NUREG-1842, “Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment”, 19912-19913 [E6-5736]

Download as PDF 19912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 2006 / Notices notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ policy-making/schedule.html * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD: 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: April 13, 2006. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06–3746 Filed 4–14–06; 2:13 pm] BILLING CODE 7590–01–M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUREG–1842, ‘‘Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment’’ Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability of NUREG–1842, ‘‘Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment,’’ and request for public comment. hsrobinson on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the availability of and is seeking comments on NUREG–1842, ‘‘Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:03 Apr 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 Good Practices, Draft Report For Comment.’’ DATES: Comments on this document should be submitted by June 19, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practical. To ensure efficient and complete comment resolution, comments should include references to the section, page, and line numbers of the document to which the comment applies, if possible. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6– D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001. Hand-deliver comments attention to Michael Lesar, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may also be sent electronically to NRCREP@nrc.gov. This document, NUREG–1842, is available at the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html under Accession No. ML060960216; on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/docs4comment; and at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. The PDR’s mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 415–4737 or (800) 397–4205; fax (301) 415–3548; e-mail PDR@NRC.GOV. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Erasmia Lois, Human Factors and Reliability Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone (301) 415–6560, e-mail exl1@nrc.gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NUREG–1842, ‘‘Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment, Draft for Comment’’ The NRC is developing guidance for performing or evaluating human reliability analyses (HRAs) to support risk-informed regulatory decisionmaking and, in particular, the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.200, ‘‘An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for RiskInformed Activities,’’ dated February 2004. The guidance is developed in two phases. The first phase focused on developing ‘‘Good Practices for Implementing Human Reliability Analysis,’’ that is documenting the processes and analytical tasks and judgments expected to have been PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 performed in order for the HRA results to sufficiently represent the anticipated operator performance in risk-informed decisions. The good practices were submitted for public comment, NUREG– 1792, Good Practices for Implementing Human Reliability Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,’’ August 2004, and were published as a final NUREG–1792 in April 2005. The second phase, summarized in draft NUREG–1842, evaluated the various HRA methods that are commonly used in regulatory applications, with a particular focus on their capabilities to satisfy the good practices, as well as their respective strengths and limitations regarding their underlying knowledge and data bases. The NRC is seeking public comment in order to receive feedback from the widest range of interested parties and to ensure that all information relevant to developing this document is available to the NRC staff. This document is issued for comment only and is not intended for interim use. The NRC will review public comments received on the document, incorporate suggested changes as necessary, and issue the final NUREG–1842 for use. The NRC will hold a public meeting on May 23, 2006 at the NRC headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room: Commission Briefing Room (8:30 a.m.– 5 p.m., preliminary agenda enclosed). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the findings and conclusions documented in NUREG–1842 in order to allow stakeholders develop a better understanding of the contents of the report and ask clarification questions. The NRC is not soliciting comments on draft NUREG–1842 as part of this meeting. Public comments on the draft NUREG can be provided as discussed above. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 11th day of April 2006. E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 18, 2006 / Notices For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Farouk Eltawila, Director, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Agenda—Public Meeting on NUREG– 1842 ‘‘Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment,’’ May 23, 2006. U.S. NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Room Commission Briefing Room PRELIMINARY AGENDA Morning Topic 8:30–9 ............... 9–10:30 ............. Introduction/Overview. Evaluation of Methods. —Approach and Summary of results. —Brief discussion of each method. Break. Evaluation of Methods (Continued). —Comparison of methods against some key characteristics. —Implications—What methods should be used when? Lunch. Discussion on method evaluation (continued). Questions and Answers (as needed). 10:30–10:45 ...... 10:45–12 ........... [FR Doc. E6–5736 Filed 4–17–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION hsrobinson on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES April 27, 2006 Board of Directors Meeting Time and Date: Thursday, April 27, 1006, 10 a.m. (Open Portion); 10:15 a.m. (Closed Portion). Place: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Status: Meeting Open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.). Matters to be Considered: 1. President’s Report. 2. Confirmation of Vice President. 3. Confirmation of Vice President. 4. Approval of January 19, 2006 Minutes (Open Portion). Further Matters to be Considered: (Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.). 1. Finance Project—Eastern Europe and NIS Countries. 2. Finance Project—Global. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:03 Apr 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 3. Finance Project—Global. 4. Finance Project—Caribbean Community and Common Market/ Dominican Republic. 5. Finance Project—Central America, Panama, Colombia, and Mexico. 6. Finance Project—Africa. 7. Finance Project—Southern Africa. 8. Approval of January 19, 2006 Minutes (Closed Portion). 6. Pending Major Projects. 7. Reports. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336–8438. Dated: January 6, 2006. Connie M. Downs, Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation. [FR Doc. 06–3740 Filed 4–14–06; 12:40 pm] BILLING CODE 3210–01–M POSTAL RATE COMMISSION [Docket No. C2004–3; Order No. 1460] 19913 former, it is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction; if the latter, it is not. The Postal Service’s motion to dismiss is denied. This should not, however, be read as a finding on the merits on the jurisdictional question presented. The pleadings raise mixed questions of fact and law. Based solely on the pleadings, the Commission is disinclined to determine whether or not genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. Accordingly, by this order the Commission hereby notices the proceeding and, as discussed below, provides interested persons an opportunity to address whether or not genuine issues of material fact remain to be presented in this case. Following submission of responsive pleadings, the Commission will determine whether to proceed with or without hearing. If no genuine material issue of fact is presented, the Commission will establish a briefing schedule affording participants an opportunity to address the principal legal issue whether or not stamped stationery is a postal service. Order and Notice of Proceeding I. Background Postal Rate Commission. ACTION: Order denying motion to dismiss and notice of proceeding. The Complaint. In his Complaint, filed pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3662, Carlson contends that stamped stationery is a postal service subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The specific stationery in question consists of sheets of 6.25″ x 14.31″ paper imprinted with ‘‘The Art of Disney: Friendship’’ postage stamps or indicia. Each pre-stamped sheet has room for a message and address; the sheet is designed to be folded, sealed, and mailed.3 While Carlson makes several claims, the gravamen of his complaint is that stamped stationery is a postal service within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, and 3623. Id. at 2, para. 10. In support, he compares stamped stationery to stamped envelopes and stamped cards, both of which are postal services. Id. at 3, paras. 14–15. He observes that section 960 of the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule (DMCS) is entitled ‘‘Stamped Paper’’ and that it includes stamped envelopes and stamped cards. Ibid. paras. 16–17. He contends that stamped stationery is a form of stamped paper within the meaning of section 960 of the DMCS. Ibid. para. 21. In addition, Carlson notes that the Postal Service describes AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document announces the Commission’s decision to institute a formal proceeding to consider issues raised in a complaint concerning stamped stationery. Conducting this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine whether the complaint raises any genuine issues of material fact and to make related determinations. DATES: 1. Deadline for filing issue statements and notices of intervention: April 27, 2006. 2. Deadline for filing replies to issue statements: May 4, 2006. ADDRESSES: File all documents referred to in this order electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at https://www.prc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has before it a complaint filed by Douglas F. Carlson (Carlson or Complainant) concerning stamped stationery 1 and a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by the Postal Service.2 The central issue presented by these pleadings is whether stamped stationery is a postal or philatelic product. If the 1 Douglas F. Carlson Complaint on Stamped Stationery, June 24, 2004 (Complaint). 2 Motion of the United States Postal Service to Dismiss Complaint, January 18, 2006 (Motion to Dismiss). PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3 At the time the Complaint was filed, the stamped stationery sold in pads of 12 for $14.95, while the face value of the postage was $4.44. Complaint at 2, para. 8. E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19912-19913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5736]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


NUREG-1842, ``Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods 
Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment''

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability of NUREG-1842, ``Evaluation of Human 
Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for 
Comment,'' and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the 
availability of and is seeking comments on NUREG-1842, ``Evaluation of 
Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report 
For Comment.''

DATES: Comments on this document should be submitted by June 19, 2006. 
Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent 
practical. To ensure efficient and complete comment resolution, 
comments should include references to the section, page, and line 
numbers of the document to which the comment applies, if possible.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit 
written comments to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, 
Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments attention 
to Michael Lesar, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may also be sent 
electronically to NRCREP@nrc.gov.
    This document, NUREG-1842, is available at the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on 
the Internet at the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html under Accession No. ML060960216; on the NRC Web site at 
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/docs4comment; and 
at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 
The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone 
(301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205; fax (301) 415-3548; e-mail 
PDR@NRC.GOV.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Erasmia Lois, Human Factors and 
Reliability Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone 
(301) 415-6560, e-mail exl1@nrc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NUREG-1842, ``Evaluation of Human Reliability Analysis Methods Against 
Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment, Draft for Comment''

    The NRC is developing guidance for performing or evaluating human 
reliability analyses (HRAs) to support risk-informed regulatory 
decision-making and, in particular, the implementation of Regulatory 
Guide 1.200, ``An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,'' 
dated February 2004. The guidance is developed in two phases. The first 
phase focused on developing ``Good Practices for Implementing Human 
Reliability Analysis,'' that is documenting the processes and 
analytical tasks and judgments expected to have been performed in order 
for the HRA results to sufficiently represent the anticipated operator 
performance in risk-informed decisions. The good practices were 
submitted for public comment, NUREG-1792, Good Practices for 
Implementing Human Reliability Analysis, Draft Report for Comment,'' 
August 2004, and were published as a final NUREG-1792 in April 2005. 
The second phase, summarized in draft NUREG-1842, evaluated the various 
HRA methods that are commonly used in regulatory applications, with a 
particular focus on their capabilities to satisfy the good practices, 
as well as their respective strengths and limitations regarding their 
underlying knowledge and data bases.
    The NRC is seeking public comment in order to receive feedback from 
the widest range of interested parties and to ensure that all 
information relevant to developing this document is available to the 
NRC staff. This document is issued for comment only and is not intended 
for interim use. The NRC will review public comments received on the 
document, incorporate suggested changes as necessary, and issue the 
final NUREG-1842 for use.
    The NRC will hold a public meeting on May 23, 2006 at the NRC 
headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room: 
Commission Briefing Room (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., preliminary agenda 
enclosed). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the findings and 
conclusions documented in NUREG-1842 in order to allow stakeholders 
develop a better understanding of the contents of the report and ask 
clarification questions. The NRC is not soliciting comments on draft 
NUREG-1842 as part of this meeting. Public comments on the draft NUREG 
can be provided as discussed above.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 11th day of April 2006.


[[Page 19913]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farouk Eltawila,
Director, Division of Risk Assessment and Special Projects, Office of 
Nuclear Regulatory Research.

Agenda--Public Meeting on NUREG-1842 ``Evaluation of Human Reliability 
Analysis Methods Against Good Practices, Draft Report for Comment,''

May 23, 2006.

U.S. NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Room 
Commission Briefing Room

                           Preliminary Agenda
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Morning                               Topic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8:30-9................................  Introduction/Overview.
9-10:30...............................  Evaluation of Methods.
                                        --Approach and Summary of
                                         results.
                                        --Brief discussion of each
                                         method.
10:30-10:45...........................  Break.
10:45-12..............................  Evaluation of Methods
                                         (Continued).
                                        --Comparison of methods against
                                         some key characteristics.
                                        --Implications--What methods
                                         should be used when?
                                        Lunch.
                                        Discussion on method evaluation
                                         (continued).
                                        Questions and Answers (as
                                         needed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 [FR Doc. E6-5736 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.