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

44671 

Vol. 73, No. 148 

Thursday, July 31, 2008 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0024] 

Minimum Age Requirements for the 

Transport of Animals 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would amend the Animal Welfare 

Act regulations by adding minimum age 

requirements for the transport in 

commerce of animals. This action will 

allow interested persons additional time 

to prepare and submit comments. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before September 

2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2006-0024 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0024, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2006–0024. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; 

(301) 734–7833. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 9, 

2008, we published in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 26344–26349, Docket 

No. APHIS–2006–0024) a proposal to 

amend the Animal Welfare Act 

regulations by adding minimum age 

requirements for the transport in 

commerce of animals. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before July 

8, 2008. We are reopening the comment 

period on Docket No. APHIS–2006– 

0024 for an additional 30 days beyond 

this notice. We will also consider all 

comments received between July 9, 

2008 (the day after the close of the 

original comment period) and the date 

of this notice. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a: 21 U.S.C. 136 

and 136(a); 44 U.S.C. 35; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, 

and 371.2(c). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

July 2008. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–17591 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 54 

[Docket No. PRM–54–5] 

Eric Epstein; Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Denial. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking submitted by Eric 

Epstein (PRM–54–5). The petition 

requests that the NRC amend its 

regulations that govern renewal of 

operating licenses for nuclear power 

plants. Specifically, the petitioner 

requests that the NRC conduct a 

comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear 

power plant licensees’ emergency 

planning during the license renewal 

proceedings. The NRC is denying the 

petition because the petition presents 

issues that the Commission carefully 

considered when it first adopted the 

license renewal rule and denied 

petitions for rulemaking submitted by 

Andrew J. Spano, County Executive, 

Westchester County, New York (PRM– 

54–02), and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of 

Brick Township, New Jersey (PRM–54– 

03). The Commission’s position is that 

the NRC’s emergency planning system is 

part of a comprehensive regulatory 

process that is intended to provide 

continuing assurance that emergency 

planning for every nuclear plant is 

adequate. Thus, the Commission has 

already extensively considered and 

addressed the types of issues raised in 

the petition. Also, the petition fails to 

present any significant new information 

or arguments that would warrant the 

requested amendment. 

ADDRESSES: Publicly available 

documents related to this petition, 

including the petition for rulemaking 

and NRC’s letter of denial to the 

petitioner may be viewed electronically 

on public computers in NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), 01F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. Publicly available 

documents created or received at 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 Documents 

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 or (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Bafundo, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 415–1621 or Toll 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
44672 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Free: 1–800–368–5642, e-mail 

Nina.Bafundo@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

During the 1991 license renewal 

rulemaking (56 FR 64943; December 13, 

1991), the Commission explained that 

initial license-type reviews are 

unnecessary at license renewal because 

of ongoing NRC inspections, 

enforcement, and upgrades: ‘‘since 

initial licensing, each operating plant 

has continually been inspected and 

reviewed as a result of new information 

gained from operating experience.’’ (56 

FR at 64945). These ongoing regulatory 

processes provide reasonable assurance 

that the licensing bases of currently 

operating plants provide and maintain 

an adequate level of safety. (60 FR at 

22464, 22481–22482; May 8, 1995). The 

license renewal rule likewise reflects 

the NRC’s determination that issues of 

adequate safety and protection should 

be addressed when they arise. See, 60 

FR at 22481. The NRC anticipated that 

safety issues will inevitably emerge, but 

concluded that its ongoing regulatory 

process is comprehensive and flexible 

enough to manage safety concerns 

before the license renewal process. (71 

FR 74848, 74851; December 13, 2006). 

Also, in making revisions to the license 

renewal rule, the Commission 

reaffirmed the vitality of its regulatory 

process. See, 60 FR 22461. 

More specifically, the NRC’s 

emergency preparedness regulations in 

10 CFR part 50 require licensees to test 

the adequacy of their preparedness and 

ability to respond to emergency 

situations by the performance of a fullscale exercise at least once every two 

years, with the participation of 

Government agencies. These exercises 

are evaluated by NRC inspectors and 

FEMA evaluators. In the interval 

between these two-year exercises, 

licensees must conduct additional drills 

to ensure that they maintain adequate 

emergency response capabilities. 

Further, the NRC actively reviews its 

regulatory framework to ensure that the 

regulations are current and effective. 

The agency began a major review of its 

emergency preparedness framework in 

2005, including a comprehensive review 

of the emergency preparedness 

regulations and guidance, the issuance 

of generic communications regarding 

the integration of emergency 

preparedness and security, and outreach 

efforts to interested persons to discuss 

emergency preparedness issues. These 

activities have informed an ongoing 

rulemaking effort that will enhance the 

NRC’s emergency preparedness 

regulations and guidance. See, 

Rulemaking Plan for Enhancements to 

Emergency Preparedness Regulations 

and Guidance, (April 17, 2007) 

(ML070440148); SRM–SECY–06–0200, 

Results of the Review of Emergency 

Preparedness Regulations and 

Guidance, (January 8, 2007) 

(ML070080411); SECY–06–0200, 

Results of the Review of Emergency 

Preparedness Regulations and Guidance 

(September 20, 2006) (ML061910707). 

The Petition 

This petition raises concerns nearly 

identical to the recent petitions by 

Andrew J. Spano, County Executive, 

Westchester County, New York (PRM–

54–02) and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of 

Brick Township, New Jersey (PRM–54–

03), which the Commission denied after 

public comments. In the Spano and 

Scarpelli petitions, the petitioners 

requested that the NRC amend its 

regulations to provide that the agency 

renew a license only if the plant 

operator demonstrates that the plant 

meets all criteria and requirements that 

would apply if it were proposing the 

plant de novo for initial construction, 

including an emergency planning 

analysis. Similarly, this petition 

requests the NRC to make a ‘‘new 

finding of ‘reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection,’ ’’ like a de novo 

review under the initial licensing 

process. 

In the Spano and Scarpelli denials, 

the NRC addressed issues it had already 

considered at length during its license 

renewal rulemaking. See, 71 FR 74848, 

74851. The Commission explained that 

‘‘the petitioners did not present any new 

information that would contradict 

positions taken by the Commission 

when the license renewal rule was 

established or demonstrate that 

sufficient reason exists to modify the 

current regulations.’’ Id. Likewise, this 

petition does not pose any new 

concerns that would undermine the 

rationale for the current license renewal 

process. 

For the reasons given by the 

Commission in the final license renewal 

rule (56 FR 64943; December 13, 1991) 

and again in revisions to the final rule 

(60 FR 22461; May 8, 1995), the scope 

of license renewal is appropriately 

limited to those issues which have a 

specific relevance to protecting the 

public health and safety during the 

license renewal period—i.e., age-related 

degradation. Issues relevant to current 

plant operations, like emergency 

planning and nuclear plant security, fall 

within the purview of the current 

regulatory process and continue into the 

extended operation period of a license 

renewal. The Commission also 

mandates that each plant-specific 

licensing basis be maintained during the 

renewal term in the same manner and 

to the same extent as during the original 

licensing term, thereby ensuring the 

protection of public health and safety 

and the preservation of common defense 

and security. 

The Commission has affirmed 

repeatedly that ‘‘emergency 

preparedness need not be reviewed 

again for license renewal.’’ 71 FR at 

74852 (referencing 56 FR at 64966). The 

Commission stated that ‘‘[t]hrough its 

standards and required exercises, the 

Commission ensures that existing plans 

are adequate throughout the life of any 

plant even in the face of changing 

demographics and other site-related 

factors.’’ 71 FR at 78452 (quoting 56 FR 

at 64966). This basic determination is 

reflected in the NRC’s regulations at 10 

CFR 50.47(a) on emergency planning 

requirements, in which a new finding 

on emergency planning issues is not 

required for license renewal. Further, all 

of the emergency planning regulations 

in 10 CFR 50.47, 50.54(q), 50.54(s)–(u), 

and Appendix E are independent of the 

license renewal process, and continue to 

apply during the extended operation 

term. 

For these reasons, the Commission 

denies PRM–54–5. 

Following its review of this Notice, 

the Commission directed that the Notice 

include the following comments of 

Commissioner Jaczko: 

I disagree with the decision to deny this 

petition for rulemaking. Instead, I believe the 

review of a license renewal application 

authorizing, if granted, an additional twentyyears of operation, provides the opportune 

time at which the agency should re-evaluate 

emergency preparedness issues. Currently, 

the only time the NRC issues a 

comprehensive affirmative finding that both 

onsite and offsite emergency plans are in 

place around a nuclear power plant, and that 

they can be implemented, is at the time it 

grants an initial operating license. Although 

there are regular assessments of these plans 

through exercises and reviews, we do not 

periodically reassess that initial reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection of the 

public—even if it was made decades ago—

unless and until we find a serious deficiency 

in a biennial exercise. I believe considering 

emergency preparedness during the license 

renewal process would provide an 

opportunity to improve public confidence in 

the licensees and in all levels of government. 

The Commission had additional 

views on the petition: 

The Commission majority does not share 

Commissioner Jaczko’s dissenting view. As 

stated in each of our votes on this matter, and 

in support of the Commission’s responsibility 

to oversee the safety and security of operating 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 44673 

reactors, we continue to support the view 

that issues of relevance to both current plant 

operation and operation during the license 

renewal period must be addressed as they 

arise within the present license term rather 

than at the time of renewal. Emergency 

planning is such an issue. Through its 

standards and required exercises, the 

Commission ensures that existing emergency 

plans are adequate throughout the life of any 

plant, even in the face of changing 

demographics and other site-related factors. 

The emergency preparedness regulations in 

10 CFR part 50 require licensees to test the 

adequacy of their preparedness and ability to 

respond to emergency situations through the 

performance of a full-scale exercise at least 

once every two years. These drills and 

independent evaluations provide a process to 

ensure continued adequacy of emergency 

preparedness in light of changes in site 

characteristics. Consequently, consistent 

with the Commission’s policy to confine the 

review of issues during license renewal to 

those uniquely relevant to protecting the 

public health and safety and common 

defense and security during the renewal 

period, we find no lost opportunity here and 

see no necessity for a review of emergency 

planning as part of the license renewal 

process. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day 

of July 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–17544 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

28 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. OJP 1473] 

RIN 1121–AA59 

Criminal Intelligence Systems 

Operating Policies 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, 

Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Justice Programs 

is publishing this proposed rule to 

amend its regulations that govern the 

operating policies of criminal 

intelligence systems that receive federal 

funding under the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 

amended (‘‘Crime Control Act’’). The 

regulations were issued pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3789(g), which requires that 

‘‘criminal intelligence systems’’

receiving Crime Control Act support 

must collect, maintain, and disseminate 

criminal intelligence information ‘‘in 

conformance with policy standards 

which are prescribed by the Office of 

Justice Programs.’’ The statute specifies 

that the policy standards must be 

written to assure that the funding and 

operation of the systems further the 

purpose of the funding provisions and 

assure that such systems ‘‘are not 

utilized in violation of the privacy and 

constitutional rights of individuals.’’

The existing regulations were last 

revised in 1993 and the purpose of the 

revisions proposed in this document is 

to clarify and update the regulations in 

light of the new, post-9/11 information 

sharing environment and investigative 

policies aimed at preventing terrorism. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before September 2, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20531. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference OJP 

Docket No. 1473 in your 

correspondence. You may submit 

comments electronically or view an 

electronic version of this proposed rule 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Dever, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 810 7th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20531. Telephone: 

(202) 616–6500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as name and address) 

voluntarily submitted by the 

commenter. 

If you wish to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not wish for it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not wish to be posted online in 

the first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you would 

like redacted. 

If you wish to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not wish for it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information and 

confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. If you 

wish to inspect the agency’s public 

docket file in person by appointment, 

please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph. 

Discussion 

The proposed rule would revise the 

Office of Justice Program (OJP) 

regulations in 28 CFR part 23 that set 

forth policy guidelines for Crime 

Control Act-funded state criminal 

intelligence information systems. The 

part 23 regulations were issued 

pursuant to a requirement in 42 U.S.C. 

3789(g) that ‘‘criminal intelligence 

systems’’ receiving Crime Control Act 

support must collect, maintain, and 

disseminate criminal intelligence 

information ‘‘in conformance with 

policy standards which are prescribed 

by the Office of Justice Programs.’’ The 

statute specifies that the policy 

standards must be written to assure that 

the funding and operation of the 

systems further the purpose of the 

funding provisions and assure that such 

systems ‘‘are not utilized in violation of 

the privacy and constitutional rights of 

individuals.’’

The existing part 23 regulations were 

last revised in 1993 and the purpose of 

the revisions proposed in this notice is 

to clarify and update the regulations in 

light of the new, post-9/11 informationsharing environment and investigative 

policies aimed at preventing terrorism. 

Multiple initiatives are being pursued at 

the federal, state, and local levels to 

promote and strengthen information 

sharing among responsible government 

agencies that can promote risk 

identification and protective action, 

including, for example, the creation of 

state, local, and regional fusion centers 

across the country and information 

sharing initiatives involving Joint 

Terrorism Task Forces. The intent of 

these proposed revisions to part 23 is to 

ensure that the standards for sharing 

criminal intelligence information 

subject to the regulation be uniform and 

clear and not create unreasonable 

impediments to information sharing, 

whether real or perceived, while at the 

same time continuing to ensure that the 

systems not be used in violation of the 

privacy and constitutional rights of 

individuals. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS