83 FR 19464 - Review of Administrative Rules
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 86 (May 3, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 86 (May 3, 2018)
| Page Range | 19464-19466 | |
| FR Document | 2018-09359 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 19464-19466] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-09359] ======================================================================== 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. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules [[Page 19464]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Chapter I [NRC-2017-0214] Review of Administrative Rules AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for comment. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is initiating a retrospective review of administrative requirements to identify outdated or duplicative administrative requirements that may be eliminated without an adverse effect on public health or safety, common defense and security, protection of the environment, or regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. The NRC is providing an outline of its strategy and is seeking public comment on the criteria that the NRC proposes to use to identify administrative regulations for possible elimination. This retrospective review of administrative regulations will complement the NRC's existing strategy for retrospective analysis of existing regulations. DATES: Submit comments by July 2, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. The NRC will not prepare written responses to each individual comment, due to the NRC's schedule for completing the retrospective review of administrative regulations. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0214. Address questions about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677. Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret S. Ellenson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-0894; email: [email protected]; or Mr. Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1078; email: [email protected]; both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 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 website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0214. 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 (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. 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. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Background On August 11, 2017, the NRC announced that the agency is initiating, beginning in the fall of the calendar year 2017, a retrospective review of its administrative regulations to identify those rules that are outdated or duplicative. Once identified, the regulations will be evaluated to determine whether they can be eliminated without impacting the agency's mission. The retrospective review supports the NRC's ongoing regulatory planning and retrospective analysis of existing regulations (ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A441). The Retrospective Review of Administrative Regulations Strategy On November 22, 2017, the NRC staff issued SECY-17-0119, ``Retrospective [[Page 19465]] Review of Administrative Regulations'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML17286A069), which provided for Commission approval the NRC staff's proposed strategy for the retrospective review of regulations. The staff requirements memorandum associated with SECY-17-0119 approved the NRC staff's proposal and directed staff to implement the strategy. Overall, the goal of the retrospective review is to enhance the management and administration of regulatory activities and to ensure that the agency's regulations remain current and effective. The review is intended to identify regulatory changes that are administrative in nature that will make the information submittal, record keeping, and reporting processes more efficient for the staff, applicants, and licensees. The strategy takes into consideration the agency's overall statutory responsibilities, including mandates to issue new regulations, the number of regulations in chapter I of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and available resources. This effort will not impact the NRC's mission, as it will be limited to identifying outdated or duplicative, non-substantive administrative regulations. III. Discussion This notice provides an outline of the NRC's approved strategy for the retrospective review (see Table 1) and requests public comment on the criteria the NRC proposes to use to evaluate potential changes to the requirements. In summary, the retrospective review strategy involves seven steps--(1) developing criteria to evaluate potential regulatory changes to administrative requirements; (2) gathering NRC staff input on administrative regulations that might fit the proposed criteria; (3) reviewing historical correspondence documents submitted to the NRC related to eliminating duplicative or outdated administrative regulations; (4) including opportunities for public comment; (5) interacting with the public throughout the review process by conducting public meetings; (6) reviewing stakeholder input; and (7) developing rules or rulemaking plans to eliminate or modify administrative requirements, as appropriate. Table 1--Retrospective Review Activity Description and Timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approximate completion Action Description timeframe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: Develop Evaluation Criteria Develop criteria to ensure administrative Finalize criteria after regulations are evaluated in a consistent close of public comment manner. The criteria will be used as guides to period for this notice determine whether the administrative and after final review requirement is duplicative or outdated and if and approval by the the requirement(s) should be considered for Commission. potential elimination or modification. The criteria are being disseminated to external stakeholders for comment via this notice and will be discussed in a public meeting. Step 2: Gather NRC Staff Input..... Provide an email address or other mechanism for Concurrently with request NRC staff to provide input on administrative for public input as requirements that may be outdated or outlined in Steps 1 and duplicative and that the Commission should 4. consider for elimination or modification. Step 3: Historical Correspondence Review relevant historical letters received Beginning concurrent with Review. from members of the public, other Federal Step 4. agencies, State and local governments, Federally-recognized Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and representative industry groups related to eliminating duplicative or outdated administrative regulations. Step 4: Request for Public Input on Request public input to identify administrative Within 4 months after the Outdated or Duplicative requirements that may be outdated or public comment period Administrative Requirements. duplicative and that the Commission should closes for this notice. consider for elimination or modification. The comment period will be open for a period of approximately 60 days. Step 5: Conduct Public Meetings.... Schedule public meetings (in-person, webinar, Meetings will be held and teleconference-capable) during the comment during the public comment periods to provide awareness and answer period for this notice questions to clarify the purpose and scope of and during the public the activity. Although verbal comments will comment period for the not be accepted during the meetings, staff second notice (Step 4). will provide instruction on how attendees can submit written comments. Step 6: Review Input............... Compile and analyze the input and assign to the Initial review and regulation ``owner'' for the assigned office assignment of the input to review each proposal to determine if it has will be targeted for merit. after completion of the public meetings (Step 5). Recommendations (i.e., no action or accept for regulatory change) should be submitted to the Commission for its review and approval within 18 months after initiation of the activities. Step 7: Develop Rulemaking For any administrative requirements that have The schedule for any Activities to Eliminate or Modify been identified for elimination or rulemaking activities Requirements. modification, the potential outcomes could will be determined using include: the budget and rulemaking A consolidated administrative prioritization rulemaking;. methodologies. Rulemaking Inclusion into an existing planned plans will be submitted rulemaking; or. to the Commission for its A stand-alone specific rulemaking..... review and approval. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public input will be critical to identifying potential changes to administrative requirements as well as to provide data on the benefits and costs of existing NRC administrative regulations. The NRC will conduct two public meetings to discuss the retrospective review process and recommendations. In addition, the NRC will seek input from the NRC's existing committees (the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes), other Federal agencies, State and local governments, Federally-recognized Tribes, and non-governmental organizations. All input that the NRC receives will be used to inform the retrospective review recommendations. [[Page 19466]] For the purpose of this review, administrative regulations are those that impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements or address areas of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Consistent with Step 1 of the strategy, the NRC developed the draft criteria and goals listed below to evaluate potential regulatory changes of this nature. The evaluation criteria would serve as factors of consideration to guide the staff's decisionmaking. The staff is not proposing to use the criteria to make stand-alone determinations. Instead, the criteria will be weighed against other activities outlined in the strategy, such as staff programmatic experience and, comments received, and the correspondence review. Draft criteria 1-3 are intended to ``screen-in'' regulations for inquiry for potential elimination or modification, as they address whether a regulation is outdated or duplicative. These screening-in criteria are not intended to be mutually exclusive. A given regulation may satisfy one or more of the criteria. Draft criterion 4 is intended to ``screen-out'' regulations from further inquiry or for potential elimination or modification so as to avoid unintended consequences. Specific points about which the NRC seeks public comment are described in the Section IV, ``Specific Questions,'' of this document. Draft Criteria for Selecting Changes to Administrative Requirements 1. Routine and periodic recordkeeping and reporting requirements, such as directives to submit recurring reports, which the NRC has not consulted or referenced in programmatic operations or policy development in the last 3 years. The goal of this criterion is to identify outdated requirements for information collection. 2. Reports or records that contain information reasonably accessible to the agency from alternative resources or routine reporting requirements where less frequent reporting would meet programmatic needs. The goal of this criterion is to identify duplicative information or overused collection requirements. 3. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements that result in significant burden. For example, more than $100,000 overall per potential regulatory change; or over 1,000 reporting hours for each affected individual or entity over a 3-year period; or 10 hours for each affected individual or entity each calendar year or per application. The goal of this criterion is to ensure that elimination or modification of outdated or duplicative recordkeeping and reporting requirements could result in appreciable reductions in burden for the NRC, licensees, or both. The criterion is not intended to be used as a stand-alone consideration, but rather as a tool to ensure that the retrospective review is focused on efforts that will in fact result in a reduction in burden. 4. Reports or records that contain information used by other Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Federally-recognized Tribes will be eliminated from the review. The goal of this criterion is to decrease the potential for unintended consequences. For example, the NRC collects certain information on behalf of other government agencies. It is not the intent of this effort to change that practice. IV. Specific Questions The NRC is providing an opportunity for the public to submit information and comments on the criteria that the NRC proposes to use to identify administrative requirements for potential modification or elimination. You may suggest other criteria; please provide supporting rationale for any alternative criteria you recommend that the NRC use in conducting its review. The NRC is particularly interested in gathering input in the following areas: 1. Do the proposed evaluation criteria serve the purposes described in this notice? Why or why not? 2. The NRC is considering whether the burden reduction minimum is appropriate. Is ``significant burden'' the appropriate measure? Are the examples given for Criterion 3 appropriate or useful? Should the NRC use different bases for measuring ``significant burden,'' and if so, what are these measures and how would they result in a more accurate or complete measurement of burden? 3. The NRC is considering multiple thresholds for different classes of regulated entities, as a single threshold might not be useful to identify burden reductions for all licensee types. What is the appropriate threshold for your entity class (e.g., operating reactor, industrial radiographer, fuel cycle facility)? 4. Are there other evaluation criteria the NRC should consider using in its retrospective review of administrative regulations? What are those criteria and why? V. Public Meetings Public input will be critical to identifying potential regulatory changes as well as to provide data on the benefits and costs of existing NRC regulations. The NRC will conduct two public meetings to discuss the Retrospective Review process and recommendations. The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of any meetings in the Federal Register, on www.Regulations.gov, and on the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar days before the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website for information about the public meeting at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2018. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2018-09359 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![19464
Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 86
Thursday, May 3, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this please contact the NRC’s Public
contains notices to the public of the proposed document. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
issuance of rules and regulations. The • Email comments to: 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
purpose of these notices is to give interested Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
persons an opportunity to participate in the do not receive an automatic email reply ADAMS accession number for each
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
confirming receipt, then contact us at document referenced (if it is available in
rules.
301–415–1677. ADAMS) is provided the first time that
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. it is mentioned in this document.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
COMMISSION 415–1101. purchase copies of public documents at
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
10 CFR Chapter I Nuclear Regulatory Commission, White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
[NRC–2017–0214] Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. B. Submitting Comments
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Review of Administrative Rules Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. 0214 in your comment submission.
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory The NRC cautions you not to include
Commission. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
identifying or contact information that
telephone: 301–415–1677.
ACTION: Request for comment. you do not want to be publicly
For additional direction on obtaining
disclosed in your comment submission.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory information and submitting comments,
The NRC will post all comment
Commission (NRC) is initiating a see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
submissions at http://
retrospective review of administrative Submitting Comments’’ in the
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
requirements to identify outdated or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
comment submissions into ADAMS.
duplicative administrative requirements this document.
The NRC does not routinely edit
that may be eliminated without an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. comment submissions to remove
adverse effect on public health or safety, Margaret S. Ellenson, Office of Nuclear identifying or contact information.
common defense and security, Material Safety and Safeguards; If you are requesting or aggregating
protection of the environment, or telephone: 301–415–0894; email: comments from other persons for
regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. Margaret.Ellenson@nrc.gov; or Mr. submission to the NRC, then you should
The NRC is providing an outline of its Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear inform those persons not to include
strategy and is seeking public comment Material Safety and Safeguards; identifying or contact information that
on the criteria that the NRC proposes to telephone: 301–415–1078; email: they do not want to be publicly
use to identify administrative Andrew.Carrera@nrc.gov; both are staff disclosed in their comment submission.
regulations for possible elimination. of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Your request should state that the NRC
This retrospective review of Commission, Washington, DC 20555– does not routinely edit comment
administrative regulations will 0001. submissions to remove such information
complement the NRC’s existing strategy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: before making the comment
for retrospective analysis of existing submissions available to the public or
regulations. I. Obtaining Information and entering the comment into ADAMS.
Submitting Comments
DATES: Submit comments by July 2, II. Background
2018. Comments received after this date A. Obtaining Information
will be considered if it is practical to do On August 11, 2017, the NRC
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017– announced that the agency is initiating,
so, but the Commission is able to ensure 0214 when contacting the NRC about
consideration only for comments beginning in the fall of the calendar year
the availability of information for this 2017, a retrospective review of its
received before this date. The NRC will action. You may obtain publicly-
not prepare written responses to each administrative regulations to identify
available information related to this those rules that are outdated or
individual comment, due to the NRC’s action by any of the following methods:
schedule for completing the duplicative. Once identified, the
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to regulations will be evaluated to
retrospective review of administrative http://www.regulations.gov and search
regulations. determine whether they can be
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0214. eliminated without impacting the
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments • NRC’s Agencywide Documents agency’s mission. The retrospective
by any of the following methods: Access and Management System
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
review supports the NRC’s ongoing
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- regulatory planning and retrospective
http://www.regulations.gov and search available documents online in the analysis of existing regulations (ADAMS
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0214. Address ADAMS Public Documents collection at Accession No. ML14002A441).
questions about NRC dockets to Ms. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415– adams.html. To begin the search, select The Retrospective Review of
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then Administrative Regulations Strategy
For technical questions contact the select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS On November 22, 2017, the NRC staff
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, issued SECY–17–0119, ‘‘Retrospective
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 May 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM 03MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_19550/page/1.svg)
![19466 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
For the purpose of this review, outdated or duplicative recordkeeping regulations. The NRC will conduct two
administrative regulations are those that and reporting requirements could result public meetings to discuss the
impose recordkeeping or reporting in appreciable reductions in burden for Retrospective Review process and
requirements or address areas of agency the NRC, licensees, or both. The recommendations.
organization, procedure, or practice. criterion is not intended to be used as The NRC will publish a notice of the
Consistent with Step 1 of the strategy, a stand-alone consideration, but rather location, time, and agenda of any
the NRC developed the draft criteria and as a tool to ensure that the retrospective meetings in the Federal Register, on
goals listed below to evaluate potential review is focused on efforts that will in www.Regulations.gov, and on the NRC’s
regulatory changes of this nature. The fact result in a reduction in burden. public meeting website at least 10
evaluation criteria would serve as 4. Reports or records that contain calendar days before the meeting.
factors of consideration to guide the information used by other Federal Stakeholders should monitor the NRC’s
staff’s decisionmaking. The staff is not agencies, State and local governments, public meeting website for information
proposing to use the criteria to make or Federally-recognized Tribes will be about the public meeting at: http://
stand-alone determinations. Instead, the eliminated from the review. www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-
criteria will be weighed against other The goal of this criterion is to meetings/index.cfm.
activities outlined in the strategy, such decrease the potential for unintended
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
as staff programmatic experience and, consequences. For example, the NRC of April, 2018.
comments received, and the collects certain information on behalf of
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
correspondence review. Draft criteria 1– other government agencies. It is not the
3 are intended to ‘‘screen-in’’ intent of this effort to change that Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
regulations for inquiry for potential practice. Secretary of the Commission.
elimination or modification, as they [FR Doc. 2018–09359 Filed 5–2–18; 8:45 am]
IV. Specific Questions
address whether a regulation is outdated BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
or duplicative. These screening-in The NRC is providing an opportunity
criteria are not intended to be mutually for the public to submit information and
exclusive. A given regulation may comments on the criteria that the NRC
satisfy one or more of the criteria. Draft proposes to use to identify DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
criterion 4 is intended to ‘‘screen-out’’ administrative requirements for
regulations from further inquiry or for potential modification or elimination. Federal Aviation Administration
potential elimination or modification so You may suggest other criteria; please
as to avoid unintended consequences. provide supporting rationale for any 14 CFR Part 39
Specific points about which the NRC alternative criteria you recommend that
the NRC use in conducting its review. [Docket No. FAA–2018–0361; Product
seeks public comment are described in
The NRC is particularly interested in Identifier 2017–NM–160–AD]
the Section IV, ‘‘Specific Questions,’’ of
this document. gathering input in the following areas:
1. Do the proposed evaluation criteria RIN 2120–AA64
Draft Criteria for Selecting Changes to serve the purposes described in this
Administrative Requirements Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
notice? Why or why not?
2. The NRC is considering whether Airplanes
1. Routine and periodic recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, such as the burden reduction minimum is AGENCY: Federal Aviation
directives to submit recurring reports, appropriate. Is ‘‘significant burden’’ the Administration (FAA), DOT.
which the NRC has not consulted or appropriate measure? Are the examples ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
referenced in programmatic operations given for Criterion 3 appropriate or (NPRM).
or policy development in the last 3 useful? Should the NRC use different
years. bases for measuring ‘‘significant SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new
The goal of this criterion is to identify burden,’’ and if so, what are these airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
outdated requirements for information measures and how would they result in Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320
collection. a more accurate or complete series airplanes, and Model A321–111,
2. Reports or records that contain measurement of burden? –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231,
information reasonably accessible to the 3. The NRC is considering multiple –232, –251N, –253N, and –271N
agency from alternative resources or thresholds for different classes of airplanes. This proposed AD was
routine reporting requirements where regulated entities, as a single threshold prompted by a determination that more
less frequent reporting would meet might not be useful to identify burden restrictive maintenance requirements
programmatic needs. reductions for all licensee types. What and airworthiness limitations are
The goal of this criterion is to identify is the appropriate threshold for your necessary. This proposed AD would
duplicative information or overused entity class (e.g., operating reactor, require revising the maintenance or
collection requirements. industrial radiographer, fuel cycle inspection program, as applicable, to
3. Recordkeeping and reporting facility)? incorporate the specified maintenance
requirements that result in significant 4. Are there other evaluation criteria requirements and airworthiness
burden. For example, more than the NRC should consider using in its limitations. We are proposing this AD to
$100,000 overall per potential retrospective review of administrative
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
address the unsafe condition on these
regulatory change; or over 1,000 regulations? What are those criteria and products.
reporting hours for each affected why?
individual or entity over a 3-year DATES: We must receive comments on
period; or 10 hours for each affected V. Public Meetings this proposed AD by June 18, 2018.
individual or entity each calendar year Public input will be critical to ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
or per application. identifying potential regulatory changes using the procedures found in 14 CFR
The goal of this criterion is to ensure as well as to provide data on the 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
that elimination or modification of benefits and costs of existing NRC methods:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:35 May 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM 03MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_19550/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-05-02 23:48:19
Document Modified: 2018-05-02 23:48:19
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Request for comment. | |
| Dates | Submit comments by July 2, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. The NRC will not prepare written responses to each individual comment, due to the NRC's schedule for completing the retrospective review of administrative regulations. | |
| Contact | Ms. Margaret S. Ellenson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-0894; email: [email protected]; or Mr. Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1078; email: [email protected]; both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 19464 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR