[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76394-76398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30578]


 ========================================================================
 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. 80, No. 236 / Wednesday, December 9, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 76394]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 26

[NRC-2009-0090]
RIN 3150-AF12


Fitness-for-Duty Programs

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Rulemaking activity; discontinuation.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing 
a rulemaking activity that would have amended its regulations governing 
fatigue management programs for nuclear power plant workers. The 
purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that this 
rulemaking activity is being discontinued and to provide a discussion 
of the NRC's decision to discontinue it.

DATES: As of December 9, 2015, the rulemaking activity is discontinued.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0090 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0090. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Document collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-m/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. For 
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials 
referenced in this document are provided in the ``Availability of 
Documents'' section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stewart Schneider, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-4123, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 31, 2008, the NRC issued a final rule that substantially 
revised its regulations for fitness-for-duty programs in part 26 of 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Fitness for 
Duty Programs.'' The 2008 final rule established 10 CFR part 26, 
subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue,'' to require that nuclear power plant 
licensees provide reasonable assurance that the effects of worker 
fatigue are managed commensurate with maintaining public health and 
safety. The regulations in 10 CFR part 26 require licensees to manage 
worker fatigue at reactors that are operating or under construction (no 
later than the receipt of special nuclear material in the form of fuel 
assemblies), for all individuals who are granted unescorted access to 
protected areas of the plant. The regulations also require licensees to 
control the work hours of those individuals whose work activities have 
the greatest potential to adversely affect public health and safety or 
the common defense and security if their performance is degraded by 
fatigue (e.g., licensed operators, maintenance technicians, security 
officers).
    The Commission's staff requirements memorandum (SRM), SRM-SECY-06-
0244, ``Final Rulemaking-10 CFR part 26-Fitness-for-Duty Programs,'' 
approving the 2008 final rule directed the NRC staff to ensure that 
personnel who actually perform independent quality control/quality 
verification (QC/QV) checks under the licensee's NRC-approved Quality 
Assurance Program are subject to the same 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, 
provisions as operating personnel defined in Sec.  26.4(a)(1). The SRM 
also directed the NRC staff to publish the final rule without the QC/QV 
provision, if the staff determined that its inclusion would require re-
notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
    Because the NRC staff determined that including the QC/QV provision 
would require re-noticing of the rule to provide a new opportunity for 
public comment, the NRC issued the final rule without imposing work 
hour controls on individuals performing QC/QV activities.\1\ As 
directed in the SRM, the NRC staff initiated a new proposed rulemaking 
to apply the work hour controls for operating personnel to the QC/QV-
dedicated personnel who perform QC/QV checks.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The QC/QV activities are a part of the planned and 
systematic actions under a licensee's quality assurance program that 
are necessary to provide adequate assurance that a safety-related 
structure, system, and component will perform satisfactorily in 
service. The QC/QV inspections are a subset of the QC/QV activities.
    \2\ ``QC/QV-dedicated personnel'' means individuals who perform 
QC/QV activities and are not otherwise subject to the work hour 
controls in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 10, 2012, the NRC published the regulatory basis and 
preliminary proposed rule language in support of the QC/QV proposed 
rulemaking. Because the documents were made publicly available to 
provide preparatory material for discussion in future public meetings, 
a public comment period was not initiated.
    The NRC staff held multiple public meetings between December 2011 
and February 2014 to discuss the QC/QV rulemaking and other potential 
changes to 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. The meetings were attended by 
members of the nuclear power reactor community, organized labor, 
contractors, and the media. Summaries of these meetings are publicly 
available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2009-0090.

II. Petitions for Rulemaking

    The NRC received petitions for rulemaking (PRMs) regarding 10 CFR 
part 26, subpart I, from the Professional Reactor Operator Society 
(PROS), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and Mr. Erik Erb following 
issuance of the 2008 final rule.

[[Page 76395]]

    In the SRM to SECY-11-0003/0028, ``Status of Enforcement Discretion 
Request and Rulemaking Activities Related to 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, 
`Managing Fatigue' and Options for Implementing an Alternative Interim 
Regulatory Approach to the Minimum Days Off Provisions of 10 CFR part 
26, subpart I, `Managing Fatigue,' '' the Commission directed the NRC 
staff to address these PRMs in a rulemaking effort separate from the 
alternative to the minimum days off (MDO) rulemaking. The scope of the 
alternative MDO rulemaking was limited solely to providing an 
alternative to the then-current requirements for minimum days off in 10 
CFR part 26, subpart I. This rulemaking provided a new requirement for 
working a 54-hour per week average over a rolling period of up to 6 
weeks.
    On May 16, 2011, the NRC published three documents in the Federal 
Register (one for each PRM) informing the public that the issues raised 
in each PRM would be considered in the planned QC/QV rulemaking. The 
three PRMs are discussed below.

(1) PRM-26-3 Submitted by Robert N. Meyer on Behalf of PROS

    Robert N. Meyer on behalf of PROS, an organization of operations 
personnel employed at nuclear power plants throughout the United 
States, submitted a PRM dated October 16, 2009. The petitioner 
requested that the NRC change the term ``unit outage'' to ``site 
outage'' in 10 CFR part 26 and that the definition of ``site outage'' 
read ``up to 1 week prior to disconnecting the reactor unit from the 
grid and up to 75-percent turbine power following reconnection to the 
grid.'' The NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for 
public comment on, the PRM on November 27, 2009. The public comment 
period ended on February 10, 2010, and the NRC received 4 comment 
letters from NEI, nuclear power plant operators and managers, and a 
private citizen. The comments generally supported the petition.

(2) PRM-26-5 Submitted by Anthony R. Pietrangelo on Behalf of NEI

    Anthony R. Pietrangelo on behalf of NEI, a nuclear power industry 
trade association, submitted a PRM dated September 3, 2010. The 
petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations regarding 
fitness-for-duty programs to refine existing requirements based on 
experience gained since the regulations were last amended in 2008. The 
NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public comment 
on, the PRM on October 22, 2010. The public comment period ended on 
January 5, 2011, and the NRC received 39 comment letters from 
corporations, professional organizations, and private citizens. Of 
these 39 comment letters, 11 specifically voiced support for the 
petition, while 13 voiced opposition. Those comment letters that voiced 
neither support for nor opposition to the petition itself discussed a 
diverse range of perspectives on the fatigue management provisions 
contained in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I.

(3) PRM-26-6 Submitted by Erik Erb and 91-Co-Signers

    Erik Erb and 91 co-signers submitted a PRM dated August 17, 2010. 
The NRC published a notice of receipt of, and request for public 
comment on, the PRM on November 23, 2010. The petitioner requested that 
the NRC amend its fitness-for-duty regulations to decrease the minimum 
days off requirement from an average of 3 days per week to 2.5 or 2 
days per week for security officers working 12-hour shifts. The public 
comment period ended on February 7, 2011, and the NRC received 5 
comment letters from coroporations, professional organizations, and 
private citizens. The comments generally supported the petition.

III. Rulemaking Discontinuation

    In SECY-15-0074, ``Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activity--Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, Subpart I, Quality Control 
and Quality Verification Personnel in Fitness for Duty Program,'' the 
NRC staff requested Commission approval to discontinue the QC/QV 
rulemaking. This request was based on the following factors: (1) QC/QV 
inspections are most often performed by maintenance personnel who are 
already covered by the work hour controls in 10 CFR part 26, subpart I; 
(2) the few remaining inspections are performed by a small number of 
QC/QV-dedicated personnel; and (3) backfitting \3\ the 10 CFR part 26, 
subpart I, work hour controls to the QC/QV-dedicated personnel would 
not result in a substantial increase in the overall protection of the 
public health and safety or common defense and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SRM to SECY-15-0074, the Commission approved the NRC staff's 
request to discontinue the QC/QV rulemaking activity. The Commission 
directed the NRC staff to inform the public that the NRC is no longer 
pursuing rulemaking in this area and that the three PRMs will be 
addressed in a separate action.

IV. Public Comments Outside the Scope of the Alternative to the Minimum 
Days Off Proposed Rule

    On April 26, 2011, the NRC published a proposed rule to provide 
licensees with an option for managing cumulative fatigue that differed 
from the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) (76 FR 
23208). The NRC received two comment submissions from private citizens 
on the proposed rule that were determined to be outside of the scope of 
that limited rulemaking activity. The Commission had previously 
directed the NRC staff in SRM-SECY-11-0003/0028 to consider in a 
separate rulemaking activity any comments on the alternative MDO 
proposed rule that were determined to be outside the limited scope of 
the rulemaking. Therefore, the Federal Register notice for the final 
rule stated that public comments outside of the scope of the proposed 
rule would be considered in the QC/QV rulemaking (76 FR 43534, 43540; 
July 21, 2011). Because the QC/QV rulemaking is being discontinued, the 
NRC's responses will be provided here.
    Comment: One commenter remarked that some duties do not require 
constant surveillance, so the individuals performing these duties 
should not be subject to the fatigue management requirements. The 
commenter also stated that it is more important to have a qualified 
person performing a task than it is to ensure that the person 
performing the task complies with the work hour controls. According to 
the commenter, the fatigue management requirements are too complex and 
do not guarantee that an individual subject to the work hour 
requirements will diligently perform his or her duties.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the 
comment. The NRC has consistently held that work conducted within the 
protected area of a nuclear power plant is of such safety significance 
that individuals granted unescorted access to those protected areas 
must be fit for duty, including management of the effects of cumulative 
and acute fatigue. However, the NRC recognizes the functions that 
individuals within different job categories perform differ in their 
potential impact on plant safety and security. Therefore, the NRC has 
identified specific categories of individuals in Sec.  26.4 who require 
additional work hour controls due to their job function. This graded 
approach provides the maximum flexibility for nuclear power plant 
licensees and individuals while providing reasonable assurance that 
those individuals granted

[[Page 76396]]

unescorted access to the protected areas of nuclear power plants are 
fit to safely and competently perform their duties free from the 
adverse effects of cumulative and acute fatigue.
    Further, the NRC has neither proposed nor finalized fatigue 
management regulations that require nuclear power plant licensees to 
choose between having a qualified individual perform a task or having a 
well-rested individual perform a task. For circumstances outside the 
licensee's reasonable control in which the potential for such a choice 
exists, Sec.  26.207, ``Waivers and exceptions,'' establishes specific 
conditions in which licensees may waive or exclude personnel from the 
work hour controls. In addition, licensees have the option to provide 
an escort to individuals who may be needed for a short period in 
unusual situations without subjecting them to the work hour controls. 
On a day-to-day basis, however, licensees need to ensure that personnel 
meet the applicable qualification requirements for the tasks they are 
assigned to perform and are fit for duty.
    The NRC also disagrees that the fatigue management requirements of 
10 CFR part 26, subpart I, including the voluntary alternative to the 
MDO provisions in Sec.  26.205(d)(3), are too complex. The NRC 
acknowledges that there are significant administrative requirements 
that are part of the fatigue management regulations. However, the NRC 
has sought out opportunities to relieve administrative burden where 
possible while still maintaining the performance objectives of the 
rule. For example, the voluntary alternative to the MDO provisions in 
Sec.  26.205(d)(3) provides a significant reduction in administrative 
burden as it permits nuclear power plant licensees to manage cumulative 
fatigue by limiting an individual's work hours to an average of not 
more than 54-hours per week over a 6-week rolling period.
    The NRC agrees, however, that compliance with the fatigue 
management provisions of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, does not guarantee 
that an individual subject to the work hour requirements will 
diligently perform his or her duties. As stated in the statement of 
considerations for the 2008 part 26 final rule, compliance with the 
work hour requirements alone will not ensure proper fatigue management. 
It remains the responsibility of licensees and individuals granted 
unescorted access to nuclear power plants to ensure that individuals 
subject to the fatigue management provisions of 10 CFR part 26, subpart 
I, are properly rested to safely and competently perform their duties.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the 10 CFR part 26, subpart I, 
work hour controls do not reduce worker fatigue during outages but can 
increase fatigue during outages. Specifically, the commenter noted that 
when an individual works a backshift (i.e., night shift) schedule 
during outages, taking a 1-day break disrupts that person's sleep 
pattern. Recovery from this disruption takes several days, therefore 
inducing fatigue. The commenter concluded that once a person adjusts to 
the unnatural sleep pattern of the night shift, it is far better to 
continue that pattern for the duration of the outage. The commenter 
also stated that the rule has caused a drop in his earnings.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees in part with the comment. Under 
circumstances postulated by the commenter (i.e., a 1-day break during 
consecutive night shifts), the adjustment of an individual's sleep-wake 
cycle to night shift can be affected by cues that influence the sleep-
wake cycle, such as exposure to bright sunlight. However, the break and 
day off requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, subpart I, are minimum 
requirements (i.e., they do not require a schedule that provides only 
1-day off during consecutive night shifts, as described by the 
commenter), and they are not limited to serve as a means for 
establishing shift schedules. As stated in Section 2.3.5 of NUREG-1912, 
``Summary and Analysis of Public Comments Received on Proposed 
Revisions to 10 CFR part 26--Fitness for Duty Program,'' the NRC 
intends that the maximum work hour and minimum break and day off 
requirements that are specified in Sec.  26.205(d) be applied to 
infrequent, temporary circumstances. They should not be used as 
guidelines or limits for routine work scheduling. In addition, the 
Sec.  26.205(d) work hour controls do not address several elements of 
routine schedules that can significantly affect worker fatigue. These 
include shift length, the number of consecutive shifts, the duration of 
breaks between blocks of shifts, and the direction of shift rotation. 
Therefore, Sec.  26.205(c) requires licensees to schedule personnel 
consistent with preventing impairment from fatigue from these 
scheduling factors, including periods of high workload during outages.
    The rule requires licensees to address scheduling factors, because 
human alertness and the propensity to sleep vary markedly through the 
course of a 24-hour period. These circadian variations are the result 
of changes in physiology outside the control of the individual. Work, 
with the consequent timing of periods of sleep and wakefulness, may be 
scheduled in a manner that either facilitates an individual's 
adaptation to the work schedule or challenges the individual's ability 
to get adequate rest. Therefore, the duration, frequency, and 
sequencing of shifts, particularly for personnel who work rotating 
shifts, are critical elements of fatigue management. The importance of 
these elements for fatigue management is reflected in guidelines for 
work scheduling, such as the Electric Power Research Institute's 
report, EPRI-NP-6748, ``Control-Room Operator Alertness and Performance 
in Nuclear Power Plants,'' and in technical reports, such as the NRC's 
NUREG/CR-4248, ``Recommendations for NRC Policy on Shift Scheduling and 
Overtime at Nuclear Power Plants,'' and the Office of Technology 
Assessment's report, OTA-BA-463, ``Biological Rhythms: Implications for 
the Worker.'' Although research provides clear evidence of the 
importance of these factors in developing schedules that support 
effective fatigue management, the NRC also recognizes that the 
complexity of effectively addressing and integrating each of these 
factors in work scheduling decisions precludes a prescriptive 
requirement. Therefore, Sec.  26.205(c) establishes a non-prescriptive, 
performance-based requirement that also applies to shift scheduling 
during outages.
    Further, the NRC disagrees that the requirements of 10 CFR part 26, 
subpart I, have resulted in a pay cut for the commenter and notes that 
the work hour requirements require licensees to manage fatigue, in 
part, by limiting work hours, not compensation. Furthermore, the work 
hour controls provide licensees with a significant amount of 
flexibility when establishing schedules, and those work hour controls 
continue to allow for overtime. One objective of the NRC's fitness-for-
duty program is to ``provide reasonable assurance that the effects of 
fatigue and degraded alertness on individuals' abilities to safely and 
competently perform their duties are managed commensurate with 
maintaining public health and safety.'' Therefore, the NRC's focus and 
mission is on safety, not compensation and wages.

V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons as indicated.

[[Page 76397]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Adams accession No./Federal
                Document                     Register Notice/Web link
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,       ML102520362.
 NUREG/CR-4248 (PNL-5435),
 ``Recommendations for NRC Policy on
 Shift Scheduling and Overtime at
 Nuclear Power Plants'' (July 1985).
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI-  http://www.epri.com/abstracts/
 NP-6748, ``Control-Room Operator          Pages/
 Alertness and Performance in Nuclear      ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductI
 Power Plants'' (March 1, 1990).           d=NP-6748.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology       https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/
 Assessment, OTA-BA-463, ``Biological      disk1/1991/9108/9108.PDF.
 Rhythms: Implications for the Worker''
 (September 1991).
Staff Requirements--SECY-06-0244--Final   ML071070361.
 Rulemaking--10 CFR Part 26--Fitness-for-
 Duty Programs (April 17, 2007).
Fitness for Duty Programs; Final rule     73 FR 16966.
 (March 31, 2008).
PRM-26-3, Petition to Amend 10 CFR part   ML092960440.
 26, ``Fitness-for-Duty Programs,''
 filed by the Professional Reactor
 Operator Society, Docket ID NRC-2009-
 0482 (October 16, 2009).
Professional Reactor Operator Society;    74 FR 62257.
 Notice of Receipt of Petition for
 Rulemaking [Docket No. PRM-26-3; NRC-
 2009-0482] (November 27, 2009).
PRM-26-6, Petition to Amend 10 CFR part   ML102630127.
 26, ``Fitness-for-Duty Programs,''
 filed by Erik Erb, Docket ID NRC-2010-
 0310 (August 17, 2010).
PRM-26-5, Petition to Amend 10 CFR part   ML102590440.
 26, ``Fitness-for-Duty Programs,''
 filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute,
 Docket ID NRC-2010-0304 (September 3,
 2010).
Anthony R. Pietrangelo on Behalf of the   75 FR 65249.
 Nuclear Energy Institute; Notice of
 Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
 [Docket No. PRM-26-5; NRC-2010-0304]
 (October 22, 2010).
Erik Erb; Notice of Receipt of Petition   75 FR 71368.
 for Rulemaking [Docket No. PRM-26-6;
 NRC-2010-0310] (November 23, 2010).
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,       ML110310431.
 NUREG-1912, ``Summary and Analysis of
 Public Comments Received on Proposed
 Revisions to 10 CFR Part 26--Fitness
 for Duty Programs'' (Comments received
 between August 26, 2005 and May 10,
 2007) (December 2010).
Staff Requirements--SECY-11-0003--Status  ML110830971.
 of Enforcement Discretion Request and
 Rulemaking Activities Related to 10 CFR
 Part 26, Subpart I, ``Managing
 Fatigue'' and SECY-11-0028--Options for
 Implementing an Alternative Interim
 Regulatory Approach to the Minimum Days
 Off Provisions of 10 CFR Part 26,
 Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue'' (March
 24, 2011).
Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the  76 FR 28192.
 Professional Reactor Operator Society;
 Petition for rulemaking consideration
 in the rulemaking process [Docket No.
 PRM-26-3; NRC-2009-0482] (May 16, 2011).
Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by the  76 FR 28192.
 Nuclear Energy Institute; Petition for
 rulemaking consideration in the
 rulemaking process [Docket No. PRM-26-
 5; NRC-2010-0304] (May 16, 2011).
Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by      76 FR 28191.
 Erik Erb and 91 Cosigners; Petition for
 rulemaking consideration in the
 rulemaking process [Docket No. PRM-26-
 6; NRC-2010-0310] (May 16, 2011).
Comments of Mr. Harry Sloan [Docket ID    ML11144A157.
 NRC-2011-0058] (May 22, 2011).
Comments of Mr. Mark Callahan [Docket ID  ML11146A110.
 NRC-2011-0058] (May 25, 2011).
SECY-15-0074, Discontinuation of          ML15084A092.
 Rulemaking Activity--Title 10 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26,
 Subpart I, Quality Control and Quality
 Verification Personnel in Fitness for
 Duty Program (May 19, 2015).
Staff Requirements--SECY-15-0074--        ML15195A577.
 Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activity-
 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
 Regulations Part 26, Subpart I, Quality
 Control and Quality Verification
 Personnel in Fitness for Duty Program
 (July 14, 2015).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC may post materials related to this document on the Federal 
rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-
2009-0090. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts 
when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) 
Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2009-0090); (2) click the ``Sign up 
for Emails Alerts'' link; and (3) enter your email address and select 
how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or 
monthly).

VI. Conclusion

    The NRC is discontinuing the QC/QV rulemaking activity for the 
reasons previously stated. This rulemaking will no longer be reported 
in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions. Should the NRC determine to pursue rulemaking in 
this area in the future, NRC will inform the public through a new 
rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda. While the three notices in the 
Federal Register published on May 16, 2011, stated that the PRM dockets 
are closed, the NRC will issue a subsequent action on the determination 
of these PRMs.


[[Page 76398]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of November, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor M. McCree,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-30578 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P