[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64168-64169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18363]
========================================================================
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. 71 , No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64168]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. PRM-35-20]
E. Russell Ritenour, Ph.D.; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking dated September
10, 2006, filed by E. Russell Ritenour, Ph.D. (petitioner) on behalf of
the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The petition
has been docketed by the NRC and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-35-
20. The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend the regulations
that govern medical use of byproduct material to revise what it calls
the ``grandfather'' provision to recognize individual diplomates of
certifying boards that were previously named in these regulations
before October 25, 2005.
DATES: Submit comments by January 16, 2007. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number (PRM-35-20) in the subject line of
your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because
your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact
information, the NRC cautions you against including personal
information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your
submission.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address comments
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; (e-
mail [email protected]). Comments can also be submitted via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal http:www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the 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 NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
A copy of the petition can be found in ADAMS under accession number
ML062620129. A paper copy of the petition may be obtained by writing to
Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch,
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking dated September 10,
2006, submitted by E. Russell Ritenour, Ph.D. (petitioner) on behalf of
the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The petitioner
requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 35, ``Medical Use of Byproduct
Material.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests that 10 CFR 35.57,
``Training for experienced Radiation Safety Officer, teletherapy or
medical physicist, authorized medical physicist, authorized user,
nuclear pharmacist, and authorized nuclear pharmacist'' be revised to
recognize medical physicists certified by either the American Board of
Radiology (ABR) or the American Board of Medical Physics (ABMP) on or
before October 24, 2005, as ``grandfathered for the modalities that
they practiced as of October 24, 2005.''
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold
sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR
2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-35-20. The NRC is
soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner notes that a revision of 10 CFR part 35 was
published on April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20249), that contained new T&E
requirements for individuals to become authorized as an RSO, AMP,
authorized user (AU), and authorized nuclear pharmacist (ANP). The
petitioner states that these requirements provide the following three
pathways for an individual to become authorized:
(1) An individual may be certified by a specialty board whose
certification process is recognized by the NRC or an Agreement State as
meeting NRC's T&E requirements (a recognized board.)
(2) Approval based on an individual's T&E (alternate pathway.)
(3) Identification of an individual's listing on an existing NRC or
Agreement State license. The petitioner refers to this option as the
``grandfathering'' pathway.
The petitioner states that the Advisory Committee on the Medical
Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) expressed the concern during briefings on
February
[[Page 64169]]
19, 2002, to the Commission on the proposed amendments to Part 35 that
if the requirements for recognition of specialty board certifications
were to become effective as drafted, there could be potential shortages
of individuals qualified to serve as RSOs, AMPs, ANPs, and AUs because
they would no longer meet T&E requirements under the certification
pathway. The petitioner also states that the ACMUI was concerned that
the specialty boards might be ``marginalized'' and that ACMUI urged the
Commission to address T&E issues associated with recognition of
specialty boards. The petitioner notes that the NRC modified the
regulation by reinserting Subpart J until October 24, 2005.
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR 35.57 be amended to recognize
medical physicists certified by either the ABR or ABMP on or before
October 24, 2005, ``as grandfathered for the modalties that they
practiced as of October 24, 2005.'' The petitioner also states that
this amendment ``should be independent of whether or not a medical
physicist was named on an NRC or an Agreement State license as of
October 24, 2005.'' The petitioner states that 10 CFR 35.57 should also
be amended to recognize all individuals certified by the named boards
in Subpart J for RSOs who have relevant work experience even if an
individual has not been formally ``named'' as an RSO and that these
individuals ``need to be grandfathered as an RSO by virtue of
certification providing the appropriate preceptor statement is
submitted.''
The petitioner states that although the AAPM, ABR, and ABMP
recognize that it was never the NRC's intent to deny recognition to any
currently practicing medical physicist or to minimize the importance of
a certifying board, these organizations remain concerned about the NRC
staff's method used to grant recognized status to the process used by
certifying boards. The petitioner is concerned that the effective date
assigned by the staff once it recognizes a board's process may force
individuals certified prior to that date to have to pursue the
alternate pathway. The petitioner indicates that it has affirmed with
the ABR and ABMP that they believed that existing diplomates'
certifications (i.e., certificates issued before October 25, 2005)
would continue to be recognized by the NRC or an Agreement State. The
petitioner believes that medical physicists have demonstrated
competence to practice through ABR or ABMP certification and remains
concerned that the effective date assigned by the NRC staff after it
recognizes a board's process may force individuals certified before
that date to pursue the alternate pathway. The petitioner believes that
the current provision places an undue burden on the medical community
and could result in a shortage of AMPs and RSOs.
The petitioner notes that the AMP is a recent addition to licenses
granted under 10 CFR part 35 and Agreement State regulations. The
petitioner describes the previous regulations before the concept of the
AMP was introduced as ``inconsistent.'' The petitioner believes this
inconsistency was the basis for the requirement to list an AMP on
licenses. The petitioner also states that this requirement specifies
that an individual must have a statement signed by a ``preceptor AMP''
attesting that the individual is capable of acting independently for
the specified modality. The petitioner indicated that without medical
physicists listed on licenses prior to the new regulation, there is
limited opportunity for a medical physicist to serve as a preceptor.
The petitioner believes that for a medical physicist to be
``grandfathered'' under the new regulation, the individual must have
been listed on a license as of the effective date of the regulation.
The petitioner has stated that its suggested amendment to Sec. 35.57
would allow individuals to serve as AMPs or preceptor AMPs without
having to be recognized via the ``alternate pathway.''
The petitioner also notes that licensees can specify only one
individual as an RSO under the current provisions, unlike the position
of AU for which there are typically multiple individuals named on a
license. The petitioner believes this makes it more difficult for an
AMP or other Board diplomates to have acquired the requisite
grandfather status before October 24, 2005. The petitioner has stated
that the NRC should recognize individuals who were certified by a board
listed in former Subpart J for Sec. 35.50 (RSO) and Sec. 35.51 (AMP)
prior to October 24, 2005.
The petitioner concluded that its proposed amendment should be
enacted expeditiously to permit individuals certified by the boards
listed in Subpart J to continue practicing medical physics and serving
as RSOs to assure the continuation of high quality patient care.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E6-18363 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P