Organization of Agreement States; Petition for Rulemaking, 75423-75426 [05-24250]

Download as PDF 75423 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 243 Tuesday, December 20, 2005 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. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 31 [PRM–31–5] Organization of Agreement States; Petition for Rulemaking Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; request for comment. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking filed by the Organization of Agreement States (OAS). The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend its regulations to require specific licensing for devices that are currently regulated by a combination of general licensing and registration, and to revise the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.6 from ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘C’’. The petitioner believes that these actions are needed to establish a higher national standard of regulation for higher risk generally licensed (GL) devices, and to allow retention of a tool used by Agreement States to track the location and movement of device manufacturers and service providers in their State. This action also addresses a request filed by the Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) of the Florida Department of Health for the NRC to change the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from category ‘‘B’’ to category ‘‘C’’. Florida BRC believes that NRC regulations are less stringent and that assigning a compatibility category ‘‘B’’ will require the State to reduce its current health, safety, and security regulatory control of GL devices. DATES: Submit comments by March 6, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 208001 Please include PRM–31–5 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public for inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415–1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC’s rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415– 5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone (301) 415–1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415–1101. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http:// ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.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. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301 415–7163 or Toll Fee: 1–800–368–5642 or e-mail: mtl@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 18, 2000, (65 FR 79162), the NRC issued a final rule that amended the requirements applicable to certain generally licensed industrial devices containing byproduct material. The final rule, among other actions, included more explicit provisions for a registration and accounting program. The final rule also modified the quarterly transfer reporting requirements for manufacturers and initial distributors of these industrial devices. Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act (Act) provides for agreements under which the NRC relinquishes and a State assumes regulatory responsibility for the use of byproduct, source and small quantities of special nuclear material within a State. The December 18, 2000, final rule was a matter of compatibility under the Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement Statements issued September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517). The provisions of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 were designated as Category B because the provisions affected a program element with significant transboundary implications. Petitioner’s Issue The petitioner believes that certain devices containing higher level of activity, which are currently regulated under a general license in 10 CFR 31.5, would be best regulated under a specific license in 10 CFR part 30. The petitioner states that multiple Agreement States have already established more stringent requirements for GL devices to address accountability problems, source melt incidents and other issues related to such devices in their States, and that the decision by the NRC to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5 from ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘B’’ will require these Agreement States to reduce their current regulatory control of GL devices in order E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 75424 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules to be compatible with less stringent NRC regulations. The petitioner states also that the NRC decision to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.6 from ‘‘C’’ to ‘‘B’’ removes the ability of Agreement States to directly track the movement of many individuals and companies servicing GL devices and thus indirectly verify the location of these devices. The petitioner asserts that regulation of GL devices containing higher levels of activity should be under more rather than less regulatory oversight to further enhance the accountability and security of these devices. Petitioner’s Interest The petitioner is a non-profit, voluntary, scientific and professional society incorporated in the District of Columbia. The membership of the OAS consists of State radiation control program directors and staff from the 33 Agreement States who are responsible for implementation of their respective radioactive material programs. The purpose of the OAS is to provide a mechanism for the Agreement States to work with each other and with the NRC on regulatory issues associated with their respective agreements. The petitioner offers that Agreement States are those States that have entered into an Agreement with the NRC under section 274b. of the Act. The Agreement States regulate most types of radioactive material, including reactor fission byproducts, source material (uranium and thorium) and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass, in accordance with the compatibility requirements of the Act. The petitioner notes that NRC periodically reviews the performance of each Agreement State to assure adequate protection of public health and safety and compatibility with its regulatory requirements. The petitioner further states that Agreement States issue radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these regulations under the authority of each individual state’s laws. The Agreement States exercise their licensing and enforcement programs under direction of their governors in a manner that is compatible with the licensing programs of the NRC. The 33 existing Agreement States currently license and regulate approximately 16,800 radioactive material licenses, whereas the NRC regulates approximately 4,400 licenses. History of Issue In July 1996, the joint NRC-Agreement State Working Group, approved by the Commission to evaluate problems with VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 208001 licensees maintaining control over and accountability for devices containing radioactive material provided their recommendations to the NRC. One of the recommendations was that the NRC establish a registration program for GL devices containing specific isotopes above certain quantity limits that posed a comparatively higher risk of exposure to the public or property damage. The petitioner states that on December 18, 2000, the NRC issued a final rule, effective on February 16, 2001, that revised portions of 10 CFR parts 30, 31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, distributors and users of GL devices. The combined changes were called the ‘‘Generally Licensed Device Rule,’’ which included a revision that established a new registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13) that was based on the earlier recommendations of the working group. In addition, the petitioner states the NRC changed the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.5 from ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘B’’ and for 10 CFR 31.6 from ‘‘C’’ to ‘‘B’’. Agreement States were given until February 16, 2004 to adopt the new regulations. The petitioner states that in a letter dated July 28, 2004, the NRC presented the results of a survey of Agreement State compliance with adopting the new Generally Licensed Device Rule which showed that 12 of the 33 Agreement States had not adopted the new GL device requirements. The petitioner states further that during the May 2004 National Conference on Radiation Control and the September 2004 Organization of Agreement States annual meeting, the Agreement States discussed problem areas associated with the current system of regulating certain devices under a general license. These problem areas include: • The compatibility change from ‘‘D’’ to ‘‘B’’ in 10 CFR 31.5 limits States that choose to be more restrictive in regulating GL devices. • The compatibility change from ‘‘C’’ to ‘‘B’’ in 10 CFR 31.6 allows device manufacturers/service providers to service devices in Agreement States for less than 180 days without obtaining reciprocity or notifying State radiation control programs at a time when State programs believe enhanced tracking is required. • New materials security requirements have not been factored into general license device regulations. • Low awareness of regulatory requirements by some general licensees due to high turnover in the industrial PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 sector and minimal interaction with regulator. Petitioner’s Proposal The OAS proposes the following amendments to 10 CFR part 31, and changes in compatibility category. 1. Section 31.5 (a) would be revised to read as follows: (a) A general license is hereby issued to commercial and industrial firms and research, educational and medical institutions, individuals in the conduct of their business, and Federal, State or local government agencies to acquire, receive, possess, use or transfer, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, byproduct material contained in devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of detecting, measuring, gauging or controlling thickness, density, level, interface location, radiation, leakage, or qualitative or quantitative chemical composition or for producing light or an ionized atmosphere, provided each device contains less than 370 MBq (10 mCi) of cesium-137, 3.7 MBq (0.1 mCi) of strontium-90, 37 MBq (1 mCi) of cobalt60 or 37 MBq (1 mCi) of americium-241 or any other transuranic element (i.e., element with atomic number greater than uranium (92)), based on the activity indicated on the label. 2. In § 31.5 paragraph (c)(13) would be deleted in its entirety. 3. Revise the compatibility category of § 31.6 from ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘C’’. Petitioner’s Justification OAS stated that the newly formed OAS Rulemaking and Compatibility Committee surveyed the 33 Agreement State radiation control programs to determine the reaction to the change in compatibility of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 and the potential to specifically license devices currently regulated under a general license. Thirty-one States responded to the survey, as follows: • Eighty-seven percent of the responding States disagree with the CY 2000 Commission decision to revise the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 (27 of 31 States). • Ninety percent of the responding States currently allow a specific license for devices that may be generally licensed (28 of 31 states). • Ninety-seven percent of the responding States support the OAS taking action in this area (30 of 31 states). The OAS believes that requiring specific licensing of the higher risk gauging devices identified by the 1995 NRC-Agreement State joint working group can further enhance control and E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules accountability of GL devices. OAS states that while the GL device rule was an improvement over past regulation of these devices, there are still on-going problems with the regulation of GL gauging devices, including: • Low awareness of regulatory requirements by general licensees. • No routine inspection of GL devices for compliance with requirements. • No regulatory review prior to purchase. • Continued incidents involving loss of control of real or suspected GL devices. OAS believes that specific licensing of higher activity GL gauging devices would provide the following advantages: 1. Allow regulatory review (through the license application process) of higher-activity device purchases prior to receipt. 2. Increase security of the higher risk gauging devices to minimize the possibility of these devices being used in malicious acts. 3. Increase licensee awareness of regulatory requirements by virtue of the specific license application process and periodic inspections. 4. Improve licensee control of devices, which may reduce the number of potential orphan sources. Petitioner’s Conclusion The OAS understands and agrees with the desire of the Commission and device manufacturers for more uniform regulation of devices within the NRC and Agreement States. At the same time, the Agreement States’ desire to assure better accountability for sources and devices that are within the states’ jurisdiction. The Agreement States believe that the manufacture and distribution of the devices is best addressed uniformly by the methods described in this petition. Therefore, the OAS is proposing that 10 CFR 31.5 be amended to require specific licensing for devices that are currently regulated by a combination of general licensing and registration. This action would establish a higher national standard of regulation for identified higher risk devices. In addition, the OAS is proposing that the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.6 be revised from ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘C’’ to allow retention of a tool used by States to track the location and movement of device manufacturers and service providers in their State. This would allow Agreement States the opportunity to assess and monitor the radiation safety programs of device manufacturer representatives working within the State. The OAS believes the NRC and Agreement States can VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 208001 implement the proposed changes with limited impact on regulatory agencies and licensees, resulting in improved regulation and control of radioactive materials. Florida’s Request In addition to requesting comment on the petition by the OAS, NRC is seeking comment on a request by the Florida BRC. The issues raised in Florida’s request are closely related to those in the OAS petition, so NRC is seeking comment on both the OAS petition and the Florida request at the same time. Florida, an Agreement State, requested that the NRC change the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from category ‘‘B’’ to ‘‘C’’. Florida believes that the decision of whether and how to register additional types and quantities of generally (GL) devices beyond what the NRC requires should be a decision left to the State with the authority for regulating the devices. Florida states that it has had well-established requirements for the registration and regulation of GL devices for many years before the NRC adopted regulations to register certain GL devices. Florida states that NRC’s decision to assign a compatibility category ‘‘B’’ for 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I), will require it to reduce its current health, safety, and security regulatory control of GL devices in order to be compatible with the less stringent NRC regulations. Florida states that they issue and currently regulate over 1500 radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these regulations under the authority of Chapter 404, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64 E–5, Florida Administrative Code. Florida notes that the NRC periodically reviews the performance of its programs, thereby assuring compatibility with the NRC’s regulatory requirements. Florida requires registration of all GL devices with the exception of some tritium exit signs. Their program includes source registration, fees, annual inventories and inspections. Florida is concerned that the December 18, 2000, final rule, effective on February 16, 2001, revised portions of 10 CFR parts 30, 31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, distributors and users of GL devices, and that part of the revision established a new registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 31.5 )(13) and assigned a compatibility category of ‘‘B’’. According to Florida, it has instituted a number of changes required by the rule as legally binding license conditions and also is working on PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 75425 promulgating rules to address these issues, with the exception of the new registration requirements that would force it to adopt less stringent registration and accountability standards for certain GL devices containing radioactive material. Florida notes that NRC’s procedures in Management Directive 5.9, for categorizing program elements or regulations, states that to be included in Category ‘‘B’’, an NRC program element is to be one that applies to activities that have direct and significant effects in multiple jurisdictions (emphasis added). Examples include: transportation requirements, approval of products that are distributed nationwide, and definitions of products. Florida believes the registration of additional GL devices would not have a direct and significant effect in multiple jurisdictions. Florida asserts that States and the NRC have had different GL requirements for years with little discussion of any transboundary problems, and that any actions concerning the registration of additional GL devices in Florida would be between the State and individuals in Florida. According to Florida, this registration process does not have any direct and significant effect on device manufacturers or distributors, the transportation of the devices, the requirements for approval, or the movement of devices into or out of Florida. In the request, Florida cites its ability to register, inventory, and inspect all GL devices, as providing many benefits for the safety and security of its citizens and visitors and therefore to move to NRC’s registration scheme would require it to cease to be able to register and account for over 1,000 radioactive sources in GL devices currently being regulated. Florida believes that its ability to continue to register all GL devices clearly meets the essential objective of NRC’s Generally Licensed Device Rule. Florida notes also that NRC’s categorization criteria further states that for a program element to be included in Category ‘‘C’’, it should be one that the essential objective should be adopted by an Agreement State to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis and that, if not adopted, would result in an undesirable consequence. Florida believes that 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) meets the criteria for, and should be categorized as, compatibility category ‘‘C’’ in accordance with NRC Management Directive 5.9. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December, 2005. E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1 75426 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–24250 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6437; fax (425) 917–6590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2005–23358; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–206–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, and 747SR Series Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain 747–100, –200, and –300 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of certain lower lobe fuselage frames, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would retain all the requirements of the existing AD, and add airplanes to the applicability. This proposed AD results from reports indicating that fatigue cracks were found in lower lobe frames on the left side of the fuselage. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain lower lobe fuselage frames, which could lead to fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax: (202) 493–2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Dec 19, 2005 Jkt 208001 Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2005–23358; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–206– AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you can visit http:// dms.dot.gov. Discussion On March 22, 1999, we issued AD 99– 07–12, amendment 39–11097 (64 FR 15298, March 31, 1999), for certain Boeing Model 747–100, –200, and –300 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of certain lower lobe fuselage frames, and repair if necessary. That AD resulted from reports indicating that fatigue cracks were found in lower lobe frames on the left side of the fuselage. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of certain lower lobe fuselage frames, which could lead to fatigue cracks in the fuselage skin, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD 99–07–12, the manufacturer has issued new service information that expands the applicability to include 747–400 and –400D series airplanes, line numbers 696 to 1152 inclusive. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2408, Revision 1, dated April 4, 2002 (the original revision of that alert service bulletin, dated April 25, 1996, was referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in AD 99–07–12). The procedures in Revision 1 of the alert service bulletin are essentially the same as the procedures in the original revision for the airplanes affected by AD 99–07–12 (identified in the service bulletin as Group 1 airplanes). These procedures include repetitive inspections to detect cracking of certain lower lobe fuselage frames, and repair if necessary. For the 747–400 and –400D series airplanes that are added to the effectivity of the service bulletin (identified as Group 2 airplanes), the service bulletin specifies contacting the manufacturer for information about how to repair frames that have crack damage. Examining the Docket FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 99–07– 12 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD also would add airplanes to the applicability and require accomplishing the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed under ‘‘Difference Between PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75423-75426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24250]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 75423]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 31

[PRM-31-5]


Organization of Agreement States; Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a 
petition for rulemaking filed by the Organization of Agreement States 
(OAS). The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend its regulations 
to require specific licensing for devices that are currently regulated 
by a combination of general licensing and registration, and to revise 
the compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.6 from ``B'' to ``C''. The 
petitioner believes that these actions are needed to establish a higher 
national standard of regulation for higher risk generally licensed (GL) 
devices, and to allow retention of a tool used by Agreement States to 
track the location and movement of device manufacturers and service 
providers in their State.
    This action also addresses a request filed by the Bureau of 
Radiation Control (BRC) of the Florida Department of Health for the NRC 
to change the compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from 
category ``B'' to category ``C''. Florida BRC believes that NRC 
regulations are less stringent and that assigning a compatibility 
category ``B'' will require the State to reduce its current health, 
safety, and security regulatory control of GL devices.

DATES: Submit comments by March 6, 2006. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. 
Please include PRM-31-5 in the subject line of your comments. Comments 
submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to 
the public for inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to 
remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you 
against including personal information such as social security numbers 
and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail 
cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 
(301) 415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be 
viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at 
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.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. If you do not have access to ADAMS or 
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555. Telephone: 301 415-7163 or Toll Fee: 1-800-368-5642 or e-mail: 
mtl@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 18, 2000, (65 FR 79162), the NRC issued a final rule 
that amended the requirements applicable to certain generally licensed 
industrial devices containing byproduct material. The final rule, among 
other actions, included more explicit provisions for a registration and 
accounting program. The final rule also modified the quarterly transfer 
reporting requirements for manufacturers and initial distributors of 
these industrial devices.
    Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act (Act) provides for agreements 
under which the NRC relinquishes and a State assumes regulatory 
responsibility for the use of byproduct, source and small quantities of 
special nuclear material within a State. The December 18, 2000, final 
rule was a matter of compatibility under the Policy Statement on 
Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement Statements issued September 3, 
1997 (62 FR 46517). The provisions of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 were 
designated as Category B because the provisions affected a program 
element with significant transboundary implications.

Petitioner's Issue

    The petitioner believes that certain devices containing higher 
level of activity, which are currently regulated under a general 
license in 10 CFR 31.5, would be best regulated under a specific 
license in 10 CFR part 30. The petitioner states that multiple 
Agreement States have already established more stringent requirements 
for GL devices to address accountability problems, source melt 
incidents and other issues related to such devices in their States, and 
that the decision by the NRC to revise the compatibility category of 10 
CFR 31.5 from ``D'' to ``B'' will require these Agreement States to 
reduce their current regulatory control of GL devices in order

[[Page 75424]]

to be compatible with less stringent NRC regulations. The petitioner 
states also that the NRC decision to revise the compatibility category 
of 10 CFR 31.6 from ``C'' to ``B'' removes the ability of Agreement 
States to directly track the movement of many individuals and companies 
servicing GL devices and thus indirectly verify the location of these 
devices. The petitioner asserts that regulation of GL devices 
containing higher levels of activity should be under more rather than 
less regulatory oversight to further enhance the accountability and 
security of these devices.

Petitioner's Interest

    The petitioner is a non-profit, voluntary, scientific and 
professional society incorporated in the District of Columbia. The 
membership of the OAS consists of State radiation control program 
directors and staff from the 33 Agreement States who are responsible 
for implementation of their respective radioactive material programs. 
The purpose of the OAS is to provide a mechanism for the Agreement 
States to work with each other and with the NRC on regulatory issues 
associated with their respective agreements.
    The petitioner offers that Agreement States are those States that 
have entered into an Agreement with the NRC under section 274b. of the 
Act. The Agreement States regulate most types of radioactive material, 
including reactor fission byproducts, source material (uranium and 
thorium) and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to 
form a critical mass, in accordance with the compatibility requirements 
of the Act. The petitioner notes that NRC periodically reviews the 
performance of each Agreement State to assure adequate protection of 
public health and safety and compatibility with its regulatory 
requirements.
    The petitioner further states that Agreement States issue 
radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these 
regulations under the authority of each individual state's laws. The 
Agreement States exercise their licensing and enforcement programs 
under direction of their governors in a manner that is compatible with 
the licensing programs of the NRC. The 33 existing Agreement States 
currently license and regulate approximately 16,800 radioactive 
material licenses, whereas the NRC regulates approximately 4,400 
licenses.

History of Issue

    In July 1996, the joint NRC-Agreement State Working Group, approved 
by the Commission to evaluate problems with licensees maintaining 
control over and accountability for devices containing radioactive 
material provided their recommendations to the NRC. One of the 
recommendations was that the NRC establish a registration program for 
GL devices containing specific isotopes above certain quantity limits 
that posed a comparatively higher risk of exposure to the public or 
property damage.
    The petitioner states that on December 18, 2000, the NRC issued a 
final rule, effective on February 16, 2001, that revised portions of 10 
CFR parts 30, 31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, 
distributors and users of GL devices. The combined changes were called 
the ``Generally Licensed Device Rule,'' which included a revision that 
established a new registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 
31.5(c)(13) that was based on the earlier recommendations of the 
working group. In addition, the petitioner states the NRC changed the 
compatibility category for 10 CFR 31.5 from ``D'' to ``B'' and for 10 
CFR 31.6 from ``C'' to ``B''. Agreement States were given until 
February 16, 2004 to adopt the new regulations.
    The petitioner states that in a letter dated July 28, 2004, the NRC 
presented the results of a survey of Agreement State compliance with 
adopting the new Generally Licensed Device Rule which showed that 12 of 
the 33 Agreement States had not adopted the new GL device requirements.
    The petitioner states further that during the May 2004 National 
Conference on Radiation Control and the September 2004 Organization of 
Agreement States annual meeting, the Agreement States discussed problem 
areas associated with the current system of regulating certain devices 
under a general license. These problem areas include:
     The compatibility change from ``D'' to ``B'' in 10 CFR 
31.5 limits States that choose to be more restrictive in regulating GL 
devices.
     The compatibility change from ``C'' to ``B'' in 10 CFR 
31.6 allows device manufacturers/service providers to service devices 
in Agreement States for less than 180 days without obtaining 
reciprocity or notifying State radiation control programs at a time 
when State programs believe enhanced tracking is required.
     New materials security requirements have not been factored 
into general license device regulations.
     Low awareness of regulatory requirements by some general 
licensees due to high turnover in the industrial sector and minimal 
interaction with regulator.

Petitioner's Proposal

    The OAS proposes the following amendments to 10 CFR part 31, and 
changes in compatibility category.
    1. Section 31.5 (a) would be revised to read as follows:
    (a) A general license is hereby issued to commercial and industrial 
firms and research, educational and medical institutions, individuals 
in the conduct of their business, and Federal, State or local 
government agencies to acquire, receive, possess, use or transfer, in 
accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this 
section, byproduct material contained in devices designed and 
manufactured for the purpose of detecting, measuring, gauging or 
controlling thickness, density, level, interface location, radiation, 
leakage, or qualitative or quantitative chemical composition or for 
producing light or an ionized atmosphere, provided each device contains 
less than 370 MBq (10 mCi) of cesium-137, 3.7 MBq (0.1 mCi) of 
strontium-90, 37 MBq (1 mCi) of cobalt-60 or 37 MBq (1 mCi) of 
americium-241 or any other transuranic element (i.e., element with 
atomic number greater than uranium (92)), based on the activity 
indicated on the label.
    2. In Sec.  31.5 paragraph (c)(13) would be deleted in its 
entirety.
    3. Revise the compatibility category of Sec.  31.6 from ``B'' to 
``C''.

Petitioner's Justification

    OAS stated that the newly formed OAS Rulemaking and Compatibility 
Committee surveyed the 33 Agreement State radiation control programs to 
determine the reaction to the change in compatibility of 10 CFR 31.5 
and 31.6 and the potential to specifically license devices currently 
regulated under a general license. Thirty-one States responded to the 
survey, as follows:
     Eighty-seven percent of the responding States disagree 
with the CY 2000 Commission decision to revise the compatibility 
category of 10 CFR 31.5 and 31.6 (27 of 31 States).
     Ninety percent of the responding States currently allow a 
specific license for devices that may be generally licensed (28 of 31 
states).
     Ninety-seven percent of the responding States support the 
OAS taking action in this area (30 of 31 states).
    The OAS believes that requiring specific licensing of the higher 
risk gauging devices identified by the 1995 NRC-Agreement State joint 
working group can further enhance control and

[[Page 75425]]

accountability of GL devices. OAS states that while the GL device rule 
was an improvement over past regulation of these devices, there are 
still on-going problems with the regulation of GL gauging devices, 
including:
     Low awareness of regulatory requirements by general 
licensees.
     No routine inspection of GL devices for compliance with 
requirements.
     No regulatory review prior to purchase.
     Continued incidents involving loss of control of real or 
suspected GL devices.
    OAS believes that specific licensing of higher activity GL gauging 
devices would provide the following advantages:
    1. Allow regulatory review (through the license application 
process) of higher-activity device purchases prior to receipt.
    2. Increase security of the higher risk gauging devices to minimize 
the possibility of these devices being used in malicious acts.
    3. Increase licensee awareness of regulatory requirements by virtue 
of the specific license application process and periodic inspections.
    4. Improve licensee control of devices, which may reduce the number 
of potential orphan sources.

Petitioner's Conclusion

    The OAS understands and agrees with the desire of the Commission 
and device manufacturers for more uniform regulation of devices within 
the NRC and Agreement States. At the same time, the Agreement States' 
desire to assure better accountability for sources and devices that are 
within the states' jurisdiction. The Agreement States believe that the 
manufacture and distribution of the devices is best addressed uniformly 
by the methods described in this petition. Therefore, the OAS is 
proposing that 10 CFR 31.5 be amended to require specific licensing for 
devices that are currently regulated by a combination of general 
licensing and registration. This action would establish a higher 
national standard of regulation for identified higher risk devices. In 
addition, the OAS is proposing that the compatibility category for 10 
CFR 31.6 be revised from ``B'' to ``C'' to allow retention of a tool 
used by States to track the location and movement of device 
manufacturers and service providers in their State. This would allow 
Agreement States the opportunity to assess and monitor the radiation 
safety programs of device manufacturer representatives working within 
the State. The OAS believes the NRC and Agreement States can implement 
the proposed changes with limited impact on regulatory agencies and 
licensees, resulting in improved regulation and control of radioactive 
materials.

Florida's Request

    In addition to requesting comment on the petition by the OAS, NRC 
is seeking comment on a request by the Florida BRC. The issues raised 
in Florida's request are closely related to those in the OAS petition, 
so NRC is seeking comment on both the OAS petition and the Florida 
request at the same time.
    Florida, an Agreement State, requested that the NRC change the 
compatibility category of 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) from category ``B'' to 
``C''. Florida believes that the decision of whether and how to 
register additional types and quantities of generally (GL) devices 
beyond what the NRC requires should be a decision left to the State 
with the authority for regulating the devices. Florida states that it 
has had well-established requirements for the registration and 
regulation of GL devices for many years before the NRC adopted 
regulations to register certain GL devices. Florida states that NRC's 
decision to assign a compatibility category ``B'' for 10 CFR 
31.5(c)(13)(I), will require it to reduce its current health, safety, 
and security regulatory control of GL devices in order to be compatible 
with the less stringent NRC regulations.
    Florida states that they issue and currently regulate over 1500 
radioactive material licenses, promulgate regulations and enforce these 
regulations under the authority of Chapter 404, Florida Statutes, and 
Chapter 64 E-5, Florida Administrative Code. Florida notes that the NRC 
periodically reviews the performance of its programs, thereby assuring 
compatibility with the NRC's regulatory requirements.
    Florida requires registration of all GL devices with the exception 
of some tritium exit signs. Their program includes source registration, 
fees, annual inventories and inspections.
    Florida is concerned that the December 18, 2000, final rule, 
effective on February 16, 2001, revised portions of 10 CFR parts 30, 
31, and 32 to add new requirements for manufacturers, distributors and 
users of GL devices, and that part of the revision established a new 
registration program for certain GL devices in 10 CFR 31.5 
[sscopy])(13) and assigned a compatibility category of ``B''. According 
to Florida, it has instituted a number of changes required by the rule 
as legally binding license conditions and also is working on 
promulgating rules to address these issues, with the exception of the 
new registration requirements that would force it to adopt less 
stringent registration and accountability standards for certain GL 
devices containing radioactive material.
    Florida notes that NRC's procedures in Management Directive 5.9, 
for categorizing program elements or regulations, states that to be 
included in Category ``B'', an NRC program element is to be one that 
applies to activities that have direct and significant effects in 
multiple jurisdictions (emphasis added). Examples include: 
transportation requirements, approval of products that are distributed 
nationwide, and definitions of products. Florida believes the 
registration of additional GL devices would not have a direct and 
significant effect in multiple jurisdictions.
    Florida asserts that States and the NRC have had different GL 
requirements for years with little discussion of any transboundary 
problems, and that any actions concerning the registration of 
additional GL devices in Florida would be between the State and 
individuals in Florida. According to Florida, this registration process 
does not have any direct and significant effect on device manufacturers 
or distributors, the transportation of the devices, the requirements 
for approval, or the movement of devices into or out of Florida.
    In the request, Florida cites its ability to register, inventory, 
and inspect all GL devices, as providing many benefits for the safety 
and security of its citizens and visitors and therefore to move to 
NRC's registration scheme would require it to cease to be able to 
register and account for over 1,000 radioactive sources in GL devices 
currently being regulated. Florida believes that its ability to 
continue to register all GL devices clearly meets the essential 
objective of NRC's Generally Licensed Device Rule.
    Florida notes also that NRC's categorization criteria further 
states that for a program element to be included in Category ``C'', it 
should be one that the essential objective should be adopted by an 
Agreement State to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps in the 
regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis and that, if not 
adopted, would result in an undesirable consequence.
    Florida believes that 10 CFR 31.5(c)(13)(I) meets the criteria for, 
and should be categorized as, compatibility category ``C'' in 
accordance with NRC Management Directive 5.9.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December, 2005.

[[Page 75426]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-24250 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P