[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