Proposed Revisions to Maintenance Rule Standard Review Plan, 48504-48506 [2013-19201]
Download as PDF
48504
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Notices
making the comment submissions
available to the public or entering the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Further Information
The Office of New Reactors and Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are
revising Section 3.5.1.4 of the SRP from
the current revision 3. Changes in this
revision include new guidance for
hurricane winds and associated missiles
from RG 1.221, ‘‘Design-Basis Hurricane
and Hurricane Missiles for Nuclear
Power Plants’’ (ADAMS, Accession No.
ML110940300), and Interim Staff
Guidance DC/COL–ISG–024,
‘‘Implementation of Regulatory Guide
1.221 on Design-Basis Hurricane and
Hurricane Missiles’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13015A693).
The NRC staff is issuing this notice to
solicit public comments on the
proposed revision 4 of Section 3.5.1.4 of
the SRP. After the NRC staff considers
any public comments, it will make a
determination regarding the proposed
revision to Section 3.5.1.4.
III. Backfitting and Issue Finality
This draft SRP, if finalized, would
provide guidance to the staff for
reviewing applications for a
construction permit and an operating
license under Part 50 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
with respect to missiles generated by
extreme winds. The draft SRP would
also provide guidance for reviewing an
application for a standard design
approval, a standard design
certification, a combined license, and a
manufacturing license under 10 CFR
Part 52 with respect to those same
subject matters.
Issuance of this draft SRP, if finalized,
would not constitute backfitting as
defined in 10 CFR 50.109, or otherwise
be inconsistent with the issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR Part 52. The staff’s
position is based upon the following
considerations.
1. The draft SRP positions, if
finalized, do not constitute backfitting,
inasmuch as the SRP is internal
guidance to NRC staff.
The SRP provides interim guidance to
the staff on how to review an
application for NRC regulatory approval
in the form of licensing. Changes in
internal staff guidance are not matters
for which applicants or licensees are
protected under 10 CFR 50.109 or issue
finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52.
2. Backfitting and issue finality—with
certain exceptions discussed below—do
not protect current or future applicants.
Applicants and potential applicants
are not, with certain exceptions,
protected by either the Backfit Rule or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
any issue finality provisions under 10
CFR Part 52. This is because neither the
Backfit Rule nor the issue finality
provisions under 10 CFR Part 52—with
certain exclusions discussed below—
were intended to every NRC action
which substantially changes the
expectations of current and future
applicants.
The exceptions to the general
principle are applicable whenever an
applicant references a 10 CFR Part 52
license (e.g., an early site permit) and/
or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a
design certification rule) with specified
issue finality provisions. The staff does
not, at this time, intend to impose the
positions represented in the draft SRP
section (if finalized) in a manner that is
inconsistent with any issue finality
provisions. If, in the future, the staff
seeks to impose a position in the draft
SRP section (if finalized) in a manner
which does not provide issue finality as
described in the applicable issue finality
provision, then the staff must make
address the criteria for avoiding issue
finality as described in the applicable
issue finality provision.
3. The staff has no intention to
impose the draft SRP positions on
existing nuclear power plant licenses or
regulatory approvals either now or in
the future (absent a voluntary request
for change from the licensee, holder of
a regulatory approval, or a design
certification applicant).
The staff does not intend to impose or
apply the positions described in the
draft SRP section to existing (already
issued) licenses (e.g., operating licenses
and combined licenses) and regulatory
approvals—in this case, design
certifications. Hence, the draft SRP—
even if considered guidance which is
within the purview of the issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR Part 52—need not
be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as
being inconsistent with issue finality
provisions. If, in the future, the staff
seeks to impose a position in the draft
SRP (if finalized) on holders of already
issued holders of licenses in a manner
which does not provide issue finality as
described in the applicable issue finality
provision, then the staff must make the
showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule,
or address the criteria for avoiding issue
finality as described applicable issue
finality provision, as applicable.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of August 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George M. Tartal,
Acting Chief, Policy Branch, Division of
Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking, Office
of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2013–19177 Filed 8–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0179]
Proposed Revisions to Maintenance
Rule Standard Review Plan
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Standard review plan-draft
section revision; request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is revising the
following section in Chapter 17,
‘‘Quality Assurance’’ and soliciting
public comment on NUREG–0800,
‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review
of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear
Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ Section
17.6, ‘‘Maintenance Rule.’’
DATES: Comments must be filed no later
than September 9, 2013. Comments
received after this date will be
considered, if it is practical to do so, but
the Commission is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0179. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–
06A56, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonathan DeGange, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Notices
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–6992 or
email: Jonathan.DeGange@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–
0179 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
publicly-available information related to
this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0179.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS Accession numbers for the
redline document comparing the current
revision and the proposed revision are
available in ADAMS under Accession
Nos. Section 17.6, Proposed Revision 2
(ML13015A125), Current Revision 1
(ML072920088), Redline
(ML13015A426).
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–
0179 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
II. Further Information
The Office of New Reactors and Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are
revising this section from the current
Revision 1. Changes in this revision
include revised scoping and the new
generic FSAR template guidance in the
review procedures section, and revised
references. Details of specific changes
are included at the end of the proposed
section.
The changes to this Standard Review
Plan (SRP) Chapter reflect current staff
review methods and practices based on
lessons learned from NRC reviews of
design certification and combined
license applications completed since the
last revision of this chapter. Changes
include removal of reference to
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182 which was
superseded by RG 1.160 and adding
reference to industry guidance Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 07–02A (ADAMS
Accession No. ML103410542).
The NRC staff is issuing this notice to
solicit public comments on the
proposed SRP Section in Chapter 17.
After the NRC staff considers any public
comments, it will publish a final SRP
Section in Chapter 17.
Backfitting and Issue Finality
This draft SRP, if finalized, would
provide guidance to the NRC staff for
reviewing applications for a
construction permit and an operating
license under Part 50 of Title10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
with respect to compliance with the
Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65 and
the guidance in Nuclear Management
and Resources Council (NUMARC) 93–
01 as approved for use by the NRC in
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.160. The draft
SRP would also provide guidance for
reviewing an application for a standard
design approval, a standard design
certification, a combined license, and a
manufacturing license under 10 CFR
Part 52 with respect to these same
subject matters.
Issuance of this SRP draft section
revision, if finalized, would not
constitute backfitting as defined in 10
CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) or
otherwise be inconsistent with the issue
finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52.
The NRC’s position is based upon the
following considerations.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48505
1. The draft SRP positions, if
finalized, would not constitute
backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is
internal guidance to NRC staff.
The SRP provides internal guidance
to the NRC staff on how to review an
application for NRC regulatory approval
in the form of licensing. Changes in
internal staff guidance are not matters
for which either nuclear power plant
applicants or licensees are protected
under either the Backfit Rule or the
issue finality provisions of 10 CFR Part
52.
2. The NRC staff has no intention to
impose the SRP positions on existing
licensees either now or in the future.
The NRC staff does not intend to
impose or apply the positions described
in the draft SRP to existing licenses and
regulatory approvals. Hence, the
issuance of a final SRP—even if
considered guidance within the purview
of the issue finality provisions in 10
CFR Part 52—would not need to be
evaluated as if it were a backfit or as
being inconsistent with issue finality
provisions. If, in the future, the NRC
staff seeks to impose a position in the
SRP on holders of already issued
licenses in a manner that does not
provide issue finality as described in the
applicable issue finality provision, then
the NRC staff must make the showing as
set forth in the Backfit Rule or address
the criteria for avoiding issue finality as
described in the applicable issue finality
provision.
3. Backfitting and issue finality do
not—with limited exceptions not
applicable here—protect current or
future applicants.
Applicants and potential applicants
are not, with certain exceptions,
protected by either the Backfit Rule or
any issue finality provisions under 10
CFR Part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule
nor the issue finality provisions under
10 CFR Part 52—with certain
exclusions—were intended to apply to
every NRC action that substantially
changes the expectations of current and
future applicants. The exceptions to the
general principle are applicable
whenever an applicant references a 10
CFR Part 52 license (e.g., an early site
permit) and/or NRC regulatory approval
(e.g., a design certification rule) with
specified issue finality provisions. The
NRC staff does not, at this time, intend
to impose the positions represented in
the draft SRP in a manner that is
inconsistent with any issue finality
provisions. If, in the future, the NRC
staff seeks to impose a position in the
SRP section in a manner that does not
provide issue finality as described in the
applicable issue finality provision, then
the NRC staff must address the criteria
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
48506
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2013 / Notices
for avoiding issue finality as described
in the applicable issue finality
provision.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day
of July 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George M. Tartal,
Acting Chief, Policy Branch, Division of
Advanced Reactors and Rulemaking, Office
of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2013–19201 Filed 8–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Approval of Amendment to Special
Withdrawal Liability Rules the I.A.M.
National Pension Fund National
Pension Plan
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of approval.
AGENCY:
The I.A.M. National Pension
Fund National Pension Plan (‘‘I.A.M.
Fund’’) requested the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) to
approve a plan amendment providing
for special withdrawal liability rules for
certain employers that maintain the
I.A.M. Fund. PBGC published a Notice
of Pendency of the Request for Approval
of the amendment on December 26,
2012 (77 FR 76090) (‘‘Notice of
Pendency’’). In accordance with the
provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (‘‘ERISA’’’), PBGC is now
advising the public that the agency has
approved the requested amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth
A. Bangert, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC
20005–4026; Telephone 202–326–4020
(For TTY/TDD users, call the Federal
Relay Service toll-free at 1–800–877–
8339 and ask to be connected to 202–
326–4020).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Under § 4201 of ERISA, an employer
who completely or partially withdraws
from a defined benefit multiemployer
pension plan becomes liable for a
proportional share of the plan’s
unfunded vested benefits. The statute
specifies that a ‘‘complete withdrawal’’
occurs whenever an employer either
permanently (1) ceases to have an
obligation to contribute to the plan, or
(2) ceases all operations covered under
the plan. See ERISA § 4203(a). Under
the second test, therefore, an employer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 Aug 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
who closes or sells its operations will
incur withdrawal liability. Under the
first test, an employer who remains in
business but who no longer has an
obligation to contribute to the plan also
is liable. The ‘‘partial withdrawal’’
provisions of §§ 4205 and 4206 impose
a lesser measure of liability upon
employers who greatly reduce, but do
not eliminate, the operations that
generate contributions to the plan. The
withdrawal liability provisions of
ERISA are a critical factor in
maintaining the solvency of these
pension plans and reducing claims
made on the multiemployer plan
guaranty fund maintained by PBGC.
Without withdrawal liability rules, an
employer who participates in an
underfunded multiemployer plan would
have a powerful economic incentive to
reduce expenses by withdrawing from
the plan.
Congress nevertheless allowed for the
possibility that, in certain industries,
the fact that particular employers go out
of business (or cease operations in a
specific geographic region) might not
result in permanent damage to the
pension plan’s contribution base. In the
construction industry, for example, the
work must necessarily take place at the
construction site; if that work generates
contributions to the pension plan, it
does not much matter which employer
does the work. Put another way, if a
construction employer goes out of
business, or stops operations in a
geographic area, pension plan
contributions will not diminish if a
second employer who contributes to the
plan fills the void. The plan’s
contribution base is damaged, therefore,
only if the employer stops contributing
to the plan but continues to perform
construction work in the jurisdiction of
the collective bargaining agreement.
This reasoning led Congress to adopt
a special definition of the term
‘‘withdrawal’’ for construction industry
plans. Section 4203(b)(2) of ERISA
provides that a complete withdrawal
occurs only if an employer ceases to
have an obligation to contribute under
a plan, but the employer nevertheless
performs previously covered work in
the jurisdiction of the collective
bargaining agreement anytime within
five years after the employer ceased its
contributions.1 There is a parallel rule
for partial withdrawals from
1 Section 4203(c)(1) of ERISA applies a similar
definition of complete withdrawal to the
entertainment industry, except that the pertinent
jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the plan rather
than the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining
agreement. No plan has ever requested PBGC to
determine that it shares the characteristics of an
entertainment plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
construction plans. Under § 208(d)(1) of
ERISA, ‘‘[a]n employer to whom
§ 4203(b) (relating to the building and
construction industry) applies is liable
for a partial withdrawal only if the
employer’s obligation to contribute
under the plan is continued for no more
than an insubstantial portion of its work
in the craft and area jurisdiction of the
collective bargaining agreement of the
type for which contributions are
required.’’
Section 4203(f) of ERISA provides
that PBGC may prescribe regulations
under which plans that are not in the
construction industry may be amended
to use special withdrawal liability rules
similar to those that apply to
construction plans. Under the statute,
the regulations ‘‘shall permit the use of
special withdrawal liability rules . . .
only in industries’’ that PBGC
determines share the characteristics of
the construction industry. In addition,
each plan application must show that
the special rule ‘‘will not pose a
significant risk to the [PBGC] insurance
system.’’ Section 4208(e)(3) of ERISA
provides for parallel treatment of partial
withdrawal liability rules.
The regulation on Extension of
Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29
CFR part 4203), prescribes the
procedures a multiemployer plan must
follow to request PBGC approval of a
plan amendment that establishes special
complete or partial withdrawal liability
rules. Under 29 CFR 4203.3(a), a
complete withdrawal rule must be
similar to the statutory provision that
applies to construction industry plans
under § 4203(b) of ERISA. Any special
rule for partial withdrawals must be
consistent with the construction
industry partial withdrawal provisions.
Each request for approval of a plan
amendment establishing special
withdrawal liability rules must provide
PBGC with detailed financial and
actuarial data about the plan. In
addition, the applicant must provide
PBGC with information about the effects
of withdrawals on the plan’s
contribution base. As a practical matter,
the plan must show that the
characteristics of employment and labor
relations in its industry are sufficiently
similar to those in the construction
industry that use of the construction
rule would be appropriate. Relevant
factors include the mobility of the
employees, the intermittent nature of
the employment, the project-by-project
nature of the work, extreme fluctuations
in the level of an employer’s covered
work under the plan, the existence of a
consistent pattern of entry and
withdrawal by employers, and the local
nature of the work performed. PBGC
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48504-48506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19201]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0179]
Proposed Revisions to Maintenance Rule Standard Review Plan
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Standard review plan-draft section revision; request for
comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising the
following section in Chapter 17, ``Quality Assurance'' and soliciting
public comment on NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of
Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,''
Section 17.6, ``Maintenance Rule.''
DATES: Comments must be filed no later than September 9, 2013. Comments
received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do
so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0179. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06A56, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan DeGange, Office of New
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[[Page 48505]]
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6992 or
email: Jonathan.DeGange@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0179 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0179.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS Accession numbers
for the redline document comparing the current revision and the
proposed revision are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. Section
17.6, Proposed Revision 2 (ML13015A125), Current Revision 1
(ML072920088), Redline (ML13015A426).
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0179 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Further Information
The Office of New Reactors and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
are revising this section from the current Revision 1. Changes in this
revision include revised scoping and the new generic FSAR template
guidance in the review procedures section, and revised references.
Details of specific changes are included at the end of the proposed
section.
The changes to this Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter reflect
current staff review methods and practices based on lessons learned
from NRC reviews of design certification and combined license
applications completed since the last revision of this chapter. Changes
include removal of reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.182 which was
superseded by RG 1.160 and adding reference to industry guidance
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-02A (ADAMS Accession No.
ML103410542).
The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on
the proposed SRP Section in Chapter 17. After the NRC staff considers
any public comments, it will publish a final SRP Section in Chapter 17.
Backfitting and Issue Finality
This draft SRP, if finalized, would provide guidance to the NRC
staff for reviewing applications for a construction permit and an
operating license under Part 50 of Title10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), with respect to compliance with the Maintenance
Rule, 10 CFR 50.65 and the guidance in Nuclear Management and Resources
Council (NUMARC) 93-01 as approved for use by the NRC in Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.160. The draft SRP would also provide guidance for
reviewing an application for a standard design approval, a standard
design certification, a combined license, and a manufacturing license
under 10 CFR Part 52 with respect to these same subject matters.
Issuance of this SRP draft section revision, if finalized, would
not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit
Rule) or otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions
in 10 CFR Part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following
considerations.
1. The draft SRP positions, if finalized, would not constitute
backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff.
The SRP provides internal guidance to the NRC staff on how to
review an application for NRC regulatory approval in the form of
licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which
either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under
either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR Part
52.
2. The NRC staff has no intention to impose the SRP positions on
existing licensees either now or in the future.
The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions
described in the draft SRP to existing licenses and regulatory
approvals. Hence, the issuance of a final SRP--even if considered
guidance within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR
Part 52--would not need to be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as
being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future,
the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP on holders of
already issued licenses in a manner that does not provide issue
finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then
the NRC staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or
address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the
applicable issue finality provision.
3. Backfitting and issue finality do not--with limited exceptions
not applicable here--protect current or future applicants.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain
exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality
provisions under 10 CFR Part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue
finality provisions under 10 CFR Part 52--with certain exclusions--were
intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the
expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the
general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10
CFR Part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) and/or NRC regulatory
approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue
finality provisions. The NRC staff does not, at this time, intend to
impose the positions represented in the draft SRP in a manner that is
inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the
NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the SRP section in a manner
that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable
issue finality provision, then the NRC staff must address the criteria
[[Page 48506]]
for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue
finality provision.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of July 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George M. Tartal,
Acting Chief, Policy Branch, Division of Advanced Reactors and
Rulemaking, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2013-19201 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P