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

11986 

Vol. 87, No. 42 

Thursday, March 3, 2022 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[Docket No. PRM–50–112; NRC–2015–0213] 

Determining Which Structures, 

Systems, Components and Functions 

Are Important to Safety 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 

for rulemaking (PRM), dated July 20, 

2015, and supplemented on August 31, 

2015, submitted by Kurt T. Schaefer (the 

petitioner). The petition was docketed 

by the NRC on September 4, 2015, and 

was assigned Docket No. PRM–50–112. 

The petitioner requested that the NRC 

amend its regulations to define the term 

‘‘important to safety’’ and provide a set 

of specific criteria for determining 

which structures, systems, components 

and functions are ‘‘important to safety.’’ 

The NRC is denying the petition 

because the issue raised does not 

involve a significant safety or security 

concern, and the existing NRC 

regulations, guidance, and procedures 

adequately address the issue raised in 

the PRM. A prescriptive approach that 

defines criteria for structures, systems, 

components and functions ‘‘important 

to safety’’ would likely have unintended 

consequences for the licensing bases of 

the current operating fleet and could 

reduce operational flexibility without 

providing a clear safety benefit. The 

NRC’s current regulations continue to 

provide reasonable assurance of 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety, promote the common defense 

and security, and protect the 

environment. 

DATES: The docket for the petition for 

rulemaking PRM–50–112 is closed on 

March 3, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0213 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–2015–0213. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Dawn 

Forder; telephone: 301–415–3407; 

email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• 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. For the 

convenience of the reader, instructions 

about obtaining materials referenced in 

this document are provided in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents, 

by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR, 

Room P1 B35, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

(ET), Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacy Joseph, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, telephone: 301–415–3256, 

email: Stacy.Joseph@nrc.gov, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. The Petition 

Section 2.802 of title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 

‘‘Petition for rulemaking—requirements 

for filing,’’ provides an opportunity for 

any person to petition the Commission 

to issue, amend, or rescind any 

regulation. On July 20, 2015, the NRC 

received a PRM from Mr. Kurt T. 

Schaefer (the petitioner), which was 

supplemented on August 31, 2015. The 

NRC assigned this PRM the docket 

number of PRM–50–112. On January 6, 

2016 (81 FR 410), the NRC published a 

notice of docketing and request for 

comment in the Federal Register. The 

petitioner requested that the NRC 

amend its regulations in § 50.2, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ of 10 CFR part 50, 

‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,’’ to include a 

definition with specific criteria for 

determining what structures, systems, 

components (SSCs) and functions are 

‘‘important to safety.’’ The petitioner 

stated that ‘‘[t]he nuclear industry is on 

its third generation of engineers and 

regulators with no clear definition of 

what is ‘important to safety’ ’’ and that 

‘‘there is no excuse for not having a 

concise set of functional criteria 

defining such a used term.’’ 

The petitioner noted that the ‘‘NRC 

staff’s current position is that SSCs 

‘important to safety’ consists of two 

subcategories, ‘safety-related’ and ‘nonsafety-related.’ ’’ The petitioner stated 

that while safety-related SSCs are 

defined in § 50.2, ‘‘the regulations do 

not provide an equivalent set of criteria 

for determining which non-safetyrelated SSCs are ‘important to safety.’ ’’ 

The petitioner noted that there is very 

little agreement about what ‘‘non-safetyrelated structures, systems and 

components (SSCs) should be 

categorized as ‘important to safety.’ ’’ 

Furthermore, the petitioner stated that 

‘‘there is only a general description of 

what is ‘important to safety’ in 10 CFR 

part 50, appendix A, [‘General Design 

Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,’] and 

the regulations do not provide a specific 

set of criteria for determining which 

SSCs are ‘important to safety.’ ’’ The 

petitioner stated that ‘‘NRC Generic 

Letter (GL) 84–01, ‘‘NRC use of the 

terms, ‘Important to Safety’ and ‘SafetyRelated’,’’ and its attachments, clarified 

the NRC staff’s use of these terms, but 

did not ‘‘provide a specific set of criteria 

for determining which non-safetyrelated SSCs are to be categorized as 

‘important to safety.’ ’’ The petitioner 

stated that, ‘‘there are regulations, 

regulatory guidance and routinely 

generated regulatory evaluations, based 

on SSCs with no specific criteria that 

determines what are the applicable 

SSCs.’’ In the petition, the petitioner 

recommended text and specific criteria 

for the definition of ‘‘important to 

safety.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11987 

II. Public Comments on the Petition 

On January 6, 2016, the NRC 

requested comments from the public on 

the petition. As part of the request for 

public comments, the NRC also 

requested (1) any new information and 

analysis that could provide the basis for 

changes to the NRC’s regulations, (2) 

specific examples where the lack of a 

formal NRC definition of the terms 

‘‘safety related’’ and ‘‘important to 

safety’’ directly resulted in adverse 

consequences to external stakeholders, 

(3) the regulations that would require 

revision to reflect the new definition 

and the nature (objective) of the revision 

for each provision of the regulation that 

must be revised, and (4) any guidance 

needed to implement the new 

definition, including what the scope 

should be, level of detail, and content of 

the guidance. 

The comment period closed on March 

21, 2016, and the NRC received 12 

comment submissions containing a total 

of 102 individual comments. A 

comment submission is a 

communication or document submitted 

to the NRC by an individual or entity 

with one or more individual comments 

addressing a subject or issue. Seven of 

the public comment submissions 

opposed the petition, three supported 

the petition, and two were responses 

from the petitioner to other comment 

submissions. Three of the public 

comment submissions were received 

after the end of the comment period, but 

the NRC considered them in the 

comment analysis. All of the comment 

submissions received on this petition 

are available as indicated in the 

‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section of 

this document and on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

NRC–2015–0213. 

The NRC addressed the comments in 

a separate document, ‘‘NRC Response to 

Public Comments for PRM–50–112,’’ as 

listed in the ‘‘Availability of 

Documents’’ section of this document. A 

brief summary of these comments and 

the NRC’s responses is included here. 

Several comment submissions 

opposing the petition indicate that 

nuclear power plant applicants and 

licensees have an existing 

understanding of the safety 

classification terms as applied to their 

nuclear power plants and do not see the 

need for a specific definition of 

‘‘important to safety’’ for SSCs at all 

nuclear power plants in § 50.2. Several 

comment submissions opposing the 

petition also assert that the specification 

of a definition of ‘‘important to safety’’ 

in § 50.2 might result in confusion 

among nuclear power plant applicants 

and licensees over the classification of 

the SSCs at their nuclear power plants. 

Several comment submissions opposing 

the petition also indicate that significant 

costs might be involved with the 

development and implementation of a 

definition of ‘‘important to safety’’ for 

SSCs at all nuclear power plants that 

would outweigh the benefits of such an 

effort. 

Several comment submissions 

supporting the petition suggest that a 

specific definition for ‘‘important to 

safety’’ in § 50.2 for SSCs at all nuclear 

power plants would resolve uncertainty 

regarding the scope of SSCs classified as 

‘‘important to safety’’ and help improve 

safety at nuclear power plants. 

Comment submissions supporting the 

petition also stated that a specific 

definition of ‘‘important to safety’’ in 

the NRC regulations would help reduce 

cost for nuclear power plant applicants 

and licensees by providing regulatory 

certainty. Several comment submissions 

supporting the petition recommend that 

a definition of ‘‘important to safety’’ 

should be consistent or compatible with 

the safety classification methods 

developed, or under development, by 

other organizations. 

III. Reasons for Denial 

The NRC is denying the petition 

because the issue raised in the petition 

does not involve a significant safety or 

security concern and because the 

existing NRC regulations, guidance, and 

procedures adequately address the issue 

raised in the petition. More specifically, 

the NRC is denying the petition because 

the proposed rulemaking effort to define 

‘‘important to safety’’ in § 50.2 for SSCs 

and their functions at all nuclear power 

plants does not have a safety benefit for 

nuclear power plants under 10 CFR part 

50 and part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, 

and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants.’’ The NRC maintains that a 

strong regulatory framework including a 

clear understanding of regulatory 

terminology is important to provide 

adequate protection of public health and 

safety. The NRC’s current regulatory 

framework is supported by the wellestablished understanding of 

terminology such as ‘‘important to 

safety,’’ as documented in regulatory 

guidance, policy, and licensee and 

applicant documentation. 

The NRC agrees with the petitioner 

that a specific definition of ‘‘important 

to safety’’ for SSCs and their functions 

at all nuclear power plants is not 

provided in § 50.2. As noted by the 

petitioner, the history of the terms 

‘‘important to safety’’ and ‘‘safetyrelated’’ has not been straightforward. 

However, a rulemaking effort to define 

‘‘important to safety’’ in § 50.2 for SSCs 

and their functions at all nuclear power 

plants does not present a safety benefit 

for nuclear power plants under 10 CFR 

parts 50 and 52 and the existing 

regulatory framework provides adequate 

protection. 

Historic Guidance and Rulemaking 

Activity on Defining ‘‘Important to 

Safety’’ 

The evolution of the different uses of 

safety classification terms at the NRC 

has a lengthy, complicated regulatory 

history. For example, the meaning of 

‘‘important to safety’’ and ‘‘safetyrelated’’ was a topic of discussion 

following the accident at the Three Mile 

Island, Unit 2 (TMI–2) nuclear power 

plant in 1979 and during the subsequent 

litigation. Specifically, in the Atomic 

Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 

Decision in the Matter of Metropolitan 

Edison Company, et al. (Three Mile 

Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) 

dated May 26, 1983 (ALAB–729, 17 

NRC 814 (1983)), the Appeal Board 

confirmed the distinction between the 

use of the terms ‘‘important to safety’’ 

and ‘‘safety-related’’ during the 

litigation of the restart of the TMI–1 

nuclear power plant. 

After the TMI–2 accident evaluation, 

numerous NRC documents addressed 

the distinction between the ‘‘important 

to safety’’ and ‘‘safety-related’’ 

classifications of SSCs at nuclear power 

plants. For example, the NRC 

documented its position on the meaning 

of ‘‘important to safety’’ in a staff 

memorandum dated November 20, 

1981, from Harold R. Denton, Director, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR), to all NRR personnel. This 

memorandum specifies the proper use 

of ‘‘important to safety’’ and ‘‘safetyrelated’’ by the NRC staff. Specifically, 

the 1981 Denton memorandum states 

that ‘‘ ‘important to safety’ encompasses 

the broad class of plant features, 

covered (not necessarily explicitly) in 

the General Design Criteria, that 

contribute in [an] important way to safe 

operation and protection of the public 

in all phases and aspects of facility 

operation (i.e., normal operation and 

transient control as well as accident 

mitigation).’’ The 1981 Denton 

memorandum further states that 

‘‘important to safety’’ includes ‘‘safetyrelated’’ as a subset. Subsequently, in 

December 1983, Harold R. Denton wrote 

a letter to the Utility Safety 

Classification Group restating the 

position taken in the 1981 

memorandum and explaining the 

historical acceptance of the distinction 

between these terms. The 1983 Denton 

letter also stated that ‘‘NRC regulatory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

jurisdiction involving a safety matter is 

not controlled by the use of terms such 

as ‘safety related’ or ‘important to 

safety.’ ’’ Generic Letter 84–01 reiterated 

this distinction in terminology to 

nuclear power plant applicants and 

licensees and included the 1983 Denton 

letter as an enclosure. 

Relatedly, in NUREG–0660, Volume 

1, ‘‘NRC Action Plan Developed as a 

Result of the TMI–2 Accident,’’ dated 

May 1980, the NRC staff proposed 

numerous TMI–2 Action Plan items to 

provide assurance of nuclear power 

plant safety, including Item I.F, 

‘‘Quality Assurance,’’ to improve the 

quality assurance (QA) program for 

design, construction, and operations to 

provide greater assurance that plant 

design, construction, and operational 

activities are conducted in a manner 

commensurate with their importance to 

safety. In Item I.F.1, ‘‘Expand QA list,’’ 

the NRC staff proposed the development 

of guidance for licensees to expand their 

QA lists to cover equipment ‘‘important 

to safety’’ and rank the equipment in 

order of its importance to safety. 

NUREG–0737, ‘‘Clarification of TMI 

Action Plan Requirements,’’ dated 

November 1980, provided the list of 

TMI–2 Action Plan items that were 

subsequently approved by the 

Commission for implementation (which 

did not include Item I.F.1). As noted in 

NUREG–0933, ‘‘Resolution of Generic 

Safety Issues,’’ Section 1, ‘‘TMI Action 

Plan Items,’’ Item I.F.1 was considered 

resolved, with any further guidance to 

be addressed through the normal 

processes. Therefore, the list and 

ranking of ‘‘important to safety’’ 

equipment proposed in Item I.F.1 was 

not created because the NRC determined 

it was not needed at the time. 

In Memorandum and Order (CLI–84– 

9), ‘‘In the Matter of Long Island 

Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 1),’’ June 5, 1984, 

the Commission recognized that ‘‘the 

history of the use of the terms 

‘important to safety’ and ‘safety-related’ 

is tortuous and somewhat inconsistent.’’ 

The Commission directed the NRC staff 

to proceed with rulemaking on the use 

of the terms ‘‘important to safety’’ and 

‘‘safety-related.’’ In SECY–85–119, 

‘‘Issuance of Proposed Rule on the 

Important to Safety Issue,’’ dated April 

5, 1985, the NRC staff provided to the 

Commission a proposed rule to define 

‘‘important to safety’’ for SSCs at 

nuclear power plants. In the staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM) for 

SECY–85–119, ‘‘Issuance of Proposed 

Rule on the Important-to-Safety Issue,’’ 

dated December 31, 1985, the 

Commission disapproved SECY–85–119 

and provided direction to NRC staff for 

redrafting a proposed definition of 

‘‘important to safety.’’ In SECY–86–164, 

‘‘Proposed Rule on the Important to 

Safety Issue,’’ dated May 29, 1986, the 

NRC staff provided a revised version of 

a proposed definition of ‘‘important to 

safety’’ for Commission consideration, 

and also reviewed the existing use of 

this term in the NRC’s regulations. By 

June 1987, three of four Commissioners 

voted 2–1 to disapprove the proposed 

rule, but no further action was taken. As 

documented in a memorandum dated 

June 24, 1991, from Samuel J. Chilk, 

SECY closed SECY–86–164 on the basis 

that informal discussions between the 

staff in the NRC Office of the Executive 

Director for Operations (OEDO) and 

Office of the Secretary indicated that 

there may no longer be any need for the 

Commission to address the issues in 

SECY–18–164. Since that time, the NRC 

staff has not engaged in further 

rulemaking action to define ‘‘important 

to safety.’’ 

Use of ‘‘Important to Safety’’ in NRC 

Regulations 

The term ‘‘important to safety’’ first 

appeared in appendix A to 10 CFR part 

50, published as a final rule in the 

Federal Register on February 20, 1971 

(36 FR 03255). However, when 

appendix A and appendix B, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,’’ to 

10 CFR part 50 were developed in the 

late 1960s and early 1970s, the NRC 

focused its regulatory activities on a 

deterministic approach for safety-related 

SSCs, and allowed licensees to address 

much of the design and treatment of 

other SSCs in licensee documents. For 

example, final safety analysis reports 

(FSARs) for nuclear power plants 

typically have described some SSCs that 

are ‘‘important to safety’’ but are not 

classified as ‘‘safety-related’’ and that 

have a reduced amount of NRC 

regulatory treatment compared with 

‘‘safety-related’’ SSCs. Over time, the 

NRC developed regulations that address 

SSCs beyond those classified as ‘‘safetyrelated.’’ For example, the NRC specifies 

requirements for a wide range of SSCs, 

including SSCs that are important to 

safety but not classified as ‘‘safetyrelated,’’ in § 50.49, ‘‘Environmental 

qualification of electric equipment 

important to safety for nuclear power 

plants’’; § 50.62, ‘‘Requirements for 

reduction of risk from anticipated 

transients without scram (ATWS) events 

for light-water-cooled nuclear power 

plants’’; § 50.63, ‘‘Loss of all alternating 

current power’’; and § 50.65, 

‘‘Requirements for monitoring the 

effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear 

power plants.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘important to 

safety’’ appears in several reactor fire 

protection regulations. The NRC 

regulations in § 50.48, ‘‘Fire protection,’’ 

require that each operating nuclear 

power plant have a fire protection plan 

that satisfies General Design Criterion 

(GDC) 3, ‘‘Fire protection,’’ of appendix 

A to 10 CFR part 50. GDC 3 requires that 

SSCs that are ‘‘important to safety’’ be 

designed and located to minimize, 

consistent with other safety 

requirements, the probability and effect 

of fires and explosions. Section II.A of 

appendix R, ‘‘Fire Protection Program 

for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating 

Prior to January 1, 1979,’’ to 10 CFR part 

50 in states that the fire protection 

program shall extend the concept of 

defense-in-depth to fire protection in 

fire areas that are ‘‘important to safety,’’ 

with the objectives of dealing with 

prevention, detection, and protection. 

For conformance with fire protection 

requirements, § 50.48(c) permits 

operating plants to voluntarily 

transition their deterministic fire 

protection program to one based on riskinformed and performance-based 

requirements using National Fire 

Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 

805, ‘‘Performance-Based Standard for 

Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants,’’ 2001 

Edition. Section 50.48(c) also 

establishes an alternative regulatory 

structure for fire protection and permits 

licensees to voluntarily adopt NFPA 

805, which would allow licensees the 

option to use a risk-informed, 

performance-based approach to change 

the deterministic fire protection 

configurations and procedures of their 

operating reactors. Licensees adopting a 

risk informed approach for conformance 

with fire protection programs did not 

change the safety classification of their 

equipment—rather, they maintained fire 

protection areas that are considered 

‘‘important to safety’’ under a 

deterministic approach within the scope 

of the program. Almost all nuclear 

power plants that transitioned to the 

§ 50.48(c) regulatory structure 

performed plant modifications that 

resulted in a decrease in the plant core 

damage frequency. If the modifications 

required installation of non-safetyrelated equipment, the additional 

modifications were considered 

‘‘important to safety,’’ as the equipment 

was required to safely shutdown the 

plant following a fire event but not 

required to mitigate the consequences of 

an accident. 

More recently, the NRC regulations in 

§ 50.69, ‘‘Risk-informed categorization 

and treatment of structures, systems and 

components for nuclear power 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 11989 

reactors,’’ allow nuclear power plant 

licensees to request, in a license 

amendment, the implementation of riskinformed categorization and treatment 

of SSCs at their nuclear power plants. 

The scope of § 50.69 extends beyond 

safety-related SSCs and addresses the 

wider range of SSCs, i.e., SSCs that 

would be considered ‘‘important to 

safety’’ at the specific nuclear power 

plant. Further, the NRC requires in 

§ 50.55a(b)(3)(iii)(D) that certain 

licensees assess the operational 

readiness of pumps, valves, and 

dynamic restraints within the scope of 

the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety 

Systems (RTNSS) that are not classified 

as safety-related, but provide defense-indepth for new reactors with passive 

cooling systems (such as the AP1000 

reactor design) (see 82 FR 32934; July 

18, 2017). The RTNSS components in 

new reactors with passive cooling 

systems would be considered 

‘‘important to safety’’ at those specific 

nuclear power plants. 

In sum, these issues provide 

additional examples of the consistent 

understanding and treatment of 

‘‘important to safety’’ in the existing 

regulatory framework, and illustrate 

how licensees and applicants may 

identify the safety characterization of 

SSCs in their documentation without a 

set of prescriptive criteria for 

determining which SSCs are important 

to safety. As illustrated in the previous 

discussion, the NRC has over time 

addressed SSCs classified as ‘‘important 

to safety’’ in different ways in its 

requirements, and in doing so, has 

established a framework that uses this 

safety classification terminology 

without the need for a prescriptive 

definition in § 50.2. 

Basis for Denial 

Based on many years of experience 

with the current safety classification 

terminology, nuclear power plant 

applicants and licensees under 10 CFR 

part 50 and part 52 have an established 

understanding of the importance to 

safety for all SSCs in nuclear power 

plants as documented in their specific 

licensing basis documentation (e.g., 

Final Safety Analysis Reports or Design 

Control Documents). In addition, the 

NRC and licensees have a common 

understanding of the foundation of what 

constitutes ‘‘important to safety’’ as 

demonstrated in the guidance 

documents and generic communications 

discussed previously (e.g., the 1981 

memorandum from Harold R. Denton to 

the NRR staff, 1983 letter from Harold 

R. Denton to the Utility Safety 

Classification Group, and Generic Letter 

84–01). Moreover, the NRC reviews 

safety classification information in 

applications on a case-by-case basis. 

The petitioner has not provided, and 

NRC staff has not identified, a safety 

reason to create criteria, either 

prescriptive or performance based, 

defining ‘‘important to safety’’ in § 50.2. 

As a result, a rulemaking effort to add 

a definition for ‘‘important to safety’’ for 

SSCs and their functions in § 50.2 does 

not have a safety benefit for nuclear 

power plants under 10 CFR parts 50 and 

52. Further, the NRC’s current 

regulatory framework is supported by 

the well-established understanding and 

application of terminology such as 

‘‘important to safety,’’ as documented in 

regulatory guidance, policy, and 

licensee and applicant documentation. 

IV. Availability of Documents 

The documents identified in the 

following table are available to 

interested persons through one or more 

of the following methods, as indicated. 

Document ADAMS accession No./Federal 

Register citation 

Generic Letter 1984–01, ‘‘NRC Use of the Terms, ‘Important to Safety’ and Safety Related’,’’ dated January 

5, 1984.

ML031150515. 

Letter dated December 19, 1983, from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to 

T.S. Ellis, III, Esq., on behalf of the Utility Safety Classification Group.

ML17150A235. 

NUREG–0660, Volume 1, ‘‘NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI–2 Accident,’’ dated May 1980 ML072470526. 

NUREG–0737, ‘‘Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,’’ dated November 1980 ................................... ML051400209. 

NUREG–0933, ‘‘Resolution of Generic Safety Issues,’’ Section 1, ‘‘TMI Action Plan Items’’ .............................. https://www.nrc.gov/sr0933/. 

Staff memorandum dated November 20, 1981, from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, to all NRR Personnel.

ML111230453. 

SECY–85–119, ‘‘Issuance of Proposed Rule on the Important-To-Safety Issue,’’ dated April 5, 1985 ............... ML15322A002. 

SRM–SECY–85–119, ‘‘Issuance of Proposed Rule on the Important-To-Safety Issue,’’ dated December 31, 

1985.

ML15322A003. 

SECY–86–164, ‘‘Proposed Rule on the Important-To-Safety Issue,’’ dated May 29, 1986 ................................. ML15322A005. 

Memo from the Secretary of the Commission dated June 24, 1991, withdrawing the proposed rulemaking in 

SECY–86–164.

ML15322A006. 

Federal Register Notice: PRM–50–112, Determining Which Structures, Systems, Components and Functions are Important to Safety, Petition for Rulemaking; Notice of Docketing and Request for Comment.ML15266A002. 

PRM–50–112 Petition from Kurt Schaefer Determining Which Structures, Systems, Components and Functions are Important to Safety.ML15278A208. 

PRM–50–112 Supplement to Petition from Kurt Schaefer Determining Which Structures, Systems, Components and Functions are Important to Safety.ML15278A211. 

Memorandum and Order (CLI–84–9), ‘‘In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 1),’’ June 5, 1984.

ML20091K598. 

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1) dated May 26, 1983 (ALAB–729, 17 NRC 814 (1983)) ............. ML16357A784. 

National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA)-805, ‘‘Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection 

for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,’’ 2001 Edition.

https://www.nfpa.org/. 

Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases (July 18, 

2017).

82 FR 32934. 

NRC Responses to Public Comments for PRM–50–112 ...................................................................................... ML21123A223. 

The NRC may post materials related 

to this document, including public 

comments, on the Federal rulemaking 

website at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID NRC–2015–0213. 

V. Conclusion 

For the reasons cited in this 

document, the NRC is denying PRM– 

50–112. The petition did not present 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 42 / Thursday, March 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

any significant new information or 

arguments that would warrant the 

requested amendment. Current 

requirements continue to provide 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

protection of public health and safety, 

promote the common defense and 

security, and protect the environment. 

Dated: February 22, 2022. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04052 Filed 3–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013] 

RIN 1904–AE50 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Battery 

Chargers, Webinar and Availability of 

the Preliminary Technical Support 

Document 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of a webinar and 

availability of preliminary technical 

support document. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) will hold a webinar to 

discuss and receive comments on the 

preliminary analysis it has conducted 

for purposes of evaluating energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers. The meeting will cover the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

that DOE is using to evaluate potential 

standards for this product; the results of 

preliminary analyses performed by DOE 

for this product; the potential energy 

conservation standard levels derived 

from these analyses that DOE could 

consider for this product should it 

determine that proposed amendments 

are necessary; and any other issues 

relevant to the evaluation of energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers. In addition, DOE encourages 

written comments on these subjects. To 

inform interested parties and to 

facilitate this process, DOE has prepared 

an agenda, a preliminary technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’), and briefing 

materials, which are available on the 

DOE website at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=26&

action=viewlive. 

DATES:

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Thursday, April 21, 2022, from 1:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information will be accepted on or 

before, May 2, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to batterychargers

2020STD0013@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD– 

0013 in the subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (COVID– 

19) pandemic. DOE is currently 

suspending receipt of public comments 

via postal mail and hand delivery/ 

courier. If a commenter finds that this 

change poses an undue hardship, please 

contact Appliance Standards Program 

staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the 

need for alternative arrangements. Once 

the COVID–19 pandemic health 

emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 

resuming all of its regular options for 

public comment submission, including 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, public meeting 

transcripts, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0013. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments in the docket. See section IV 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking Process 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Background 

A. Current Standards 

B. Current Process 

III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by 

DOE 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

G. National Impact Analysis 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA 

established the Energy Conservation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS