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

27068 

Vol. 72, No. 92 

Monday, May 14, 2007 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 51 

[Docket No. PRM–51–12] 

State of California; Receipt of Petition 

for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice 

of receipt. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is publishing for 

public comment a notice of receipt of a 

petition for rulemaking, dated March 16, 

2007, which was filed with the NRC by 

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General 

for the State of California. The petition 

was docketed by the NRC on March 21, 

2007, and has been assigned Docket No. 

PRM–51–12. The petitioner requests 

that NRC rescind its regulations that 

declare the potential environmental 

effects of the approval, construction, 

and operation of high-density pool 

storage of spent nuclear fuel are not and 

cannot be significant for purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and NEPA analysis; adopt and 

issue a generic determination that 

approval of such storage at a nuclear 

power plant or any other facility does 

constitute a major Federal action that 

may have a significant effect on the 

human environment; and order that no 

NRC licensing decision that approves 

high-density pool storage of spent 

nuclear fuel at a nuclear power plant or 

other storage facility may issue without 

the prior adoption and certification of 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) that complies with NEPA in all 

respects, including full identification, 

analysis, and disclosure of the potential 

environmental effects of such storage, 

including the potential for accidental or 

deliberately caused release of 

radioactive products to the 

environment, whether by accident or 

through acts of terrorism, as well as full 

and adequate discussion of potential 

mitigation for such effects, and full 

discussion of an adequate array or 

alternatives to the proposed storage 

project. 

DATES: Submit comments by July 30, 

2007. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this petition by any one of the 

following methods. Please include 

PRM–51–12 in the subject line of your 

comments. Comments on petitions 

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 any 

information in your submission that you 

do not want to be publicly disclosed. 

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 the 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 am and 4:15 pm 

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 petition may be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), Room 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 

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 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

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

A copy of the petition can be found 

in ADAMS under accession number 

ML070811132. A paper copy of the 

petition may be obtained by contacting 

Betty Golden, Office of Administration, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington DC, 20555–0001, telephone 

301–415–6863, toll-free 1–800–368– 

5642, or by e-mail bkg2@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, 

Directives, and Editing Branch, Division 

of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Telephone: 301–415–7163 or Toll 

Free: 800–368–5642. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

The petitioner seeks to have the NRC: 

(1) Consider new and significant 

information about threats to the 

environment caused by dense storage of 

spent nuclear fuel; (2) rescind 

regulations that bar the consideration of 

spent fuel storage impacts in NEPA 

documents, regardless of the reasonable 

foreseeability of such effects; (3) make a 

generic determination that 

environmental impacts from spent fuel 

storage are significant; and (4) order that 

any decision to permit high density pool 

storage of nuclear fuel at any facility be 

accompanied by an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) that complies 

with NEPA. The petitioner specifically 

requests that the NRC amend its 

regulations under 10 CFR 51.23(a) and 

(b) that concern a generic determination 

of no significant environmental impact 

in regard to the temporary storage of 

spent fuel after cessation of reactor 

operation. 

The petitioner asserts that the 

requested rulemaking actions are 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
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