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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

3615

Vol. 65, No. 15

Monday, January 24, 2000

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Chapter I

High-Level Guidelines for

Performance-Based Activities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is requesting public

comment on its proposed high-level

guidelines for developing performancebased activities. The guidelines would

be used to assess NRC regulatory

activities for performance-based

approaches. Specifically, the guidelines

are designed to assess whether

candidate regulatory activities are

amenable to a performance-based

approach; identify those regulatory

activities that should utilize

performance-based approaches based on

opportunities for regulatory

improvement; and ensure consistency

with the NRC’s existing high-level

regulatory goals and principles. Before it

uses these proposed high-level

guidelines, the staff plans to hold public

meetings to obtain stakeholder input

and to meet with the Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) and/or Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste (ACNW) to obtain their

feedback on the guidelines.

DATES: The comment period expires

March 24, 2000. 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 this

date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

sent to: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules

and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T–

6D59, Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Hand deliver comments to 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between

7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal

workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website through the NRC home page

(http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides

the capability to upload comments as

files (any format), if your web browser

supports that function. For information

about the interactive rulemaking

website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher,

(301) 415–5905 (e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov).

Documents created or received at the

NRC after November 1, 1999, are also

available electronically at the NRC’s

Public Electronic Reading Room on the

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the

public can gain entry into the NRC’s

Agencywide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS), which

provides text and image files of NRC’s

public documents. For more

information, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff

at 202–634–3273 or toll-free at 1–800–

397–4209, or by email at pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.

Prasad Kadambi, (301) 415–5896,

Internet: npk@nrc.gov of the Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the Staff Requirements

Memorandum (SRM) to SECY–99–176,

‘‘Plans for Pursuing Performance-Based

Initiatives,’’ issued on September 13,

1999, the Commission directed the staff

to develop high-level guidelines to

identify and assess the viability of

candidate performance-based activities.

Among other things, the Commission

directed the staff to develop the

guidelines with input from stakeholders

and program offices, and to include

discussion on how risk information

might assist in the development of

performance-based initiatives.

This Federal Register Notice (FRN)

focuses on the staff’s efforts to develop

high-level guidelines for performancebased initiatives applicable to all NRC

licensees. The development and use of

these guidelines will be coordinated

(including public meetings and

workshops) with the efforts to riskinform 10 CFR Part 50 and other

regulations.

Public Meeting

The staff plans to hold a public

meeting to obtain feedback on the

proposed high-level guidelines for

performance-based activities. The

public meeting is scheduled for March

1, 2000, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., in the auditorium at the NRC

headquarters (Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, 20852). The public should be

aware that another meeting concerning

efforts to risk-inform 10 CFR Part 50 is

scheduled on February 24, 2000. That

meeting, focused on reactors, will also

consider performance-based revisions to

10 CFR Part 50 based on the high-level

guidelines discussed in this FRN.

The meeting being noticed here will

focus on the application of high-level

guidelines to all regulatory activities (of

which 10 CFR Part 50 would be a part)

so as to make them more performancebased. This meeting is scheduled to

occur 15 days prior to the expiration of

the comment period mentioned above.

This will allow for an exchange of views

among stakeholders and the NRC staff.

This interaction should be beneficial to

the meeting participants in the

development of written public

comments.

This meeting is open to the general

public to observe or to participate by

making remarks; however, advance

registration by February 1, 2000 is

recommended. To register for

attendance or to present prepared

remarks, please contact N. Prasad

Kadambi, USNRC, telephone: (301) 415–

5896; facsimile: (301) 415–5160;

internet: npk@nrc.gov.

Discussion

The high-level guidelines identified

in this FRN are intended to be applied

to future regulatory initiatives. As the

effort to risk-inform regulatory activities

(for example, in the reactors and

materials areas) is performed, the highlevel guidelines will be used to identify

activities which can be made more

performance-based. It should be noted

that regulatory activities that cannot be

made risk-informed could still be made

more performance-based. In addition,

candidates for performance-based

activities may also be identified as a

result of other mechanisms such as

proposed changes arising from

stakeholder input or from petitions for

3616 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

rulemaking as identified in the

Rulemaking Activity Plan.

The fundamental basis for developing

these guidelines has been the SRM to

SECY–98-–44, ‘‘White Paper on RiskInformed and Performance-Based

Regulation,’’ http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

COMMISSION/SRM/1998–144srm.html,

in which the Commission provided a

context and definition for performancebased approaches incorporating the

following points:

• A regulation can be either

prescriptive or performance-based.

• A performance-based regulatory

approach establishes performance and

results as the primary basis for

regulatory decision making.

• Four attributes are identified which

characterize a performance-based

approach. These attributes, as discussed

below, form an important part of the

high-level guidelines which are being

proposed herein.

• A performance-based approach can

be implemented with or without the use

of risk insights.

The proposed high-level guidelines

are to be used to evaluate potential

performance-based regulatory

initiatives. When the guidelines are

finalized, they will be incorporated into

NRC procedures and policy documents

used by staff in conducting day-to-day

activities ( e.g. Management Directives).

These regulatory initiatives will

complement and build upon what is

accomplished through risk-informed

initiatives, including the effort to riskinform 10 CFR Part 50. Further, with

successive application of the guidelines,

it is anticipated that the staff will be

able to reassess the utility of the

guidelines such that they will evolve

and improve over time.

High-Level Guidelines

The following proposed guidelines

are being proposed such that they can

be applied in the reactor, materials, and

waste arenas. The nature of the

regulated activity would determine

which guidelines apply and the extent

of the application.

A. Guidelines to Assess Viability

The NRC will apply the following

guidelines (which are based on the four

attributes in the White Paper) to assess

whether a more performance-based

approach is viable for any given new

regulatory initiative. This assessment

would be applied on a case-by-case

basis and would be based on an

integrated consideration of the

individual guidelines. The guidelines

are listed below:

• Measurable (or calculable)

parameters to monitor acceptable plant

and licensee performance exist or can be

developed.

• For regulatory application, a

parameter measured directly is

preferred, although a calculation may

also be acceptable; it should also be

directly related to the safety objective of

the regulatory activity being considered.

For example, the sub-cooling margin

available in the reactor coolant must be

calculated from the coolant’s pressure

and temperature, which are monitored

directly.

• Preferable parameters are those

which licensees can readily access, or

are currently accessing, in real time. For

example, monitoring of radiological

effluents at some facilities is done in

real time. However, parameters

monitored periodically to address

postulated or design basis conditions,

such as monitoring occupational

radiological doses, may also be used.

• Objective criteria to assess

performance exist or can be developed.

• Objective criteria are established

based on risk insights, deterministic

analyses and/or performance history.

• Licensees would have flexibility in

meeting the established performance

criteria when a performance-based

approach is adopted.

• Programs and processes used to

achieve the established performance

criteria would be at the licensee’s

discretion.

• A framework exists or can be

developed such that performance

criteria, if not met, will not result in an

immediate safety concern.

• A sufficient safety margin exists.

• Time is available for taking

corrective action to avoid the safety

concern.

• The licensee is capable of detecting

and correcting performance degradation.

B. Guidelines to Assess PerformanceBased Regulatory Improvement

If a more performance-based approach

is deemed to be viable based on the

guidelines in (A) above, then the

regulatory activity would be evaluated

against the following set of guidelines to

determine whether, on balance, after an

integrated consideration of these

guidelines, there are opportunities for

regulatory improvement:

• Maintain safety, protect the

environment and the common defense

and security.

• The level of conservatism and

uncertainty in the supporting analyses

would be assessed to ensure adequate

safety margins.

• Increase public confidence.

• An assessment would be made to

determine if the emphasis on results

and objective criteria (characteristics of

a performance-based approach) can

increase public confidence.

• Increase effectiveness, efficiency

and realism of the NRC activities and

decision-making.

• Reduce unnecessary regulatory

burden.

• A reasonable test shows an overall

net benefit results from moving to a

performance-based approach.

• A reasonable test would begin with

a qualitative approach to evaluate

whether there is merit in changing the

existing regulatory framework. When

this question is approached from the

perspective of existing practices in a

mature industry, stakeholder support for

change may need to be obtained.

• If stakeholder input indicates that a

change in regulatory practice is likely to

be expensive, a much closer

examination of the benefits would be

warranted before such a change is

pursued.

• A simplified definition of the

overall net benefit (such as net

reduction in worker radiation exposure)

may be appropriate for weighing the

immediate implications of a proposed

change.

• The performance-based approach

can be incorporated into the regulatory

framework.

• The regulatory framework includes

the regulation in the Code of Federal

Regulations, the associated Regulatory

Guide, NUREG, Standard Review Plan,

Technical Specification, or inspection

guidance. A feasible performance-based

approach would be one which can be

directed specifically at changing one,

some, or all of these components.

• The performance-based approach

would accommodate new technology.

• The incentive to consider a

performance-based approach may arise

from development of new technologies

(such as advanced non-destructive

evaluation techniques) as well as

difficulty stemming from technological

changes in finding spare components

and parts.

• Advanced technologies may

provide more economical solutions to a

regulatory issue, justifying

consideration of a performance-based

approach.

C. Guidelines to Assure Consistency

With Other Regulatory Principles

A proposed change to a more

performance-based approach needs to

be consistent and coherent with other

overriding goals, principles and

approaches involving the NRC’s

regulatory process. The main sources of

these principles are the Principles of

Good Regulation, the Probabilistic Risk

Assessment (PRA) Policy Statement, the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3617

Regulatory Guide 1.174, ‘‘An Approach

for Using PRA in Risk-Informed

Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to

the Licensing Basis,’’ and the NRC’s

Strategic Plan. Consistent with the highlevel at which the guidance described

above has been articulated, specific

factors which need to be addressed in

each case (such as defense in depth and

treatment of uncertainties) would

depend on the particular regulatory

issues involved.

Additional Information

The staff’s proposed high-level

guidelines reflect a measure of

specificity designed to stimulate

reactions, concerns, and views on the

more detailed consideration or

underpinnings of a set of high-level

guidelines. In no way should this

specificity be construed as an indication

that the NRC has established any firm

position regarding these guidelines. The

NRC invites advice and

recommendations from all interested

persons on all aspects of its proposal. In

addition, comments and supporting

reasons are particularly requested in the

following areas:

(1) Clarity and specificity of the

guidelines;

a. Are the proposed guidelines

appropriate and clear?

b. Are there additional guidelines that

would improve clarity and specificity?

c. How does the ‘‘high-level’’ nature

of the guidelines affect the clarity and

specificity of the guidelines?

(2) Implementation of the guidelines;

a. What guidelines, if any, are

mandatory for an activity to qualify as

a performance-based initiative?

b. What is the best way to implement

these guidelines?

c. How should the Backfit Rule apply

to the implementation of performancebased approaches?

d. Should these guidelines be applied

to all types of activity, e.g., should they

be applied to petitions for rulemaking?

e. Should these guidelines only be

applied to new regulatory initiatives?

f. Will these guidelines be effective in

determining whether we can make a

regulatory initiative more performancebased? The staff proposes that these

guidelines be added to our Management

Directives such that whenever the NRC

is involved in a rulemaking, or changing

a regulatory guide or branch technical

position, etc., we will consider the

option of making it more performancebased.

(3) Establishment of objective

performance criteria;

a. In moving to performance-based

requirements, should the current level

of conservatism be maintained or

should introduction of more realism be

attempted?

b. What level of conservatism (safety

margin) needs to be built into a

performance criterion to avoid facing an

immediate safety concern if the criterion

is not met?

c. Recognizing that performance

criteria can be set at different levels in

a hierarchy (e.g., component, train,

system, release, dose), on what basis is

an appropriate level in the hierarchy

selected for setting performance-based

requirements, and what is the

appropriate level of conservatism for

each tier in the hierarchy?

d. Who would be responsible for

proposing and justifying the acceptance

limits and adequacy of objective

criteria?

e. What are examples of performancebased objectives that are not amenable

to risk analyses such as PRA or

Integrated Safety Assessment?

f. In the context of risk-informed

regulation, to what extent should

performance criteria account for

potential risk from beyond-design-basis

accidents (i.e., severe accidents)?

(4) Identification and use of

measurable (or calculable) parameters;

a. How and by whom are performance

parameters to be determined?

b. How do you decide what a relevant

performance parameter is?

c. How much uncertainty can be

tolerated in the measurable or

calculated parameters?

(5) Pilot projects;

a. Would undertaking pilot projects in

the reactor, materials, and waste arenas

provide beneficial experience before

finalizing the guidelines?

b. What should be the relationship

between any such pilot projects and

those being implemented to risk-inform

the regulations?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of January, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Charles E. Rossi,

Director Division of Systems Analysis and

Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 00–1572 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NM–360–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Israel

Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model 1125

Westwind Astra and Astra SPX Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model

1125 Westwind Astra and Astra SPX

series airplanes. This proposal would

require replacement of the existing

pneumatic de-icing boot pressure

indicator switch with a newly designed

switch. This proposal is prompted by an

occurrence on a similar airplane model

in which the pneumatic de-icing boot

indication light may have provided the

flightcrew with misleading information

as to the proper functioning of the deicing boots. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent ice

accumulation on the airplane leading

edges, which could result in reduced

controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

February 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 99–NM–

360–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

Information concerning this proposal

may be examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such