[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49863-49868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17766]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 32, 40, 50, 53, 73, 74, and 150

[NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-
0200, NRC-2009-0227, and NRC-2009-0079]
RIN 3150-AH18; 3150-AG89; 3150-AG64; 3150-AH81; 3150-AI29; 3150-AI68; 
3150-AI50


Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Rulemaking activities; discontinuation.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing 
eight rulemaking activities. The purpose of this action is to inform 
members of the public that these rulemaking activities are being 
discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to 
discontinue them. These rulemaking activities will no longer be 
reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).

DATES: Effective July 29, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed in 
this document are discontinued.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, 
NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or NRC-
2009-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information 
regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information 
related to this document using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-
0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or 
NRC-2009-0079. 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 Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then

[[Page 49864]]

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]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document 
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time 
that a document is referenced.
     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: Leslie Terry, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1167; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18; 
NRC-1999-0002)
IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)
V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN 
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)
VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for 
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)
VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29; NRC-2008-0200)
VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material 
(RIN 3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)
IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC 
Docket ID)
X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated 
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)
XI. Conclusion

I. Background

    Each year the NRC staff develops the NRC's Common Prioritization of 
Rulemaking report, which is used to develop rulemaking program budget 
estimates and to determine the relative priority of rulemaking 
activities. During the most recent review of ongoing and potential 
rulemaking activities, the NRC staff identified seven rulemaking 
activities in various stages of development, which the Commission 
approved to be discontinued. For transparency, the NRC staff is 
including in this action an additional eighth activity that the 
Commission has already provided initial direction to discontinue.
    A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue these eight 
rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III through X of this 
document.

II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities

    When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be 
discontinued, they will request, through a Commission paper, approval 
from the Commission to discontinue it. The Commission provides its 
decision in an SRM. If the Commission approves discontinuing the 
rulemaking activity, the NRC will inform the public of the decision to 
discontinue it.
    A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the 
rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public 
comments, the NRC will consider those comments before discontinuing the 
rulemaking activity; however, the NRC will not provide individual 
comment responses.
    After Commission approval to discontinue the rulemaking activity, 
in the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the 
entry for the rulemaking activity to indicate that it is no longer 
being pursued. The rulemaking activity will appear in the completed 
section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in 
future editions.

III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18; 
NRC-1999-0002)

    The NRC began an enhanced participatory process to evaluate 
alternative courses of action for control of solid materials at NRC-
licensed facilities that have very low amounts of, or no amount of, 
radioactivity. As part of this process, the NRC published an Issues 
Paper in the Federal Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090), 
requesting public comment on various alternatives. The NRC also held a 
series of public meetings during the fall of 1999. The Issues Paper 
described the following process alternatives: (1) Continue the current 
NRC practice of case-by-case consideration of licensee requests for 
release of solid material and consider updating existing guidance; or 
(2) conduct a rulemaking to establish criteria for control of solid 
materials. The Issues Paper indicated that a rulemaking could have 
three technical approaches: (1) Permit release of solid materials for 
unrestricted use if the potential dose to the public from this use is 
less than a specified level determined during the rulemaking process; 
(2) restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized 
uses; or (3) do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of 
solid materials that have been in an area where radioactive material 
has been used or stored, and instead require all these materials to go 
to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.
    The agency received over 900 comment letters containing around 
2,379 individual comments on the Issues Paper, in addition to those 
summarized from the public meeting transcripts. The comments were 
summarized in NUREG/CR-6682, ``Summary and Categorization of Public 
Comments on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' published 
in September 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040720691). Comments were 
received from essentially every stakeholder group, including 
environmental and citizen's groups, members of the general public, 
scrap and recycling companies, steel and cement manufacturers, 
hazardous and solid waste management facilities, U.S. Department of 
Energy, State agencies, Tribal governments, scientific organizations, 
international organizations, NRC licensees, and licensee organizations. 
Most of the comments focused on the specific technical approach or 
criteria that should be developed and reflected a broad spectrum of 
viewpoints on the issues related to control of solid materials. The NRC 
staff considered all the comments received.
    The NRC staff submitted a draft proposed rule to the Commission, 
SECY-05-0054, ``Proposed Rule: Radiological Criteria for Controlling 
the Disposition of Solid Materials,'' dated March 31, 2005 (ADAMS 
Package Accession No. ML041550790). The NRC staff proposed this rule to 
the Commission because the NRC wanted to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the NRC regulatory process by establishing criteria 
for the disposition of solid materials in the regulations. This 
proposed rule would have added radiological criteria for controlling 
the disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts 
of, residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and 
which originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC-licensed 
facilities. In the SRM for SECY-05-0054, dated June 1, 2005 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML051520185), the Commission disapproved publication of 
the proposed rule at that time [emphasis added] because the NRC was 
``faced with several high priority and complex tasks, the current 
approach to review specific cases on an

[[Page 49865]]

individual basis is fully protective of public health and safety, and 
the immediate need for this rule has changed due to the shift in timing 
for reactor decommissioning.''
    This rulemaking continued to be on hold while the Commission was 
focused on enhancing security and emergency preparedness and response 
as well as beginning preparations for new authorizations under the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, including new nuclear facility licensing and 
regulation.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity 
because, even though there has been a recent increase in 
decommissioning, the current regulatory framework provides for case by 
case approval of alternate disposal procedures under 10 CFR 20.2002. To 
date, the NRC has received a limited number of licensee requests per 
year. The NRC staff is conducting a low-level waste programmatic 
assessment. As part of this assessment, the NRC staff will conduct a 
scoping study of various low-level waste issues. If the NRC staff 
determines a need to pursue rulemaking as a result of this study, then 
the NRC staff will request Commission approval for the rulemaking.

IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-
0012)

    The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 
in the Federal Register (66 FR 52551; October 16, 2001) to request 
public comment on the issues surrounding the feasibility of entombment. 
The ANPR was published because the NRC was considering an amendment to 
its regulations that would have clarified the use of entombment for 
power reactors. The NRC had determined that entombment of power 
reactors was a technically viable decommissioning alternative and could 
be accomplished safely. The ANPR also included dose criteria for 
license termination. The dose criteria given in the ANPR included a 
provision that would have permitted license termination under 
restricted and unrestricted release conditions.
    The agency received 19 comment letters on the ANPR from States, 
licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the Conference of Radiation Control Program 
Directors' E-24 Committee, the Southeast Compact Commission, and a 
private individual. There was no consensus on a preferred option; some 
commenters supported the entombment option while other commenters did 
not. In general, comments from the eight utilities and the Nuclear 
Energy Institute stated that they would like to have entombment 
available as a decommissioning option; however, none committed to using 
entombment as a decommissioning process.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity 
because the three decommissioning options, which include entombment for 
power reactors, are currently being considered within the rulemaking 
for reactor decommissioning. Specifically, in the SRM for SECY-14-0118, 
``Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain 
Emergency Planning Requirements,'' dated December 30, 2014 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML14364A111), the Commission directed the NRC staff to 
proceed with rulemaking on reactor decommissioning.

V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN 
3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)

    On August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55175), the NRC published a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register that would have required prior NRC approval for 
transfers of source material derived from licensees' specifically 
licensed material to ensure that these transfers do not pose a health 
and safety concern.
    The NRC received 25 comments from individuals, industrial groups, 
environmental organizations, and State and Federal government agencies. 
A summary of comments and issues raised by commenters includes the 
following: (1) Proposed release limits were inconsistent with part 20 
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); (2) better 
clarification was needed regarding doses applied to non-disposal 
transfers; (3) the only technical basis discussed was based on an 
overly conservative assessment; (4) the proposed rule was inconsistent 
with the existing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a); (5) these transfers 
could impact public health and safety; (6) the environmental assessment 
was insufficient and the NRC should develop an environmental impact 
statement; (7) more information was needed about implementation of the 
rule; (8) the policy was inconsistent with past documents issued by the 
Commission on this subject; (9) the rule should also apply to general 
licensees; (10) there should be a minimum quantity level below which 
approvals for transfer would not be needed; (11) the number of 
transfers were underestimated; (12) the NRC underestimated the impact 
to industry because Agreement State licensees were not included in the 
regulatory analysis; and (13) differing commenter opinions on whether 
to include the word ``disposes'' in the authorized activities in 10 CFR 
40.13(a). Several commenters commented on the agency's question on 
whether the regulations should include new requirements specifically 
prohibiting intentional dilution. Several commenters were against 
including new regulations for dilution because they believed that it 
would potentially lead to additional, unnecessary burdens for industry. 
Several commenters thought that regulations should be added to prevent 
intentional dilution for purposes of waste treatment and disposal. Some 
of these commenters thought that ``intentional dilution'' needed to be 
better defined. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity 
because the concerns are being considered in other regulatory 
processes. Specifically, there is ongoing work related to SECY-03-0068, 
``Interagency Jurisdictional Working Group Evaluating the Regulation of 
Low-Level Source Material or Materials Containing Less than 0.05 
Percent by Weight Concentration Uranium and/or Thorium,'' dated May 1, 
2003 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML030920468), and recent discussions 
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would allow certain 
low-level wastes to be disposed of in Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (commonly known as RCRA) sites. In addition, the NRC has 
decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the NRC 
has, on a case-by-case basis, successfully dealt with the issues this 
rulemaking activity would have addressed.

VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for 
Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)

    On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267), the NRC published an ANPR in the 
Federal Register to request public comment on an approach that would 
have established a comprehensive set of risk-informed and performance-
based requirements applicable for all nuclear power reactor 
technologies as an alternative to current requirements. At the time the 
ANPR was published, the NRC already had an ongoing effort to revise 
some specific regulations to make them risk-informed and performance-
based. The rulemaking would have used operating experience, lessons 
learned from the rulemaking activities, and advances in the use of 
risk-informed technology to focus NRC and industry resources on the 
most risk-significant

[[Page 49866]]

aspects of plant operations to better protect public health and safety. 
The set of new alternative requirements would have been intended 
primarily for new nuclear power reactors, although they would have been 
available to existing reactor licensees.
    The ANPR included 73 questions about the proposed rulemaking scope 
and plan. The NRC received 15 comment submittals from the regulated 
industry, consensus standard committees, private individuals, and a 
foreign regulatory body. Many of the public comments supported the 
concept of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework and 
the development of technology-neutral regulations. Some public comments 
recommended that it was too soon to develop the proposed framework and 
that the NRC and the industry needed to pilot the licensing of advanced 
reactor technology using the current 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 frameworks 
to identify challenges. Some comments did not support the framework as 
described in the ANPR because it did not require specific design 
standards and asserted that it did not adequately employ consensus 
standards that have been demonstrated as adequate and safe for existing 
reactors. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
    In SECY-07-0101, ``Staff Recommendations Regarding a Risk-Informed 
and Performance-Based Revision to 10 CFR part 50,'' dated June 14, 2007 
(ADAMS Package Accession No. ML070790253), the NRC staff requested that 
the Commission defer the rulemaking activity until after the 
development of the licensing strategy for the Next Generation Nuclear 
Plant (NGNP) or receipt of an application for design certification or a 
license for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. In the SRM for SECY-07-
0101, dated September 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072530501), the 
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to defer the 
rulemaking activity. In the same SRM, the Commission approved the NRC 
staff's proposal to provide a recommendation on initiating a rulemaking 
6 months after the development of the licensing strategy for the NGNP 
was finalized. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy decided not to 
proceed with Phase 2 design activities because of fiscal constraints, 
competing priorities, projected cost of the prototype, and inability to 
reach a cost share agreement with the industry. As a result, the NRC no 
longer has a viable demonstration project to reference. Therefore, the 
NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity or 
continue to expend resources tracking this rulemaking, which is now 10 
years old. The NRC has several initiatives underway that would further 
risk-inform and performance-base the regulatory framework. 
Discontinuing this particular rulemaking would not preclude other 
ongoing or future risk-informed, performance-based initiatives.
    The NRC is open to new opportunities to explore a risk-informed, 
performance-based licensing strategy. In the past 2 years, there has 
been renewed U.S. industry and Executive Branch interest in advanced 
non-light water reactors (LWRs). The NRC is working to develop a 
regulatory process to address the unique aspects of these designs 
within the current regulatory framework. A new risk-informed, 
performance-based framework has the potential to address some of these 
unique aspects assuming that the necessary supporting data is 
available. Currently the advanced non-LWR designs have not reached a 
level of maturity that would support development of a regulatory basis 
for rulemaking.
    When supporting data is available, the NRC staff would reevaluate 
the need for rulemaking.

VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29; 
NRC-2008-0200)

    On April 11, 2008, the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (73 FR 19749) that would have expanded the current National 
Source Tracking System (NSTS) to include certain additional sealed 
sources. This rule would have required licensees to report certain 
transactions involving these sealed sources to the NSTS; these 
transactions included the manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly, 
or disposal of the nationally tracked source. Each licensee would have 
had to provide its initial inventory of nationally tracked sources to 
the NSTS and annually verify and reconcile the information in the 
system with the licensee's actual inventory.
    The NRC received 19 comment letters from States, licensees, 
industry organizations, and individuals. Almost all of the comment 
letters were opposed to expanding the NSTS as proposed for the 
following reasons: (1) The rule is premature and should be delayed to 
allow time to refine the burden estimates in the regulatory analysis 
using actual experience from the current NSTS; (2) the NSTS should be 
fully operational and successfully tracking currently required sources 
before the NRC adds additional sources to NSTS; and (3) there needs to 
be additional justification of the security risks posed by these 
sources before incurring the additional regulatory burden. The NRC 
staff considered all the comments received.
    Based on public comments, the NRC staff requested the Commission to 
defer completion of the NSTS final rule (SECY-09-0011, ``Deferral of 
Rulemaking: Expansion of National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-
AI29),'' dated January 15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083540566)).
    On May 11, 2009, a copy of a draft final rule was provided to the 
Agreement States for review. The Executive Boards of the Organization 
of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program 
Directors provided comments. The agency received 26 comments from 
individual states. All of the comments received from the States, except 
one, opposed the NSTS expansion final rule. Most of the commenters 
cited a risk that implementing the rule would shift limited personnel 
resources away from what they believe are more near-term and tangible 
health and safety aspects of radiation protection.
    The Commission was unable to reach a decision on the NRC staff's 
recommendation to defer the NSTS final rule (SRM for SECY-09-0011, 
dated May 28, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091480775)). Instead, the 
Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct a data and system 
operations and performance analysis of the NSTS based on system 
operation with Category 1 and 2 sources and report to the Commission. 
The NRC staff conducted these analyses and reported to the Commission.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity 
because the existing regulatory basis, draft proposed rule, and final 
proposed rule are now out of date. This rulemaking was developed and 
proposed as the NSTS was being developed and deployed in late 2008. 
Since 2009, the NRC published 10 CFR part 37, ``Physical Protection of 
Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material'' (78 FR 
16922; March 19, 2013); gained significant experience in the management 
and operation of the National Source Tracking System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/nsts.html); and deployed two on-
line applications to support validation of licenses, the Web-Based 
Licensing System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/wbl.html) and the License Verification System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/lvs.html). The NRC staff is conducting a 
program review of 10 CFR

[[Page 49867]]

part 37, which includes an assessment of whether additional measures 
are warranted for Category 3 materials. Following completion of the 10 
CFR part 37 assessment, if the NRC staff determines that the NSTS 
should be expanded, then the NRC staff will request Commission approval 
for the rulemaking. The NRC staff will be reporting to the Commission 
and the Congress on this review in 2016.

VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN 
3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)

    In SECY-12-0066, ``Criminal Penalties for the Unauthorized 
Introduction of Weapons into Facilities Designated by the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and for Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,'' 
dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120200150), the NRC staff 
recommended, in part, that the Commission defer a decision on whether 
to proceed with a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 73.81, ``Criminal 
penalties,'' to add certain radioactive material or other property to 
the scope of criminal penalties for sabotage authorized under in 
Section 236, ``Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,'' of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).
    In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff noted that the NRC had not 
previously issued regulations to implement the authority of Section 236 
of the AEA. Instead, the NRC has viewed the language of this statute as 
plain enough to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate 
prosecutions for criminal acts, particularly involving the most 
significant facilities that the NRC regulates, including nuclear power 
reactors and fuel cycle facilities. This rulemaking would have allowed 
the NRC to identify certain radioactive material or other property for 
inclusion within the scope of Section 236.a(7) of the AEA if the 
Commission determined that this material or other property was 
significant to public health and safety or common defense and security. 
The NRC staff evaluated whether further rulemaking was needed to expand 
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel covered under the 
scope of Section 236 of the AEA. The NRC staff evaluated (1) materials 
in 10 CFR part 73, appendix I, ``Category 1 and 2 Radioactive 
Materials'' (material list in appendix A to 10 CFR part 37); (2) 
production reactor spent nuclear fuel and naval reactor spent nuclear 
fuel, and (3) source material in the physical form of uranium 
hexafluoride.
    In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff discussed why these materials were 
chosen for evaluation and the application of Section 236.a(3) of the 
AEA. The NRC staff stated that ``Including certain radioactive material 
or other property within the scope of the criminal penalties in Section 
236 of the AEA may provide DOJ with additional tools for combating 
terrorists and other malevolent actors.'' However, the NRC staff noted 
that a determination of the list of radionuclides and quantities to use 
in a subsequent rulemaking would need to be coordinated with NRC 
activities to implement Recommendation 2 of the 2010 Radiation Source 
Protection and Security Task Force Report [task force recommendations 
appear in SECY-11-0169, ``U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Implementation Plan for the Radiation Source Protection and Security 
Task Force Report'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML113070551)], as well 
as consideration of ongoing actions related to chemical security. The 
NRC staff indicated that it could not develop the required regulatory 
basis for a rulemaking to expand the scope of Section 236 of the AEA to 
include these materials until these activities are completed. The 
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation in the SRM for SECY-
12-0066, dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121700765).
    The NRC staff completed the additional activities discussed in 
SECY-12-0066 and informed the Commission that there was no compelling 
reason to revise 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the scope authority provided 
by Section 236 of the AEA to provide criminal sanctions for sabotage of 
nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, and nuclear fuel or other property.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity 
because the NRC staff has concluded that a rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 
73.81 to implement the new authority of Section 236 of the AEA would 
not serve as an effective deterrent for individuals intent on 
committing sabotage of nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear 
fuel or other property and is not warranted at this time.

IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket 
ID)

    In COMSECY-04-0037, ``Fitness-for-Duty Orders to Address Fatigue of 
Nuclear Facility Security Force Personnel,'' dated June 21, 2004 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML040790094), the NRC staff requested Commission approval 
to issue security orders concerning fitness-for-duty enhancements to 
address fatigue concerns for security force personnel at five classes 
of NRC-licensed facilities: (1) Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installations, (2) Decommissioning Reactors, (3) Category I Fuel Cycle 
Facilities, (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and (5) the Natural Uranium 
Conversion Facility. In the SRM for COMSECY-04-0037, dated September 1, 
2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042450533), the Commission directed the NRC 
staff to pursue the rulemaking process rather than issuing security 
orders for those materials facilities and personnel for whom the NRC 
staff believes fatigue related requirements are necessary.
    On June 18, 2014 (FR 79 34641), the NRC published a draft 
regulatory basis for public comment in the Federal Register to support 
the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security-
related regulations relating to physical protection of special nuclear 
material at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the 
fitness for duty programs for security officers at Category I fuel 
cycle facilities. The draft regulatory basis encompassed three separate 
rulemaking efforts: (1) Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities, (2) 
Special Nuclear Material Transportation Security, and (3) Security-
Force Fatigue at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities.
    During the public comment period the two Category I fuel cycle 
licensees proposed an alternative to the Security-Force Fatigue 
rulemaking. Specifically, the affected licensees proposed adding a 
fatigue management program for security officers into their security 
plans. On April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22434), the NRC published the final 
regulatory basis that explained that the NRC had decided to separate 
the regulatory basis activities for the Security-Force Fatigue at 
Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities to allow staff time to explore the 
alternative to rulemaking proposal.
    The NRC has decided not to proceed with the Security-Force Fatigue 
rulemaking activity because, after reviewing the two licensees' 
proposed changes to their security plans to manage security officer 
fatigue, NRC licensing staff considers the proposal a viable option 
because it will establish fatigue requirements that can be readily 
inspected and enforced for the two Category I fuel cycle licensees 
within their security plans.

X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials--Amendments and Integrated 
Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)

    On May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28336), the NRC published a proposed rule in 
the Federal Register, proposing to amend its regulations by adding 
additional

[[Page 49868]]

requirements for source material licensees who possess significant 
quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The proposed amendments would 
require these licensees to conduct integrated safety analyses (ISAs) 
similar to the ISAs performed by 10 CFR part 70 licensees; set 
possession limits for UF6 for determining licensing authority (NRC or 
Agreement States); add defined terms; add an additional evaluation 
criterion for applicants who submit an evaluation in lieu of an 
emergency plan; require the NRC to perform a backfit analysis under 
specified circumstances; and make administrative changes to the 
structure of the regulations. The NRC held a public meeting on February 
22, 2008, to discuss the scope of the proposed rulemaking and to seek 
public input on the proposed threshold quantities for determining when 
a facility will be regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State.
    The agency received nine comment letters addressing multiple 
issues. Comments on the proposed rule were submitted on behalf of 
several affected States, by industry representatives, NRC licensees, 
and an individual. The comments and responses were grouped into eight 
areas: General, procedural, definitions, performance requirements, 
jurisdiction/authority, backfitting, reporting, and corrections. Most 
of the comments were generally opposed to the proposed changes to the 
regulations. Several comments questioned the cost amounts used in the 
regulatory analysis. All the commenters opposed the probabilistic risk 
assessment. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.
    The NRC staff submitted a draft final rule to the Commission in 
SECY-12-0071, ``Final Rule: Domestic Licensing of Source Material--
Amendments/Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-A150),'' dated May 7, 
2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A344). The draft final rule was 
revised from the proposed rule based on comments from Agreement States 
and the public. In the SRM for SECY-12-0071, dated May 3, 2013 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML13123A127), the Commission disapproved publication of 
the draft final rule. The Commission directed the NRC staff to revise 
the rule and associated guidance to address issues given in the SRM and 
to resubmit the rule for Commission consideration.
    In COMSECY-15-0002, ``Termination of Rulemaking to Revise Title 10 
of The Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, `Domestic Licensing of 
Source Material' and Staff Plans to Address Other Items in Staff 
Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0071 (RIN 3150-A150)'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML13331A559), the NRC staff proposed termination of this 
rulemaking. The NRC staff based this recommendation on: (1) Honeywell's 
existing uranium conversion facility, and the licensed but as yet un-
built uranium deconversion facility to be operated by International 
Isotopes; both already have newly approved ISAs as required by their 
licenses, (2) the NRC does not anticipate new applications for 10 CFR 
part 40 uranium conversion or deconversion facilities in the 
foreseeable future, (3) the hazards at Honeywell's uranium conversion 
facility and the hazards at International Isotopes planned uranium 
deconversion facility are facility-specific and sufficiently 
controlled, (4) the NRC staff's reanalysis of the rule has reduced the 
priority of the rulemaking, and (5) consideration of the cumulative 
effects of regulation. The agency plans to develop Interim Staff 
Guidance related to 10 CFR part 70 facilities. The Commission approved 
termination of this rulemaking in the SRM for COMSECY-15-0002, dated 
April 17, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15107A488).
    The NRC staff is including discussion of this decision in this 
document to inform members of the public.

XI. Conclusion

    The NRC is no longer pursuing the eight rulemaking activities for 
the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the 
Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for these rulemaking 
activities with reference to this document to indicate that they are no 
longer being pursued. These rulemaking activities will appear in the 
completed section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not 
appear in future editions. Should the NRC determine to pursue anything 
in these areas in the future, it will inform the public through a new 
rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,
Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-17766 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P