79042 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

activities related to priorities set by the 

Agency, including: Worker training, 

education, and assistance; setting and 

enforcing standards; and assuring safe 

and healthful working conditions in the 

maritime industry. 

MACOSH is a non-discretionary 

advisory committee of indefinite 

duration, operating in accordance with 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 

U.S.C. App. 2), the implementing 

regulations (41 CFR parts 101–6 and 

102–3), chapter 1–900 of Department of 

Labor Manual Series 3 (Aug. 31, 2020), 

and OSHA’s regulations on Advisory 

Committees (29 CFR part 1912). 

Pursuant to FACA (5 U.S.C. App. 2, 

14(b)(2)), the MACOSH charter must be 

renewed every two years. 

The new MACOSH charter is 

available to read or download at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (Docket No. 

OSHA–2020–0010), the federal 

rulemaking portal. The charter also is 

available on the MACOSH page on 

OSHA’s web page at http://

www.osha.gov and at the OSHA Docket 

Office, N–3653, Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2350. Please note: 

While OSHA’s Docket Office is 

continuing to accept and process 

requests, due to the COVID–19 

pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to 

the public. In addition, the charter is 

available for viewing or download at the 

Federal Advisory Committee Database at 

http://www.facadatabase.gov. 

Authority and Signature 

Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, 

authorized the preparation of this notice 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 656, 

Secretary’s Order 8–2020 (85 FR 58393; 

Sept. 18, 2020), and FACA, as amended 

(5 U.S.C. App. 2), the implementing 

regulations (41 CFR part 102–3), 

Department of Labor Manual Series 

Chapter 1–900 (August 31, 2020), and 

29 CFR part 1912. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on December 2, 

2020. 

Loren Sweatt, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor 

for Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26878 Filed 12–7–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2020–0262] 

Proposed Evaluation Policy Statement 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is requesting public 

comment on this proposed Evaluation 

Policy Statement that presents the 

standards that will govern the NRC’s 

planning, conduct, and use of program 

evaluations. The policy statement is 

intended to provide agency personnel 

and stakeholders with a clear 

understanding of the expectations 

related to the NRC’s evaluation 

standards that include rigor, relevance 

and utility, transparency, collaboration, 

independence and objectivity, and 

ethics. 

DATES: Submit comments by January 7, 

2021. 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. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0262. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Dawn 

Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; 

email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to: 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you 

do not receive an automatic email reply 

confirming receipt, then contact us at 

301–415–1677. 

• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: 

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. 

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: 

Matthew Meyer, Office of the Executive 

Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–6198, 

email: Matthew.Meyer@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2020– 

0262 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0262. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, 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, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The proposed 

Evaluation Policy Statement is available 

in ADAMS under Accession number 

ML20268A811. 

• Attention: The Public Document 

Room (PDR), where you may examine 

and order copies of public documents is 

currently closed. You may submit your 

request to the PDR via email at 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1–800– 

397–4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2020– 

0262 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 https://

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, 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 79043 

1Public Law 115–435, 132 Stat 5529 (2019). 

2 5 U.S.C. 313(d)(3). 

3Office of Management and Budget, M–20–12, 

‘‘Phase 4 Implementation of the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Program 

Evaluation Standards and Practices,’’ Appendix C 

(March 10, 2020) (M–20–12). 

4 Id. at Appendix A. 

5Office of Management and Budget, M–19–23, 

‘‘Phase 1 Implementation of the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018: Learning 

Agendas, Personnel, and Planning Guidance,’’ 2 

(July 10, 2019). 

6M–20–12, Appendix C. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. at 2. 

9 Id. at 3–5. 

10Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG– 

1350, 2019–2020 Information Digest, at 4–5 

(August, 2019). 

11 Id. at 10. 

12 Id. at 3. 

13 Id. at 4. 

14 Id. at 7. 

15The Evidence Act defines ‘‘evaluation’’ as ‘‘an 

assessment using systematic data collection and 

analysis of one or more programs, policies, and 

organizations intended to assess their effectiveness 

and efficiency’’ (5 U.S.C. 311(3)). Evaluation can 

look beyond the program, policy, or organizational 

level to include assessment of projects or 

interventions within a program. 

16This policy does not apply to the admission 

and consideration of evidence when the 

Commission acts in its adjudicatory capacity. The 

NRC’s rules of practice and procedure in 10 CFR 

part 2 govern that process. 

II. Background 

The Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018 (‘‘Evidence 

Act’’) became law on January 14, 2019 

(Pub. L. 115–435), to enhance evidencebuilding activities, make data more 

accessible, and strengthen privacy 

protections.1 The Evidence Act requires 

each agency to name an Evaluation 

Officer. At the NRC the Director of the 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

holds this position and must ‘‘establish 

and implement an agency evaluation 

policy’’ to fulfill a primary function of 

this position.2 The agency evaluation 

policy ‘‘should guide the agency’s 

activities throughout the evaluation 

lifecycle.’’ 3 Evaluation activities 

include ‘‘developing and coordinating 

multi-year Learning Agendas, 

establishing Annual Evaluation Plans, 

planning and managing or conducting 

specific evaluations, summarizing 

evaluation findings for particular 

programs or policies, supporting other 

offices within an agency to interpret 

evaluation findings, and bringing 

evaluation-related evidence to bear in 

decision-making.’’ 4 In directing these 

activities, ‘‘the Evidence Act creates a 

new paradigm by calling on agencies to 

significantly rethink how they currently 

plan and organize evidence building, 

data management, and data access 

functions to ensure an integrated and 

direct connection to data and evidence 

needs.’’ 5

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has provided guidance to 

agencies on establishing an agency 

evaluation policy based on ‘‘approaches 

that Federal agencies have found 

useful.’’ 6 This guidance includes 

‘‘[e]nsuring that the agency evaluation 

policy incorporates the evaluation 

standards’’ recommended by OMB.7

OMB developed these evaluation 

standards through an interagency 

council that ‘‘reviewed an extensive list 

of source documents to identify widely 

accepted standards for evaluation.’’ 8

The interagency council identified the 

following evaluation standards: 

relevance and utility, rigor, 

independence and objectivity, 

transparency, and ethics.9

Historically, the NRC has relied on 

high-quality evidence for its 

environmental and safety evaluations of 

civilian applications to utilize nuclear 

technologies.10 Frequently, the agency 

has obtained such evidence from 

external entities or through its own 

capacity, largely centered in the Office 

of Nuclear Regulatory Research.11 In 

undertaking these activities, the NRC 

has been guided by its own Principles 

of Good Regulation: Independence, 

efficiency, clarity, reliability, and 

openness.12

In recent years the agency has begun 

evidence-building activities to support 

licensing new or novel nuclear 

technologies, including advanced, nonlight water reactor designs; accident 

tolerant nuclear fuel; and digital 

instrumentation and controls.13

Additionally, the NRC has increasingly 

sought to rely on evidence-based 

metrics to improve internal agency 

performance including budgeting and 

financial management.14 To develop the 

following evaluation policy statement, 

the NRC sought to enhance its existing 

evidence-building activities through the 

activities directed in the Evidence Act. 

The NRC envisions that this approach 

will strengthen the agency’s oversight of 

existing uses of nuclear technology, 

enhance the agency’s readiness to 

license and regulate new and novel 

nuclear technologies, and further the 

NRC’s ongoing efforts to improve its 

internal processes. 

III. Proposed Evaluation Policy 

Statement 

The purpose of this Evaluation Policy 

Statement is to present the standards 

that will govern the NRC’s planning and 

conduct of program evaluations 15

(evaluations). This policy statement is 

required by the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 

2018 and is a commitment to using 

evidence and scientific methods when 

conducting evaluations to make 

informed decisions. The NRC is a 

learning and evidence-based 

organization, with a culture of 

continuous improvement. The NRC’s 

evaluations are used to make informed 

decisions, are based on objective, 

technical assessments of available 

information and documented with an 

explicitly stated rationale. Furthermore, 

the NRC commits to implementing 

evaluation standards of rigor; relevance 

and utility; transparency; collaboration; 

independence and objectivity; and 

ethics in the conduct of its evaluations. 

This policy statement presents the 

NRC’s evaluation standards. 

The Commission, as a collegial body, 

formulates policies, develops 

regulations governing nuclear reactor 

and nuclear material safety, issues 

orders to licensees, and adjudicates 

legal matters. The collegial decisionmaking process results in actions 

reflecting the collective judgment of a 

group rather than an individual, aided 

by professional and administrative staff 

and advisory committees, such as the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards. Strict requirements govern 

the admission and consideration of 

‘‘evidence’’ when the Commission acts 

in its adjudicatory capacity. This policy 

is intended to apply to the NRC’s nonadjudicatory functions.16

The NRC’s Principles of Good 

Regulation, which include 

independence, efficiency, clarity, 

reliability, and openness, have guided 

the agency’s regulatory activities and 

decisions using evidence and scientific 

methods. The principles focus on 

meeting the agency’s important safety 

and security mission while 

appropriately considering the interests 

of stakeholders, including licensees; 

State, local, and Tribal governments; 

nongovernmental organizations; and the 

public. The agency’s openness principle 

explicitly recognizes that the public 

must be informed about and have an 

opportunity to participate in the 

regulatory process. 

Evidence building and evaluation are 

used to inform agency activities and 

actions, such as licensing, oversight, 

budgeting, program improvement, 

accountability, management, 

rulemaking, guidance development, and 

policy development. The emphasis on 

evidence is meant to support 

innovation, improvement, and learning. 

The NRC uses many types of evidence, 

including evaluations. Other evidence 

types include, but are not limited to, 

descriptive studies, performance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
79044 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 8, 2020 / Notices 

17Management Directive 3.17, ‘‘Information 

Quality Program,’’ ensures that peer review is 

conducted on all influential scientific information 

and highly influential scientific assessment that the 

agency intends to disseminate. 

measurements, financial and cost data, 

and program administrative data. The 

NRC carries out evidence-building and 

evaluation activities to (1) identify, 

evaluate, and resolve safety issues; (2) 

ensure that an independent technical 

basis exists to review licensee 

submittals; (3) evaluate operating 

experience and results of risk 

assessments for safety implications; and 

(4) support the development and use of 

risk-informed regulatory approaches. 

Evaluation Standards 

The NRC staff will use the following 

evaluation standards when conducting 

evaluations. 

1. Rigor—The NRC is committed to 

using rigorous evaluation methods by 

qualified evaluators with relevant 

education, skills, and experience to 

ensure evaluations are appropriate and 

feasible within statutory, budgetary, and 

other constraints. 

Rigorous evaluations require 

inferences about cause and effect to be 

well founded (internal validity); clarity 

about the populations, settings, or 

circumstances to which results can be 

generalized (external validity); and the 

use of measures that accurately capture 

the intended information (measurement 

reliability and validity). The NRC’s 

evaluations are conducted by qualified 

staff with relevant education, skills, and 

experience for the methods undertaken. 

The NRC’s evaluations use appropriate 

designs and methods that adhere to 

widely accepted scientific principles to 

answer key questions while balancing 

goals, scale, timeline, feasibility, and 

available resources. Additionally, the 

NRC’s Information Quality Program 17

ensures that all information relied on by 

the NRC is subject to rigorous quality 

standards. 

2. Relevance and Utility—The NRC 

will ensure that evaluations are relevant 

and provide useful findings to inform 

agency activities and actions and 

stakeholders. 

The NRC performs evaluations to 

examine questions of importance and 

serve the information needs of 

stakeholders. The NRC’s evaluations 

present findings that are clear, concise, 

actionable, and available within a 

timeline that is appropriate to the 

questions under consideration. The 

NRC’s evaluation priorities consider 

legislative requirements; the NRC’s 

strategic safety and security goals, 

objectives, and strategies; and the 

interests and views of stakeholders. 

3. Transparency—The NRC is 

committed to conducting evaluations in 

an open and transparent manner, which 

keeps stakeholders informed of the 

agency’s evaluation activities. 

NRC activities will be conducted 

openly and the public must be informed 

about and have an opportunity to 

participate in the NRC’s regulatory 

process. As a regulator, the NRC will 

listen to, respect, and analyze different 

views from stakeholders. The NRC will 

also ensure open channels of 

communication are maintained between 

the NRC and stakeholders, including 

Congress, other government agencies, 

licensees, nongovernmental 

organizations, individual members of 

the public, and international and 

domestic nuclear communities. The 

NRC takes reasonable efforts to make all 

information, including information 

about the NRC’s evaluations (including 

their purpose, objectives, design, 

findings, and evaluation methods), 

broadly available and accessible. The 

NRC releases public evaluation findings 

in a timely manner and archives the 

evaluation data for secondary use by 

stakeholders, as appropriate. 

4. Collaboration—The NRC is 

committed to working collaboratively 

when conducting evaluations and draws 

on the expertise of subject matter 

experts to ensure diversity in 

perspectives. 

The NRC fosters a collaborative work 

environment that encourages diverse 

views, alternative approaches, critical 

thinking, creative problem solving, 

unbiased evaluations, and honest 

feedback. The NRC emphasizes trust, 

respect, and open communication to 

promote a positive work environment 

that maximizes the potential of all 

individuals, which improves evidence 

building and evaluation activities. A 

collaborative environment leverages 

expertise from subject matter experts 

and enables peer reviews to ensure 

rigorous evaluations. The NRC also 

conducts research and collaborates with 

organizations that develop consensus 

standards to improve data and methods 

used in risk analysis. The NRC 

collaborates with national laboratories, 

other Federal agencies, universities, and 

international organizations. 

5. Independence and Objectivity—As 

an independent Federal agency, the 

NRC is committed to conducting 

evaluations that are independent and 

based on objective assessments of all 

relevant information. 

The NRC was established as an 

independent agency to regulate civilian 

uses of radioactive material. The NRC’s 

evaluations will be independent and 

objective to maintain credibility. The 

implementation of evaluation activities, 

including the selection and function of 

the evaluators, should be appropriately 

insulated from factors that may affect 

their objectivity, impartiality, and 

professional judgment. Evaluations are 

inclusive and seek diverse participation 

from stakeholders in setting evaluation 

priorities, identifying evaluation 

questions, and assessing the 

implications of findings. The NRC 

strives for objectivity in the planning 

and conduct of evaluations. 

6. Ethics—The NRC is committed to 

conducting evaluations that adhere to 

Government-wide ethics standards to 

protect the public and maintain public 

trust. 

The NRC’s evaluations comply with 

relevant legal requirements and are 

conducted in a manner that is free from 

conflicts of interest, undue influence, 

and the appearance of bias and that 

safeguards the dignity, rights, safety, 

and privacy of participants. The NRC 

complies with Governmentwide ethics 

standards contained in Federal statutes 

and regulations, which are intended to 

ensure that every citizen can have 

confidence in the integrity of the 

Federal Government. 

IV. Specific Request for Comments 

The NRC is interested in obtaining 

feedback from stakeholders on the 

proposed Evaluation Policy Statement. 

The focus of this request is to gather 

information that will permit the NRC 

staff to develop the final Evaluation 

Policy Statement. The NRC is 

particularly interested in comments that 

address the extent to which the 

proposed Evaluation Policy Statement 

will facilitate the agency’s review of 

new and novel technologies and the 

agency’s efforts to improve internal 

performance. 

Dated: December 2, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26864 Filed 12–7–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2020–0192] 

Consolidated Decommissioning 

Guidance, Characterization, Survey, 

and Determination of Radiological 

Criteria 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft NUREG; request for 

comment. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES