66782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–28669 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Draft Regulatory Guides; Issuance,

Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Availability;

Correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

notice relating to the availability of Draft

Regulatory Guides DG–1102 and DG–

1103, appearing in the Federal Register

on October 31, 2000 (65 FR 65024). This

action is necessary to correct the

accession numbers listed in the notice

for viewing the electronic copies of the

draft guides.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

P. Segala, Division of Systems Safety

and Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone 301–415–7162 (e-mail:

jps1@nrc.gov).

In the Federal Register dated October

31, 2000, page 65024, second column,

third paragraph, fourth sentence, the

third and fourth lines are corrected to

read as follows: ML003756180 for DG–

1102 and ML003756467 for DG–1103.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of November, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David L. Meyer,

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division

of Administrative Services, Office of

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28497 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Plan for Using Risk Information in the

Materials and Waste Arenas: Case

Studies

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff is developing

an approach for using risk information

in the nuclear materials regulatory

process. As part of this effort, the NRC

staff has developed a plan for using riskinformed approaches in the nuclear

materials and waste arenas. The plan

employs case studies to examine the use

of risk information in the nuclear

materials and waste arenas.

The purpose of the case studies is: (1)

To illustrate what has been done and

what could be done in the materials and

waste arenas to alter the regulatory

approach in a risk-informed manner;

and (2) to establish a framework for

using a risk-informed approach in the

materials and waste arenas. A draft of

the plan was published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 54323, September 7,

2000). On September 21, 2000, the NRC

staff held a public meeting to

communicate the draft plan to the

public and to receive feedback. The

meeting was open to the public and all

interested parties were welcomed to

attend and provide comments. The

meeting was held from 9 a.m. to 12

noon in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Auditorium in Rockville,

Maryland. Based on the comments

received at the public meeting and on

comments from members of the Office

of Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards Risk Steering Group, the

NRC staff has revised and finalized the

plan. The final plan is provided below

in its entirety.

Plan for Using Risk Information in the

Materials and Waste Arenas: Case

Studies

1. Background

In SECY–99–100, ‘‘Framework for

Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (NMSS),’’ dated March 31,

1999, the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff proposed a

framework for risk-informed regulation

in the materials and waste arenas. On

June 28, 1999, the Commission

approved the staff’s proposal. In the

associated staff requirements

memorandum, the Commission

approved the staff’s recommendation to

implement a five-step process consisting

of:

(1) Identifying candidate regulatory

applications that are amenable to

expanded use of risk assessment

information;

(2) Making a decision on how to modify

a regulation or regulated activity;

(3) Changing current regulatory

approaches;

(4) Implementing risk-informed

approaches; and

(5) developing or adapting existing tools

and techniques of risk analysis to

the regulation of nuclear materials

safety and safeguards.

Step one of the five-step process will

be accomplished by applying screening

criteria to regulatory application areas

as a means to identify the candidate

regulatory applications. To be a

candidate for expanded use of risk

information in the materials and waste

arenas, regulatory application areas

must meet the screening criteria.

As part of the staff’s effort to use an

enhanced public participatory process

in developing the framework, the staff

held a public workshop in Washington,

DC, on April 25 and 26, 2000. The staff

published draft screening criteria in a

Federal Register Notice (65 FR 14323,

March 16, 2000) announcing the

workshop. The purpose of the first part

of the workshop was to solicit public

comment on the draft screening criteria

and their applications. The purpose of

the second part of the workshop was to

solicit public input for the process of

developing safety goals for nuclear

materials and waste applications.

The workshop included participation

by representatives from NRC,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Department of Energy, Occupational

Safety and Health Administration,

Organization of Agreement States,

Health Physics Society, Nuclear Energy

Institute, environmental and citizen

groups, licensees, and private

consultants. A consensus among the

workshop participants was that case

studies and iterative investigations

would be useful for the following

purposes: (1) To test the screening

criteria; (2) to show how the application

of risk information has affected or could

affect a particular area of the regulatory

process; and (3) to develop safety goal

parameters and a first draft of safety

goals for each area.

2. Purpose

The purpose of the case studies is: (1)

To illustrate what has been done and

what could be done in the materials and

waste arenas to alter the regulatory

approach in a risk-informed manner;

and (2) to establish a framework for

using a risk-informed approach in the

materials and waste arenas by testing

the draft screening criteria, and

determining the feasibility of safety

goals. Once the screening criteria have

been tested using a spectrum of case

studies, the criteria can be modified as

appropriate, placed in final form, and

established as part of the framework for

prioritizing the use of risk information

in materials and waste regulatory

applications.

The case studies will be used to begin

the process of developing safety goals

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66783

1For those regulatory processess in which

Agreement States are involed, this criterion is

applicable to Agreement States.

for applications in the materials and

waste arenas. Specifically, safety goal

parameters (e.g., public, worker, acute

fatality, latent fatality, injury, property

damage, environment damage,

safeguards, absolute vs. relative) should

be identified in each study. Each case

study will determine the feasibility of

safety goals in that area. If feasible, a

first draft of safety goals will be

developed. The case studies will also be

used to check for and test any existing

risk-informed framework (e.g., defensein-depth) in the material and waste

arenas.

All case studies will have these

general objectives. However, certain

case studies may have specialized

objectives. For example, as one type of

test of the screening criteria, a case

study will be chosen in an area that the

staff intuitively feels might not pass the

screening criteria. These additional

objectives are discussed in the case

study outline which is included in this

plan.

The intent of the case studies is not

to reopen or reassess previous decisions

made by the staff and the Commission.

The information gained by performing

the case studies may impact future

decisions to be made by the staff and the

Commission.

Questions have been developed for

each case study to answer. Answering

these questions will guide the case

studies to meet the objectives outlined

below. Each case study will be of

limited scope, but collectively, the case

studies will cover a broad spectrum of

regulatory applications in the materials

and waste arenas. The case studies have

been selected in areas that the staff

believes would specifically help in

establishing a framework, as well as

areas that would help to set the

groundwork for establishing safety

goals.

3. Objectives

Case studies will have the following

objectives:

Objective 1: Produce a final version of

screening criteria for the materials

and waste arenas.

Objective 2: Illustrate how the

application of risk information has

improved or could improve a

particular area of the regulatory

process in the materials and waste

arenas.

Objective 3: Determine the feasibility of

safety goals in a particular area. If

feasible, develop safety goal

parameters, and a first draft of

safety goals. If infeasible, document

the reasons.

Objective 4: Identify methods, data, and

guidance needed to implement a

risk-informed regulatory approach.

4. Draft Screening Criteria

Draft screening criteria were

published in Federal Register Notices

announcing the April 2000 workshop

and a September 2000 public meeting

(65 FR 14323, 03/16/00, and 65 FR

54323, 09/07/00, respectively). On the

basis of comments received at the

workshop, the public meeting, and

discussions with the NMSS Risk

Steering Group, the criteria have been

revised.

The revised draft screening criteria

are as follows:

(1) Would a risk-informed regulatory

approach help to resolve a question

with respect to maintaining or

improving the activity’s safety?

(2) Could a risk-informed regulatory

approach improve the efficiency or

the effectiveness of the NRC1

regulatory process?

(3) Could a risk-informed regulatory

approach reduce unnecessary

regulatory burden for the applicant

or licensee?

(4) Would a risk-informed approach

help to effectively communicate a

regulatory decision or situation?

If the answer to any of the above is

yes, proceed to additional criteria; if

not, the activity is considered to be

screened out.

(5) Does information (data) and

analytical models exist that are of

sufficient quality or could they be

reasonably developed to support

risk-informing a regulatory activity?

If the answer to criterion 5 is yes,

proceed to additional criteria; if not, the

activity is considered to be screened

out.

(6) Can startup and implementation of a

risk-informed approach be realized

at a reasonable cost to the NRC,1

applicant or licensee, and/or the

public, and provide a net benefit?

The net benefit will be considered

to apply to the public, the applicant

or licensee, and the NRC.1 The

benefit to be considered can be

improvement of public health and

safety, improved protection of the

environment, improved regulatory

efficiency and effectiveness,

improved communication to the

public, and/or reduced regulatory

burden (which translates to reduced

cost to the public.)

If the answer to criterion 6 is yes,

proceed to additional criteria; if not, the

activity is considered to be screened

out.

(7) Do other factors exist (e.g.,

legislative, judicial, adverse

stakeholder reaction) which would

preclude changing the regulatory

approach in an area, and therefore,

limit the utility of implementing a

risk-informed approach?

If the answer to criterion 7 is no, a

risk-informed approach may be

implemented; if the answer is yes, the

activity may be given additional

consideration or be screened out.

5. Measures of Success

Success of the case studies will be

measured by the following:

(1) If, based on the testing of the draft

screening criteria, final screening

criteria are established, the case

studies will collectively meet

Objective 1.

(2) If a case study can illustrate how the

application of risk information has

affected or could affect and improve

a particular area of the regulatory

process, the case study will meet

Objective 2.

(3) If a case study can determine the

feasibility of establishing safety

goals, and if feasible, develop the

necessary safety goal parameters

and a first draft of goals, the case

study will meet Objective 3.

(4) If a case study can develop the riskinformed regulatory approach

sufficient to define the methods,

data, and guidance needed and the

feasibility of developing them, the

case study will meet Objective 4.

When completed, the staff will

present the results of the spectrum of

case studies to the Commission.

6. Case Study Outline

I. Revise draft screening criteria based

on workshop and other suggestions

(completed prior to September 21,

2000, meeting).

II. Meet with the NRC historian and

other appropriate individuals (NRC

and non-NRC) for perspectives and

insights on the materials and waste

regulatory history.

III. Review tables from the NRC–EPA

risk harmonization effort and other

sources such as the National

Academy of Sciences study to

uncover any implicit objectives

(goals) under the existing regulatory

framework. Glean insights on any

potential underlying safety goals.

IV. Case Study Areas:

A. Gas Chromatographs (new and old

designs, the line between general

licenses and specific licenses for

almost identical devices is

66784 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

unclear—illustrate how the

application of risk information

could improve a particular area of

the regulatory process).

B. Fixed Gauges (some are specifically

licensed, and others are under a

general license; regulatory criteria

for general versus specific license

are not based on risk—illustrate

how the application of risk

information could improve a

particular area of the regulatory

process; also, this could be a test

case for a safety goal on property

damage).

C. Site Decommissioning—the study

may focus on certain

decommissioning incidents and

certain selected sites (elements of

implied safety goals may be found

in Commission decisions).

D. Uranium Recovery Facilities (gaps

in the regulations may be found;

helpful in testing the screening

criteria; if determined to be a good

candidate for using risk, develop

and use risk information for new

part 41 rulemaking effort).

E. Radioactive Material

Transportation (elements of

existing, implicit safety goals may

be found in Commission decisions;

public confidence and

communication issue).

F. Part 76 (decide to use expanded

risk information for gaseous

diffusion plants or document the

reasons why risk information will

not improve the regulatory process

in this area—contrast with new Part

70 approach; this decision-making

process will be a good test for the

draft screening criteria and will

help establish consistency in

applying risk information across

materials and waste programs; also,

possibly an area to look at chemical

risk).

G. Spent Fuel Interim Storage (study

probabilistic hazards analysis

exemptions and proposed

rulemaking—implicit safety goals

may be found; public confidence

issues and burden considerations).

H. Static Eliminators (public

confidence issue; risk

communication issue—regulatory

changes were made even though

perceived risk was low).

V. Case Study Structure:

A. Develop a set of questions for all

case studies to answer.

B. Select a case-specific contact in

each NMSS Division; obtain

agreement with the Divisions on

participation.

C. Public meeting to announce our

plan for case studies (September 21,

2000).

D. Make any necessary revisions to

plan based on input from public

meeting.

E. Develop detailed approach and

timeline for each case study

including the need and level of

involvement of contractor support.

F. Begin work on case studies.

G. Test screening criteria for each case

study.

H. Answer all questions for each case

study.

I. Meet with case-specific

stakeholders as input to case

studies.

J. Develop recommendations for safety

goals (will be done in parallel with

above).

K. Document results.

L. Conduct public meeting to present

results of case studies.

M. Inform Commission of results.

VI. Assess the outcome and develop a

plan to move forward.

7. Draft Questions for Case Studies

7.1. Screening Criteria Analysis/Risk

Analysis Questions

(1) What risk information is currently

available in this area? (Have any

specific risk studies been done?)

(2) What is the quality of the study? (Is

it of sufficient quality to support

decision-making?)

(3) What additional studies would be

needed to support decision-making

and at what cost?

(4) How is/was risk information used

and considered by the NRC and

licensee in this area?

(5) What is the societal benefit of this

regulated activity?

(6) What is the public perception/

acceptance of risk in this area?

(7) What was the outcome when this

application was put through the

draft screening criteria? Did this

application pass any of the

screening criteria? Does the

outcome seem reasonable? Why or

why not?

7.2 Safety Goal Analysis Questions

(1) What is the basis for the current

regulations in this area (e.g.,

legislative requirements,

international compatibility,

historical events, public confidence,

undetermined, etc.)?

(2) Are there any explicit safety goals or

implicit safety goals embedded in

the regulations, statements of

consideration, or other documents

(an example would be the

acceptance of a regulatory

exemption based in part on a risk

analysis and the outcome)?

(3) What was the basis for the

development of the strategic goals,

performance goals, measures and

metrics? How are they relevant/

applicable to the area being studied

and how do they relate/compare

with the regulatory requirements?

How would they relate to safety

goals in this area?

(4) Are there any safety goals, limits, or

other criteria implied by decisions

or evaluations that have been made

that are relevant to this area?

(5) If safety goals were to be developed

in this area, would tools/data be

available for measurement?

(6) Who are/were the populations at

risk?

(7) What are/were, and what could be/

have been, the various

consequences to the populations at

risk?

(8) What parameters should be

considered for the safety goals (e.g.,

workers vs. public, individual vs.

societal, accidents vs. normal

operations, acute vs. latent fatality

or serious injury, environmental

and property damage)?

(9) On the basis of the answers to the

questions above, would it be

feasible to develop safety goals in

this regulatory area?

(10) What methods, data results, safety

goals, or regulatory requirements

would be necessary to make it

possible to risk-inform similar

cases?

7.3 Questions Upon Developing Safety

Goals

(1) Are the current regulations sufficient

in that they reflect the objectives of

the draft goals? Would major

changes be required?

(2) Would the regulations need to be

tightened?

(3) Are the regulations overly

conservative and/or too prescriptive

with respect to the goals?

(4) If these were the safety goals, what

decisions would be made?

(5) Would these goals be acceptable to

the public?

ADDRESSES: Copies of this plan are

available on the Internet at http://

www.nrc.gov/NMSS/IMNS/

riskassessment.html. Submit written

requests for single copies of this plan to

the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Office of Nuclear Materials

Safety and Safeguards, Risk Task Group,

MS T–8–A–23, Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marissa Bailey, Mail Stop T–8–A–23,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

Telephone: (301) 415–7648; Internet:

MGB@NRC.GOV.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66785

1Form X–17a–5 [17 CFR 249.617].

2Based upon an average of 4 responses per year

and an average of 20 hours spent preparing each

response.

3Or, 1,800 hours annually for 10 OTC derivatives

dealers to comply.

4Per Securities Industry Association (SIA)

Management and Professional Earnings. Table 011

(Financial Reporting Manager) + 35% overhead

(based on end-of-year 1998 figures).

5SIA Management and Professional Earnings,

Table 051 (Compliance Manager + 35% overhead

(based on end-of-year 1998 figures).

6SIA Management and Professional Earnings,

Table 003 (Senior Accountant) + 35% overhead

(based on end-of-year 1998 figures).

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 1st day of

November 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Lawrence E. Kokajko,

Section Chief, Risk Task Group, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 00–28415 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Retirement

Board (RRB) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed data collections.

Comments Are Invited on: (a)

Whether the proposed information

collection is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information has practical utility; (b) the

accuracy of the RRB’s estimate of the

burden of the collection of the

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality, utility, and clarify of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and Purpose of Information

Collection:

Public Service Pension Questionnaire;

OMB 3220–0136.

Public Law 95–216 amended the

Social Security Act of 1977 by

providing, in part, that spouse or

survivor benefits may be reduced when

the beneficiary is in receipt of a pension

based on employment with a Federal,

State, or local government unit. Initially,

the reduction was equal to the full

amount of the government pension.

Public Law 98–21, changed the

reduction to two-thirds of the amount of

the government pension. Sections

4(a)(1) and 4(f)(1) of the Railroad

Retirement Act (RRA) provides that an

spouse or survivor annuity should be

equal in amount to what the annuitant

would receive if entitled to a like benefit

from the Social Security

Administration. Therefore, the public

service pension (PSP) reduction

provision applies to RRA annuities.

Regulations pertaining to the

collection of evidence relating to public

service pensions or worker’s

compensation paid to spouse or

survivor applicants or annuitants are

found in 20 CFR 219.64c. The RRB

utilizes Form G–208, Public Service

Pension Questionnaire, and Form G–

212, Public Service Monitoring

Questionnaire, to obtain information

used to determined whether an annuity

reduction is in order. Completion is

voluntary. However, failure to complete

the forms could result in the

nonpayment of benefits. One response is

requested of each respondent.

The RRB proposes to revise Form G–

208 to request additional information

regarding service time worked under the

Federal Employee Retirement System

(FERS). Additional nonburden

impacting, editorial and reformatting

changes, which include enhanced

instructions intended to make the form

easier to complete, are also proposed.

The RRB also proposes minor non

burden impacting editorial changes to

Form G–212. The completion time for

the G–208 is estimated at 15 minutes.

The completion time for the G–212 is

estimated at 3 minutes. The RRB

estimates that approximately 1,700

Form G–208’s and 1,000 Form G–212’s

are completed annually.

Additional Information or Comments:

To request more information or to

obtain a copy of the information

collection justification, forms, and/or

supporting material, please call the RRB

Clearance Officer at (212) 751–3363.

Comments regarding the information

collection should be addressed to

Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement

Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60611–2092. Written comments

should be received within 60 days of

this notice.

Chuck Mierzwa,

Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–28456 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available

From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of Filings and

Information Services, Washington, DC

20549.

Extension:

Rule 17a–2; SEC File No. 270–442; OMB

Control No. 3235–0498.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities

and Exchange Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments

on the collection of information

summarized below. The Commission

plans to submit this existing collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for extension

and approval.

Rule 17a–12 under the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 is the reporting

rule tailored specifically for OTC

derivatives dealers, and Form X–17A–

5IIB, the Financial and Operational

Combined Uniform Single Report, is the

basic document for reporting the

financial and operational condition of

OTC derivatives dealers.

At this point there is only one

registered OTC derivatives dealer,

however it is anticipated to affect

approximately six (and possibly up to

ten) OTC derivatives dealers within the

next three years, Rule 17a–12 requires

OTC derivatives dealers to file quarterly

Financial and Operational Combined

Uniform Single Reports (FOCUS)—Form

X–17A–5IIB.1 Rule 17a–12 also requires

that OTC derivatives dealers file audited

financial statements annually. The staff

estimates that the average amount of

time necessary to prepare and file the

information required by the proposed

rule is eighty hours per OTC derivatives

dealer 2 with each spending an

additional one hundred hours on the

annual audit for a total of 180 hours per

OTC derivatives dealer annually. Thus

the staff estimates that the total number

of hours necessary for six OTC

derivatives dealers to comply with the

requirements of Rule 17a–12 on an

annual basis is 1,080 hours.3

The staff believes that financial

reporting specialists will prepare the

FOCUS IIB Report and supporting

Schedules, compliance personnel may

review the reports to assure compliance

with applicable rules, and accountants

will prepare the audited annual reports.

The staff estimates that the hourly salary

of a financial reporting specialist is

$72.40 per hour,4 the hourly salary of a

compliance manager is $82.50 per

hour,5 and the hourly salary of a

compliance manager is $51.60 per

hour.6 Based upon these numbers, the