80_FR_13845 80 FR 13794 - Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information

80 FR 13794 - Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 51 (March 17, 2015)

Page Range13794-13797
FR Document2015-06107

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in the rulemaking process the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-50-107, submitted by James Lieberman (the petitioner). The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that all persons seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC with complete and accurate information. Current NRC regulations pertaining to completeness and accuracy of information apply only to NRC licensees and license applicants. The NRC has determined that the issues raised in the PRM have merit and are appropriate for consideration in the rulemaking process.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13794-13797]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06107]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72

[Docket Nos. PRM-50-107; NRC-2013-0077]


Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[[Page 13795]]


ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking 
process.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in 
the rulemaking process the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking 
(PRM), PRM-50-107, submitted by James Lieberman (the petitioner). The 
petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that 
all persons seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC with complete and 
accurate information. Current NRC regulations pertaining to 
completeness and accuracy of information apply only to NRC licensees 
and license applicants. The NRC has determined that the issues raised 
in the PRM have merit and are appropriate for consideration in the 
rulemaking process.

DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-107, is 
closed on March 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0077 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You can 
obtain publicly-available documents related to this petition by using 
any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0077. 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.
     The 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 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. In addition, for the convenience of the 
reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in Section 
V of this document, Availability of Documents.
     The NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of 
public documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background.
II. Requirement to Submit Complete and Accurate Information.
III. Analysis of Public Comments.
IV. Determination of Petition.
V. Availability of Documents.

I. Background

    On April 15, 2013, the NRC received a PRM (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to revise its regulations relating to 
nuclear reactors at Sec. Sec.  50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6 of Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its ``regulatory 
framework to make it a legal obligation for those non-licensees who 
seek NRC regulatory approvals be held to the same legal standards for 
the submittal of complete and accurate information as would a licensee 
or an applicant for a license.'' James Lieberman, a regulatory and 
nuclear safety consultant, submitted the petition which was filed on 
April 15, 2013, and later amended on September 16, 2013. The petitioner 
originally requested that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR parts 
50 and 52, to require all persons who seek NRC approvals to provide the 
NRC with complete and accurate information.
    The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and 
published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register 
(FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment 
on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the 
petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the 
petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its scope to 
include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the 
regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal, 
transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40, 
60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The NRC published a notice regarding the 
amended petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML13261A190) in the Federal 
Register requesting comment (79 FR 3328; January 21, 2014). One 
additional comment in support of the amended petition was received.
    The petitioner asserts that non-licensees (including vendors and 
other contractors) used by NRC-regulated entities to meet regulatory 
requirements should be subject to the same requirements for complete 
and accurate submissions as NRC licensees and license applicants. When 
the Commission promulgated the 1987 ``Completeness and Accuracy of 
Information'' rule (52 FR 49362; December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule), 
neither the rule language nor the Statement of Considerations (SOC) 
discussed non-licensees submitting information to the NRC for 
regulatory approvals. The 1987 rule included nearly identical 
``Completeness and Accuracy of Information'' requirements in 10 CFR 
parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, and 72. When the Commission added 10 
CFR parts 52 and 63 to its regulations, it added ``Completeness and 
Accuracy of Information'' requirements to these parts as well (72 FR 
49521, August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732, November 2, 2001; 
respectively). The petitioner asserts that the intent of this petition 
is to close the gap that exists in NRC requirements between licensees/
applicants and non-licensees regarding the submittal of complete and 
accurate information for NRC approval.
    The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and 
published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register 
(FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment 
on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the 
petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the 
petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its request to 
include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the 
regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal, 
transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40, 
60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the amended petition, the petitioner 
also requested that the ``scope'' section for each of the parts be 
revised to add language to highlight that any person seeking or 
obtaining an NRC approval for a regulated activity would be subject to 
enforcement action for violation of the completeness and accuracy 
provision of that part. The applicable sections are Sec. Sec.  30.1, 
40.2, 50.1, 52.0, 60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2.

II. Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information

    The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 30.9, 40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10, 
61.9a, 63.10, 70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1) The longstanding 
policy that license applicants and licensees provide the Commission 
information that is complete and accurate in all material respects and 
maintain such information as required; and (2) the requirement that

[[Page 13796]]

license applicants and licensees notify the NRC of any information they 
identify as having, for the regulated activity, a significant 
implication for the public health and safety or common defense and 
security.
    The 1987 rule re-emphasized the NRC's need to receive complete and 
accurate information and timely notification of safety significant 
information from its licensees and license applicants if the NRC is to 
fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated that ``the 
accuracy and forthrightness in communications to the NRC by licensees 
and applicants for licenses are essential if the NRC is to fulfill its 
responsibilities to ensure that utilization of radioactive material and 
the operation of nuclear facilities are consistent with the health and 
safety of the public and the common defense and security.'' The SOC 
relied on the general authority provision in AEA Section 161b. that 
permits the NRC to establish by rule, regulation, or order, such 
standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special 
nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. The SOC also 
specifically mentioned the importance of accurate information in AEA 
Section 186, which authorizes the NRC to revoke any license for 
material false statement in an application or statement of fact 
required under AEA Section 182.
    However, similar concerns also are raised when non-licensees seek 
the NRC's approval in other situations. For example, a non-licensee may 
submit a description of its Quality Assurance (QA) program to the NRC 
for approval in support of a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for 
transportation and storage casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71 and 
part 72 set forth requirements for QA programs in subparts H and G, 
respectively. Non-licensees who intend to apply for a CoC establish, 
maintain, and execute programs satisfying the QA requirements for the 
control of quality-affecting activities such as design, procurement, 
special processes, inspection, and testing, among other activities. 
Implementing an effective QA program during transportation or storage 
cask design and testing pre-application phases provides adequate 
confidence that the systems or components will perform satisfactorily 
in service.
    On more than one occasion the NRC has received from a non-licensee 
a description of a QA program for NRC approval in accordance with 10 
CFR parts 71 and 72 requirements. After reviewing this information, the 
NRC staff approved the QA program, as documented. However, a subsequent 
on-site inspection of that NRC-approved QA program resulted in a 
finding of inadequate implementation of certain quality-related 
activities. Had this QA program implementation deficiency gone 
unidentified and uncorrected, it could have resulted in design issues 
or reduced confidence that systems or components would perform 
satisfactorily in service. Under current regulations, the NRC can only 
take an enforcement action against the applicant if the cause of a QA 
program deficiency is attributable to an applicant providing incomplete 
or inaccurate information. The NRC is unable to take enforcement action 
against the non-licensee for not providing complete and accurate 
information that was submitted for NRC's approval; the NRC is limited 
to issuing an administrative action, such as a notice of 
nonconformance.
    A topical report is another example of one type of information 
submitted to the NRC by non-licensees for regulatory approval. Once 
reviewed and approved, the NRC endorses the use of the topical report, 
and licensees implement the report accordingly. The petitioner cited 
reactor topical reports as an example of a single safety evaluation 
report, once approved by the NRC, that may be adopted by many 
licensees, and therefore greatly magnify the impact of any error beyond 
the non-licensee applicant for the topical report itself.
    The petition states that non-licensees who submit information to 
the NRC for approval should be held accountable for providing complete 
and accurate information. The petitioner's proposed rule change would 
provide the NRC staff with additional enforcement tools to encourage 
non-licensees to submit complete and accurate information to the NRC.

III. Analysis of Public Comments

    The NRC received a total of three comment submissions on the 
petition and amended petition from two private citizens. The NRC 
received two public comments in response to the June 10, 2013, Federal 
Register notice. Both were in support of the petition, one suggested 
the inclusion of additional licensees in the petition. In response to 
the January 21, 2014, Federal Register notice, the NRC received a 
second comment from a previous commenter reiterating his support on the 
amended petition.

Comment No. 1

Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman International
    Comment: The commenter asserted that the NRC should consider for 
rulemaking Mr. Lieberman's petition to require vendors and suppliers to 
provide complete and accurate information. The commenter also stated 
that the NRC should consider expanding the original petition's request 
to include other parts of the regulations that have the same 
completeness and accuracy provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 61, 
70, 71, and 72. The commenter highlighted that it is important to have 
complete and accurate information in submittals by non-licensees who 
seek the following: (1) Exemption from NRC regulations; and (2) NRC 
approval that their activities do not need a license. The commenter 
pointed out that currently there is no legal obligation for a vendor to 
provide complete and accurate information either in the application for 
a topical report or in response to NRC questions on the topical report. 
The commenter noted that this oversight has been brought to light 
during litigation.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment, and intends to 
consider this issue in the rulemaking process. In addition, the 
petitioner amended the petition to expand the request of proposed 
changes in the regulations.

Comment No. 2

Commenter: Charles Haughney
    Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider Mr. 
Lieberman's petition for rulemaking.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to 
consider this PRM in the rulemaking process.

Comment No. 3

Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman International
    Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider for 
rulemaking the revised petition that expands the original petition 
request.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to 
consider the PRM in the rulemaking process.

IV. Determination of Petition

    Non-licensee applicants for NRC regulatory approvals (e.g. topical 
report, an exemption from licensing, or submission of a QA program) 
currently are not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees or 
license applicants to provide complete and accurate information. Non-
licensees that have received an NRC approval are also

[[Page 13797]]

not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees to notify the NRC 
of any information that may have a significant implication for public 
health and safety or the common defense and security. As a result, the 
lack of similar requirements for non-licensees could adversely affect 
public health and safety or the common defense and security. As with 
licensees and license applicants, the NRC staff relies on the 
information submitted by non-licensees as the primary basis for 
approving their requests; it is fundamental for good regulation that 
all applicants for NRC approvals meet the same requirement to submit 
complete and accurate information. It is also important that both 
licensees and non-licensees operating under an NRC approval be required 
to notify the NRC of information they have identified as having a 
significant implication for the public health and safety or common 
defense and security. In the case of reactor topical reports, as cited 
by the petitioner, a single safety evaluation report may be adopted by 
many licensees once it has been approved by the NRC, greatly magnifying 
the impact of any errors beyond the non-licensee applicant for the 
topical report itself.
    The NRC agrees with the petitioner that non-licensee applicants for 
NRC approvals in all subject areas (e.g. reactors, materials, 
transportation, and waste) should be required to submit complete and 
accurate information. Imposing the same requirement for completeness 
and accuracy of information to all non-licensee applicants for NRC 
approvals ensures a consistent and comprehensive set of regulatory 
expectations.
    Although not mentioned in the petition or the amended petition, the 
NRC staff identified other portions of the regulations that contain 
similar requirements for ``Completeness and Accuracy of Information.'' 
As a result, the NRC also considered the applicability of the issue to 
10 CFR parts 54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation.
    For these reasons, the NRC will consider the issues raised in the 
petition in the rulemaking process.

V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as 
indicated. For information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES 
section of this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      ADAMS  Accession
            Date                    Document           number/ Federal
                                                      Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 15, 2013..............  Original Petition              ML13113A443
                               (PRM-50-107).
June 10, 2013...............  Original FRN........           78 FR 34604
September 16, 2013..........  Amended Petition....           ML13261A190
January 21, 2014............  Amended FRN.........            79 FR 3328
August 29, 2013.............  Comment 1: Hugh                ML13241A222
                               Thompson.
August 26, 2013.............  Comment 2: Charles             ML13246A383
                               Haughney.
April 10, 2014..............  Comment 3: Hugh                ML14100A198
                               Thompson.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark A. Satorius,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-06107 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

13794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules shards from being dispersed if a lamp’s 2018, and it was, therefore, considered D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant the more realistic forecast. While DOE Incandescent Lamps lamps incorporate a coating compliant was satisfied that either the linear For 2,601–3,300 lumen general with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,4 regression or exponential growth service incandescent lamps, the ‘‘Food Equipment Materials,’’ and are spreadsheet model generated a exponential growth forecast projected labeled and marketed as shatter- reasonable benchmark unit sales resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter- the benchmark unit sales estimate for estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 2014 to be 34,110,000 units. The NEMA- protected. Some types of the coatings 2,601–3,300 lumen general service can also protect the lamp from breakage provided shipment data reported incandescent lamps, and shatter- shipments of 5,232,000 units in 2014. in applications subject to heat and resistant lamps, DOE selected the thermal shock that may occur from As this finding is 15.3 percent of the exponential growth curve fit for these estimate, DOE will continue to track water, sleet, snow, soldering, or lamp types for consistency with the welding. 2,601–3,300 lumen general service selection made for rough service and incandescent lamp sales data and will III. Comparison Methodology vibration service lamps.6 DOE examines not initiate regulatory action for this the benchmark unit sales estimates and lamp type at this time. In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed actual sales for each of the five lamp each of the five sets of shipment data E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps types in the following section and also that was collected in consultation with makes the comparisons available in a For shatter-resistant lamps, the NEMA and applied two curve fits to spreadsheet online: http:// exponential growth forecast projected generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ the benchmark unit sales estimate for One curve fit applied a linear regression appliance_standards/product.aspx/ 2014 to be 1,671,000 units. The NEMA- to the historical data and extended that productid/63. provided shipment data reported line into the future. The other curve fit IV. Comparison Results shipments of 1,042,000 units in 2014. applied an exponential growth function As this finding is only 62.4 percent of to the shipment data and projected unit A. Rough Service Lamps the estimate, DOE will continue to track sales into the future. For this shatter-resistant lamp sales data and For rough service lamps, the will not initiate regulatory action for calculation, linear regression treats the exponential growth forecast projected this lamp type at this time. year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2014 to be 5,224,000 units. The NEMA- V. Conclusion The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences provided shipment data reported None of the shipments for rough among the data points and the best shipments of 7,267,000 units in 2014. service lamps, vibration service lamps, curve-fit linear line using the least As this finding exceeds the estimate by 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 squares function.5 The exponential only 39.1 percent, DOE will continue to lumen general service incandescent curve fit is also a regression function track rough service lamp sales data and lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed and uses the same least squares function will not initiate regulatory action for the statutory threshold for a standard. to find the best fit. For some data sets, this lamp type at this time. DOE will continue to monitor these five an exponential curve provides a better B. Vibration Service Lamps currently exempted lamp types and will characterization of the historical data, assess 2015 sales by March 31, 2016, in and, therefore, a better projection of the For vibration service lamps, the order to determine whether an energy future data. exponential growth forecast projected conservation standards rulemaking is For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601– the benchmark unit sales estimate for required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 3,300 lumen general service 2014 to be 2,729,000 units. The NEMA- 6295(l)(4)(D) through (H). incandescent lamps, and shatter- provided shipment data reported Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, resistant lamps, DOE found that the shipments of 5,220,000 units in 2014. 2015. linear regression and exponential As this finding exceeds the estimate by Kathleen B. Hogan, growth curve fits produced nearly the only 91.3 percent, DOE will continue to same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy track vibration service lamp sales data Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable difference between the two forecasted and will not initiate regulatory action Energy. values was less than 1 or 2 percent). for this lamp type at this time. [FR Doc. 2015–05947 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] However, for rough service and vibration service lamps, the linear C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps BILLING CODE 6450–01–P regression curve fit projected lamp unit For 3-way incandescent lamps, the sales would decline to zero for both exponential growth forecast projected lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the the benchmark unit sales estimate for NUCLEAR REGULATORY exponential growth curve fit projected a 2014 to be 49,107,000 units. The NEMA- COMMISSION more gradual decline in unit sales, such provided shipment data reported that lamps would still be sold beyond 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63, shipments of 35,340,000 units in 2014. 4 NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials As this finding is only 72.0 percent of 70, 71, and 72 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS and coatings used in the manufacturing of the estimate, DOE will continue to track equipment and objects destined for contact with 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and [Docket Nos. PRM–50–107; NRC–2013– foodstuffs. will not initiate regulatory action for 0077] 5 The least squares function is an analytical tool this lamp type at this time. that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared Requirement To Submit Complete and residual differences between the actual historical data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear 6 This selection is consistent with the previous Accurate Information curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting annual comparisons. See DOE’s 2008 forecast curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the spreadsheet models of the lamp types for greater AGENCY:Nuclear Regulatory data provided. detail on the estimates. Commission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:22 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM 17MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13795 ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville should be subject to the same consideration in the rulemaking Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. requirements for complete and accurate process. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submissions as NRC licensees and Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor license applicants. When the SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission promulgated the 1987 Commission (NRC) will consider in the Commission, Washington, DC 20555– ‘‘Completeness and Accuracy of rulemaking process the issues raised in 0001; telephone: 301–415–2328; email: Information’’ rule (52 FR 49362; a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM– Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov. December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule), 50–107, submitted by James Lieberman SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: neither the rule language nor the (the petitioner). The petitioner Statement of Considerations (SOC) requested that the NRC amend its I. Background. II. Requirement to Submit Complete and discussed non-licensees submitting regulations to require that all persons information to the NRC for regulatory Accurate Information. seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC III. Analysis of Public Comments. approvals. The 1987 rule included with complete and accurate IV. Determination of Petition. nearly identical ‘‘Completeness and information. Current NRC regulations V. Availability of Documents. Accuracy of Information’’ requirements pertaining to completeness and in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, accuracy of information apply only to I. Background 71, and 72. When the Commission NRC licensees and license applicants. On April 15, 2013, the NRC received added 10 CFR parts 52 and 63 to its The NRC has determined that the issues a PRM (ADAMS Accession No. regulations, it added ‘‘Completeness and raised in the PRM have merit and are ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to Accuracy of Information’’ requirements appropriate for consideration in the revise its regulations relating to nuclear to these parts as well (72 FR 49521, rulemaking process. reactors at §§ 50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6 August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732, DATES: The docket for the petition for of Title 10 of the Code of Federal November 2, 2001; respectively). The rulemaking, PRM–50–107, is closed on Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its petitioner asserts that the intent of this March 17, 2015. ‘‘regulatory framework to make it a legal petition is to close the gap that exists in obligation for those non-licensees who NRC requirements between licensees/ ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID seek NRC regulatory approvals be held applicants and non-licensees regarding NRC–2013–0077 when contacting the to the same legal standards for the NRC about the availability of the submittal of complete and accurate submittal of complete and accurate information for NRC approval. information for this petition. You can information as would a licensee or an The NRC assigned the petition Docket obtain publicly-available documents applicant for a license.’’ James Number PRM–50–107 and published a related to this petition by using any of Lieberman, a regulatory and nuclear notice of receipt of the petition in the the following methods: safety consultant, submitted the petition Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to which was filed on April 15, 2013, and (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested http://www.regulations.gov and search later amended on September 16, 2013. public comment on the petition and for Docket ID NRC–2013–0077. Address The petitioner originally requested that received two comments, both questions about NRC dockets to Carol the NRC amend its regulations in 10 supporting the petition. On September Gallagher, telephone: 301–415—3463; CFR parts 50 and 52, to require all 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For persons who seek NRC approvals to ML13113A443), the petitioner amended technical questions, contact the provide the NRC with complete and the rulemaking petition to expand its individual listed in the FOR FURTHER accurate information. request to include not only 10 CFR parts INFORMATION CONTACT section of this The NRC assigned the petition Docket 50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory document. Number PRM–50–107 and published a framework for radioactive materials, • The NRC’s Agencywide Documents notice of receipt of the petition in the waste disposal, transportation, and Access and Management System Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013 spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested 30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the available documents online in the public comment on the petition and amended petition, the petitioner also ADAMS Public Documents collection at received two comments, both requested that the ‘‘scope’’ section for http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ supporting the petition. On September each of the parts be revised to add adams.html. To begin the search, select 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. language to highlight that any person ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then ML13113A443), the petitioner amended seeking or obtaining an NRC approval select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS the rulemaking petition to expand its for a regulated activity would be subject Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, scope to include not only 10 CFR parts to enforcement action for violation of please contact the NRC’s Public 50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory the completeness and accuracy Document Room (PDR) reference staff at framework for radioactive materials, provision of that part. The applicable 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by waste disposal, transportation, and sections are §§ 30.1, 40.2, 50.1, 52.0, email to PDR.resource@nrc.gov. The spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2. ADAMS accession number for each 30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The document referenced in this document NRC published a notice regarding the II. Requirement To Submit Complete (if that document is available in amended petition (ADAMS Accession and Accurate Information ADAMS) is provided the first time that No. ML13261A190) in the Federal The NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 30.9, rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS a document is referenced. In addition, Register requesting comment (79 FR 40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10, 61.9a, 63.10, for the convenience of the reader, the 3328; January 21, 2014). One additional 70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1) ADAMS accession numbers are comment in support of the amended The longstanding policy that license provided in a table in Section V of this petition was received. applicants and licensees provide the document, Availability of Documents. The petitioner asserts that non- Commission information that is • The NRC’s PDR: You may examine licensees (including vendors and other complete and accurate in all material and purchase copies of public contractors) used by NRC-regulated respects and maintain such information documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21, entities to meet regulatory requirements as required; and (2) the requirement that VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:22 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM 17MRP1

13796 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules license applicants and licensees notify documented. However, a subsequent on- Comment No. 1 the NRC of any information they site inspection of that NRC-approved Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman identify as having, for the regulated QA program resulted in a finding of activity, a significant implication for the International inadequate implementation of certain public health and safety or common quality-related activities. Had this QA Comment: The commenter asserted defense and security. program implementation deficiency that the NRC should consider for The 1987 rule re-emphasized the gone unidentified and uncorrected, it rulemaking Mr. Lieberman’s petition to NRC’s need to receive complete and could have resulted in design issues or require vendors and suppliers to accurate information and timely provide complete and accurate reduced confidence that systems or notification of safety significant information. The commenter also stated components would perform information from its licensees and that the NRC should consider expanding license applicants if the NRC is to fulfill satisfactorily in service. Under current the original petition’s request to include its statutory responsibilities under the regulations, the NRC can only take an other parts of the regulations that have Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended enforcement action against the applicant the same completeness and accuracy (AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated if the cause of a QA program deficiency provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40, that ‘‘the accuracy and forthrightness in is attributable to an applicant providing 61, 70, 71, and 72. The commenter communications to the NRC by incomplete or inaccurate information. highlighted that it is important to have licensees and applicants for licenses are The NRC is unable to take enforcement complete and accurate information in essential if the NRC is to fulfill its action against the non-licensee for not submittals by non-licensees who seek responsibilities to ensure that utilization providing complete and accurate the following: (1) Exemption from NRC of radioactive material and the information that was submitted for regulations; and (2) NRC approval that operation of nuclear facilities are NRC’s approval; the NRC is limited to their activities do not need a license. consistent with the health and safety of issuing an administrative action, such as The commenter pointed out that the public and the common defense and a notice of nonconformance. currently there is no legal obligation for security.’’ The SOC relied on the general a vendor to provide complete and A topical report is another example of authority provision in AEA Section accurate information either in the 161b. that permits the NRC to establish one type of information submitted to the NRC by non-licensees for regulatory application for a topical report or in by rule, regulation, or order, such response to NRC questions on the standards and instructions to govern the approval. Once reviewed and approved, topical report. The commenter noted possession and use of special nuclear the NRC endorses the use of the topical that this oversight has been brought to material, source material, and byproduct report, and licensees implement the light during litigation. material. The SOC also specifically report accordingly. The petitioner cited NRC Response: The NRC agrees with mentioned the importance of accurate reactor topical reports as an example of this comment, and intends to consider information in AEA Section 186, which a single safety evaluation report, once this issue in the rulemaking process. In authorizes the NRC to revoke any approved by the NRC, that may be addition, the petitioner amended the license for material false statement in an adopted by many licensees, and petition to expand the request of application or statement of fact required therefore greatly magnify the impact of proposed changes in the regulations. under AEA Section 182. any error beyond the non-licensee However, similar concerns also are applicant for the topical report itself. Comment No. 2 raised when non-licensees seek the Commenter: Charles Haughney NRC’s approval in other situations. For The petition states that non-licensees example, a non-licensee may submit a who submit information to the NRC for Comment: The commenter stated that description of its Quality Assurance approval should be held accountable for the NRC should consider Mr. (QA) program to the NRC for approval providing complete and accurate Lieberman’s petition for rulemaking. in support of a Certificate of Compliance information. The petitioner’s proposed NRC Response: The NRC agrees with (CoC) for transportation and storage rule change would provide the NRC the comment and intends to consider casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71 staff with additional enforcement tools this PRM in the rulemaking process. and part 72 set forth requirements for to encourage non-licensees to submit Comment No. 3 QA programs in subparts H and G, complete and accurate information to respectively. Non-licensees who intend the NRC. Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman to apply for a CoC establish, maintain, International and execute programs satisfying the QA III. Analysis of Public Comments Comment: The commenter stated that requirements for the control of quality- The NRC received a total of three the NRC should consider for rulemaking affecting activities such as design, comment submissions on the petition the revised petition that expands the procurement, special processes, original petition request. and amended petition from two private inspection, and testing, among other NRC Response: The NRC agrees with citizens. The NRC received two public activities. Implementing an effective QA the comment and intends to consider program during transportation or storage comments in response to the June 10, the PRM in the rulemaking process. cask design and testing pre-application 2013, Federal Register notice. Both phases provides adequate confidence were in support of the petition, one IV. Determination of Petition that the systems or components will suggested the inclusion of additional Non-licensee applicants for NRC rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS perform satisfactorily in service. licensees in the petition. In response to regulatory approvals (e.g. topical report, On more than one occasion the NRC the January 21, 2014, Federal Register an exemption from licensing, or has received from a non-licensee a notice, the NRC received a second submission of a QA program) currently description of a QA program for NRC comment from a previous commenter are not under the same regulatory approval in accordance with 10 CFR reiterating his support on the amended obligation as licensees or license parts 71 and 72 requirements. After petition. applicants to provide complete and reviewing this information, the NRC accurate information. Non-licensees that staff approved the QA program, as have received an NRC approval are also VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:22 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM 17MRP1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13797 not under the same regulatory obligation having a significant implication for the Although not mentioned in the as licensees to notify the NRC of any public health and safety or common petition or the amended petition, the information that may have a significant defense and security. In the case of NRC staff identified other portions of implication for public health and safety reactor topical reports, as cited by the the regulations that contain similar or the common defense and security. As petitioner, a single safety evaluation requirements for ‘‘Completeness and a result, the lack of similar requirements report may be adopted by many Accuracy of Information.’’ As a result, for non-licensees could adversely affect licensees once it has been approved by the NRC also considered the public health and safety or the common the NRC, greatly magnifying the impact applicability of the issue to 10 CFR parts defense and security. As with licensees of any errors beyond the non-licensee 54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation. and license applicants, the NRC staff applicant for the topical report itself. The NRC agrees with the petitioner For these reasons, the NRC will relies on the information submitted by that non-licensee applicants for NRC consider the issues raised in the petition non-licensees as the primary basis for approvals in all subject areas (e.g. in the rulemaking process. approving their requests; it is reactors, materials, transportation, and V. Availability of Documents fundamental for good regulation that all waste) should be required to submit applicants for NRC approvals meet the complete and accurate information. The documents identified in the same requirement to submit complete Imposing the same requirement for following table are available to and accurate information. It is also completeness and accuracy of interested persons through one or more important that both licensees and non- information to all non-licensee of the following methods, as indicated. licensees operating under an NRC applicants for NRC approvals ensures a For information on accessing ADAMS, approval be required to notify the NRC consistent and comprehensive set of see the ADDRESSES section of this of information they have identified as regulatory expectations. document. ADAMS Accession number/ Date Document Federal Register citation April 15, 2013 ............................................................. Original Petition (PRM–50–107) ..................................................... ML13113A443 June 10, 2013 ............................................................. Original FRN ................................................................................... 78 FR 34604 September 16, 2013 ................................................... Amended Petition ........................................................................... ML13261A190 January 21, 2014 ........................................................ Amended FRN ................................................................................ 79 FR 3328 August 29, 2013 ......................................................... Comment 1: Hugh Thompson ........................................................ ML13241A222 August 26, 2013 ......................................................... Comment 2: Charles Haughney ..................................................... ML13246A383 April 10, 2014 ............................................................. Comment 3: Hugh Thompson ........................................................ ML14100A198 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day power loss in ice crystal icing (ICI) 45215; phone: 513–552–3272; email: of February, 2015. conditions. This proposed AD would geae.aoc@ge.com. You may view this For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. preclude the use of full authority digital service information at the FAA, Engine Mark A. Satorius, engine control (FADEC) software, & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Director for Operations. version B175 or earlier, in GEnx-1B Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. [FR Doc. 2015–06107 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] engines, and the use of FADEC software, For information on the availability of BILLING CODE 7590–01–P version C065 or earlier, in GEnx-2B this material at the FAA, call 781–238– engines. We are proposing this AD to 7125. prevent engine failure, loss of thrust Examining the AD Docket control, and damage to the airplane. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION You may examine the AD docket on DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 18, 2015. the Internet at http:// Federal Aviation Administration www.regulations.gov by searching for ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 14 CFR Part 39 0165; or in person at the Docket 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following [Docket No. FAA–2015–0165; Directorate methods: Management Facility between 9 a.m. Identifier 2015–NE–02–AD] • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the except Federal holidays. The AD docket RIN 2120–AA64 contains this proposed AD, the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: 202–493–2251. regulatory evaluation, any comments Airworthiness Directives; General received, and other information. The Electric Company Turbofan Engines • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– street address for the Docket Office AGENCY: Federal Aviation 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room (phone: 800–647–5527) is in the Administration (FAA), DOT. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., ADDRESSES section. Comments will be ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Washington, DC 20590. available in the AD docket shortly after rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS (NPRM). • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail receipt. address above between 9 a.m. and 5 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new p.m., Monday through Friday, except Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, airworthiness directive (AD) for all Federal holidays. Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine General Electric Company (GE) GEnx For service information identified in & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England turbofan engine models. This proposed this proposed AD, contact General Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; AD was prompted by reports of GEnx- Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238– 1B and GEnx-2B engines experiencing 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:22 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM 17MRP1


Document Created: 2015-12-18 12:01:41
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 12:01:41
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionPetition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking process.
DatesThe docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-107, is closed on March 17, 2015.
ContactJenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 13794 
CFR Citation10 CFR 30
10 CFR 40
10 CFR 50
10 CFR 52
10 CFR 60
10 CFR 61
10 CFR 63
10 CFR 70
10 CFR 71
10 CFR 72
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR