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

22134

Vol. 66, No. 86

Thursday, May 3, 2001

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory

Burden While Maintaining Safety

Workshop and Comments

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: Consistent with the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Strategic

Plan and the Energy and Water

Appropriations Bill, 2000, the

Commission has directed the staff to

maintain plant safety and improve

public confidence, but reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden. Within

this context, unnecessary regulatory

burden is defined as regulatory

requirements that do not aid the

Commission in its mission to protect

public health and safety. A workshop

will be held to inform and solicit

stakeholder input on activities

associated with reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden. Comments can be

provided orally at the workshop, or in

writing within 30 days following the

workshop. The workshop will be a

facilitated round table format with

participants representing the broad

spectrum of affected interests. There

will also be opportunities for audience

comments and questions. Although

unnecessary burden reduction

initiatives are ongoing agency-wide, this

workshop will primarily focus on three

areas: Risk informing portions of 10 CFR

Part 50, reforming outdated or

paperwork oriented regulations,

reviewing other regulatory requirements

(e.g., technical specifications) for

burden reduction opportunities.

Depending on comments and

discussions received during or

following this workshop, other

workshops may follow. This workshop

will also entertain new technologies or

techniques that could be used to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden and will

provide the status of the licensing action

information collection initiative. The

NRC hopes to gain widespread

participation from (but not limited to)

representatives from non-governmental

organizations, industry, Federal

agencies, State governments, local

governments, international

organizations, and private citizens.

Following the workshop, the NRC staff

plans to prepare a staff paper to the

Commission to articulate stakeholder’s

interest, comments, and

recommendations regarding this

initiative.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

May 31, 2001—8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The comment period expires July 2,

2001.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at NRC Headquarter Offices, Two White

Flint, Auditorium, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20555–0001.

Written comments may be sent to: Chief,

Rules and Directives Branch, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail

Stop T–06 D59, Washington, D.C.,

20555–0001. Comments may be hand

delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, 20555–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francis X. Cameron, the facilitator of

this workshop, Mail Stop O–15 D21,

telephone (301) 415–1642; Internet:

FXC@nrc.gov; or William S. Raughley

regarding comments, telephone (301)

415–7577; Internet: WSR@nrc.gov, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001.

For material related to the meeting,

please contact U.S. NRC Public Affairs

Office (301) 415–8200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Consistent with the NRC Strategic

Plan and the Energy and Water

Appropriations Bill, 2000, NRC has

several initiatives planned to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden on

licensees. Although unnecessary burden

reduction initiatives are agency-wide,

this workshop will primarily focus on

initiatives associated with the following

three areas: (1) Risk informing portions

of 10 CFR Part 50, (2) reforming

outdated or paperwork oriented

regulations, and (3) seeking unnecessary

burden reduction in other regulatory

requirements (e.g., technical

specifications). The workshop will also

entertain new technologies or

techniques which could be used to

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden

and provide a status on the information

collection initiative for licensing

actions.

To elaborate, the NRC Strategic Plan,

Fiscal Year 2000–Fiscal Year 2005

(Volume 2, Part I) and the companion

document Strategic Plan Appendix

(Volume 2, Part 2) explain NRC

performance goals to: (1) Maintain

safety, protection of the environment,

and common defense and security; (2)

increase public confidence; (3) make

NRC activities and decisions more

effective, efficient, and realistic; (4)

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden

on licensees. Stakeholders generally

include the public, licensees, other

Federal Agencies, States, local

governments, industry, the international

community, non-government

organizations and others. (The

referenced documents and ADAMS

references are available through the

NRC website ‘‘www.nrc.gov/NRC/

PUBLIC/meet.html’’ under ‘‘Nuclear

Regulatory Research’’ or ‘‘RES.’’) The

Energy and Water Appropriations Bill,

2000, states in part that:

* * * The Committee directs the

Commission to examine reforms to the scope

of power reactor regulations that will

promote a higher level of confidence that the

revised regulations, when issued, are

consistent with the fundamental

accountability of the Commission and that

regulations which do not contribute to

adequate protection are eliminated. The

Committee directs that these efforts be

completed no later than December 31, 2000.

In addition, the committee directs the

Commission to review existing regulations to

reform those that are outdated or paperwork

oriented to a set of regulations that are

performance based by 2004.

The NRC Strategic Plan and the

Energy and Water Appropriations Bill,

2000 provide the framework for NRC

initiatives to reduce the unnecessary

regulatory burden on licensees. The

NRC Strategic Plan defines the

unnecessary regulatory burden for NRC

licensees as requirements that go

beyond what is necessary and sufficient

for providing reasonable assurance that

public health and safety, the

environment, and the common defense

and security will be protected.

Consistent with the NRC Strategic Plan,

the NRC is seeking stakeholder input to

identify and discuss opportunities for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22135

reducing unnecessary regulatory burden

while maintaining safety. By reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden, both the

NRC and licensee resources may be

made available to more effectively focus

on maintaining safety. During the past

30 years, an ever-increasing body of

technical knowledge and operating

experience has been accumulated that

may allow for refinements and

enhancement in NRC requirements that

can reduce the unnecessary regulatory

burden while assuring maintenance of

safety. Not all the NRC requirements

may have been updated to take into

account these advances. The NRC

believes that for some areas of NRC

regulations and practices, the burden is

not commensurate with the safety

benefit.

Discussion

From the NRC’s perspective the

initiatives described below for reducing

the unnecessary regulatory burden have

common attributes: (1) The NRC

Strategic Plan and the Energy and Water

Appropriations Bill, 2000 provide the

incentive and framework for these

initiatives; (2) each initiative is planned

to result in revisions to regulatory

documents or plant technical

specifications; (3) while each initiative

is expected to result in the reduction of

unnecessary regulatory burden,

expected levels of safety will be

maintained; and (4) the plans to reduce

the unnecessary regulatory burden

while maintaining safety need greater

stakeholder involvement in, and

understanding of, the goals of the

overall initiative; the relative priorities

of the initiatives including those

initiatives that will result in the burden

reductions with no safety impact; and

the identification and prioritization of

candidate changes within each

initiative. Removal of unnecessary

regulatory burden can only be to the

extent it is feasible and cost effective. In

addition, having involved the

stakeholders, the overall plans, the

milestones we intend to meet, and

status should be communicated to the

Commission periodically and made

publicly available.

The staff plans to (1) hold a workshop

to communicate to and obtain feedback

from stakeholders regarding NRC plans

for reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden while maintaining safety and (2)

provide an opportunity for written

feedback after the meeting.

The enclosed workshop agenda is

designed to provide the opportunity for

meaningful stakeholder interaction and

involvement and provide stakeholders

with a foundation to provide written

comments. The specific objectives are

to: (1) Provide an NRC management

perspective of efforts to reduce

unnecessary burden including the

relationship between the individual

efforts and the input needed from the

stakeholders; (2) explain the NRC plans

in the areas of risk informing 10 CFR

Part 50, reforming outdated and

paperwork requirements, and reviewing

other regulatory requirements; (3) share

inputs received to date from

stakeholders; (4) obtain broader

participation and stakeholder input

regarding the scope and relative

priorities of these initiatives including

new technologies; (5) provide context

for identifying unrecognized

opportunities and exploring concerns

associated with unnecessary regulatory

burden reductions; and (6) provide a

foundation for stakeholders to provide

detailed written comments on the

agency’s unnecessary burden reduction

initiatives and specific questions.

The following summarizes

unnecessary burden reduction

initiatives that will be discussed at the

workshop.

Risk Informing the Regulations

The staff has under way two

initiatives for risk-informing 10 CFR

Part 50, first described, and options

defined in SECY–98–300, ‘‘Options for

Risk-informed Revisions to 10 CFR Part

50, Domestic Licensing of Production

and Utilization Facilities,’’ dated

December 23, 1998. In the first initiative

(SECY–98–300, ‘‘Option 2’’) the staff is

addressing risk-informed changes to the

regulatory scope for structures, systems,

and components in need of special

treatment (e.g., quality assurance,

environmental qualification). This

initiative does not address changing the

technical content of the special

treatment requirements, the design of

the plant or the design-basis accidents.

In the second initiative (SECY–98–300,

‘‘Option 3’’) the staff is assessing the

risk-significance of technical

requirements associated with the special

treatment requirements in 10 CFR Part

50. This work is closely linked and

integrated with the effort under Option

2.

In SECY–99–264, ‘‘Proposed Staff

Plan for Risk-Informing Technical

Requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,’’ dated

November 8, 1999, the staff provided

the original plan and schedule for its

work to risk-inform the technical

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 (Option

3). In SECY–00–0086, ‘‘Status Report on

Risk-Informing the Technical

Requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 (Option

3),’’ April 12, 2000, the staff provided a

status report on Option 3 activities,

including an initial version of the

‘‘framework’’ document (a document the

staff is using to guide Option 3

activities). In SECY–00–0086, based on

meetings with stakeholders and input

from industry, 10 CFR 50.44 ‘‘Standards

For Combustible Gas Control System In

Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors,’’

and 10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance Criteria

For Emergency Cooling Systems For

Light-Water Reactors,’’ were listed as a

high priority candidate regulations for

evaluation under Option 3.

In SECY–00–0198, ‘‘Status Report on

Study of Risk-Informed Changes to the

Technical Requirements of 10 CFR Part

50 (Option 3) and Recommendations on

Risk-Informed Changes to 10 CFR 50.44

(Combustible Gas Control),’’ September

14, 2000, the staff provided a status

report focusing on the results of its

feasibility study and recommendations

to risk-inform 10 CFR 50.44, an updated

framework document, and a short status

of other Option 3 work underway. In

SECY–00–0198, the staff indicated that

work had been initiated to develop riskinformed alternatives to the current 10

CFR 50.46. More recently, the status of

this work has been described noting the

need for more stakeholder involvement

in a memorandum to the Commission

dated February 5, 2001 (Adams

Accession Number ML010260032).

Risk-informed changes to 10 CFR

50.61, ‘‘Fracture Toughness

Requirements for Protection Against

PTS Events,’’ are also under evaluation.

The status and schedule for this work

were reported in SECY–00–0140,

‘‘Reevaluation of the Pressurized

Thermal Shock Rule (10 CFR 50.61)

Screening Criterion,’’ June 23, 2000.

The staff requested public comment

on SECY–00–213, ‘‘Risk-Informed

Regulation Implementation Plan,’’

October 26, 2000, in a Federal Register

Notice (65 FR 80473) on December 21,

2000. Input received from stakeholders

and work done to date on Option 3 by

the staff are being considered in

determining which regulations from 10

CFR Part 50 are candidates to be riskinformed. The staff-identified

candidates identified to date are listed

in Table A–2 in Attachment 1 to SECY–

00–0198.

Unnecessary Burden Reduction While

Maintaining Safety

A trip report (Adams Accession

Number ML003725832) summarizes a

public meeting on June 14, 2000,

between the NRC Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research (RES) and

Commonwealth Edison (Com-Ed) to

understand concerns with some

regulations that it perceives to impose

unnecessary regulatory burden. The trip

report attachments include a list of

22136 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

items they consider to be unnecessary

regulatory burden. Com-Ed explained

that the list was illustrative but not

exhaustive.

The NRC reviewed the list, and it

appeared the items fell into four

categories: (1) Items that seem to be

simple revisions to outdated or

paperwork requirements of apparently

little or no safety benefit; these items

could be further grouped into outdated,

redundant, collection, reporting, or

paperwork-oriented-type regulations

and are candidates to satisfy the

Congressional request; (2) complex

technical changes needing NRC

resources and prioritizing in the budget

and planning process; some of these

items can be integrated into ongoing or

planned initiatives such as risk

informing 10 CFR 50.46; (3) items that

are unlikely to be considered as part of

current staff initiatives; (4) items already

being processed for rulemaking.

Subsequently, the Industry Licensing

Action Task Force provided a list of

outdated or paperwork requirements it

considered to be unnecessary regulatory

burden that was similar to items in the

Com-Ed list.

Resources have been assigned to

develop a plan to evaluate outdated or

paperwork requirements. However,

rather than evaluating individual lists,

the NRC believes that it would be

efficient to obtain an exhaustive list of

candidate outdated or paperwork

requirements considered to be

unnecessary regulatory burden before

evaluating changes to outdated or

paperwork requirements. In addition,

the NRC would like to hear from other

stakeholders regarding the possible

reduction of outdated and paperwork

requirements.

Reviewing Other Regulatory

Requirements

In addition to reviewing NRC

regulations, the NRC staff is involved in

various activities to assess other

regulatory requirements and

administrative processes to identify

possible improvements in efficiency or

reductions in unnecessary regulatory

burden. The staff is currently reviewing

its internal procedures and processes,

various reporting or administrative

requirements imposed on power reactor

licensees, and is continuing with

initiatives related to the content of

technical specifications. Specific types

of activities underway are discussed in

‘‘Summary of Meeting Held on February

7, 2001, Between the NRC Staff and

Industry Licensing Action Task Force,’’

dated March 29, 2001 (Adams

Accession Number ML010890109).

Proposed Information Collection

Initiative

A Federal Register Notice (Adams

Accession Number ML003771785)

soliciting public comments on the

proposed information collection was

published on December 7, 2000. The

purpose of the information collection

initiative is to gather information from

licensees regarding the impact of the

NRC activities. As discussed in the

Federal Register notice (FRN), the

information gathered from the proposal

would assist the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff in

allocating staff resources and measuring

how the work the NRR staff completes

contributes to the agency goals and

meets the Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA). Five different

groups commented on the proposed

initiative (Tennessee Valley Authority,

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety,

Winston and Strawn, Hopkins and

Sutter, and the Nuclear Energy

Institute). Comments received from the

public were generally not in favor of the

proposed initiative. Based on the public

comments, the staff believes that to

proceed with the initiative as it was

originally proposed in the FRN is not

feasible and is not an effective use of

NRC resources. Thus, the staff has

explored other means of achieving the

objectives and identified the following

two options that will be discussed at the

workshop:

Option 1—The NRR Project Manager

would indicate whether the amendment

reduces: radiation dose, risk, outage

time, increases safety, or is

administrative. Criteria/guidance would

be developed to categorize the various

amendments. At the end of the fiscal

year, the staff would determine how

many of the licensing actions fell into

each category and make a rough

estimate regarding cost savings.

Option 2—Criteria would be

developed to determine whether an

amendment was a low, medium, or high

savings to the licensee. The licensee

would indicate which category the

amendment falls into. The staff would

need input from the industry to develop

the criteria and would need individual

licensees to categorize amendments

upon submittal to the NRC.

New Technologies or Techniques

Advances in computational capability

and data permit more realistic modeling

of reactor behavior and may provide

opportunities for reducing unnecessary

burden while maintaining safety. Recent

examples include revised source terms

and current efforts to risk inform 10 CFR

50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR 50.61.

The NRC is interested in other

opportunities.

Obtaining Broad Stakeholder Input

We are interested in stakeholder

feedback on the priority of the

candidates, to recommend what

additional work should be in the scope

of unnecessary burden reduction

initiatives and to obtain general

concerns. The feedback should consider

factors such as potential safety benefit

and stakeholder interest, as well as the

agency’s four performance goals. The

stakeholders are encouraged to

participate in the workshop discussion

sessions and provide written comment.

The following questions will help to

start each workshop discussion session

as well as provide a format for

comments:

1. What aspects of these initiatives

interfere with the NRC ability to

maintain safety or increase public

confidence?

2. Will implementation of these

initiatives improve regulatory

efficiency, effectiveness, and realism?

3. Beyond this meeting and the

request for comments, how can

stakeholder participation in these

initiatives be enhanced?

4. Which areas being pursued will not

likely be fruitful to stakeholders, or

otherwise have a negative impact on

stakeholder needs?

5. Are ongoing and future activities to

reduce unnecessary burden

appropriately prioritized? Which

activities should receive the highest

priority and why?

6. Are there any other opportunities

that have not been recognized or being

pursued at this time. Identify: (a) The

regulation or portion thereof that should

be evaluated; (b) possible improvements

to the regulations; (c) the basis for the

proposed reduction including the

potential impact on safety, public

confidence, regulatory effectiveness and

efficiency; and (d) the estimate dollar

cost saving per year.

7. What advancements in technology

would help NRC better meet its

performance goal of reducing

unnecessary burden on stakeholders?

8. What new areas of regulatory

research may be warranted to advance

technology that could better serve these

initiatives?

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of April 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22137

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Farouk Eltawila,

Acting Director, Division of Systems Analysis

and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of

Nuclear Regulatory Research.

Tentative Agenda—Reducing

Unnecessary Regulatory Burden While

Maintaining Safety Workshop

8:30–8:45 Welcome and Introduction

8:45–9:00 Meeting Objectives,

Structure and Groundrules

9:00–9:15 Overview of NRC Initiative

to Reduce Unnecessary Regulatory

Burden

9:15–10:30 Risk Informing 10 CFR Part

50 Participants Discussion

10:30–10:45 Break

10:45–11:45 Paperwork Reduction and

Obsolete Regulations Participants

Discussion

11:45–1:00 Lunch Break

1:00–1:45 Licensing Actions to Reduce

Unnecessary Burden Participants

Discussion

1:45–3:15 Other NRC Initiatives

Related to Unnecessary Burden

Reduction Participants Discussion

3:15–3:30 Break

3:30–4:30 Open discussion

4:30–4:45 Summary and Closure

[FR Doc. 01–11108 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[USCG–2000–7442]

RIN 2115–AD23

Permits for the Transportation of

Municipal and Commercial Waste

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is advising

the public of its intent to finalize

regulations previously published as an

Interim Rule (IR) in the Federal Register

(54 FR 22546) on May 24, 1989. These

regulations have been codified at 33

CFR Part 151. The IR was published to

implement the permitting and

numbering requirements of the Shore

Protection Act (SPA), but was never

published as a Final Rule. Because of

the lapse in time since the IR

publication, the Coast Guard is seeking

comments from the public before

finalizing the IR.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your

written comments and related material

by one of the following methods:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, (USCG–2000–7442), U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

(2) By hand to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

notice. Comments and documents, as

indicated in this notice, will become

part of this docket and will be available

for inspection or copying at room PL–

401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif

Building at the same address between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. You

may electronically access the public

docket for this notice on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning this reopened

comment period, contact Ensign

William Sportsman, Office of Operating

& Environmental Standards (G–MSO–2),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

telephone 202–267–0226. For questions

on viewing, or submitting material to

the docket, contact Dorothy Beard,

Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages you to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting your comments and related

material. To do so, please include your

name and address, identify the docket

number for this notice (USCG–2000–

7442), indicate the specific section of

the Interim Rule that you are

commenting on, and give the reason for

each comment. You may submit your

written comments and material by mail,

hand, fax, or electronic means to the

Docket Management Facility at the

address under ADDRESSES; but please do

not submit the same comment or

material by more than one means. Do

not submit comments on the Interim

Rule that have already been made part

of the CGD 89–014 docket. If you submit

them by mail or hand, submit them in

an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2

by 11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they were

received, enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. The

Coast Guard will consider all comments

and material received during the

comment period. All comments,

including those previously submitted

under the CGD 89–014 docket, may be

viewed at http://dms.got.gov.

Background and Purpose

On May 24, 1989, the Coast Guard

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 22546), an Interim Rule with request

for comments (docket number CGD 89–

014), implementing the permitting and

numbering requirements of the Shore

Protection Act (33 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.).

In response, the Coast Guard received

six comments. After it was determined

that the procedures outlined in the

Interim Rule were operating

successfully, the Coast Guard published

a Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal

Register (60 FR 64001) on December 13,

1995, to discontinue the rulemaking.

The intent was to close the rulemaking

project. However, due to an oversight,

the Interim Rule was never finalized.

The Interim Rule has been in place for

the past 11 years, and the Coast Guard

believes these procedures have been

operating in a satisfactory manner.

Therefore, the Coast Guard intends to

finalize the Interim Rule as published,

and the first step in this process is to

reopen the comment period for the

Interim Rule.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received six letters

commenting on the Interim Rule. In the

following paragraphs, the Coast Guard

discusses the comments received, and

explains any changes made to the

regulations. The Coast Guard first

discusses general comments, and

secondly discusses comments regarding

specific sections of the regulations.

General Comments

One comment suggested that the rule

require the same waste handling

practices as stipulated in section 4103 of

SPA. The comment also suggested the

Coast Guard consider an operator’s

record of compliance with the required

practices when deciding to approve or

deny a permit.

The requirements for waste handling

practices are outside the scope of this

rulemaking. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible

for implementing section 4103 of SPA.

One comment asked why the Interim

Rule did not include regulations