Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements, 43534-43549 [2011-18395]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43534-43549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18395]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 26

[NRC-2011-0058]
RIN 3150-AI94


Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) 
is amending its regulations governing the fitness for duty of workers 
at nuclear power plants. These amendments allow holders of nuclear 
power plant operating licenses the option to use a different method 
from the one already prescribed in the NRC's regulations for 
determining when certain nuclear power plant workers must be afforded 
time off from work to ensure that such workers are not impaired due to 
cumulative fatigue caused by work schedules.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this 
document using the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and search for documents filed under Docket ID 
NRC-2011-0058. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 
telephone: 301-492-3668, e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine 
and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's 
PDR, Public File Area O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC 
are available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 
which provides text and image files of the 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's PDR reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Benowitz, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; 
telephone: 301-415-4060; e-mail: 
Howard.Benowitz@nrc.govmailto:Howard.Benowitz@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
    A. NRC's Fitness for Duty Regulations
    B. Stakeholder Reaction to the Fitness for Duty Requirements
    C. Public Meetings and Commission Direction
II. Public Input to the Final Rule
III. Description of the Final Rule
    A. Maximum Weekly Average of 54 Hours Worked Over a 6-Week 
Averaging Period That Advances on a Weekly Basis
    B. Alternative to the Minimum Days Off Requirements
    C. Applicability
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Availability of Documents
VI. Criminal Penalties
VII. Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
VIII. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental 
Assessment
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Regulatory Analysis
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
XIV. Backfit Analysis
XV. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. NRC's Fitness for Duty Regulations

    On March 31, 2008, the NRC promulgated a final rule which 
substantially revised its regulations for fitness for duty (FFD) in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 26 (73 FR 
16966; March 31, 2008). The revised regulations updated the NRC's FFD 
requirements and made them more consistent with other relevant Federal 
rules, guidelines, and drug and alcohol testing programs that impose 
similar requirements on the private sector.
    In addition, by establishing clear and enforceable requirements for 
the management of worker fatigue, the 2008 amendments require nuclear 
power plant licensees to ensure that worker fatigue does not adversely 
affect public health and safety and the common defense and security. 
Among these fatigue management requirements is a minimum days off 
requirement, which requires licensees to manage cumulative fatigue by 
providing workers with a minimum number of days off over the course of 
a period not to exceed 6 weeks.

B. Stakeholder Reaction to the Fitness for Duty Requirements

    On September 3, 2010, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted 
a

[[Page 43535]]

petition for rulemaking (PRM-26-5). In PRM-26-5, the NEI stated that 
the ``new rule has resulted in consequences not originally envisioned 
when the rule was developed'' and that ``[t]hese consequences have 
diminished the safety benefits of the rule.'' The NEI stated that the 
unintended consequences stem from the minimum days off requirements, 
specifically Sec.  26.205(d)(3) through Sec.  26.205(d)(6), because 
they created an undue level of complexity and inflexibility in managing 
worker fatigue. These regulations mandated a specified minimum average 
number of days off per week, averaged over a fixed time period. The 
minimum average number of days off depended on the duties the 
individual performed and, for Sec.  26.205(d)(3), the length of an 
individual's shift schedule (i.e., whether the individual was working 
8-, 10- or 12-hour shifts).
    The NEI requested, among other changes, that 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, be amended to replace the minimum days off requirements in 
Sec.  26.205(d) with a performance-based objective, consisting of an 
average of 54 hours worked per week, averaged over a calendar quarter. 
The NEI also proposed changing the Sec.  26.205(e)(1) annual assessment 
of actual hours worked and performance of individuals subject to the 
work hour controls to a quarterly assessment to provide a more frequent 
review of hours worked. The NEI proposed to eliminate the minimum days 
off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) through Sec.  26.205(d)(6), 
while the work hour limits and break requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(1)(i)-(iii) and (d)(2)(i)-(ii), respectively, would remain 
unchanged.
    Separately from PRM-26-5, on September 23, 2010, the NEI submitted 
a request for enforcement discretion regarding the minimum days off 
provisions of 10 CFR Part 26. The request reiterated the NEI's opinion 
that the regulations that govern fatigue management impeded ``many 
safety-beneficial practices at plant sites, adversely [impact] the 
quality of life of covered workers, and [result] in conflicts between 
rule requirements and represented bargaining unit agreements.'' The 
letter requested that the NRC ``exercise enforcement discretion from 
the [minimum days off] provisions of the rule'' until the final 
disposition of PRM-26-5.
    Mr. Erik Erb, a nuclear security officer at the Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, submitted a petition for rulemaking (PRM-26-6) on 
August 17, 2010. Mr. Erb requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR Part 26, 
Subpart I, to decrease the minimum days off requirement for security 
officers working 12-hour shifts from an average of 3 days per week to 
an average of 2.5 or 2 days per week. This petition was endorsed by 91 
security officers.

C. Public Meetings and Commission Direction

    The NRC held a public meeting on November 18, 2010, to learn, 
directly from the affected stakeholders, more details about the 
unintended consequences of the minimum days off requirements. Although 
some of the stakeholders were comfortable with the minimum days off 
requirements in the 2008 final rule, the stakeholders at this public 
meeting claimed that the unintended consequences had diminished the 
safety benefits of the fatigue management provisions of 10 CFR part 26 
and expressed the need for an alternative that was simpler and would 
provide greater scheduling flexibility. Additional public meetings were 
held on January 6, 2011, and January 25, 2011, to provide opportunities 
for stakeholders and the NRC staff to discuss alternatives to the 
minimum days off requirements.
    In a February 8, 2011, public meeting, the NRC staff and 
stakeholders briefed the Commission on the implementation of the 10 CFR 
Part 26 fatigue management requirements. The nuclear power industry 
stakeholders conveyed many of the same concerns raised in the three 
public meetings. The NRC staff presented the scientific and technical 
bases for the requirements for managing cumulative fatigue and a 
proposal to address the concerns raised by the industry stakeholders. 
The NRC staff proposed a maximum average 54-hour work week, averaged 
over a 6-week rolling period, as an alternative to the Sec.  
26.205(d)(3) minimum days off requirements. The NRC staff and industry 
stakeholders generally agreed that this proposal could provide the 
relief sought by the industry while meeting the objectives of the 
minimum days off requirements. Other stakeholders were less certain 
that the NRC should consider proposals to change the requirements.
    On March 24, 2011, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements 
Memorandum (SRM) that directed the NRC staff to conduct a rulemaking to 
provide an alternative to the minimum days off requirements that would 
be consistent with the proposal presented by the NRC staff at the 
February 8, 2011, briefing. The Commission limited the scope of the 
rulemaking to the alternative to the minimum days off requirements and 
instructed the NRC staff to consider the following in a separate 
rulemaking effort: (1) Other issues related to the petitions for 
rulemaking, (2) other changes to 10 CFR part 26, and (3) comments 
received in this rulemaking proceeding that are outside the limited 
scope of this rulemaking. The Commission also directed the staff to 
expedite this rulemaking and provide a 30-day public comment period for 
the proposed rule instead of the typical 75-day public comment period.
    On April 25, 2011, consistent with the March 24, 2011, SRM, the NRC 
revised its Enforcement Policy to include an interim provision allowing 
licensees enforcement discretion for violations of Sec.  26.205(d)(3) 
if the licensees implement an alternative approach to the minimum days 
off requirements (76 FR 22802). This alternative approach limits an 
individual's number of hours worked to a weekly average of 54 hours, 
calculated using a rolling window of up to 6 weeks. The enforcement 
discretion remains in place until the effective date of this final 
rule.
    The NRC held public meetings on April 27, 2011, May 11, 2011, June 
1, 2011, and June 23, 2011, to discuss implementation guidance for an 
alternative to the minimum days off requirements.
    On May 16, 2011, consistent with the March 24, 2011, SRM, the NRC 
published notices that it would consider the issues raised in PRM-26-5 
and PRM-26-6 in the planned ``Quality Control/Quality Verification'' 
rulemaking (Docket ID NRC-2009-0090) (76 FR 28191-28193).

II. Public Input to the Final Rule

    The NRC issued a proposed rule on April 26, 2011, to amend 10 CFR 
Part 26 to provide licensees with an option for managing cumulative 
fatigue that differed from the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(3) (76 FR 23208). The proposed rule would have permitted 
licensees to maintain individuals' work hours at or below a weekly 
average of 54 work hours, calculated using a rolling period of up to 6 
weeks, which would roll by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at 
any time. On May 3, 2011, the NRC published a correction in the Federal 
Register to correct a typographical error in a Web site address that 
had appeared in the proposed rule (76 FR 24831). The public comment 
period closed on May 26, 2011.
    The NRC received submittals from 10 commenters, which included 25 
separate comments. Seven of the commenters supported the proposed 
rule's concept of providing the alternative method of managing

[[Page 43536]]

cumulative fatigue that would be simpler and more flexible to implement 
than the minimum days off requirements. These seven commenters included 
Mr. Erb, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the NEI, with 
endorsements from Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Entergy 
Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Arizona Public 
Service Company (APS), and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Although it 
supported the comments submitted by the NEI, the APS submitted 
additional comments concerning implementation of the alternative and 
minimum days off requirements. Another commenter, Mr. Larry Lawson, a 
nuclear power plant reactor operator, objected to the proposed rule. 
Two individuals, Mr. Harry Sloan and Mr. Mark Callahan, provided 
comments that were primarily outside the limited scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Comments from the UCS indicate that one reason it supports the 
alternative is that, unlike the minimum days off requirements, the 
alternative would apply the same requirement to all workers subject to 
the work hour controls, without regard to their specific duties. The 
UCS remarked that this approach is supported by science, in contrast to 
the minimum days off requirements, which apply to individuals based on 
their duties and the length of their shift schedules.
    Notwithstanding that the UCS supports the proposed rule as written, 
the NRC disagrees with the position in the comment that the minimum 
days off requirements are not supported by science. The intent of both 
of the minimum days off and alternative requirements is to manage 
cumulative fatigue. As explained in section III.A of this document, one 
method of managing cumulative fatigue is to require that an individual 
have a minimum number of days off from work. The Statement of 
Considerations (SOC) for the 2008 10 CFR Part 26 final rule provides 
the scientific basis for these requirements. The 2008 SOC describes why 
the number of days off each individual must have depends, in part, on 
their duties and the length of their shifts.
    Another method of managing cumulative fatigue is to limit the 
number of hours an individual works, which indirectly imposes days off. 
The alternative provided by this final rule offers this method. This 
approach provides a level of assurance of the management of cumulative 
fatigue that is comparable to the minimum days off requirements. 
Although individuals who perform certain duties, such as security 
personnel, could work more hours in a 6-week period under the 
alternative as compared to the minimum days off requirements, the 
potential for fatigue that could result from the increased hours should 
be offset by anticipated reductions in fatigue that will result from 
using an averaging period that advances by one week increments rather 
than by non-overlapping shift cycles. As noted elsewhere in this 
document, an averaging period that incrementally advances on a regular 
basis reduces the potential for front-loading and backloading 
successive weeks of long work hours. In addition, the alternative 
provides more flexibility for licensees to manage work hour schedules, 
thereby reducing the potential for fatigue caused by scheduling 
constraints. Implementing the alternative also reduces the 
administrative burden on licensees by having only one set of 
requirements for all covered workers.
    The availability of the alternative does not diminish or call into 
question the efficacy of the minimum days off requirements. The 
implementation of either approach provides reasonable assurance that 
individuals will not be impaired due to cumulative fatigue.

Specific Request for Comments

    In the proposed rule's SOC, the NRC sought comments and supporting 
rationale from the public on the following issue: Would the alternative 
approach provide assurance of the management of cumulative fatigue 
comparable to the current minimum days off requirements? Two 
commenters, Mr. Erb and the UCS, agreed that the alternative 
requirements would provide assurance that licensees could manage 
cumulative fatigue at a level that is comparable to the assurance 
provided by the minimum days off requirements. Mr. Erb also said that 
the alternative would help to alleviate the unintended consequences 
caused by the minimum days off requirements.
    The NRC agrees with the commenters. As described in section III.A 
of this document, the alternative provides licensees with a method for 
managing cumulative fatigue that is different in several ways from the 
minimum days off requirements but provides a comparable level of 
assurance that covered workers will not be impaired from cumulative 
fatigue due to their work schedules. The alternative also should 
eliminate the unintended consequences of the minimum days off 
requirements by offering a simpler method for computing work hours and 
allowing licensees to be more flexible in how they schedule 
individuals' work hours.
    Although Mr. Lawson did not directly respond to the question 
presented in the proposed rule's SOC, he stated that the alternative 
would ease the minimum days off restrictions and increase fatigue.
    The NRC disagrees that the alternative would relax the cumulative 
fatigue management requirements. For the reasons given in section III.A 
of this document, the NRC has determined that the alternative approach 
provides assurance of the management of cumulative fatigue that is 
comparable to assurance provided by the minimum days off requirements.
    Other commenters did not address this specific request for comment.

Suggested Changes to the Proposed Rule

    The NEI stated that the proposed rule language uses the terms 
``rolling period'' and ``rolling window'' interchangeably, and the SOC 
for the proposed rule also uses the term ``averaging period,'' when 
referring to the 6-week maximum period over which the 54-hour per week 
average is to be calculated. The NEI suggested that the NRC use only 
the term ``averaging period.''
    The NRC agrees with the NEI that the terms are used interchangeably 
throughout the proposed rule's SOC but notes that the proposed rule 
language uses ``averaging period'' and ``rolling period.'' The NRC 
agrees that, to ensure clarity, one term should be used when referring 
to the 6-week maximum period over which the 54-hour per week average is 
to be calculated. That term is ``averaging period.'' The term 
``incremental period'' is used in this document to describe the amount 
of time by which a licensee rolls forward, or incrementally advances, 
its averaging periods.
    The NEI also recommended that the following words in proposed Sec.  
26.205(d)(7)(i) be removed: ``which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive 
calendar days at any time.'' The NEI contended that those words add a 
new requirement that (1) Was not discussed at the February 8, 2011, 
Commission briefing; (2) is not based on the technical and regulatory 
analysis performed by the NRC staff; (3) is inconsistent with the 
minimum days off requirements and its associated guidance, neither of 
which stipulates the duration of the rolling increment; and (4) would 
be outside the scope of the March 24, 2011, SRM. According to the NEI, 
this proposed rule language would result in an unintended consequence 
of preventing the rolling periods from being matched to the licensee's 
payroll schedules, thereby possibly resulting in rolling schedules

[[Page 43537]]

that are different for each individual worker and unwarranted 
complexity.
    The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the NEI comments. 
The words, ``which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at 
any time,'' in proposed Sec.  26.205(d)(7)(i), were not discussed at 
the February 8, 2011, Commission briefing. However, as noted by the 
NEI, the NRC and stakeholders discussed at public meetings how the 
averaging periods could be advanced on a weekly basis. The intent of 
the rule language in question was to establish the minimum and maximum 
periods by which a licensee could advance an averaging period. Thus, a 
licensee could advance its averaging period by as little as one day but 
by no more than one week, or 7 consecutive calendar days. Although 
licensees at the public meetings may have talked about advancing their 
averaging periods on a weekly basis, the NRC did not want to limit 
licensees' flexibility by requiring 1-week incremental periods.
    More importantly, without having an upper limit on the length of 
the incremental period, licensees could advance their averaging periods 
on a 6-week basis, resulting in fixed 6-week schedules. An approach 
requiring a maximum weekly average of 54 work hours using fixed 
averaging schedules would allow more consecutive weeks of high levels 
of work hours than using averaging schedules that incrementally advance 
on a regular basis. Under the former type of schedule, a licensee could 
back-load one fixed schedule with long work hour weeks and front-load 
the next fixed schedule with long work hour weeks, resulting in several 
consecutive excessive work hour weeks and potentially cumulatively-
fatigued individuals. The latter type of schedule limits the number of 
hours that can be worked in consecutive weeks because each week's hours 
affect the number of hours worked in the other weeks in the averaging 
period. By advancing the averaging period on a consistent basis, 
licensees must consider the impact of each week's work hours before and 
after each incremental advance. The use of fixed averaging schedules 
also would be inconsistent with the incrementally advancing averaging 
period concept considered in the NRC regulatory basis and with the NRC 
staff's statements to the Commission at the February 8, 2011, briefing. 
See, e.g., Transcript of February 8, 2011, Commission Briefing on the 
Implementation of Part 26, p. 89, lines 4-9.
    The NRC agrees with the NEI that use of an incremental period that 
is shorter than 7 days could introduce unintended complexity to the 
implementation of the alternative. In some cases, such as when an 
averaging period ends 4 days before a unit outage is scheduled to 
begin, the licensee cannot advance the averaging period by a full 
incremental period of 7 days. The proposed rule would have required the 
use of an incremental period of less than 7 days. The NRC is revising 
the rule language to eliminate the requirement to advance an averaging 
period by fewer than 7 calendar days. The final rule requires licensees 
to advance averaging periods on a 7-day (i.e., weekly) basis to 
preclude scheduling consecutive, excessively long work weeks without 
proper restorative rest. Thus, in a 6-week averaging period, once the 
averaging period has begun advancing, the incremental period will be 1 
week long and will always be the sixth week of that averaging period. 
Also, in association with this final rule, the NRC is endorsing 
implementation guidance that includes an acceptable method for 
addressing averaging periods and incremental periods of less than 7 
days in duration.
    The NEI identified another unintended consequence of the words, 
``which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any 
time,'' in proposed Sec.  26.205(d)(7)(i). The definition of a day off 
contained in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) states that a day off is a calendar day 
in which an individual does not start a work shift. For many licensees, 
this definition is used in computer software to count the work hours of 
a shift that begins at the end of a calendar day but ends during the 
next calendar day, as hours worked on the day the shift started as 
opposed to splitting the hours between the two days. The NEI claimed 
that the NRC's interpretation of this proposed rule language, as 
expressed at the May 11, 2011, public meeting, would impact this 
practice and cause an unnecessary change to the industry software.
    The NRC agrees with the NEI's comment. At the May 11, 2011, public 
meeting, the NRC explained that when a shift begins near the end of a 
calendar day that also happens to be the last day of an averaging 
period, but that shift ends during the next calendar day (and, thus, 
the next averaging period), the proposed rule would have required 
licensees to: (1) Count the hours worked on the calendar day that was 
the end of the averaging period as hours worked during that averaging 
period; and (2) count the hours worked during that same shift but on 
the next calendar day as hours worked during the next averaging period. 
The NRC has added language to the final rule to clarify that when a 
shift starts at the end of a calendar day and concludes during the next 
calendar day, a licensee will have the option to consider the hours 
worked during that shift as if they were all worked on the day the 
shift started or count the hours on the calendar days the hours were 
actually worked. The licensee must choose only one option. Because the 
number of hours worked in an averaging period is averaged on a weekly 
incremental basis, hours counted in one averaging period instead of the 
next averaging period will still be taken into account in the weekly 
averaging calculation. In addition, this structure will not force upon 
licensees an undue burden of using a method for counting hours that is 
different from the way licensees currently count hours to determine a 
day off to comply with minimum days off requirements.
    The NEI also commented that in the fourth paragraph in section 
III.C of the proposed rule's SOC, which includes a discussion of the 
force-on-force tactical exercise exception, the last sentence is 
inconsistent with the proposed rule language and the 2008 final rule. 
The NEI suggested that the paragraph should be revised to read: 
``exclude from the Sec.  26.205(d)(7) calculations the shifts worked'' 
instead of ``exclude from the Sec.  26.205(d)(7) calculations the hours 
worked.''
    The NRC disagrees with this comment. The proposed rule would have 
allowed licensees to exclude the hours worked during a force-on-force 
exercise because the calculation of average hours worked per week is 
computed by dividing the number of hours worked during the averaging 
period by the number of weeks in the averaging period. So, when the 
licensee excludes the shifts worked during an NRC-evaluated force-on-
force tactical exercise, it is actually excluding the hours in the 
shifts when calculating the individual's number of hours worked. No 
change was made to the SOC or rule language as a result of this 
comment.
    The last paragraph in section III.C of the proposed rule's SOC 
addresses the applicability of EGM-09-008, ``Enforcement Guidance 
Memorandum--Dispositioning Violations of NRC Requirements for Work Hour 
Controls Before and Immediately After a Hurricane Emergency 
Declaration,'' dated September 24, 2009, to the proposed maximum 
average work hours alternative. The NEI requests that this paragraph 
include an explanation of whether licensees with exemptions from the 
minimum days off requirements could rely on those existing exemptions 
if they choose to adopt the maximum average work hours alternative.

[[Page 43538]]

    The NRC agrees that the paragraph in question could benefit from 
further clarity. A licensee that has already been granted an exemption 
from Sec.  26.205(d) before and immediately after a hurricane emergency 
declaration can rely on that exemption if it implements the 
requirements in the new Sec.  26.205(d)(7). The final rule's SOC is 
also revised to provide further explanation of the conditions that must 
exist before the NRC staff may exercise enforcement discretion under 
EGM-09-008.
    The NEI contends that the second sentence in proposed Sec.  
26.205(d)(7) is not necessary. That sentence reads: ``Licensees 
voluntarily choosing to comply with the alternative maximum average 
work hours requirements in this paragraph are not relieved from 
complying with all other requirements in Sec.  26.205 other than Sec.  
26.205(d)(3).'' The NEI argues that there is nothing stated or implied 
in Sec.  26.205(d)(7) that would lead one to conclude that Sec.  
26.205(d)(7) provides any relief from complying with all other 
requirements in Sec.  26.205 other than those in Sec.  26.205(d)(3).
    The NRC agrees with the NEI's comment and has deleted the second 
sentence of Sec.  26.205(d)(7) in the final rule, because it is 
unnecessary.
    The APS commented that although the NRC analysis of the proposed 
alternative relied on a licensee's implementation of only the 
alternative for all covered workers, the proposed rule language does 
not prohibit implementation of both the minimum days off and 
alternative requirements at one site. The APS claimed that plant 
procedures and management tools have the capacity to implement either 
cumulative fatigue management approach. Because both methods are 
effective in controlling cumulative fatigue, the APS argued that 
licensees should be able to select the method that works best for a 
given covered work group. It also claimed that at the Palo Verde 
Nuclear Generating Station, not allowing split implementation may have 
the effect of delaying restoration of longstanding safety beneficial 
practices by approximately one year.
    The NRC disagrees that the proposed rule language did not prohibit 
implementation of both the minimum days off and alternative 
requirements at one site. The APS pointed to the following language in 
proposed Sec.  26.205(d)(3) to support its argument: ``Licensees shall 
either ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the number of days 
off specified in this paragraph, or comply with the requirements for 
maximum average work hours in Sec.  26.205(d)(7)'' (italics added by 
the APS). The NRC intends that sentence to convey that licensees shall 
either: (1) ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the number of 
days off specified in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) (i.e., the licensee shall 
comply with the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3)); 
or (2) comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in 
Sec.  26.205(d)(7). This reading of proposed Sec.  26.205(d)(3), which 
focuses on the licensee's obligations, is consistent with the language 
of proposed Sec.  26.205(d)(7)(ii), which reads as follows: ``Each 
licensee shall state, in its FFD policy and procedures required by 
Sec.  26.27 and Sec.  26.203(a) and (b), with which requirements the 
licensee is complying: the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(3) or maximum average work hours requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(7).'' In both provisions, the licensee must choose which set 
of requirements it intends to follow. Thus, the proposed rule language 
clearly reflected the NRC's position that each licensee must implement 
only one method of managing cumulative fatigue for all of its covered 
workers: either the minimum days off requirements or the alternative 
requirements. A reading of the proposed rule language would have been 
consistent with the interpretation in the APS's comment if the word 
``either'' had immediately followed ``individuals'' in the first 
sentence of Sec.  26.205(d)(3), so that it read: ``Licensees shall 
ensure that individuals either have, at a minimum, the number of days 
off specified in this paragraph, or comply with the requirements for 
maximum average work hours in Sec.  26.205(d)(7).''
    However, the NRC is clarifying the rule language to ensure that all 
licensees document, in their FFD policies and procedures, the set of 
requirements with which they will comply, without regard to whether 
they comply with the minimum days off or the alternative requirements. 
The proposed rule could have been read to require licensees to document 
their election only if they implemented the alternative. This change to 
the final rule results from the APS comment.
    The NRC also disagrees that a licensee should be able to implement 
the minimum days off requirements and the alternative requirements 
simultaneously for different covered groups, even for less than one 
year. The NRC's determination that the proposed alternative is 
equivalent to the minimum days off requirements considered the 
collective advantages and disadvantages of having all individuals who 
are subject to the work hour controls under a single set of cumulative 
fatigue management requirements. Allowing licensees to implement the 
minimum days off and alternative requirements simultaneously would also 
create an undue burden for NRC inspectors and undue cost and burden for 
licensees. Moreover, during the public meetings and Commission briefing 
before the issuance of the proposed rule and in the request for 
enforcement discretion, industry stakeholders consistently requested 
swift relief from the minimum days off requirements for all covered 
workers. The industry stakeholders did not request relief from the 
minimum days off requirements for only certain covered groups of 
workers. By this final rule, which was produced on an expedited basis 
due to the compelling industry stakeholder needs, the NRC is providing 
an alternative to the minimum days off requirements for all covered 
workers. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this 
comment.

Opposition to the Proposed Rule

    Mr. Lawson asserted that the work hour controls were issued to 
encourage licensees to adequately staff their plants, thereby reducing 
the effects of cumulative fatigue on plant operations. He stated that 
licensees have not hired more workers and won't hire more workers 
unless it is financially beneficial to do so. He argued that the 
proposed rule would provide relief from the work hour controls, thus 
removing any incentive for licensees to increase staffing.
    The NRC disagrees with Mr. Lawson. The work hour controls were 
issued in 2008 to ensure against worker fatigue adversely affecting 
public health and safety and the common defense and security by 
establishing clear and enforceable requirements for the management of 
worker fatigue. The NRC requires that licensees comply with the 
requirements but does not direct licensees to satisfy these 
requirements by any particular means, such as by hiring more workers. 
Further, as stated in the SOC for this final rule, the alternative 
provides reasonable assurance of the management of cumulative fatigue 
that is comparable to the assurance provided by the minimum days off 
requirements. In doing so, the alternative does not provide relief from 
or relaxation of the minimum days off requirements. No change was made 
to the final rule as a result of this comment. Mr. Lawson also 
maintained that, as demonstrated by this rulemaking and the shortened 
public

[[Page 43539]]

comment period, the NRC seems willing to give the industry whatever it 
wants. The NRC disagrees with this comment. At the November 18, 2010, 
public meeting, more than 20 individuals, representing maintenance, 
operations, and security workers, unions, and vendors, spoke of the 
unintended consequences of the minimum days off requirements. These 
stakeholders emphasized the industry's inability to continue practices 
that licensees consider beneficial, such as promoting continuity in 
work crew staffing and the continued development of licensee staff. The 
industry representatives further stated that the hours available for 
work are sufficient in almost all cases; however, they believe there 
should be more flexibility in how the time can be used to help improve 
workers' quality of life and lessen the complexity of the rule. The 
Commission directed the staff to develop the proposed rule based on the 
following: (1) Feedback from industry representatives; (2) information 
presented by two petitioners for rulemaking seeking changes to the work 
hour controls in 10 CFR 26.205; (3) NEI's request for enforcement 
discretion of those same regulatory provisions in 10 CFR 26.205; (4) 
evidence gathered from stakeholders at public meetings and the February 
8, 2011, Commission briefing; and (5) analysis performed by the NRC 
staff and explained in memoranda to the Commission dated January 4, 
2011, and February 28, 2011. The NRC also held three public meetings 
and one public briefing to the Commission on this issue between 
November 2010 and March 2011, thereby offering stakeholders several 
opportunities to provide their input. Taken together, all of this 
information provided the Commission with a reasonable basis to support 
its decision to issue the proposed rule and establish a 30-day comment 
period instead of the typical 75-day public comment period. No change 
was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Mr. Lawson contended that the alternative would allow licensees to 
give covered workers only one day off every 17 days, which, he said, 
the NRC admits could lead to fatigue. Nevertheless, the NRC proposed to 
permit this alternative. Mr. Lawson claimed that a violation of the 
alternative approach would result in either a ``minor or non-cited 
violation,'' which would not be much of ``a deterrent to the type of 
abuse we had during [the period when the only industry-wide direction 
was based on Generic Letter 82-12, `Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working 
Hours'].''
    The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with Mr. Lawson's 
comments. The alternative allows licensees to create work schedules 
that could result in cumulative fatigue. The industry representatives 
at the February 8, 2011, Commission briefing illustrated this point 
with an example of a schedule of four consecutive weeks of 72-hour work 
weeks, the most hours a licensee can schedule in a 7-day period under 
the work hour controls. See Transcript of February 8, 2011, Commission 
Briefing on the Implementation of Part 26, p. 52, lines 16-18. However, 
the industry representatives explained that such a schedule would not 
be possible because, in part, shifts would be unmanned. Id. at lines 
18-20 and p. 54, lines 10-13. For instance, an individual who is 
scheduled to work four consecutive 72-hour work weeks would also need 
two weeks of zero work hours during the 6-week averaging periods 
containing the four weeks of 72-hour work weeks. Such a schedule would 
be improbable for licensees to maintain because plants cannot operate 
without proper staffing. Id.
    A schedule that provides an individual only 1 day off in 17 
consecutive days under the alternative approach could result in 
cumulative fatigue. However, to limit an individual's number of days 
off to one in a 17-day period and still meet the 54-hour maximum weekly 
average, a licensee could not schedule an excessive number of work 
hours every week in the averaging periods containing that 17-day 
period. The NRC is also endorsing implementation guidance for licensees 
that summarizes this concern and reiterates each licensee's obligation 
to schedule work hours of covered workers consistent with the objective 
of preventing impairment from fatigue due to the duration, frequency, 
or sequencing of successive shifts as required by 10 CFR 26.205(c). 
Therefore, with the inherent self-limiting nature of a maximum weekly 
work hour average schedule, the use of regularly-repeating standard 
shift schedules by most licensees, site procedures that reinforce the 
requirement to effectively manage fatigue, and the other work hour 
controls in Sec.  26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2), the risk of cumulative 
fatigue is low under the schedule posited by Mr. Lawson. No change was 
made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Concerning Mr. Lawson's comment comparing the alternative approach 
to the work hour controls that existed before the 2008 final rule, the 
NRC has examined the enforceability of the previous regulatory 
framework applicable to worker fatigue, which included the non-legally-
binding Generic Letter 82-12. As explained in the 2008 final rule's 
SOC, the broad and nonprescriptive provisions of the pre-2008 10 CFR 
part 26 and the technical specifications and license conditions 
pertaining to fatigue that existed at that time lacked clearly defined 
terms or measures of fatigue. This regulatory structure made it 
difficult for the NRC to enforce worker fatigue requirements and work 
hour limits in an effective, efficient, and uniform manner that would 
ensure that all licensees provided reasonable assurance that workers 
were able to safely and competently perform their duties. In contrast 
to that framework, the 2008 final rule established fatigue management 
program requirements that can be readily and consistently enforced. 
This final rule does not detract from that program but rather provides 
an optional means to achieve the goal of providing reasonable assurance 
of the management of cumulative fatigue. No change was made to the 
final rule as a result of this comment.

Other Comments Within the Scope of the Rulemaking

    The UCS suggested that workers on 12-hour shifts would be 
restricted to working alternating 5-day (60 hours per week) and 4-day 
(48 hours per week) work weeks to adhere to the 54-hour average limit. 
The NRC disagrees that such a schedule would be the only permissible 
schedule under the alternative. For example, licensees could arrange a 
6-week schedule of 72 hours, 72 hours, 60 hours, 48 hours, 36 hours, 
and 36 hours, which would average 54 hours per week and also meet the 
work hour controls in Sec.  26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2). No change was made 
to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    The UCS commented that the proposed revision to Sec.  26.205(d)(4) 
would require licensees to follow the minimum days off requirements 
during outages lasting longer than 60 days, even if they applied the 
alternative approach before and during the outage. The NRC does not 
agree that the proposed rule would have required these licensees to 
meet the minimum days off requirements following the first 60 days of a 
unit outage. Individuals subject to the minimum days off requirements 
before a unit outage are subject to those same requirements after the 
first 60 days of the outage, unless Sec.  26.205(d)(6) applies. Under 
the proposed and final rules, licensees who use the maximum average 
work hours provisions before an outage must follow

[[Page 43540]]

those requirements after the first 60 days of the outage, unless Sec.  
26.205(d)(6) applies. The amendment to Sec.  26.205(d)(4) allows 
licensees who use the maximum average work hours provisions before an 
outage to use those requirements during the outage too. A similar 
option is and has been available to licensees implementing the minimum 
days off requirements. Amended Sec.  26.205(d)(4) does not change 
licensees' obligations after the first 60 days of an outage. No change 
was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.

Comments Beyond the Scope of the Rulemaking

    Mr. Sloan remarked that some duties do not require constant 
surveillance, so the individuals performing these duties should not be 
subject to the fatigue management requirements. He also commented that 
it is more important to have a qualified person performing a task than 
it is to ensure that the person performing the task complies with the 
work hour controls. Mr. Sloan also believes that the rule is too 
complex and does not guarantee that an individual subject to the work 
hour requirements will diligently perform their duties.
    The NRC considers Mr. Sloan's comments to be beyond the limited 
scope of the proposed and final rules. Mr. Sloan's comments concern the 
overall concept of the 10 CFR part 26 work hour controls. As directed 
by the Commission in the March 24, 2011, SRM, the NRC will consider 
these comments in a separate rulemaking effort, which the NRC has 
identified as the Quality Control/Quality Verification rulemaking. No 
change was made to the final rule as a result of these comments.
    Mr. Callahan claimed that the 10 CFR part 26 work hour controls do 
not reduce worker fatigue but can increase fatigue during outages. 
Specifically, he noted that when an individual works a backshift 
schedule, taking a 1-day break disrupts that person's sleep pattern. 
Recovery from this disruption takes several days, thus inducing 
fatigue. Mr. Callahan concluded that once a person adjusts to the 
unnatural sleep pattern (e.g., nightshift), it is far better to 
continue that pattern for the duration of an outage. He also stated 
that the current rule has caused a drop in his earnings.
    The NRC considers Mr. Callahan's comments to be beyond the limited 
scope of the proposed and final rules. Mr. Callahan's comments concern 
the overall concept of the 10 CFR part 26 work hour controls. As 
directed by the Commission in the March 24, 2011, SRM, the NRC will 
consider these comments in a separate rulemaking effort, which the NRC 
has identified as the Quality Control/Quality Verification rulemaking. 
No change was made to the final rule as a result of these comments.

III. Description of the Final Rule

A. Maximum Weekly Average of 54 Hours Worked Over a 6-Week Averaging 
Period That Advances on a Weekly Basis

    One cause of cumulative fatigue is consecutive days of restricted 
or poor quality sleep. In turn, consecutive days of restricted or poor 
quality sleep may be caused by such things as shift-work, extended work 
days, and extended work weeks. Former Subpart I of 10 CFR part 26 
offered nuclear power plant licensees only one primary method to manage 
cumulative fatigue: provide individuals with a minimum number of days 
off over the course of a period not to exceed 6 weeks. The distribution 
of the days off during the 6-week period acts to either prevent or 
mitigate cumulative fatigue.
    An alternative method for managing cumulative fatigue is to 
establish a requirement to limit actual hours worked instead of 
mandating the number of days off which individuals must have. A limit 
on actual hours worked, when applied to schedules that require regular 
shift coverage, limits the number of work hours that can contribute to 
cumulative fatigue and, as a practical matter, results in periodic days 
off for recovery rest. A schedule resulting in a weekly average of 54 
hours worked, calculated using an averaging period of up to 6 weeks 
that incrementally advances on a consistent basis, is such a schedule.
    In general, most individuals that work their normal shift schedule 
and receive only the minimum number of days off required under the 
minimum days off requirements of Sec.  26.205(d)(3) could average as 
many as 54 hours of work per week. However, the NEI indicated that 
implementation of the minimum days off requirements reduced licensee 
scheduling flexibility and imposed a substantial administrative burden. 
By comparison, limiting work hours to an average of not more than 54 
hours per week by using an averaging period of up to 6 weeks with 7-day 
incremental periods limits the number of consecutive weeks of extended 
work hours that an individual can work by using a comparable but 
simpler and more flexible requirement. The 6-week limit also remains 
consistent with the averaging duration and technical basis of the 
minimum days off requirements, as described in the SOC for the 2008 10 
CFR part 26 final rule. In addition, this alternative does not depend 
on the length of an individual's shift schedule. The alternative 
eliminates for licensees and individuals the burden of tracking the 
number of days off that an individual receives in a period not to 
exceed 6 weeks. Based on stakeholder input, the alternative will 
relieve operational burdens by enabling licensee personnel to engage in 
certain safety-beneficial practices with fewer scheduling restrictions, 
such as holding off-shift shift manager meetings and using the most 
knowledgeable workers in responding to plant events and conditions. The 
flexibility provided by the alternative also could improve individuals' 
quality of life by allowing more flexibility in the way that 
individuals use their time when they are not working.
    Use of 7-day incremental periods will provide reasonable assurance 
that licensees will not schedule several consecutive weeks of high 
levels of work hours and will not introduce unintended complexity to 
the implementation of the alternative. An upper limit on the length of 
the incremental period of 7 days prevents licensees from establishing 
fixed 5- or 6[dash]week schedules. Those schedules permit licensees to 
back-load one fixed schedule with long work hour weeks and front-load 
the next fixed schedule with long work hour weeks, resulting in several 
consecutive weeks of long work hours and the potential for individuals 
to experience cumulative fatigue. Requiring licensees to advance their 
averaging periods on a 7-day basis limits the number of hours that can 
be worked in consecutive weeks because each week's hours affect the 
number of hours that can be worked in the other weeks in the averaging 
period. By advancing the averaging period on a consistent basis, 
licensees must consider the impact of each week's work hours before and 
after each incremental advance.
    In summary, the maximum number of hours that can be worked under 
the alternative approach is comparable to the maximum number of hours 
that can be worked by most individuals under the 10 CFR part 26 minimum 
days off requirements, except that the alternative requirement provides 
greater simplicity and flexibility. Although the schedule required 
under the alternative approach limits the number of consecutive 
extended work weeks and thereby limits the potential for cumulative 
fatigue, there are unusual potential circumstances in which the 
alternative requirement could be met and the schedule could be 
fatiguing. Such schedules include having only one in every nine days 
off or consistently

[[Page 43541]]

working the maximum allowable hours, which would likely result in 
cumulative fatigue. However, the industry has stated that these unusual 
schedules are improbable. The NRC concludes that this alternative 
approach, together with other aspects of the rule that remain 
unchanged, provide reasonable assurance that licensees will manage 
cumulative fatigue in a manner that contributes to the protection of 
public health and safety and common defense and security.

B. Alternative to the Minimum Days Off Requirements

    The NRC is creating a new Sec.  26.205(d)(7) that contains the 
alternative method for managing cumulative fatigue. This final rule 
allows nuclear power plant licensees and other entities identified in 
Sec.  26.3(a) and, if applicable, (c) and (d) to choose whether or not 
to implement this alternative approach, in lieu of compliance with the 
minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3). The NRC is not 
removing the Sec.  26.205(d)(3) minimum days off requirements and 
mandating that all licensees instead adopt new maximum average work 
hours requirements. Some licensees may be satisfied with the minimum 
days off requirements. In addition, a mandated change would constitute 
backfitting under the NRC's Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109. None of the 
exceptions in Sec.  50.109(a)(4) to the requirement to prepare a 
backfit analysis could be justified, and a backfit analysis could not 
demonstrate that a mandatory rule would constitute a cost-justified 
substantial increase in protection to public health and safety or 
common defense and security. For these reasons, the NRC has decided to 
add the maximum weekly average of 54 work hours, averaged over a period 
of up to 6 weeks that advances every 7 days, as an alternative to the 
minimum days off requirements.

C. Applicability

    The alternative in this final rule can be used only in place of the 
minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) and is applicable 
only to individuals subject to work hour controls under Sec.  
26.205(a). Under Sec.  26.205(a), the subject individuals are those 
described in Sec.  26.4(a). The NRC's determination that the proposed 
alternative is equivalent to the minimum days off requirements 
considered the collective advantages and disadvantages of having all 
individuals who are subject to the work hour controls under a single 
set of cumulative fatigue management requirements. Thus, licensees are 
not able to subject one group of individuals under Sec.  26.4(a) to the 
minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) and another group 
of individuals under Sec.  26.4(a) to new Sec.  26.205(d)(7) 
requirements. Licensees must select only one option. This choice 
establishes the legally-binding requirement for that licensee for all 
individuals subject to the work hour controls of Sec.  26.205.
    Allowing licensees to implement the minimum days off and 
alternative requirements simultaneously would also create an undue 
burden for NRC inspectors and undue cost and burden for licensees. 
Having different workers subject to different requirements would make 
inspections more burdensome because of the amount of administrative 
time that would be necessary for NRC inspectors to prepare for and 
conduct an inspection. Taking this extra time would reduce the amount 
of available time for inspectors to conduct risk-informed inspections. 
Furthermore, licensees implementing both options would incur additional 
costs associated with having two processes and two training programs to 
implement the options and increased burden in managing individuals on a 
work shift who are subject to different work-hour requirements. This 
scheduling challenge would also diminish the industry's desire to have 
scheduling flexibility that enables safety-beneficial practices such as 
shift manager meetings and just-in-time training. These were the types 
of safety-beneficial practices that were curtailed as a result of the 
inflexibility of the minimum days off requirements.
    Consistent with the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(3), the alternative maximum average work hours provisions 
apply to all periods of operations, with several specified exceptions: 
(1) During force-on-force exercises; (2) during plant emergencies; and 
(3) for security personnel when they are needed to maintain the common 
defense and security. In those limited circumstances, special 
provisions, described in section IV. of this document, apply. In 
addition, licensees had the option under former Sec.  26.205(d)(4) to 
comply with the minimum days off requirements in either Sec.  
26.205(d)(3) or (d)(4) during unit outages when the affected 
individuals are working on outage activities. Licensees also had the 
option under former Sec.  26.205(d)(5) to comply with the minimum days 
off requirements in either Sec.  26.205(d)(3) or (d)(5) during unit 
outages, security system outages, or increased threat conditions. Under 
the final rule, licensees also have the option to comply with the 
maximum average work hours requirements under the above conditions. The 
SOC for the 2008 10 CFR part 26 final rule explained the reasons why 
the Commission permits the exceptions and options involving the minimum 
days off requirements. The approach set forth in this final rule offers 
licensees an alternative to the minimum days off requirements that is 
equally effective at managing cumulative fatigue. Therefore, the SOC 
for the 2008 10 CFR Part 26 final rule also provides the justification 
for why the alternative applies to the exceptions and options described 
in section IV. of this document.
    The NRC's Office of Enforcement issued EGM-09-008, ``Enforcement 
Guidance Memorandum--Dispositioning Violations of NRC Requirements for 
Work Hour Controls Before and Immediately After a Hurricane Emergency 
Declaration,'' on September 24, 2009. The EGM-09-008 gives the NRC 
staff guidance for processing violations of work hour controls 
requirements during conditions before and immediately after the 
declaration of an emergency for a hurricane, when licensees sequester 
plant staff on site to ensure personnel are available for relief of 
duties, and potentially granting enforcement discretion for the 
affected requirements. Under EGM-09-008, the NRC may exercise 
enforcement discretion for violations of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) while 
a licensee sequesters site personnel in preparation for hurricane 
conditions that are expected to result in the declaration of an 
emergency caused by high winds and immediately after the licensee has 
exited the emergency declaration. The licensee must meet certain 
conditions, including having site-specific procedural guidance that 
specifies the conditions necessary to sequester site personnel, and 
having requested an exemption from 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d), or any 
part thereof, to allow for sequestering site personnel before and 
immediately after a hurricane. If the licensee must sequester before an 
exemption has been submitted, then the licensee must agree, in writing, 
to request the exemption no later than 6 months before the onset of the 
next hurricane season, as established by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center. The EGM-09-008 
refers to Sec.  26.205(d) generally, and therefore, the requirements in 
Sec.  26.205(d)(7) also fall under the enforcement discretion described 
by EGM-09-008. Also, licensees who, before the effective date of this 
final rule, were granted exemptions from

[[Page 43542]]

Sec.  26.205(d) before and immediately after a hurricane emergency 
declaration can rely on that exemption if they implement the 
requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(7).

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

10 CFR 26.203 General Provisions

    Section 26.203 establishes requirements for licensees' fatigue 
management policies, procedures, training, examinations, recordkeeping, 
and reporting. The NRC is making conforming changes to paragraphs 
within Sec.  26.203 to ensure consistency between the implementation of 
the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) and the 
implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(7).

Section 26.203(d)(2)

    Section 26.203(d)(2) requires licensees to retain records of shift 
schedules and shift cycles of individuals who are subject to the work 
hour requirements established in Sec.  26.205. These records are 
necessary, in part, to ensure that documentation of the licensee's 
fatigue management program is retained and available for the NRC 
inspectors to verify that licensees are complying with the work hour 
requirements and waiver and fatigue assessment provisions. Licensees 
that implement the alternative must be able to demonstrate that 
individuals subject to the new work hour controls have not exceeded the 
average weekly work hours limit; therefore, inspectors need to know the 
averaging periods used by the licensee. The NRC is amending Sec.  
26.203(d)(2) to include the requirement that licensees implementing the 
requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(7) maintain records showing the 
beginning and end times and dates of all 6-week or shorter averaging 
periods. These licensees must also retain records of shift schedules to 
ensure compliance with the requirements in Sec.  26.205(c) and (d)(2).

Section 26.203(e)(1)

    The former Sec.  26.203(e)(1) required licensees to provide the NRC 
with an annual summary of all instances during the previous calendar 
year in which the licensee waived each of the work hour controls 
specified in Sec.  26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) for individuals who 
perform the duties listed in Sec.  26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). The NRC 
is revising Sec.  26.203(e)(1) to require licensees to also report the 
instances when the licensee waived the requirements in Sec.  
26.205(d)(7).

Section 26.203(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii)

    Section 26.203(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) requires licensees to report 
whether work hour controls are waived for individuals working on normal 
plant operations or working on outage activities. The final rule 
requires licensees to include whether the alternative requirements in 
Sec.  26.205(d)(7) were waived during normal plant operations or while 
working on outage activities.

10 CFR 26.205 Work Hours

    Section 26.205 sets forth the NRC's requirements governing work 
hour controls applicable to individuals performing the duties in 10 CFR 
26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). The NRC is adding new Sec.  26.205(d)(7) and 
(d)(8) and making conforming changes to paragraphs within Sec.  26.205 
to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days 
off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the 
maximum average work hours requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(7).

Section 26.205(b)(5)

    Section 26.205(b)(5) allows licensees to exclude from the 
calculation of an individual's work hours unscheduled work performed 
off site (e.g., technical assistance provided by telephone from an 
individual's home), provided the total duration of the work does not 
exceed a nominal 30 minutes during any single break period. For the 
purposes of compliance with the minimum break requirements of Sec.  
26.205(d)(2) and the minimum days off requirements of Sec.  
26.205(d)(3) through (d)(5), such duties do not constitute work periods 
or work shifts. The NRC is revising Sec.  26.205(b)(5) to exclude these 
incidental duties from hours worked under Sec.  26.205(d)(7).

Section 26.205(d)(3)

    The former Sec.  26.205(d)(3) required licensees to ensure that 
subject individuals have, at minimum, the days off as specified in this 
section. Under the final rule, licensees have the option of either 
complying with the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) 
or the alternative requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(7).

Section 26.205(d)(4)

    Section 26.205(d)(4) provides a limited discretionary exception 
from the minimum days off requirements in Sec.  26.205(d)(3) for 
individuals performing the duties specified in Sec.  26.4(a)(1) through 
(a)(4) (i.e., certain operations, chemistry, health physics, fire 
brigade, and maintenance activities). The exception from the minimum 
days off requirements is available during the first 60 days of a unit 
outage while a subject individual is working on outage activities. In 
these circumstances, licensees are not required to calculate the 
requisite number of an individual's days off by a weekly average over a 
period of up to 6 weeks. Instead, if the licensee elects to apply the 
exception, Sec.  26.205(d)(4) requires licensees to ensure that 
individuals specified in Sec.  26.4(a)(1) through (a)(3) have a minimum 
of 3 days off in each successive (i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period and 
that individuals specified in Sec.  26.4(a)(4) have at least 1 day off 
in any 7-day period. Detailed guidance on the applicability of this 
rule provision is available in Regulatory Guide 5.73, ``Fatigue 
Management for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.'' After the first 60 days 
of a unit outage, regardless of whether the individual is working on 
unit outage activities, the individual is again subject to the minimum 
days off requirements of Sec.  26.205(d)(3), except as permitted by 
Sec.  26.205(d)(6). The NRC is revising Sec.  26.205(d)(4) to allow 
licensees that implement the maximum average work hours alternative 
before and after an outage to have the option to use the alternative or 
the fixed number of days off approach during the first 60 days of a 
unit outage.

Section 26.205(d)(5)(i)

    Section 26.205(d)(5)(i) provides a discretionary exception from the 
minimum days off requirements of Sec.  26.205(d)(3) for personnel 
performing the duties described in Sec.  26.4(a)(5) during unit outages 
or planned security system outages. The requirement limits this 
exception period to 60 days from the beginning of the outage and 
requires that individuals performing the security duties identified in 
Sec.  26.4(a)(5) during this period have a minimum of 4 days off in 
each non-rolling 15-day period. Amended Sec.  26.205(d)(5)(i) allows 
licensees that implement the maximum average work hours alternative 
before and after an outage to have the option to use the alternative or 
the fixed number of days off approach in Sec.  26.205(d)(5)(i) for 
security personnel during the first 60 days of a unit outage or planned 
security system outage.

Section 26.205(d)(5)(ii)

    Section 26.205(d)(5)(ii) provides a discretionary exception from 
the minimum days off requirements of Sec.  26.205(d)(3) and (d)(5)(i) 
for security personnel during the first 60 days of an unplanned 
security system outage or an increased threat condition. Individuals

[[Page 43543]]

p