[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15878-15881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7563]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15878]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
RIN 3150-AF23
Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for Submission
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations pertaining to petitions for rulemaking. The proposed
changes would provide incentive to submit sufficient supporting
information in petitions to facilitate more expeditious disposition by
the NRC, and would also improve openness of the petition for rulemaking
process by delineating priorities for review of the petitions.
DATES: Comment period expires June 12, 1995. 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: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch.
Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at: the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.Y. Chang, telephone (301) 415-6450,
or Chris Rourk, telephone (301) 415-5865, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NRC and industry resources are limited and becoming more so.
Inefficient regulations, i.e., regulations that are burdensome and have
a minimal safety benefit, could divert NRC and industry resources from
issues important to safety, thereby adversely affecting safety. While
maintaining its emphasis on safety, the NRC over the past 10 years has
initiated several programs designed to improve the efficiency of its
regulatory program. These efforts include notably the Marginal To
Safety (MTS) program, the Regulatory Review Group (RRG) and Cost
Beneficial Licensing Actions (CBLA) Task Force studies, and the
Technical Specification Amendments Screening Panel.
These programs have identified a number of inefficient regulatory
requirements. They also enabled the NRC to conclude, among other
matters, that (1) an expanded role for the public, including the
industry, to participate in the process of improving regulations
through petitions for rulemaking is highly desirable and should be
encouraged, and (2) the petition for rulemaking process could be
improved to make it more responsive to petitioners.
Description
The NRC has prepared a proposed rule that would modify 10 CFR
2.802, Petition for Rulemaking, to expand the use and improve the
responsiveness of the petition for rulemaking process. The proposed
rule would also delineate factors that affect priorities for review of
petitions. This would improve the openness of the rulemaking process.
The NRC staff currently expends resources in developing responses
to petitions for rulemaking that may or may not result in changes to
NRC regulations. The reasons for the granting or denial of petitions
sometimes only become evident after completion of considerable NRC
staff effort that may include the development of a regulatory analysis
and a backfit analysis. As a consequence, processing and disposition of
petitions sometimes is unduly prolonged. On the other hand, the NRC
recognizes that licensees are in the best position to provide
information to assist the NRC to assess the effect of regulatory
actions and are also the primary beneficiaries of efforts to reduce
regulatory requirements that are unduly burdensome but have no
commensurable safety benefits.
In order to allow petitions to be treated more expeditiously, to
facilitate the submission of petitions with strong technical merit, and
to improve the likelihood of acceptance of petitions, the NRC proposes
to modify Sec. 2.802 to encourage industry and the public to submit
more detailed supporting information in the petition for rulemaking
than currently required. The NRC concluded that this modification would
be an effective means to help processing the petitions in a more
expeditious manner, because this information would enable the NRC staff
to conclude, with a minimal expenditure of staff resources, whether to
grant or deny the petition. The incentive for any petitioner to take
this action would be that more expeditious review and processing of the
petition will result. It is expected that this alternative process will
be more efficient in the use of NRC staff and industry resources and be
more responsive to petitioners. This proposed rule would not change any
existing provision regarding petitions for rulemaking, rather it offers
an alternative within the petition process which would be available to
all petitioners regardless of the nature of the petitions.
The industry is therefore encouraged to identify and propose
improvements to regulations that seek to reduce the regulatory burden
while providing sufficient supporting information in the petition to
demonstrate that the proposed changes will result in significant
reduced burden and minimal impact to overall safety (safety
neutrality). Similarly, members of the public who seek safety
enhancement through the rulemaking process are encouraged to make use
of the sizable publicly available safety information to support and
expedite their petitions.
It is to be noted that the prioritization and scheduling for review
and disposition by NRC are based on consideration of the merit of each
petition. The merit of a petition is judged on its safety significance
and the level of detail of supporting information. Petitions containing
supporting information additional to those currently required would
improve their priority for review and receive more expeditious
disposition. Consideration of safety significance is the first
criterion for prioritizing the [[Page 15879]] review and disposition of
petitions. It is the primary concern of the NRC to ensure that design
and operation of NRC licensed facilities are carried out in a manner
which assures adequate protection of public health and safety, of the
environment, and of national security. Therefore, petitions found by
the NRC to raise a concern in this regard would receive immediate NRC
attention. In assessing the safety significance of petitions
consideration would be given to the technical information submitted and
other information available to the NRC, and to whether the proposal is
likely to meet the criteria of the backfit rule. Petitions that are
safety neutral, i.e., implementation of which would result in an
insignificant change to the level of protection to public health and
safety, would be resolved in such a way as to minimize the cost to the
NRC and maximize the benefit to the petitioner.
The more detailed supporting information in addition to that
required in the current Sec. 2.802(c) should include the suggested
regulatory text, regulatory analysis, backfit analysis (if required),
information required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
and a guidance document similar in nature to a Regulatory Guide, if
needed, in support of a proposed rule, as described in paragraph (d)(2)
of the proposed rule. The regulatory analysis is important for
petitions seeking either to enhance safety or to reduce regulatory
burden, because it would provide information on the changes to risk
levels as well as costs associated with proposed alternatives.
The proposed changes would afford any petitioner two options:
submit the minimal threshold information in the petition that is
required by the current rule and be subject to the regular processing
procedures, or submit more detailed supporting information and analyses
in the petition in return for a more expeditious processing procedure
by the NRC. The proposed revisions would not change any existing
provision regarding petitions for rulemaking if they meet the minimum
threshold requirement of the current Sec. 2.802(c).
Subsequent to the establishment of review priority the NRC would
develop a schedule for all petitions that are docketed. This schedule
would reflect the priority of each petition based on consideration of
the combination of safety significance and level of detail of
supporting information. A summary of petitions for rulemaking,
including the status of each petition, would be prepared semiannually
by the NRC staff, as described in paragraph (h) of the proposed rule. A
copy of this report would be available for public review in the NRC
Public Document Room.
Further, the NRC has decided to provide administrative procedures
to make it easier for concerned parties to submit petitions for changes
to regulatory guidance documents, such as regulatory guides, bulletins,
generic letters and sections of the Standard Review Plan (SRP). These
documents do not have the force and effect of a regulation, but they
are used by the NRC staff to identify methods that would comply with
the regulation. A formal procedure which enables interested parties to
propose changes to such regulatory guidance documents does not now
exist. The guidance for preparation of more detailed petitions for
rulemaking as well as petitions requesting the revision of regulatory
guidance documents will be provided in proposed Regulatory Guides 10.XX
and 10.XY to be developed in the near future.
Specific Considerations
Advice and recommendations on the proposed revision to 10 CFR 2.802
and on any other points considered pertinent are invited from all
interested persons. Comments and supporting reasons are particularly
requested on the following questions:
1. Is the concept of the proposal sound, namely that all
petitioners have the option to submit more detailed supporting
information which, if found adequate, would lead to faster NRC
disposition?
2. Is the description of information required for detailed
supporting information in paragraph (d)(2) sufficiently complete to
avoid unnecessary correspondence after the petition has been docketed?
3. Under what circumstances should a guidance document in the form
of a Regulatory Guide be required to support a petition? What criteria
are appropriate for not requiring it?
4. Should there be an NRC electronic bulletin board dealing
exclusively with petitions?
5. As the NRC attempts to shift rulemaking approaches to be more
performance-based and risk-based, what changes would be appropriate for
the information requirements under the proposed revision of 10 CFR
2.802?
6. Should administrative procedures be established to allow
petitions for changes to regulatory guidance documents, such as
regulatory guides, bulletins, generic letters, and sections of the
Standard Review Plan? Should these procedures be incorporated in a
rule?
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The proposed regulations involve an amendment to 10 CFR 2.802, and
qualify as actions eligible for the categorical exclusion from
environmental review in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an
environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been
prepared for these proposed regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The proposed rule amends information collection requirements that
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and approval of the information collection
requirements.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average an additional 500 hours for each PRM that contains
additional supporting information and analyses. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202,
(3150-0136), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Regulatory Analysis
The Administrative Procedure Act requires each Federal agency to
give interested persons the right to petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule. The proposed changes would facilitate
more expeditious disposition by the NRC of petitions with sufficient
supporting information, and would also improve the openness of the
rulemaking process by delineating petition review priorities. This
expended right, however, is available to any interested petitioner. The
proposed rule does not affect any existing rights and gives expanded
rights to licensees and interested persons. This proposed rule
constitutes the preferred course of action and the cost involved in its
promulgation and action is necessary and appropriate. The foregoing
discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
[[Page 15880]] substantial number of small entities. Any interested
person has the right to submit a petition for rulemaking under the
existing guidelines. If an interested person voluntarily chooses to
develop additional information and perform additional analysis to
support a proposed petition, the proposed rule would further encourage
petitioners to do so. If the interested person is unable or unwilling
to incur the costs associated with developing additional information
and performing these analyses, a petition may be submitted under the
existing rule. The NRC staff will continue to perform the analyses that
may be required to resolve the petition. The proposed rule does not
impose any obligations on regulated entities that may fall within the
definition of ``small entities'' as set forth in section 601(3) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, or within the definition of ``small
business'' as found in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632), or within the small business standards contained in 13 CFR Part
121.
Backfit Analysis
This proposed rule does not involve any new provisions which would
impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). Accordingly, no
backfit analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(c) is required for this
proposed rule.
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, 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
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.
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104,
105, 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. 10134(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, 183, 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 amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat.
1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). 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 and Table 1A of Appendix C 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).
Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 Stat. 1473
(42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L. 99-
240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b et seq.).
Sec. 2.8 [Amended]
2. Section 2.8 paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Sec. 2.802 and appendix C.
3. Section 2.802 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.802 Petition for rulemaking.
(a) Any interested person may petition the Commission to issue,
amend, or rescind any regulation. The petition should be addressed to
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch.
(b) A prospective petitioner may consult with the NRC before filing
a petition for rulemaking by writing the Director, Freedom of
Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch. A prospective petitioner may
also telephone the Rules Review and Directives Branch on (301) 415-7158
or toll free on (800) 368-5642.
(1) In any consultation before the filing of a petition for
rulemaking, the assistance that may be provided by the NRC staff is
limited to:
(i) Describing the procedure and process for filing and responding
to a petition for rulemaking;
(ii) Clarifying an existing NRC regulation and the basis for
regulation; and
(iii) Assisting the prospective petitioner to clarify a potential
petition so that the Commission is able to understand the nature of the
issues of concern to the petitioner.
(2) In providing the assistance permitted in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, the NRC staff will not draft or develop text or
alternative approaches to address matters in the prospective petition
for rulemaking.
(c) Each petition filed under this section shall:
(1) Set forth a general solution to the problem or the substance or
text of any proposed regulation or amendment, or specify the regulation
which is to be revoked or amended;
(2) State clearly and concisely the petitioner's grounds for and
interest in the action requested;
(3) Include a statement in support of the petition which shall set
forth the specific issues involved, the petitioner's views or arguments
with respect to those issues, relevant technical, scientific or other
data involved which is reasonably available to the petitioner, and such
other pertinent information as the petitioner deems necessary to
support the action sought. In support of its petition, petitioner
should note any specific cases of which petitioner is aware where the
current rule is unduly burdensome, deficient, or needs to be
strengthened.
(d) Petitions for rulemaking will be prioritized and scheduled for
review and disposition by NRC on the basis of the following
considerations:
(1) Safety significance of the issues identified or alternatives
proposed in petitions will be the dominant consideration for the
prioritization of petitions.
(2) Petitions containing supporting information additional to that
described in paragraph (c) of this section, will improve the priority
for review and more expeditious disposition. Sufficient supporting
information for higher priority should include:
(i) The text of a proposed, revised, or amended regulation (``the
proposed rule'');
(ii) Supplementary information constituting the proposed statement
of considerations for the regulation;
(iii) Supporting material to show conformance with legal
requirements such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Paperwork Reduction [[Page 15881]] Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, as appropriate;
(iv) A regulatory analysis. For information on the form and content
of a regulatory analysis see NUREG/BR-0058\1\ and NUREG/CR-3568;\2\
\1\NUREG/BR-0058, ``Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' Rev. 1, May 1984. A draft Rev. 2 of
this report was issued for comment in August 1993, and should be
published as final report in the near future.
\2\NUREG/CR-3568, ``A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment,''
December 1983. The document is currently undergoing revision and
will tentatively be titled the ``Regulatory Analysis Technical
Evaluation Handbook.''
Note: Copies of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568 may be purchased
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also
available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also available for
inspection and copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,
2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Supporting information that responds to 10 CFR 50.109(c), the
Backfit rule where applicable; and
(vi) A guidance document in the form of a Regulatory Guide when
necessary (Note that a Regulatory Guide is usually provided for a
performance based regulation).
(e) The petitioner may request the Commission to suspend all or
part of any licensing proceeding to which the petitioner is a party
pending disposition of the petition for rulemaking.
(f) If it is determined that the petition includes the information
required by paragraphs (c) and, if petitioner elects, (d)(2) of this
section and is complete, the Director, Division of Freedom of
Information and Publications Services, or designee, will assign a
docket number to the petition, will cause the petition to be formally
docketed, and will deposit a copy of the docketed petition in the
Commission's Public Document Room. Public comment may be requested by
publication of a notice of the docketing of the petition in the Federal
Register, or, in appropriate cases, may be invited for the first time
upon publication in the Federal Register of a proposed rule developed
in response to the petition. Publication will be limited by the
requirements of section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and may be limited by order of the Commission.
(g) If it is determined by the Executive Director for Operations
that the petition does not include the information required by
paragraphs (c) and, if applicable, (d)(2) of this section and is
incomplete, the petitioner will be notified of that determination and
the respects in which the petition is deficient and will be accorded an
opportunity to submit additional data. Ordinarily this determination
will be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the petition by
the Office of the Secretary of the Commission. If the petitioner does
not submit additional data to correct the deficiency within 90 days
from the date of notification to the petitioner that the petition is
incomplete, the petition may be returned to the petitioner without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a new petition.
(h) The Director, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, will prepare on a
semiannual basis a summary of petitions for rulemaking before the
Commission, including the status of each petition. A copy of the report
will be available for public inspection and copying for a fee in the
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 22nd day of March 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-7563 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P