81848 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

change the term ‘‘unit outage’’ to ‘‘site 

outage’’ used in § 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5) 

and that the definition of ‘‘site outage’’ 

should be provided to read as ‘‘up to 1 

week prior to disconnecting the reactor 

unit from the grid and up to 75-percent 

turbine power following reconnection to 

the grid’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML092960440). The NRC docketed the 

petition as PRM–26–3, and on 

November 27, 2009, published a 

document in the Federal Register 

requesting public comment (74 FR 

62257). The comment period closed on 

February 10, 2010, and the NRC 

received 4 comment letters. After 

evaluating the merits of the petition and 

the public comments, the NRC 

determined that the issues raised in 

PRM–26–3 would be considered in a 

planned rulemaking activity titled, 

‘‘Quality Control/Quality Verification’’ 

(QC/QV) (Docket ID: NRC–2009–0090) 

and published a Federal Register notice 

(76 FR 28192) on May 16, 2011 to this 

effect. 

(2) PRM–26–5 Submitted by Anthony R. 

Pietrangelo on Behalf of NEI 

On September 3, 2010, Anthony R. 

Pietrangelo on behalf of NEI, a nuclear 

power industry trade association, 

submitted a PRM requesting that the 

NRC amend its regulations regarding 

fatigue management based on 

experience gained since the regulations 

were amended in 2008. The NRC 

docketed the petition as PRM–26–5, and 

on October 22, 2010, published a 

document in the Federal Register 

requesting public comment (75 FR 

65249). The comment period closed on 

January 5, 2011, and the NRC received 

39 comment letters. After evaluating the 

merits of the petition and the public 

comments, the NRC determined that the 

issues raised in PRM–26–5 would be 

considered in the planned QC/QV 

rulemaking and published a Federal 

Register notice (76 FR 28192) on May 

16, 2011 to this effect. 

II. Discussion 

A. Discontinuation of the Quality 

Control/Quality Verification (QC/QV) 

Rulemaking 

In SECY–15–0074, ‘‘Discontinuation 

of Rulemaking Activity—Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, 

Subpart I, Quality Control and Quality 

Verification Personnel in Fitness for 

Duty Program (RIN 3150–AF12),’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15084A092) 

dated May 19, 2015, the NRC staff 

requested Commission approval to 

discontinue the QC/QV rulemaking. 

This request was based on the following 

factors: (1) QC/QV inspections are most 

often performed by maintenance 

personnel who are already covered by 

the work hour controls in 10 CFR part 

26, subpart I; (2) the few remaining 

inspections are performed by a small 

number of QC/QV-dedicated personnel; 

and (3) backfitting the 10 CFR part 26, 

subpart I, work hour controls to the QC/ 

QV-dedicated personnel would not 

result in a substantial increase in the 

overall protection of the public health 

and safety or common defense and 

security. The Commission approved the 

discontinuation of this rulemaking effort 

in SRM–SECY–15–0074, ‘‘Staff 

Requirements—SECY–15–0074— 

Discontinuation of Rulemaking 

Activity—Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 26, Subpart I, Quality 

Control and Quality Verification 

Personnel in Fitness for Duty Program 

(RIN 3150–AF12),’’ dated July 14, 2015 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML15195A577). 

B. Denial of PRM–26–3 and PRM–26–5 

Under § 2.803(i)(2), if after closing the 

docket for a PRM under § 2.803(h)(2)(ii) 

by addressing it in an ongoing 

rulemaking the NRC decides not to 

complete the rulemaking, the PRM is 

documented as a denial of the PRM. In 

SRM–SECY–15–0074, the Commission 

approved the discontinuation of the QC/ 

QV rulemaking, which was identified to 

address PRM–26–3 and PRM–26–5. 

Therefore, the NRC is denying these 

petitions without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion 

The NRC previously discontinued the 

QC/QV rulemaking and is therefore 

denying without prejudice PRM–26–3 

and PRM–26–5 for the reasons 

discussed in this document. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27363 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–75; NRC–2002–0018] 

Large Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident 

Redefinition 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking dated February 6, 2002, 

submitted by Anthony R. Pietrangelo on 

behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute, 

due to the discontinuation of the 

associated rulemaking. 

DATES: As of December 17, 2020, the 

docket for PRM–50–75 is closed. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2002–0018 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2002–0018. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Dawn 

Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; 

email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• 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, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 

for each document referenced (if it is 

available in ADAMS) is provided the 

first time that it is mentioned in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

• Attention: The 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yanely Malave, telephone: 301–415– 

1519; email: Yanely.Malave@nrc.gov; or 

Robert Beall, telephone: 301–415–3874; 

email: Robert.Beall@nrc.gov. Both are 

staff of the Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 2.802, ‘‘Petition 

for rulemaking—requirements for 

filing,’’ provides an opportunity for any 

interested person to petition the 

Commission to issue, amend, or rescind 

any regulation. On February 6, 2002, 

Anthony R. Pietrangelo, on behalf of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (petitioner), 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Proposed Rules 81849 

1Email dated April 20, 2012 from G. Bowman 

requesting withdrawal of 10 CFR 50.46a final rule 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML121500380). 

submitted a petition for rulemaking 

requesting that the NRC amend its 

regulations to allow licensees to use an 

alternative to the double-ended 

guillotine break of the largest pipe in the 

reactor coolant system in emergency 

core cooling system (ECCS) evaluation 

models (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML082460625). The NRC docketed the 

petition as PRM–50–75, and on April 8, 

2002, published a notice of docketing in 

the Federal Register and requested 

public comment (67 FR 16654). The 

comment period closed on June 24, 

2002, and the NRC received 18 

comment letters (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML022390515). 

After evaluating the merits of the 

petition and the public comments, the 

NRC determined that the issues raised 

in PRM–50–75 would be considered in 

the ongoing ‘‘Risk-Informed 

Redefinition of Large Break Loss-ofCoolant Accident (LOCA) Emergency 

Core Cooling System (ECCS) 

Requirements’’ rulemaking. On 

November 6, 2008, the NRC published 

a document in the Federal Register (73 

FR 66000) stating that the NRC would 

address the substantive comments filed 

in PRM–50–75 as part of that 

rulemaking. 

II. Discussion 

A. Discontinuation of the Rulemaking 

On December 10, 2010, the NRC staff 

provided the Commission SECY–10– 

0161, ‘‘Final Rule: Risk-Informed 

Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident 

Technical Requirements (10 CFR 

50.46a)(RIN 3150–AH29).’’ Subsequent 

to the accident at Fukushima Dai-Ichi 

Nuclear Plant in March of 2011, the 

NRC staff requested Commission 

approval to withdraw the draft final rule 

during its evaluation of Fukushima 

Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 

1 regarding the development of a new 

risk-informed regulatory framework 

from SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near-Term 

Report and Recommendations for 

Agency Actions Following The Events 

in Japan,’’ and the recent publication of 

NUREG–2150, ‘‘A Proposed Risk 

Management Regulatory Framework.’’ 

The staff stated that: 

Although the staff believes that the draft 

final 10 CFR 50.46a rule is an appropriate 

and well-founded approach to risk-inform 

the NRC’s emergency core cooling 

requirements, the staff requests that SECY– 

10-0161 be withdrawn from Commission 

consideration so that it may be resubmitted 

later after the staff has completed its 

regulatory framework evaluation. When the 

staff establishes its recommended approach, 

it will re-evaluate the draft final 10 CFR 

50.46a rule to ensure its compatibility with 

the recommended regulatory framework. 

Based on the outcome of the compatibility 

evaluation and the completion of any 

necessary changes, the staff will re-submit 

the draft final 10 CFR 50.46a rule with or 

shortly after providing its regulatory 

framework recommendation to the 

Commission.1

In SECY–16–0009, 

‘‘Recommendations Resulting from the 

Integrated Prioritization and ReBaselining of Agency Activities’’ 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML16028A189) 

dated January 31, 2016, the NRC staff 

requested Commission approval of work 

to be shed, deprioritized, or performed 

with fewer resources. One of the items 

to be discontinued was the riskinformed loss-of-coolant accident 

rulemaking (Item 1 of Enclosure 1 to 

SECY–16–0009). 

This rule would have provided a 

voluntary alternative to current 

regulatory requirements. However, at a 

public meeting to discuss the Risk 

Management Regulatory Framework 

paper (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15026A328), certain industry 

representatives indicated that the 

nuclear industry would not be 

interested in implementing the final 

rule. The NRC staff’s regulatory analysis 

for the draft final rule (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103230250) also 

discussed comments submitted by the 

Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group, 

which conveyed the view that it would 

be difficult to evaluate the cost-benefit 

of the rule due to uncertainties about 

the cost of adopting the rule. 

The Commission approved the 

discontinuation of the rulemaking in the 

staff requirements memorandum (SRM) 

to SECY–16–0009. On October 6, 2016, 

the NRC published a notice in the 

Federal Register informing the public of 

its decision to discontinue the 10 CFR 

50.46a ECCS rulemaking. The NRC 

stated that it had ‘‘decided not to 

proceed with this rulemaking activity 

because there is minimal adverse impact 

on our mission, principles, or values 

and the industry has indicated that 

there may not be much interest in 

implementing the final rule’’ (81 FR 

69447). 

B. Denial of PRM–50–75 

Under 10 CFR 2.803(i)(2), after closing 

the docket for a PRM under 

§ 2.803(h)(2)(ii) by addressing it in an 

ongoing rulemaking, if the NRC decides 

not to complete the rulemaking, the 

PRM is documented as denied. In SRM– 

SECY–16–0009, the Commission 

approved discontinuation of the riskinformed LOCA requirements 

rulemaking, which was the rulemaking 

identified to address PRM–50–75. 

Therefore, the NRC is denying PRM–50– 

75 without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion 

The NRC previously discontinued the 

risk-informed LOCA requirements 

rulemaking and is therefore denying 

without prejudice PRM–50–75 for the 

reasons discussed in this document. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2020–27364 Filed 12–16–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Chapter I 

[NRC–2020–0065] 

Transfer of Very Low-Level Waste To 

Exempt Persons for Disposal 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a 

proposed interpretation of its low-level 

radioactive waste disposal regulations 

that would permit licensees to dispose 

of waste by transfer to persons who hold 

specific exemptions for the purpose of 

disposal by burial. The proposal is being 

withdrawn based on the NRC staff’s 

assessment that the proposed changes 

may not benefit the regulatory 

framework for the disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste. 

DATES: The proposed interpretive rule is 

withdrawn as of December 17, 2020. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2020–0065 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 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2020–0065. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 

telephone: 301–287–9127; email: 

Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly