39972 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

resulting from the 2005 amendment of 

the Energy Policy Act. The OAS petition 

is available in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17173A063. 

IV. Discussion of the Petition 

The petitioner believe that patient 

health and safety is being compromised 

due to licensing delays of important 

diagnostic and therapeutic products that 

utilize radioisotopes that are not listed 

in the appendix B table in 10 CFR part 

30. The petitioner assert that when the 

Energy Policy Act was amended in 2005 

to include discrete naturally-occurring 

and accelerator-produced radioactive 

materials (NARM) into the definition of 

byproduct material, that 10 CFR part 30, 

schedule B, exempt quantities for 

licensing was updated to include certain 

NARM isotopes. They note however that 

10 CFR part 30, appendix B, ‘‘Quantities 

of Licensed Material Requiring 

Labeling,’’ which is the driver for the 

decommissioning funding plan and 

financial assurance, was not updated. 

As a result, the OAS believes that state 

regulators are forced to apply overly 

burdensome financial assurance 

obligations or evaluate on a case-by-case 

basis special exemptions for new 

products. They feel that this results in 

delays in using these improved products 

or discourages their development. 

The petitioner point out that the 

NRC’s Advisory Committee on the 

Medical Uses of Isotopes evaluated the 

financial assurance requirements for 

germanium-68 generators and 

concluded that these requirements were 

too restrictive and would prevent or 

deter the use of promising gallium-68 

diagnostic imaging agents for patients. 

Authorization for granting specific 

exemption from the decommissioning 

funding plan requirement for Ge-68/Ga68 generators was developed. A 

rulemaking action to provide a 

permanent regulatory solution has been 

initiated; however, the petition notes 

that the OAS is disappointed that the 

rule would address only this one 

isotope. 

Rather than issue exemptions on a 

case-by-case basis, the petitioner assert 

the more appropriate way to address the 

inconsistency is to amend appendix B to 

10 CFR part 30 to add appropriate 

radionuclides and their corresponding 

activities. The petition states that the 

failure to address this inconsistency 

puts an undue hardship on certain 

licensees with little or no radiation 

safety benefit, discourages the 

development of new beneficial 

products, and negatively impacts 

patient care. 

V. Request for Comment 

The NRC staff is requesting public 

comment on the following specific 

questions: 

1. What products or technologies, 

other than the germanium-68 generators 

cited in the petition, are being or could 

be negatively affected because the 

radioactive materials required for these 

products or technologies are not 

currently listed on the table in appendix 

B of 10 CFR part 30? 

2. Please provide specific examples of 

how the current NRC regulatory 

framework for decommissioning 

financial assurance has put an undue 

hardship on potential license 

applicants. Explain how this hardship 

has discouraged the development of 

beneficial new products, or otherwise 

imposed unnecessarily burdensome 

requirements on licensees or members 

of the public (e.g., users of medical 

diagnostic or therapeutic technologies) 

that depend on naturally-occurring or 

accelerator-produced radioactive 

materials (NARM). 

3. Given NRC’s current regulatory 

authority over the radiological safety 

and security of NARM, what factors 

should the NRC take into account in 

establishing possession limits for any of 

these materials that should be listed in 

appendix B of 10 CFR part 30? 

4. Does this petition raise other issues 

not addressed by the questions above 

about labelling or decommissioning 

financial assurance for radioactive 

materials? Must these issues be 

addressed by a rulemaking, or are there 

other regulatory solutions that NRC 

should consider? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of August, 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary for the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17690 Filed 8–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2017–0731] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Mississippi River; New 

Orleans, LA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone for 

certain navigable waters of the 

Mississippi River. This action is 

necessary to provide for the safety of life 

on these navigable waters near New 

Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display 

on October 28, 2017. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from being in the safety zone 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port New Orleans (COTP) or a 

designated representative. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before September 7, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2017–0731 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, 

Sector New Orleans, at (504) 365–2281 

or Howard.K.Vacco@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port New Orleans 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On July 17, 2017, the Coast Guard was 

notified of a fireworks display from 7:50 

p.m. through 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 

2017, to celebrate a wedding. The 

fireworks are to be launched from a 

barge in the Mississippi River at 

approximately MM 96.2, at New 

Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework 

displays include accidental discharge of 

fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and 

falling hot embers or other debris. The 

Captain of the Port New Orleans (COTP) 

has determined that potential hazards 

associated with the fireworks to be used 

in this display would be a safety 

concern for anyone within a one-half 

range of the barge. 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to ensure the safety of 

vessels and the navigable waters within 

a one-half mile range of the fireworks 

barge before, during, and after the 

scheduled event. The Coast Guard 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39973 

proposes this rulemaking under 

authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP proposes to establish a 

safety zone from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 

p.m. on October 28, 2017. The safety 

zone would cover all navigable waters 

between mile marker (MM) 96 and 96.5 

on the Mississippi River, Above Head of 

Passes. The duration of the zone is 

intended to ensure the safety of vessels 

and these navigable waters before, 

during, and after the scheduled 

fireworks display. No vessel or person 

would be permitted to enter the safety 

zone without obtaining permission from 

the COTP or a designated 

representative. The regulatory text we 

are proposing appears at the end of this 

document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size and short duration 

of the waterway closure, which will 

remain in effect for one hour for a small 

section of the waterway. In addition, 

vessel traffic seeking to transit the area 

may seek permission from the COTP or 

his designated representative to do so. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section IV.A above, 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it is 

consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves a safety zone lasting 1 hour 

that would prohibit entry within onehalf mile of a fireworks barge. Normally 

such actions are categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(g) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of 

Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39974 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0731 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T08–0731 Safety Zone; Mississippi 

River, New Orleans, LA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Mississippi River between mile markers 

96 and 96.5 Above Head of Passes. 

(b) Effective period. This rule is 

effective from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 

p.m. on October 28, 2017. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this zone is 

prohibited unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

New Orleans (COTP) or designated 

representative. A designated 

representative is a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard assigned to units under the 

operational control of USCG Sector New 

Orleans. 

(2) Vessels requiring entry into this 

safety zone must request permission 

from the COTP or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM Channel 16 or 67. 

(3) Persons and vessels permitted to 

enter this safety zone must transit at 

their slowest safe speed and comply 

with all lawful directions issued by the 

COTP or the designated representative. 

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP 

or a designated representative will 

inform the public through Broadcast 

Notices to Mariners of any changes in 

the planned schedule. 

Dated: August 9, 2017. 

Wayne R. Arguin, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port New Orleans. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17479 Filed 8–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 8 

RIN 2900–AQ03 

Eligibility for Supplemental ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulations governing the ServiceDisabled Veterans’ Insurance (S–DVI) 

program in order to explain that a 

person who was granted S–DVI as of the 

date of death under is not eligible for 

supplemental S–DVI because the 

insured’s total disability did not begin 

after the date of the insured’s 

application for insurance and while the 

insurance was in force under premiumpaying conditions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 23, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to: Director, Regulations 

Management (00REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026 (this 

is not a toll-free telephone number). 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AQ03—Eligibility for Supplemental 

Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance.’’ 

Copies of comments received will be 

available for public inspection in the 

Office of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Room 1063B, between the 

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday (except Federal 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment (this is not a toll-free 

telephone number). In addition, 

comments may be viewed online 

through the Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Weaver, Department of Veterans Affairs 

Insurance Center (310/290B), 5000 

Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 

19144, (215) 842–2000, ext. 4263 (this is 

not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. 1922(a), a veteran ‘‘suffering from 

a disability or disabilities for which 

compensation would be payable if 10 

per centum or more in degree and 

except for which such person would be 

insurable according to the standards of 

good health’’ is eligible for S–DVI up to 

a maximum of $10,000 upon 

‘‘application in writing made within 

two years from the date serviceconnection of such disability is 

determined by the Secretary and 

payment of premiums as provided in 

this subchapter.’’ See 38 U.S.C. 1903 

(amount of insurance). Section 1922(b) 

of title 38, United States Code, provides 

in pertinent part that a veteran who 

qualifies for insurance under 38 U.S.C. 

1922(a) but who did not apply for such 

insurance and who was mentally 

incompetent from a service-connected 

disability, remained mentally 

incompetent until the date of death, and 

died before the appointment of a 

guardian or within 2 years after the 

appointment of a guardian ‘‘shall be 

deemed to have applied for and to have 

been granted such insurance, as of the 

date of death.’’ See 38 U.S.C. 1922(b). 

VA refers to insurance provided under 

38 U.S.C 1922(b) as ‘‘gratuitous’’ 

insurance. 

‘‘Any person insured under section 

1922(a) [of title 38, United States Code,] 

who qualifies for a waiver of [S–DVI] 

premiums under [38 U.S.C.] 1912 . . . is 

eligible’’ for supplemental S–DVI of up 

to $30,000. 38 U.S.C. 1922A(a). Section 

1912(a) of title 38, United States Code, 

states in pertinent part: 

[P]ayment of premiums on insurance may 

be waived during the continuous total 

disability of the insured . . . if such 

disability began . . . after the date of the 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS