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

9708 

Vol. 72, No. 42 

Monday, March 5, 2007 

1Now part of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

2The Commission acknowledges that such a DPO 

was submitted. This DPO was processed in 

accordance with NRC procedures included in 

Management Directive 10.159, ‘‘The NRC Differing 

Professional Opinions Program.’’ On June 14, 2006, 

the Director, Office of Nuclear Security and 

Incident Response (NSIR), issued a decision that 

concluded that DHS has arrived at a defensible 

finding of reasonable assurance that children at day 

care facilities and nursery schools would be 

evacuated in the event of a radiological emergency 

at a power plant in the Commonwealth. The NSIR 

Director also concluded that the DHS finding is 

consistent with the relevant regulations and 

guidance documents as well as legal 

implementation of Federal, State, and local 

requirements. A summary of the DPO decision is 

available on the NRC public Web site http:// 

www.nrc.gov. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–81] 

Mr. Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is denying a petition 

for rulemaking (PRM) submitted by Mr. 

Eric Epstein on October 19, 2005. The 

petition, docketed as PRM–50–81, 

requests that NRC codify criteria in the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 1 1986 Guidance Memorandum 

(GM) EV–2, ‘‘Protective Actions for 

School Children,’’ into NRC’s 

emergency planning regulations. The 

petitioner believes that this action is 

necessary to provide preplanned 

emergency evacuation capabilities for 

children in Pennsylvania. The NRC is 

denying PRM–50–81 because it does not 

provide significant new information that 

was not previously considered in 

denying an earlier petition, PRM–50–79, 

submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, 

which requested that the Commission 

amend its emergency planning 

regulations to ensure that all day care 

centers and nursery schools in the 

vicinity of nuclear power facilities are 

properly protected in the event of a 

radiological emergency. 

ADDRESSES: Publicly available 

documents related to this petition, 

including the petition for rulemaking 

and the NRC’s letter of denial to the 

petitioner may be viewed electronically 

on public computers in the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), 01 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 also available electronically at 

the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at 

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

adams.html. From this site, the public 

can gain entry into the 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 PDR 

reference staff at (800) 387–4209, (301) 

415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Banic, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, NRC, Washington, DC 

20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–2771, 

e-mail mjb@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 27, 2006, the NRC docketed 

a petition for rulemaking submitted 

under 10 CFR 2.802 by Mr. Eric Epstein 

on October 19, 2005. The petitioner 

requested that NRC amend its 

regulations to codify criteria in the 

FEMA 1986 GM EV–2 into NRC’s 

emergency planning regulations (10 CFR 

part 50). The petitioner believes that 

this action is necessary to provide 

preplanned emergency evacuation 

capabilities for children in 

Pennsylvania. In support of his petition, 

Mr. Epstein cited excerpts from an 

enclosure to his petition, an unsigned, 

undated document that he represents as 

a differing professional opinion (DPO) 

submitted by a member of the NRC 

staff.2 This DPO focused on the 

adequacy of preplanned evacuation 

resources and preplanned relocation 

centers for day care centers and nursery 

schools within the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania (‘‘Commonwealth’’) and 

on whether the Commonwealth and 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS)/FEMA have failed to comply 

with DHS/FEMA guidance. 

Summary of Original Petition PRM–50– 

79 and Basis for Denial 

On September 4, 2002, NRC received 

a petition for rulemaking submitted by 

Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 cosigners. The petition was docketed on 

September 23, 2002, and assigned 

Docket No. PRM–50–79. The petition 

requested that NRC amend its 

regulations regarding offsite State and 

local government emergency plans for 

nuclear power plants to ensure that all 

day care centers and nursery schools in 

the vicinity of nuclear power facilities 

are properly protected during a 

radiological emergency. 

The Commission denied the petition 

in a document published in the Federal 

Register on December 19, 2005 (70 FR 

75085). The petition was denied on the 

basis that current NRC requirements and 

NRC and DHS guidance reasonably 

assure adequate protection of all 

members of the public, including 

children attending day care centers and 

nursery schools, in the event of a 

nuclear power plant incident. NRC 

stated in its denial that many of the 

specific requests of petition PRM–50–79 

either are already covered by regulations 

or guidance documents (including GM 

EV–2) or are inappropriate for inclusion 

in NRC regulations owing to their very 

prescriptive nature. 

The Commission also determined that 

the petition and information obtained 

during the review of the petition, raised 

questions about local implementation of 

relevant requirements and guidelines. 

Accordingly, the Commission directed 

the NRC staff to undertake several 

actions to further assess these 

implementation questions and to 

provide appropriate recommendations 

for improvement (staff requirements 

memorandum (SRM) dated October 26, 

2005, available in the Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) No. ML052990321). In 

response to this direction, the NRC staff 

met with DHS and the Pennsylvania 

Emergency Management Agency to 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 42 / Monday, March 5, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9709 

3The Commission has, in the October 26, 2005 

SRM on SECY–05–0045, directed the staff to 

develop guidance and expectations for the NRC 

review of FEMA’s assessment and findings of offsite 

emergency preparedness. This activity should 

address the petitioner’s and the DPO’s issues with 

respect to the adequacy of FEMA/DHS evaluation 

of local implementation of offsite emergency 

preparedness. 

4The Security and Accountability for Every Port 

Act of 2006, Public Law 109–347, provides that the 

DHS radiological emergency preparedness program 

will be transferred back to FEMA as of April 1, 

2007. 

obtain information relevant to local 

implementation. Pennsylvania officials 

described a comprehensive program, 

mandated by Pennsylvania law, for 

licensed day care facilities that 

substantially enhances the existing 

emergency preparedness posture that 

was previously found by DHS to 

provide reasonable assurance that 

adequate protective measures will be 

taken for the public, including children 

in day care facilities. 

The NRC staff provided the 

Commission the results of this 

assessment and other related initiatives 

in a Commission paper dated May 4, 

2006 (SECY–06–0101; ML060760586). 

The staff found no sufficient basis to 

question the adequacy of DHS findings 

regarding reasonable assurance. The 

staff believes the DHS findings are 

consistent with the planning standards 

of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the existing 

memorandum of understanding between 

NRC and DHS. The staff also included 

a recommendation to republish the 

December 19, 2005, Federal Register 

Notice with revisions to correct factual 

errors and clarify NRC’s regulatory 

positions and bases in the petition 

denial. This recommendation afforded 

the Commission an opportunity to 

reconsider its earlier denial of the 

petition. The Commission found no 

basis for changing its earlier denial, and 

in an SRM dated June 21, 2006 

(ML061720324), the Commission 

directed the staff to publish the 

amended Federal Register Notice. The 

amended notice was published on 

August 7, 2006 (71 FR 44593). 

Reasons for Denial 

The Commission is denying the 

petition for the following reasons. The 

petition does not provide significant 

new information or arguments that were 

not previously considered by the 

Commission in denying PRM–50–79. As 

stated above, the petition relies upon a 

DPO, which focused on the adequacy of 

preplanned evacuation resources and 

preplanned relocation centers for day 

care centers and nursery schools within 

the Commonwealth, and on whether the 

Commonwealth and DHS/FEMA 

complied with DHS/FEMA guidance. 

The proposed remedy of the petitioner 

is for the NRC to grant the petition for 

rulemaking (PRM–50–79), commence a 

rulemaking to incorporate the criteria in 

GM EV–2 into the NRC’s emergency 

planning regulations, and to implement 

the 120-day clock provisions of 10 CFR 

50.54(s)(2) while the rulemaking is in 

progress. However, the nature of the 

issues raised in the DPO would not 

provide a basis for the petitioner’s 

remedy. The DPO raised issues about 

local implementation of the 

requirements and guidance, and DHS/ 

FEMA evaluation of local 

implementation, neither of which could 

be resolved by the petitioner’s proposal 

that the GM EV–2 criteria be 

incorporated into NRC regulations.3 GM 

EV–2 is a guidance document developed 

by FEMA and utilized by the DHS, 

which has primary responsibility for 

assessing the adequacy of offsite 

emergency preparedness 4. NRC bases 

its own findings in part on a review of 

DHS’s findings and determinations as to 

whether State and local emergency 

plans are adequate and whether there is 

reasonable assurance that they can be 

implemented. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day 

of February 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–3822 Filed 3–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 

[Docket No. SSA–2006–0096] 

RIN 0960–AG40 

Methods for Conducting Personal 

Conferences When Waiver of Recovery 

of a Title II or Title XVI Overpayment 

Cannot Be Approved 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise our title 

II regulations and add title XVI 

regulations on personal conferences 

when waiver of recovery of an 

overpayment cannot be approved. These 

proposed rules would allow for the 

conferences to be conducted face-toface, by telephone, or by video 

teleconference in these circumstances. 

DATES: To be sure that we consider your 

comments, we must receive them by 

May 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may give us your 

comments: by Internet through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; by e-mail to 

regulations@ssa.gov; by telefax to (410) 

966–2830; or by letter to the 

Commissioner of Social Security, P.O. 

Box 17703, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–

7703. You may also deliver them to the 

Office of Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 107 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401, between 8 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. 

Comments are posted on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. You may also 

inspect the comments on regular 

business days by making arrangements 

with the contact person shown in this 

preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Strauss, Social Insurance 

Specialist, Office of Income Security 

Programs, Social Security 

Administration, 252 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21235–6401, (410) 965–7944 or TTY 

(410) 966–5609, for information about 

this notice. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772–

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit 

our Internet site, Social Security Online, 

at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Version 

The electronic file of this document is 

available on the date of publication in 

the Federal Register at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Background 

Our existing regulations at § 404.506 

state that we will waive recovery of an 

overpayment if the individual was 

without fault in causing the 

overpayment and if recovery would 

defeat the purpose of the Social Security 

Act or be against equity and good 

conscience. Section 404.506 further 

states that, if we cannot approve waiver 

after reviewing the information the 

individual has given to support his or 

her contention that the recovery of the 

overpayment should be waived, we will 

offer the individual a personal 

conference. The personal conference 

policy was established so that the 

decisionmaker would have the 

opportunity to assess an individual’s 

contention through personal, versus 

written, contact. Our existing 

regulations at § 416.550 state that we 

will waive recovery of an overpayment 

if the individual was without fault in 

causing the overpayment and if recovery 

would either defeat the purpose of title 

XVI, or be against equity and good 

conscience, or impede the efficient 


erjones on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS