Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information, 13794-13797 [2015-06107]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13794
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
shards from being dispersed if a lamp’s
glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant
lamps incorporate a coating compliant
with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,4
‘‘Food Equipment Materials,’’ and are
labeled and marketed as shatterresistant, shatter-proof, or shatterprotected. Some types of the coatings
can also protect the lamp from breakage
in applications subject to heat and
thermal shock that may occur from
water, sleet, snow, soldering, or
welding.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Comparison Methodology
In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed
each of the five sets of shipment data
that was collected in consultation with
NEMA and applied two curve fits to
generate unit sales estimates for the five
lamp types after calendar year 2006.
One curve fit applied a linear regression
to the historical data and extended that
line into the future. The other curve fit
applied an exponential growth function
to the shipment data and projected unit
sales into the future. For this
calculation, linear regression treats the
year as a dependent variable and
shipments as the independent variable.
The linear regression curve fit is
modeled by minimizing the differences
among the data points and the best
curve-fit linear line using the least
squares function.5 The exponential
curve fit is also a regression function
and uses the same least squares function
to find the best fit. For some data sets,
an exponential curve provides a better
characterization of the historical data,
and, therefore, a better projection of the
future data.
For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–
3,300 lumen general service
incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE found that the
linear regression and exponential
growth curve fits produced nearly the
same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the
difference between the two forecasted
values was less than 1 or 2 percent).
However, for rough service and
vibration service lamps, the linear
regression curve fit projected lamp unit
sales would decline to zero for both
lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the
exponential growth curve fit projected a
more gradual decline in unit sales, such
that lamps would still be sold beyond
4 NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials
and coatings used in the manufacturing of
equipment and objects destined for contact with
foodstuffs.
5 The least squares function is an analytical tool
that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared
residual differences between the actual historical
data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear
curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting
curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the
data provided.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
2018, and it was, therefore, considered
the more realistic forecast. While DOE
was satisfied that either the linear
regression or exponential growth
spreadsheet model generated a
reasonable benchmark unit sales
estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps,
2,601–3,300 lumen general service
incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE selected the
exponential growth curve fit for these
lamp types for consistency with the
selection made for rough service and
vibration service lamps.6 DOE examines
the benchmark unit sales estimates and
actual sales for each of the five lamp
types in the following section and also
makes the comparisons available in a
spreadsheet online: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/product.aspx/
productid/63.
IV. Comparison Results
A. Rough Service Lamps
For rough service lamps, the
exponential growth forecast projected
the benchmark unit sales estimate for
2014 to be 5,224,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported
shipments of 7,267,000 units in 2014.
As this finding exceeds the estimate by
only 39.1 percent, DOE will continue to
track rough service lamp sales data and
will not initiate regulatory action for
this lamp type at this time.
B. Vibration Service Lamps
For vibration service lamps, the
exponential growth forecast projected
the benchmark unit sales estimate for
2014 to be 2,729,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported
shipments of 5,220,000 units in 2014.
As this finding exceeds the estimate by
only 91.3 percent, DOE will continue to
track vibration service lamp sales data
and will not initiate regulatory action
for this lamp type at this time.
C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps
For 3-way incandescent lamps, the
exponential growth forecast projected
the benchmark unit sales estimate for
2014 to be 49,107,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported
shipments of 35,340,000 units in 2014.
As this finding is only 72.0 percent of
the estimate, DOE will continue to track
3-way incandescent lamp sales data and
will not initiate regulatory action for
this lamp type at this time.
6 This
selection is consistent with the previous
annual comparisons. See DOE’s 2008 forecast
spreadsheet models of the lamp types for greater
detail on the estimates.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service
Incandescent Lamps
For 2,601–3,300 lumen general
service incandescent lamps, the
exponential growth forecast projected
the benchmark unit sales estimate for
2014 to be 34,110,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported
shipments of 5,232,000 units in 2014.
As this finding is 15.3 percent of the
estimate, DOE will continue to track
2,601–3,300 lumen general service
incandescent lamp sales data and will
not initiate regulatory action for this
lamp type at this time.
E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps
For shatter-resistant lamps, the
exponential growth forecast projected
the benchmark unit sales estimate for
2014 to be 1,671,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported
shipments of 1,042,000 units in 2014.
As this finding is only 62.4 percent of
the estimate, DOE will continue to track
shatter-resistant lamp sales data and
will not initiate regulatory action for
this lamp type at this time.
V. Conclusion
None of the shipments for rough
service lamps, vibration service lamps,
3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300
lumen general service incandescent
lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed
the statutory threshold for a standard.
DOE will continue to monitor these five
currently exempted lamp types and will
assess 2015 sales by March 31, 2016, in
order to determine whether an energy
conservation standards rulemaking is
required, consistent with 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(D) through (H).
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10,
2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–05947 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63,
70, 71, and 72
[Docket Nos. PRM–50–107; NRC–2013–
0077]
Requirement To Submit Complete and
Accurate Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM
17MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Petition for rulemaking;
consideration in the rulemaking
process.
ACTION:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) will consider in the
rulemaking process the issues raised in
a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–
50–107, submitted by James Lieberman
(the petitioner). The petitioner
requested that the NRC amend its
regulations to require that all persons
seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC
with complete and accurate
information. Current NRC regulations
pertaining to completeness and
accuracy of information apply only to
NRC licensees and license applicants.
The NRC has determined that the issues
raised in the PRM have merit and are
appropriate for consideration in the
rulemaking process.
DATES: The docket for the petition for
rulemaking, PRM–50–107, is closed on
March 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2013–0077 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information for this petition. You can
obtain publicly-available documents
related to this petition by using any of
the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0077. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher, telephone: 301–415—3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• The NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced. In addition,
for the convenience of the reader, the
ADAMS accession numbers are
provided in a table in Section V of this
document, Availability of Documents.
• The NRC’s PDR: You may examine
and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–2328; email:
Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Requirement to Submit Complete and
Accurate Information.
III. Analysis of Public Comments.
IV. Determination of Petition.
V. Availability of Documents.
I. Background
On April 15, 2013, the NRC received
a PRM (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to
revise its regulations relating to nuclear
reactors at §§ 50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its
‘‘regulatory framework to make it a legal
obligation for those non-licensees who
seek NRC regulatory approvals be held
to the same legal standards for the
submittal of complete and accurate
information as would a licensee or an
applicant for a license.’’ James
Lieberman, a regulatory and nuclear
safety consultant, submitted the petition
which was filed on April 15, 2013, and
later amended on September 16, 2013.
The petitioner originally requested that
the NRC amend its regulations in 10
CFR parts 50 and 52, to require all
persons who seek NRC approvals to
provide the NRC with complete and
accurate information.
The NRC assigned the petition Docket
Number PRM–50–107 and published a
notice of receipt of the petition in the
Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013
(78 FR 34604). The NRC requested
public comment on the petition and
received two comments, both
supporting the petition. On September
16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13113A443), the petitioner amended
the rulemaking petition to expand its
scope to include not only 10 CFR parts
50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory
framework for radioactive materials,
waste disposal, transportation, and
spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts
30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The
NRC published a notice regarding the
amended petition (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13261A190) in the Federal
Register requesting comment (79 FR
3328; January 21, 2014). One additional
comment in support of the amended
petition was received.
The petitioner asserts that nonlicensees (including vendors and other
contractors) used by NRC-regulated
entities to meet regulatory requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13795
should be subject to the same
requirements for complete and accurate
submissions as NRC licensees and
license applicants. When the
Commission promulgated the 1987
‘‘Completeness and Accuracy of
Information’’ rule (52 FR 49362;
December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule),
neither the rule language nor the
Statement of Considerations (SOC)
discussed non-licensees submitting
information to the NRC for regulatory
approvals. The 1987 rule included
nearly identical ‘‘Completeness and
Accuracy of Information’’ requirements
in 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70,
71, and 72. When the Commission
added 10 CFR parts 52 and 63 to its
regulations, it added ‘‘Completeness and
Accuracy of Information’’ requirements
to these parts as well (72 FR 49521,
August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732,
November 2, 2001; respectively). The
petitioner asserts that the intent of this
petition is to close the gap that exists in
NRC requirements between licensees/
applicants and non-licensees regarding
the submittal of complete and accurate
information for NRC approval.
The NRC assigned the petition Docket
Number PRM–50–107 and published a
notice of receipt of the petition in the
Federal Register (FR) on June 10, 2013
(78 FR 34604). The NRC requested
public comment on the petition and
received two comments, both
supporting the petition. On September
16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13113A443), the petitioner amended
the rulemaking petition to expand its
request to include not only 10 CFR parts
50 and 52 for reactors, but the regulatory
framework for radioactive materials,
waste disposal, transportation, and
spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts
30, 40, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the
amended petition, the petitioner also
requested that the ‘‘scope’’ section for
each of the parts be revised to add
language to highlight that any person
seeking or obtaining an NRC approval
for a regulated activity would be subject
to enforcement action for violation of
the completeness and accuracy
provision of that part. The applicable
sections are §§ 30.1, 40.2, 50.1, 52.0,
60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2.
II. Requirement To Submit Complete
and Accurate Information
The NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 30.9,
40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10, 61.9a, 63.10,
70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1)
The longstanding policy that license
applicants and licensees provide the
Commission information that is
complete and accurate in all material
respects and maintain such information
as required; and (2) the requirement that
E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM
17MRP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13796
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
license applicants and licensees notify
the NRC of any information they
identify as having, for the regulated
activity, a significant implication for the
public health and safety or common
defense and security.
The 1987 rule re-emphasized the
NRC’s need to receive complete and
accurate information and timely
notification of safety significant
information from its licensees and
license applicants if the NRC is to fulfill
its statutory responsibilities under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated
that ‘‘the accuracy and forthrightness in
communications to the NRC by
licensees and applicants for licenses are
essential if the NRC is to fulfill its
responsibilities to ensure that utilization
of radioactive material and the
operation of nuclear facilities are
consistent with the health and safety of
the public and the common defense and
security.’’ The SOC relied on the general
authority provision in AEA Section
161b. that permits the NRC to establish
by rule, regulation, or order, such
standards and instructions to govern the
possession and use of special nuclear
material, source material, and byproduct
material. The SOC also specifically
mentioned the importance of accurate
information in AEA Section 186, which
authorizes the NRC to revoke any
license for material false statement in an
application or statement of fact required
under AEA Section 182.
However, similar concerns also are
raised when non-licensees seek the
NRC’s approval in other situations. For
example, a non-licensee may submit a
description of its Quality Assurance
(QA) program to the NRC for approval
in support of a Certificate of Compliance
(CoC) for transportation and storage
casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71
and part 72 set forth requirements for
QA programs in subparts H and G,
respectively. Non-licensees who intend
to apply for a CoC establish, maintain,
and execute programs satisfying the QA
requirements for the control of qualityaffecting activities such as design,
procurement, special processes,
inspection, and testing, among other
activities. Implementing an effective QA
program during transportation or storage
cask design and testing pre-application
phases provides adequate confidence
that the systems or components will
perform satisfactorily in service.
On more than one occasion the NRC
has received from a non-licensee a
description of a QA program for NRC
approval in accordance with 10 CFR
parts 71 and 72 requirements. After
reviewing this information, the NRC
staff approved the QA program, as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
documented. However, a subsequent onsite inspection of that NRC-approved
QA program resulted in a finding of
inadequate implementation of certain
quality-related activities. Had this QA
program implementation deficiency
gone unidentified and uncorrected, it
could have resulted in design issues or
reduced confidence that systems or
components would perform
satisfactorily in service. Under current
regulations, the NRC can only take an
enforcement action against the applicant
if the cause of a QA program deficiency
is attributable to an applicant providing
incomplete or inaccurate information.
The NRC is unable to take enforcement
action against the non-licensee for not
providing complete and accurate
information that was submitted for
NRC’s approval; the NRC is limited to
issuing an administrative action, such as
a notice of nonconformance.
A topical report is another example of
one type of information submitted to the
NRC by non-licensees for regulatory
approval. Once reviewed and approved,
the NRC endorses the use of the topical
report, and licensees implement the
report accordingly. The petitioner cited
reactor topical reports as an example of
a single safety evaluation report, once
approved by the NRC, that may be
adopted by many licensees, and
therefore greatly magnify the impact of
any error beyond the non-licensee
applicant for the topical report itself.
The petition states that non-licensees
who submit information to the NRC for
approval should be held accountable for
providing complete and accurate
information. The petitioner’s proposed
rule change would provide the NRC
staff with additional enforcement tools
to encourage non-licensees to submit
complete and accurate information to
the NRC.
III. Analysis of Public Comments
The NRC received a total of three
comment submissions on the petition
and amended petition from two private
citizens. The NRC received two public
comments in response to the June 10,
2013, Federal Register notice. Both
were in support of the petition, one
suggested the inclusion of additional
licensees in the petition. In response to
the January 21, 2014, Federal Register
notice, the NRC received a second
comment from a previous commenter
reiterating his support on the amended
petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comment No. 1
Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman
International
Comment: The commenter asserted
that the NRC should consider for
rulemaking Mr. Lieberman’s petition to
require vendors and suppliers to
provide complete and accurate
information. The commenter also stated
that the NRC should consider expanding
the original petition’s request to include
other parts of the regulations that have
the same completeness and accuracy
provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40,
61, 70, 71, and 72. The commenter
highlighted that it is important to have
complete and accurate information in
submittals by non-licensees who seek
the following: (1) Exemption from NRC
regulations; and (2) NRC approval that
their activities do not need a license.
The commenter pointed out that
currently there is no legal obligation for
a vendor to provide complete and
accurate information either in the
application for a topical report or in
response to NRC questions on the
topical report. The commenter noted
that this oversight has been brought to
light during litigation.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
this comment, and intends to consider
this issue in the rulemaking process. In
addition, the petitioner amended the
petition to expand the request of
proposed changes in the regulations.
Comment No. 2
Commenter: Charles Haughney
Comment: The commenter stated that
the NRC should consider Mr.
Lieberman’s petition for rulemaking.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment and intends to consider
this PRM in the rulemaking process.
Comment No. 3
Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman
International
Comment: The commenter stated that
the NRC should consider for rulemaking
the revised petition that expands the
original petition request.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with
the comment and intends to consider
the PRM in the rulemaking process.
IV. Determination of Petition
Non-licensee applicants for NRC
regulatory approvals (e.g. topical report,
an exemption from licensing, or
submission of a QA program) currently
are not under the same regulatory
obligation as licensees or license
applicants to provide complete and
accurate information. Non-licensees that
have received an NRC approval are also
E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM
17MRP1
13797
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules
not under the same regulatory obligation
as licensees to notify the NRC of any
information that may have a significant
implication for public health and safety
or the common defense and security. As
a result, the lack of similar requirements
for non-licensees could adversely affect
public health and safety or the common
defense and security. As with licensees
and license applicants, the NRC staff
relies on the information submitted by
non-licensees as the primary basis for
approving their requests; it is
fundamental for good regulation that all
applicants for NRC approvals meet the
same requirement to submit complete
and accurate information. It is also
important that both licensees and nonlicensees operating under an NRC
approval be required to notify the NRC
of information they have identified as
having a significant implication for the
public health and safety or common
defense and security. In the case of
reactor topical reports, as cited by the
petitioner, a single safety evaluation
report may be adopted by many
licensees once it has been approved by
the NRC, greatly magnifying the impact
of any errors beyond the non-licensee
applicant for the topical report itself.
The NRC agrees with the petitioner
that non-licensee applicants for NRC
approvals in all subject areas (e.g.
reactors, materials, transportation, and
waste) should be required to submit
complete and accurate information.
Imposing the same requirement for
completeness and accuracy of
information to all non-licensee
applicants for NRC approvals ensures a
consistent and comprehensive set of
regulatory expectations.
Although not mentioned in the
petition or the amended petition, the
NRC staff identified other portions of
the regulations that contain similar
requirements for ‘‘Completeness and
Accuracy of Information.’’ As a result,
the NRC also considered the
applicability of the issue to 10 CFR parts
54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation.
For these reasons, the NRC will
consider the issues raised in the petition
in the rulemaking process.
V. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the
following table are available to
interested persons through one or more
of the following methods, as indicated.
For information on accessing ADAMS,
see the ADDRESSES section of this
document.
ADAMS
Accession number/
Federal Register
citation
Date
Document
April 15, 2013 .............................................................
June 10, 2013 .............................................................
September 16, 2013 ...................................................
January 21, 2014 ........................................................
August 29, 2013 .........................................................
August 26, 2013 .........................................................
April 10, 2014 .............................................................
Original Petition (PRM–50–107) .....................................................
Original FRN ...................................................................................
Amended Petition ...........................................................................
Amended FRN ................................................................................
Comment 1: Hugh Thompson ........................................................
Comment 2: Charles Haughney .....................................................
Comment 3: Hugh Thompson ........................................................
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of February, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark A. Satorius,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015–06107 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2015–0165; Directorate
Identifier 2015–NE–02–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; General
Electric Company Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) GEnx
turbofan engine models. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of GEnx1B and GEnx-2B engines experiencing
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:22 Mar 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
power loss in ice crystal icing (ICI)
conditions. This proposed AD would
preclude the use of full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) software,
version B175 or earlier, in GEnx-1B
engines, and the use of FADEC software,
version C065 or earlier, in GEnx-2B
engines. We are proposing this AD to
prevent engine failure, loss of thrust
control, and damage to the airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by May 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact General
Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room
285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ML13113A443
78 FR 34604
ML13261A190
79 FR 3328
ML13241A222
ML13246A383
ML14100A198
45215; phone: 513–552–3272; email:
geae.aoc@ge.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–
7125.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
0165; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238–
7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\17MRP1.SGM
17MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13794-13797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06107]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72
[Docket Nos. PRM-50-107; NRC-2013-0077]
Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 13795]]
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; consideration in the rulemaking
process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will consider in
the rulemaking process the issues raised in a petition for rulemaking
(PRM), PRM-50-107, submitted by James Lieberman (the petitioner). The
petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that
all persons seeking NRC approvals provide the NRC with complete and
accurate information. Current NRC regulations pertaining to
completeness and accuracy of information apply only to NRC licensees
and license applicants. The NRC has determined that the issues raised
in the PRM have merit and are appropriate for consideration in the
rulemaking process.
DATES: The docket for the petition for rulemaking, PRM-50-107, is
closed on March 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0077 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You can
obtain publicly-available documents related to this petition by using
any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0077. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-415--
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
The NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in
the ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 number for each document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time
that a document is referenced. In addition, for the convenience of the
reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in Section
V of this document, Availability of Documents.
The NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of
public documents at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Tobin, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-2328; email: Jennifer.Tobin@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background.
II. Requirement to Submit Complete and Accurate Information.
III. Analysis of Public Comments.
IV. Determination of Petition.
V. Availability of Documents.
I. Background
On April 15, 2013, the NRC received a PRM (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13113A443) requesting the NRC to revise its regulations relating to
nuclear reactors at Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.9, 52.0, and 52.6 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) to expand its ``regulatory
framework to make it a legal obligation for those non-licensees who
seek NRC regulatory approvals be held to the same legal standards for
the submittal of complete and accurate information as would a licensee
or an applicant for a license.'' James Lieberman, a regulatory and
nuclear safety consultant, submitted the petition which was filed on
April 15, 2013, and later amended on September 16, 2013. The petitioner
originally requested that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR parts
50 and 52, to require all persons who seek NRC approvals to provide the
NRC with complete and accurate information.
The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and
published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register
(FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment
on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the
petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the
petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its scope to
include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the
regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal,
transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40,
60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). The NRC published a notice regarding the
amended petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML13261A190) in the Federal
Register requesting comment (79 FR 3328; January 21, 2014). One
additional comment in support of the amended petition was received.
The petitioner asserts that non-licensees (including vendors and
other contractors) used by NRC-regulated entities to meet regulatory
requirements should be subject to the same requirements for complete
and accurate submissions as NRC licensees and license applicants. When
the Commission promulgated the 1987 ``Completeness and Accuracy of
Information'' rule (52 FR 49362; December 31, 1987) (the 1987 rule),
neither the rule language nor the Statement of Considerations (SOC)
discussed non-licensees submitting information to the NRC for
regulatory approvals. The 1987 rule included nearly identical
``Completeness and Accuracy of Information'' requirements in 10 CFR
parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, and 72. When the Commission added 10
CFR parts 52 and 63 to its regulations, it added ``Completeness and
Accuracy of Information'' requirements to these parts as well (72 FR
49521, August 28, 2007; and 66 FR 55732, November 2, 2001;
respectively). The petitioner asserts that the intent of this petition
is to close the gap that exists in NRC requirements between licensees/
applicants and non-licensees regarding the submittal of complete and
accurate information for NRC approval.
The NRC assigned the petition Docket Number PRM-50-107 and
published a notice of receipt of the petition in the Federal Register
(FR) on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34604). The NRC requested public comment
on the petition and received two comments, both supporting the
petition. On September 16, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13113A443), the
petitioner amended the rulemaking petition to expand its request to
include not only 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 for reactors, but the
regulatory framework for radioactive materials, waste disposal,
transportation, and spent fuel storage as well (10 CFR parts 30, 40,
60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72). In the amended petition, the petitioner
also requested that the ``scope'' section for each of the parts be
revised to add language to highlight that any person seeking or
obtaining an NRC approval for a regulated activity would be subject to
enforcement action for violation of the completeness and accuracy
provision of that part. The applicable sections are Sec. Sec. 30.1,
40.2, 50.1, 52.0, 60.1, 61.1, 63.1, 70.2, 71.0, and 72.2.
II. Requirement To Submit Complete and Accurate Information
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 30.9, 40.9, 50.9, 52.6, 60.10,
61.9a, 63.10, 70.9, 71.7, and 72.11 implemented: (1) The longstanding
policy that license applicants and licensees provide the Commission
information that is complete and accurate in all material respects and
maintain such information as required; and (2) the requirement that
[[Page 13796]]
license applicants and licensees notify the NRC of any information they
identify as having, for the regulated activity, a significant
implication for the public health and safety or common defense and
security.
The 1987 rule re-emphasized the NRC's need to receive complete and
accurate information and timely notification of safety significant
information from its licensees and license applicants if the NRC is to
fulfill its statutory responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (AEA). The SOC for the 1987 rule stated that ``the
accuracy and forthrightness in communications to the NRC by licensees
and applicants for licenses are essential if the NRC is to fulfill its
responsibilities to ensure that utilization of radioactive material and
the operation of nuclear facilities are consistent with the health and
safety of the public and the common defense and security.'' The SOC
relied on the general authority provision in AEA Section 161b. that
permits the NRC to establish by rule, regulation, or order, such
standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special
nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. The SOC also
specifically mentioned the importance of accurate information in AEA
Section 186, which authorizes the NRC to revoke any license for
material false statement in an application or statement of fact
required under AEA Section 182.
However, similar concerns also are raised when non-licensees seek
the NRC's approval in other situations. For example, a non-licensee may
submit a description of its Quality Assurance (QA) program to the NRC
for approval in support of a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for
transportation and storage casks. The regulations at 10 CFR part 71 and
part 72 set forth requirements for QA programs in subparts H and G,
respectively. Non-licensees who intend to apply for a CoC establish,
maintain, and execute programs satisfying the QA requirements for the
control of quality-affecting activities such as design, procurement,
special processes, inspection, and testing, among other activities.
Implementing an effective QA program during transportation or storage
cask design and testing pre-application phases provides adequate
confidence that the systems or components will perform satisfactorily
in service.
On more than one occasion the NRC has received from a non-licensee
a description of a QA program for NRC approval in accordance with 10
CFR parts 71 and 72 requirements. After reviewing this information, the
NRC staff approved the QA program, as documented. However, a subsequent
on-site inspection of that NRC-approved QA program resulted in a
finding of inadequate implementation of certain quality-related
activities. Had this QA program implementation deficiency gone
unidentified and uncorrected, it could have resulted in design issues
or reduced confidence that systems or components would perform
satisfactorily in service. Under current regulations, the NRC can only
take an enforcement action against the applicant if the cause of a QA
program deficiency is attributable to an applicant providing incomplete
or inaccurate information. The NRC is unable to take enforcement action
against the non-licensee for not providing complete and accurate
information that was submitted for NRC's approval; the NRC is limited
to issuing an administrative action, such as a notice of
nonconformance.
A topical report is another example of one type of information
submitted to the NRC by non-licensees for regulatory approval. Once
reviewed and approved, the NRC endorses the use of the topical report,
and licensees implement the report accordingly. The petitioner cited
reactor topical reports as an example of a single safety evaluation
report, once approved by the NRC, that may be adopted by many
licensees, and therefore greatly magnify the impact of any error beyond
the non-licensee applicant for the topical report itself.
The petition states that non-licensees who submit information to
the NRC for approval should be held accountable for providing complete
and accurate information. The petitioner's proposed rule change would
provide the NRC staff with additional enforcement tools to encourage
non-licensees to submit complete and accurate information to the NRC.
III. Analysis of Public Comments
The NRC received a total of three comment submissions on the
petition and amended petition from two private citizens. The NRC
received two public comments in response to the June 10, 2013, Federal
Register notice. Both were in support of the petition, one suggested
the inclusion of additional licensees in the petition. In response to
the January 21, 2014, Federal Register notice, the NRC received a
second comment from a previous commenter reiterating his support on the
amended petition.
Comment No. 1
Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman International
Comment: The commenter asserted that the NRC should consider for
rulemaking Mr. Lieberman's petition to require vendors and suppliers to
provide complete and accurate information. The commenter also stated
that the NRC should consider expanding the original petition's request
to include other parts of the regulations that have the same
completeness and accuracy provisions, namely 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 61,
70, 71, and 72. The commenter highlighted that it is important to have
complete and accurate information in submittals by non-licensees who
seek the following: (1) Exemption from NRC regulations; and (2) NRC
approval that their activities do not need a license. The commenter
pointed out that currently there is no legal obligation for a vendor to
provide complete and accurate information either in the application for
a topical report or in response to NRC questions on the topical report.
The commenter noted that this oversight has been brought to light
during litigation.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with this comment, and intends to
consider this issue in the rulemaking process. In addition, the
petitioner amended the petition to expand the request of proposed
changes in the regulations.
Comment No. 2
Commenter: Charles Haughney
Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider Mr.
Lieberman's petition for rulemaking.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to
consider this PRM in the rulemaking process.
Comment No. 3
Commenter: Hugh Thompson, Talisman International
Comment: The commenter stated that the NRC should consider for
rulemaking the revised petition that expands the original petition
request.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the comment and intends to
consider the PRM in the rulemaking process.
IV. Determination of Petition
Non-licensee applicants for NRC regulatory approvals (e.g. topical
report, an exemption from licensing, or submission of a QA program)
currently are not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees or
license applicants to provide complete and accurate information. Non-
licensees that have received an NRC approval are also
[[Page 13797]]
not under the same regulatory obligation as licensees to notify the NRC
of any information that may have a significant implication for public
health and safety or the common defense and security. As a result, the
lack of similar requirements for non-licensees could adversely affect
public health and safety or the common defense and security. As with
licensees and license applicants, the NRC staff relies on the
information submitted by non-licensees as the primary basis for
approving their requests; it is fundamental for good regulation that
all applicants for NRC approvals meet the same requirement to submit
complete and accurate information. It is also important that both
licensees and non-licensees operating under an NRC approval be required
to notify the NRC of information they have identified as having a
significant implication for the public health and safety or common
defense and security. In the case of reactor topical reports, as cited
by the petitioner, a single safety evaluation report may be adopted by
many licensees once it has been approved by the NRC, greatly magnifying
the impact of any errors beyond the non-licensee applicant for the
topical report itself.
The NRC agrees with the petitioner that non-licensee applicants for
NRC approvals in all subject areas (e.g. reactors, materials,
transportation, and waste) should be required to submit complete and
accurate information. Imposing the same requirement for completeness
and accuracy of information to all non-licensee applicants for NRC
approvals ensures a consistent and comprehensive set of regulatory
expectations.
Although not mentioned in the petition or the amended petition, the
NRC staff identified other portions of the regulations that contain
similar requirements for ``Completeness and Accuracy of Information.''
As a result, the NRC also considered the applicability of the issue to
10 CFR parts 54, 76, and 110 in its evaluation.
For these reasons, the NRC will consider the issues raised in the
petition in the rulemaking process.
V. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated. For information on accessing ADAMS, see the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession
Date Document number/ Federal
Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 15, 2013.............. Original Petition ML13113A443
(PRM-50-107).
June 10, 2013............... Original FRN........ 78 FR 34604
September 16, 2013.......... Amended Petition.... ML13261A190
January 21, 2014............ Amended FRN......... 79 FR 3328
August 29, 2013............. Comment 1: Hugh ML13241A222
Thompson.
August 26, 2013............. Comment 2: Charles ML13246A383
Haughney.
April 10, 2014.............. Comment 3: Hugh ML14100A198
Thompson.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of February, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark A. Satorius,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015-06107 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
