[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4378-4379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2437]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150-AF23


Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for Submission

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on 
March 28, 1995 (60 FR 15878), pertaining to petitions for rulemaking. 
The proposed rule would have provided incentive of more expeditious 
disposition by the NRC to those petitioners who submitted detailed 
supporting information in their petitions which facilitated NRC review. 
The proposed rule would also have delineated factors that affect 
priorities for review of the petitions. In lieu of the proposed 
rulemaking, the information in the proposed rule together with 
additional guidance will be provided in a Regulatory Guide to be 
developed by the NRC and distributed to the industry and the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.Y. Chang, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-6450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 28, 1995 (60 FR 15878), the NRC published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for public comment in the Federal Register, 
entitled ``Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for Submission'', to 
amend Sec. 2.802, Petition for Rulemaking. The proposed rule would have 
provided incentive of more expeditious disposition by the NRC to those 
petitioners who submitted detailed supporting information in their 
petitions which facilitated NRC review. The proposed rule would also 
have delineated factors that affect priorities for review of the 
petitions.
    Twelve comment letters were received on the proposed rule. The 
industry and various Federal and local governmental agencies generally 
commended the NRC for proposing ways to improve the process of 
petitioning for rulemaking, but most commenters thought it is 
unnecessary to codify the criteria for expedited processing of 
petitions for rulemaking in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

[[Page 4379]]
Instead, it was suggested that documents such as regulatory guides and 
information letters, which are guidance rather than rules, were more 
appropriate vehicles to provide this information.
    Three of the four nonnuclear, nongovernment commenters also opposed 
the proposed rulemaking, on the grounds that (1) the NRC was passing 
off its responsibilities for analysis and documentation to the public, 
who could not possibly undertake this type of burden, and (2) the NRC 
might ignore safety issues raised by the public that might not be 
thoroughly documented in favor of issues that would be beneficial to 
the industry and that were well documented but were not real safety 
issues.
    These two aspects were fully discussed in the proposed rule. The 
proposed rule stated that ``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).'' Further, the proposed rule stated that 
``Consideration of safety significance is the first criterion for 
prioritizing the 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 
addition, the proposed rule stated that ``Petitions containing 
supporting information additional to those currently required would 
improve their priority for review and receive more expeditious 
disposition.''
    The NRC originally proposed to amend the current Sec. 2.802 as a 
rule change. After reviewing comments on the proposed Sec. 2.802, 
however, the NRC became convinced that there is strong merit in the 
comments recommending against codification of the criteria for 
expedited processing of the petitions for rulemaking, because (1) the 
proposed procedure does not impose mandatory requirements, and (2) the 
proposed procedure is clearly of an administrative nature.
    Therefore, the proposed rule is not required and is being 
withdrawn, and the information in the proposed rule will be provided in 
a Regulatory Guide to be developed by the NRC and distributed to the 
industry and the public. In addition to the information originally 
intended to be included in the revised Sec. 2.802, the Regulatory Guide 
will also provide guidance for preparation of more detailed petitions 
for rulemaking.
    Furthermore, as mentioned in the proposed rule, the NRC has 
identified a need to establish an administrative framework to 
facilitate concerned parties submittal of proposals to issue, amend, or 
rescind any generic regulatory guidance document. Generic regulatory 
guidance documents are documents such as regulatory guides, bulletins, 
generic letters and sections of the Standard Review Plan (including 
Branch Technical Positions), which do not have the force and effect of 
a regulation, but are used by the NRC to identify or clarify acceptable 
NRC staff positions which comply with NRC regulations. A formal 
procedure which enables interested parties to propose changes to these 
regulatory guidance documents does not now exist. Therefore, a separate 
Regulatory Guide will be developed by the NRC to provide guidance for 
preparation and submission of proposals for generic regulatory guidance 
documents.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-2437 Filed 2-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P