 

104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also 

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also 

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as 


rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 111 / Monday, June 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 32021 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236, 

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. 

L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 

section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 

1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections 

2.600–2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. 

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. 

Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also 

issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97—425, 

96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). 

Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 

Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 

5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also 

issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. 

L. 85–256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under 

sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 

134, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 

10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 

68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also 

issued under sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and 

sec. 189, 68 stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). 

Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 

91–560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). 

2. In § 2.4, a definition of Potential 

party is added in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 2.4 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Potential party means any person who 

has requested, or who may intend to 

request, a hearing or petition to 

intervene in a hearing under 10 CFR 

part 2, other than hearings conducted 

pursuant to Subparts J and M of Part 2. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 2.311 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.311 Interlocutory review of rulings on 

requests for hearings/petitions to intervene, 

selection of hearing procedure, and 

requests by potential parties for access to 

sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 

information and safeguards information. 

(a) An order of the presiding officer, 

or if a presiding officer has not been 

designated, of the Chief Administrative 

Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, of 

another administrative judge, or of an 

administrative law judge with 

jurisdiction pursuant to § 2.318(a), may 

be appealed to the Commission with 

respect to: 

(1) A request for hearing, 

(2) A petition to intervene, or 

(3) A request for access to sensitive 

unclassified non-safeguards information 

(SUNSI), including, but not limited to, 

proprietary, confidential commercial, 

and security-related information, and 

Safeguards Information (SGI). An appeal 

to the Commission may also be taken 

from an order of an officer designated to 

rule on information access issues. 

(b) These appeals must be made in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

section, within ten (10) days after the 

service of the order. The appeal must be 

initiated by the filing of a notice of 

appeal and accompanying supporting 

brief. Any party who opposes the appeal 

may file a brief in opposition to the 

appeal within ten (10) days after service 

of the appeal. The supporting brief and 

any answer must conform to the 

requirements of § 2.341(c)(2). No other 

appeals from rulings on requests for 

hearings are allowed. 

(c) An order denying a petition to 

intervene, and/or request for hearing, or 

a request for access to the information 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, is appealable by the requestor/ 

petitioner on the question as to whether 

the request and/or petition should have 

been granted. 

(d) An order granting a petition to 

intervene, and/or request for hearing, or 

a request for access to the information 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, is appealable by a party other 

than the requestor/petitioner on the 

question as to: 

(1) Whether the request/petition 

should have been wholly denied, or 

(2) Whether the request for access to 

the information described in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section should have been 

denied in whole or in part. 

(e) An order selecting a hearing 

procedure may be appealed by any party 

on the question as to whether the 

selection of the particular hearing 

procedures was in clear contravention 

of the criteria set forth in § 2.310. The 

appeal must be filed with the 

Commission no later than ten (10) days 

after issuance of the order selecting a 

hearing procedure. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of June 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–2884 Filed 6–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM368 Special Conditions No. 

25–07–05–SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 

787–8 Airplane; Crashworthiness 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes special 

conditions for the Boeing Model 787–8 

airplane. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes. These novel or unusual 

design features are associated with 

carbon fiber reinforced plastic used in 

the construction of the fuselage. For 

these design features, the applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for impact response characteristics to 

ensure survivable crashworthiness. 

These proposed special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

Additional special conditions will be 

issued for other novel or unusual design 

features of the Boeing 787–8 airplanes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 26, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal 

may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal 

Aviation Administration, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules 

Docket (ANM–113), Docket No. NM368, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; or delivered in 

duplicate to the Transport Airplane 

Directorate at the above address. All 

comments must be marked Docket No. 

NM368. Comments may be inspected in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian 

Won, FAA, Airframe/Cabin Safety, 

ANM–115, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2145; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

special conditions, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include supporting data. We ask that 

you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 


rmajette on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS