Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48919 

and April 4, April 28, May 18, and June 

28, 2011, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf 

Creek Generating Station, Coffey 

County, Kansas 

Date of amendment request: July 19, 

2010, as supplemented by letters dated 

September 24 and November 24, 2010, 

and January 20, April 1, and April 14, 

2011. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved the cyber security 

plan (CSP) and associated 

implementation schedule, and revised 

Paragraph 2.E of Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–42 to 

provide a license condition to require 

the licensee to fully implement and 

maintain in effect all provisions of the 

NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The 

proposed change is consistent with 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08–09, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for 

Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2011. 

Effective date: This license 

amendment is effective as of the date of 

its issuance. The implementation of the 

CSP, including the key intermediate 

milestone dates and the full 

implementation date, shall be in 

accordance with the implementation 

schedule submitted by the licensee on 

April 1, 2011, and approved by the NRC 

staff with this license amendment. All 

subsequent changes to the NRCapproved CSP implementation schedule 

will require prior NRC approval 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 

Amendment No.: 197. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–42. The amendment revised 

the Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR 

62607). The supplemental letters dated 

September 24 and November 24, 2010, 

and January 20, April 1, and April 14, 

2011, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day 

of July 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Louise Lund, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19775 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0006] 

Sunshine Federal Register Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. 

DATE: Weeks of August 8, 15, 22, 29, 

September 5, 12, 2011. 

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference 

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

STATUS: Public and Closed. 

Week of August 8, 2011 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 8, 2011. 

Week of August 15, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 15, 2011. 

Week of August 22, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of August 22, 2011. 

Week of August 29, 2011—Tentative 

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 

9 a.m. Information Briefing on 

Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Related 

Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: 

Aida Rivera-Varona, 301–251–4001) 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. 

Week of September 5, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 5, 2011. 

Week of September 12, 2011—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 12, 2011. 

* * * * * 

*The schedule for Commission 

meetings is subject to change on short 

notice. To verify the status of meetings, 

call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. 

Contact person for more information: 

Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. 

* * * * * 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the Internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

* * * * * 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g. 

braille, large print), please notify Bill 

Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits 

Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– 

415–2100, or by e-mail at 

william.dosch@nrc.gov. Determinations 

on requests for reasonable 

accommodation will be made on a caseby-case basis. 

* * * * * 

This notice is distributed 

electronically to subscribers. If you no 

longer wish to receive it, or would like 

to be added to the distribution, please 

contact the Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), 

or send an e-mail to 

darlene.wright@nrc.gov. 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Rochelle C. Bavol, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20257 Filed 8–5–11; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2011–0176] 

NRC Enforcement Policy 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Solicitation of comments on 

proposed revisions. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is soliciting written 

comments from interested parties, 

including public interest groups, States, 

members of the public, and the 

regulated industry (i.e., reactor and 

materials licensees, vendors, and 

contractors), on construction-related 

topics addressed in this notice that the 

NRC staff is evaluating for discussion in 

an upcoming Commission paper that 

will include recommended revisions to 

the NRC Enforcement Policy. As such, 

this request for comments is intended to 

assist the NRC in revising its 

Enforcement Policy and adequately 

responding to the Commission’s request, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 

described below. The NRC will also host 

a public meeting to solicit public 

comments on these construction related 

proposed revisions to the Enforcement 

Policy. The topics discussed in this 

notice are not intended to represent all 

the potential changes in the next 

revision of the Enforcement Policy. 

Before submitting the next Enforcement 

Policy revision to the Commission for 

approval, the staff intends to solicit 

comments on other topics. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 8, 2011. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the Commission 

is able to assure consideration only for 

comments received on or before the 

specified date. 

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0176 in the subject line of 

your comments. Comments submitted in 

writing or in electronic form will be 

posted on the NRC Web site and on the 

Federal rulemaking Web site, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Because your 

comments will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information, 

the NRC cautions you against including 

any information in your submission that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed. 

The NRC requests that any party 

soliciting or aggregating comments 

received from other persons for 

submission to the NRC inform those 

persons that the NRC will not edit their 

comments to remove any identifying or 

contact information, and therefore, they 

should not include any information in 

their comments that they do not want 

publicly disclosed. You may submit 

comments by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2011–0176. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 

telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail: 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, 

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 

Directives Branch (RADB), Office of 

Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– 

B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

• Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 

492–3446. 

You can access publicly available 

documents related to this document 

using the following methods: 

• NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR): The public may examine and 

have copied, for a fee, publicly available 

documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1– 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available online in the NRC Library at 

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

adams.html. From this page, the public 

can gain entry into ADAMS, which 

provides text and image files of the 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The Enforcement 

Policy is available electronically under 

ADAMS Accession Number 

ML093480037. 

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: 

Public comments and supporting 

materials related to this notice can be 

found at http://www.regulations.gov by 

searching on Docket ID NRC–2011– 

0176. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Farı ́a, Office of Enforcement, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–4050, e-mail to carolyn.fariaocasio@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Commission, in SRM–SECY–09– 

0190, dated August 27, 2010 (ADAMS 

accession number ML102390327), 

approved a major revision to its 

Enforcement Policy. The NRC published 

a notice (75 FR 60485) announcing an 

effective date of September 30, 2010, for 

that revision to the Policy. The 

Commission, in SRM–SECY–09–0190, 

also directed the NRC staff (the staff) to 

reevaluate the portions of the 

Enforcement Policy associated with 

construction activities (e.g., reactor or 

uranium enrichment plants), including 

under what conditions enforcement 

discretion could be applied to cases 

involving the holder of a Limited Work 

Authorization (LWA) or Combined 

License (COL). In addressing those 

topics identified by the Commission, the 

staff developed a number of approaches 

that the staff believes appropriate to 

present collectively to the Commission 

for its consideration for possible 

inclusion in the next Enforcement 

Policy revision. What follows in bold 

italics is the proposed wording for 

proposed changes to the Enforcement 

Policy along with background on those 

topics evaluated by the staff. When 

appropriate and necessary, the staff also 

discusses potential regulatory issues 

associated with a particular topic. 

Item 1: Revise Policy Sections for 

Clarity 

(A) Section 1.2, Applicability: 

As new last paragraphs in the section, 

add the following: 

It is NRC policy to hold licensees, 

certificate holders, and applicants 

responsible for the acts of their 

employees, contractors, or vendors 

and their employees, and the NRC 

may cite the licensee, certificate 

holder, or applicant for violations 

committed by its employees, 

contractors, or vendors and their 

employees. 

The NRC may use the term 

‘‘licensee’’ in this Policy when referring 

to enforcement; however, in most 

situations the term is applied 

broadly for any of the above entities. 

In some situations, the NRC intends 

that the information applies 

narrowly, only to license holders. 

The context of the information 

described in the Policy will 

determine the usage of the term 

‘‘licensee.’’ 

The foregoing language was 

developed by staff to clarify the identity 

of responsible entities within the 

context of the Policy. However, the staff 

does not intend with this proposed 

language to change or alter any 

enforcement practice as currently 

implemented. The staff will ensure that 

the final policy revision reflects the 

scope of the term ‘‘licensee’’ in the 

glossary. 

(B) Section 2.2, Assessment Of 

Violations: 

In the first sentence of Section 2.2.1.a, 

revise the sentence to read: ‘‘ * * *, 

onsite or offsite radiation exposures, 

onsite or offsite chemical hazard 

exposures resulting from licensed or 

certified activities * * *.’’ 

Add a new section, as follows: 

Section 2.2.6 Construction 

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.10, 

no person may begin the 

construction of a production or 

utilization facility on a site on 

which the facility is to be operated 

until that person has been issued 

either a construction permit under 

10 CFR part 50, a combined license 

under 10 CFR part 52, an early site 

permit authorizing the activities 

under 10 CFR 50.10(d), or a limited 

work authorization under 10 CFR 

50.10(d). Further, any activities 

undertaken under the Changes 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48921 

during Construction (CdC) 

Preliminary Acceptance Review 

(PAR) Process, as developed in 

Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)–025, 

are at the risk of the licensee, and 

the licensee is obligated to return to 

the current licensing basis (CLB) if 

the related license amendment 

request (LAR) is subsequently not 

approved by the NRC. 

Also, in accordance with 10 CFR 

70.23(a)(7) and 10 CFR 40.32(e), 

commencement of construction 

before the NRC finishes its 

environmental review and issues a 

license for processing and fuel 

fabrication, conversion of uranium 

hexafluoride, or uranium 

enrichment facility construction 

and operation is grounds for denial 

to possess and use special nuclear 

material in the plant or facility. 

Additionally, in accordance with 10 

CFR 70.23(b), failure to obtain 

Commission approval for the 

construction of the principal 

structures, systems, and components 

of a plutonium processing and fuel 

fabrication plant before the 

commencement of construction may 

also be grounds for denial of a 

license to possess and use special 

nuclear material. 

The revision to Section 2.2.1.a is to 

ensure consistency with the staff’s 

current process to disposition violations 

related to chemical hazards exposures. 

The staff believes that the addition of 

Section 2.2.6 is necessary to broadly 

address when and how the assessment 

of violations during construction occur. 

The staff is currently developing the 

CdC PAR process, an elective precursor 

to the license amendment review, 

established via license condition. 

Comments on the CdC PAR process will 

be solicited under a separate FRN and 

will not be addressed under this FRN. 

(C) Section 6.0, Violation Examples: 

Add a second paragraph to the 

introduction of the section: 

Many examples are written to 

reflect the risks associated with the 

use of radioactive or special nuclear 

materials. However, violations 

during construction generally occur 

before the nuclear material and its 

associated risk are present. 

Therefore, the NRC will consider the 

lower risk significance of violations 

that occur during construction in 

the areas of emergency 

preparedness, reactor operator 

licensing, and security and may 

reduce the severity level for those 

violations from that indicated by 

the examples in those areas. The 

staff must coordinate with the 

Office of Enforcement before 

applying this lower risk 

significance concept for violations 

that occur during construction. 

The staff developed this paragraph to 

recognize that although certain rules 

(i.e., requirements for emergency 

preparedness, reactor operator licensing, 

and security) apply generally during 

construction activities, flexibility is 

needed to factor in the lower risk 

associated with certain violations that 

occur during construction. The staff 

believes that any applicable violation 

examples in the remaining sections 

would not likely warrant mitigation 

during construction solely because there 

is not nuclear material on site. 

Item 2: Revise the Current Section 2.3, 

Dispostion of Violations 

Section 2.3.2 provides the Policy on 

use of non-cited violations as a method 

of dispositioning Severity Level IV 

violations. The staff proposes to revise 

this section as follows: 

Section 2.3.2, Non-cited Violation 

If certain criteria (described below) 

are met, Severity Level IV (SL IV) 

violations and violations associated 

with green ROP findings (for operating 

reactors) are normally dispositioned as 

non-cited violations (NCVs). Inspection 

reports or inspection records document 

NCVs and briefly describe the corrective 

action the licensee has taken or plans to 

take, if known. Licensees are not 

required to provide written responses to 

NCVs; however, they may provide a 

written response if they disagree with 

the NRC’s description of the NCV and/ 

or dispute the validity of the NCV. 

Typically all of the criteria described in 

either 2.3.2.a. or b. must be met for the 

disposition of a violation as an NCV. 

For all SL IV violations identified 

by the NRC at fuel cycle facilities 

(under construction or in operation) 

in accordance with 10 CFR part 70 

or 10 CFR part 40 and reactors 

under construction in accordance 

with 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR part 

52, before the NRC determines that 

an adequate corrective action 

program has been implemented, the 

NRC normally issues a Notice of 

Violation. Until the determination 

that an adequate corrective action 

program has been implemented, 

NCVs may be issued for licensee/ 

applicant-identified SL IV 

violations if the NRC has 

determined that the applicable 

criteria in 2.3.2.b. below are met: 

a. Power Reactor Licensees 

1. The licensee must place the 

violation into a corrective action 

program to restore compliance and 

address recurrence. 

(Delete current footnote—‘‘For 

reactor facilities under 

construction in accordance with 10 

CFR part 52, the corrective action 

program must have been 

demonstrated to be adequate.’’) 

2. (Unchanged) 

3. The violation must either not be 

repetitive as a result of inadequate 

corrective action, or, if repetitive, the 

violation must not be NRC identified. 

This criterion does not apply to 

violations associated with green ROP 

findings. Delete the rest of the 

criteria: ‘‘AND VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED

WITH FACILITY CONSTRUCTION UNDER 10

CFR PART 50, ‘DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES,’ 

AND 10 CFR PART 52, ‘LICENSES, 

CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.’ ’’ 

4. (Unchanged) 

b. All Other Licensees (Unchanged) 

Of note regarding this topic, on June 

3, 2011, the NRC issued EGM–11–002, 

‘‘Enforcement Discretion for LicenseeIdentified Violations at Power Reactor 

Construction Sites Pursuant to Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations [10 

CFR] part 52’’ (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML11152A065). The purpose of this 

enforcement guidance memorandum is 

to clarify the guidance for exercising 

enforcement discretion when the staff 

dispositions as NCVs those SL IV 

violations identified by licensees/ 

applicants at power reactors that are 

under construction. To encourage 

prompt identification and prompt 

comprehensive correction of violations 

at reactor construction sites, the staff is 

authorized to disposition licensee/ 

applicant-identified SL IV violations as 

NCVs before the agency determines that 

the licensee’s/applicant’s corrective 

action program (CAP) has been 

demonstrated to be adequate. For 

reactors, a method that NRC has found 

acceptable to determine adequacy of the 

CAP is for the licensee to commit to and 

comply with the requirements 

established by Appendix B, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,’’ to 

10 CFR part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.’’ 

For fuel cycle facilities, the NRC is 

considering criteria for determining the 

adequacy of a fuel cycle licensee’s CAP. 

In addition, the remaining criteria of 

Section 2.3.2.a of the NRC Enforcement 

Policy must be met, and the licensee 

must correct, or document its intent to 

take specific actions to correct, the 

violation within a reasonable time by 

the end of the NRC inspection activity, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 

1 The NRC may issue enforcement action for 

the cause of these unplanned changes, such as 

a failure to implement appropriate work 

controls or quality control measures, or a 

failure to adhere to procedures, processes, 

instructions, or standards that implement 

NRC requirements. This enforcement may be 

appropriate for the actions that led to the CdC 

issue. 

2 NRC-identified violations that result in a 

‘‘use as built’’ determination or a resultant 

unplanned change or both will normally be 

dispositioned as a cited or non-cited violation, 

whether or not the unplanned change issue is 

resolved by a subsequently approved license 

amendment. 

including both immediate corrective 

action and any necessary action(s) to 

reasonably prevent recurrence. EGM– 

11–002 will be superseded with 

implementation of this portion of the 

Policy revision. 

SRM–09–0190, Item 1.f requires staff 

to ‘‘propose revisions to provide fuel 

cycle licensees with credit for effective 

corrective actions programs’’. The staff 

acknowledges that further work being 

done to address Item 1.f of SRM–09– 

0190 has the potential to generate 

additional changes to this section of the 

Policy. The staff will ensure that the 

final policy revision is coordinated to 

reflect both initiatives. 

Item 3: Revise Policy Sections on 

Enforcement Discretion 

A) Section 3.8, Notices of Enforcement 

Discretion for Operation Power Reactors 

and Gaseous Diffusion Plants: 

Add a footnote to the section title that 

states: ‘‘NOEDs will not be used at 

reactors during construction before 

the Commission’s 10 CFR 52.103(g) 

or 10 CFR 50.57 finding, as 

applicable.’’ 

The staff considered development of 

an NOED process for use (1) After a COL 

is issued but prior to the 10 CFR 

52.103(g) finding (after which point, the 

licensee’s Technical Specifications are 

in effect), (2) after the issuance of a 

construction permit pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.50 but prior to the 10 CFR 50.57 

operations finding, and (3) after the 

issuance of an LWA but prior to the 

issuance of a COL. The Enforcement 

Policy states, in part, that: 

The NRC may choose not to enforce the 

applicable technical specification (TS) 

limiting condition for operation (LCO) or 

other license conditions, in circumstances 

where compliance would involve an 

unnecessary plant transient or the 

performance of a test, inspection, or system 

realignment that may not be the most 

prudent action to take under the specific 

plant conditions, or unnecessary delays in 

plant startup, without a corresponding health 

and safety benefit * * *. 

The NRC will issue a notice of enforcement 

discretion (NOED) only if the staff is clearly 

satisfied that the action is consistent with 

protecting the public health and safety or 

security. The NRC staff may also grant 

enforcement discretion in cases involving 

severe weather or other natural phenomena, 

based upon balancing the public health and 

safety or common defense and security of not 

operating against the potential radiological or 

other hazards associated with continued 

operation, and a determination that safety 

will not be impacted unacceptably by 

exercising this discretion * * * 

Consequently, the NOED policy in its 

current form is predicated upon the 

expectation that public health and 

safety will be enhanced by the granting 

of an NOED. In considering the time 

periods associated with the three 

situations under consideration, the staff 

has not identified any plausible 

scenarios where the risk to public health 

and safety (or security) would be 

exacerbated by the failure of the NRC to 

grant such a licensee or permit holder 

a NOED. 

Moreover, the NOED process, as 

applied to operating reactors, involves, 

in essence, a preemptive request by a 

licensee and an associated preemptive 

determination by the NRC to permit the 

licensee to exceed technical 

specifications limiting conditions for 

operations. However, technical 

specifications limiting conditions for 

operation are not applicable to new 

reactors under construction until 

issuance of the operating license under 

10 CFR part 50 or the 10 CFR 52.103(g) 

Commission determination under 10 

CFR part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, 

and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants.’’ As such, under the current 

NOED policy paradigm, the staff does 

not believe it appropriate to use the 

NOED process for any of the situations 

under consideration. 

With that said, the staff could 

consider a new paradigm for the 

granting of NOEDs to COL holders 

during construction, one premised upon 

a finding that no adverse impact, or risk 

increase, to public health and safety, 

security, or the environment would 

occur over the period of time 

enforcement discretion was applied. 

However, the staff believes the CdC 

process, described in more detail in 

Item 3.B, will provide an appropriate 

licensing-based change process that will 

address the vast majority of issues 

identified during construction, by 

allowing licensees to effect changes in 

parallel with staff’s review of the 

acceptability of the change. 

In addition, the staff considered the 

development of a NOED-like process 

during construction under a Limited 

Work Authorization (LWA). However, 

given the limited use of LWAs and their 

narrow scope, the staff believes that 

development of an NOED process at this 

time would require expenditure of 

resources that would not be 

commensurate with the benefit. 

B) Add a New Section for Enforcement 

Discretion 

Add a new Section 3.9 that states the 

following: 

Section 3.9, Violations Involving 

Certain Construction Issues 

a. Fuel Cycle Facilities 

The NRC may choose to exercise 

discretion for fuel cycle facilities 

under construction (construction is 

defined in 10 CFR 40.4 for source 

material licensees and in 10 CFR 

70.4 for special nuclear material 

licensees) based on the general 

enforcement discretion guidance 

contained in Section 3 of this 

Enforcement Policy. 

b. LWA holders 

The NRC may exercise discretion 

for LWA holders during 

construction using the general 

enforcement discretion guidance in 

Section 3 of the Enforcement Policy. 

c. COL Holders (Reactor 

Facilities) 

The NRC may reduce or refrain 

from issuing an NOV/NCV for a 

violation associated with an 

unplanned change that deviates 

from the licensing basis that is 

implemented during construction1

without prior NRC approval (in the 

form of a license amendment) when 

all of the following criteria are met: 

• The licensee identifies changes 

implemented during construction 

not previously approved by the NRC 

that the staff would otherwise 

disposition as a Severity Level IV 

violation of NRC requirements 2, 

• The licensee submits the 

necessary information to the NRC so 

that it can conduct a timely 

evaluation of the change as part of 

the license amendment review 

process, and 

• Either (1) the cause of the 

deviation was not within the 

licensee’s control, such that the 

change was not avoidable by 

reasonable licensee quality 

assurance measures or management 

controls, or (2) the licensee placed 

the cause of the change in its 

corrective action program to ensure 

comprehensive corrective actions to 

address recurrence. 

For similar issues not identified 

by the licensee, the NRC may refrain 

from issuing an NOV/NCV on a caseby-case basis depending upon the 

circumstances of the issue, such as 

whether the requirements were 

clearly understood or should have 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48923 

been understood at the time, the 

cause of the issue, and why the 

licensee did not identify the issue. 

In all such cases when a licensee 

determines that an unplanned 

change during construction 

associated with a violation of 

requirements meets the aboveoutlined criteria and timely submits 

the necessary information for NRC 

evaluation, the licensee’s continued 

failure to meet the current licensing 

basis will not be treated as a willful 

or continuing violation while NRC 

reviews the submittal. (Note: If NRC 

subsequently denies a requested 

license amendment change, or if the 

NRC requires additional measures 

to be taken for the change to be 

considered acceptable, then a 

separate NOV or order may be 

issued to ensure appropriate 

corrective actions, including 

restoring the configuration to the 

current licensing basis are taken). 

The staff is currently developing the 

CdC PAR process including the 

development of interim staff guidance 

and the endorsement of industry 

guidance. The purpose of the CdC PAR 

process is, as an elective precursor to 

the license amendment review 

established by a condition of license, to 

determine if the NRC has any objection 

to the licensee proceeding with 

construction activities different from the 

licensing basis while the NRC is 

evaluating the related license 

amendment request. The NRC will not 

issue violations for licensee-planned 

changes properly entered into the CdC 

PAR process. Comments on CdC are 

being solicited under a separate FRN 

and will not be addressed under this 

FRN. 

Procedural Requirements 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This policy statement does not 

contain new or amended information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing 

requirements were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), approval number 3150–0136. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Congressional Review Act 

In accordance with the Congressional 

Review Act of 1996, the NRC has 

determined that this action is not a 

major rule and has verified this 

determination with the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of 

July 2011. 

Roy Zimmerman, 

Director, Office of Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20112 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. A2011–36; Order No. 787] 

Post Office Closing 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public that an appeal of the closing of 

the Hoxie, Iowa post office has been 

filed. It identifies preliminary steps and 

provides a procedural schedule. 

Publication of this document will allow 

the Postal Service, petitioners, and 

others to take appropriate action. 

DATES: Administrative record due (from 

Postal Service): August 15, 2011; 

deadline for notices to intervene: August 

29, 2011. See the Procedural Schedule 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for other dates of interest. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing 

Online’’ link in the banner at the top of 

the Commission’s Web site (http:// 

www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing 

the Commission’s Filing Online system 

at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filingonline/login.aspx. Commenters who 

cannot submit their views electronically 

should contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section as the source for case-related 

information for advice on alternatives to 

electronic filing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

at 202–789–6820 (case-related 

information) or DocketAdmins@prc.gov 

(electronic filing assistance). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

404(d), on July 29, 2011, the 

Commission received a petition for 

review of the Postal Service’s 

determination to close the post office in 

Hoxie, Arkansas. The petition was filed 

by Lanny Tinker, Mayor of the city of 

Hoxie (Petitioner) and is postmarked 

July 22, 2011. The Commission hereby 

institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 

404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. 

A2011–36 to consider Petitioner’s 

appeal. If Petitioner would like to 

further explain his position with 

supplemental information or facts, 

Petitioner may either file a Participant 

Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief 

with the Commission no later than 

September 2, 2011. 

Categories of issues apparently raised. 

Petitioner contends that: (1) The Postal 

Service failed to consider whether or 

not it will continue to provide a 

maximum degree of effective and 

regular postal services to the community 

(see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(iii)); (2) The 

Postal Service failed to consider the 

effect of the closing on the community 

(see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i); and (3) 

the Postal Service failed to adequately 

consider the economic savings resulting 

from the closure (see 39 U.S.C. 

404(d)(2)(A)(iv)). 

After the Postal Service files the 

administrative record and the 

Commission reviews it, the Commission 

may find that there are more legal issues 

than those set forth above, or that the 

Postal Service’s determination disposes 

of one or more of those issues. The 

deadline for the Postal Service to file the 

applicable administrative record with 

the Commission is August 15, 2011. See 

39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due 

date for any responsive pleading by the 

Postal Service to this notice is August 

15, 2011. 

Availability; Web site posting. The 

Commission has posted the appeal and 

supporting material on its Web site at 

http://www.prc.gov. Additional filings 

in this case and participants’ 

submissions also will be posted on the 

Commission’s Web site, if provided in 

electronic format or amenable to 

conversion, and not subject to a valid 

protective order. Information on how to 

use the Commission’s Web site is 

available online or by contacting the 

Commission’s webmaster via telephone 

at 202–789–6873 or via electronic mail 

at prc-webmaster@prc.gov. 

The appeal and all related documents 

are also available for public inspection 

in the Commission’s docket section. 

Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 

Federal government holidays. Docket 

section personnel may be contacted via 

electronic mail at prc-dockets@prc.gov 

or via telephone at 202–789–6846. 

Filing of documents. All filings of 

documents in this case shall be made 

using the Internet (Filing Online) 

pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 

10(a) at the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is 

obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 

3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an 

account to file documents online may be 

found on the Commission’s Web site or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES