Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC, 95410-95412 [2016-31372]

Download as PDF 95410 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations to final OPM authority to correct errors, as set forth in § 890.1406. ACTION: § 890.1416 Filing claims for payment or service and court review. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing the rulemaking activities associated with potential changes to its radiation protection and reactor effluents regulations. The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that these rulemaking activities are being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC’s decision to discontinue them. These rulemaking activities will no longer be reported in the NRC’s portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda). DATES: Effective December 28, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed in this document are discontinued. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs NRC–2009–0279 and NRC–2014–0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this document using any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC–2009–0279 and NRC–2014–0044. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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. • 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, Maryland 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Lauron, Office of New Reactors, telephone: 301–415–2736, email: Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov; or Cindy Flannery, Office of Nuclear Material SUMMARY: (a) Tribal employees may file claims for payment or service as described at § 890.105. (b) Tribal employees may invoke the provisions for court review described at § 890.107(b) through (d). § 890.1417 No continuation of FEHB enrollment into retirement from employment with a tribal employer. (a) An FEHB enrollment cannot be continued into retirement from employment with a tribal employer. (b) A Federal annuitant may continue FEHB enrollment into retirement from Federal service if the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 8905(b) for carrying FEHB coverage into retirement are satisfied through enrollment, or coverage as a family member, either through a Federal employing office or a tribal employer, or any combination thereof. (c) A Federal annuitant who is employed after retirement by a tribal employer in an FEHB eligible position may participate in FEHB through the tribal employer. In such a case, the Federal annuitant’s retirement system will transfer the FEHB enrollment to the tribal employer, in a similar manner as for a Federal annuitant who is employed by a Federal agency after retirement. (d) A tribal employee who becomes a survivor annuitant as described in § 890.303(d)(2) is entitled to reinstatement of health benefits coverage as a Federal employee would under the same circumstances. § 890.1418 No continuation of FEHB enrollment in compensationer status past 365 days. A tribal employee who is not also a Federal employee who becomes eligible for one of the Department of Labor’s disability compensation programs may not continue FEHB coverage in leave without pay status past 365 days. [FR Doc. 2016–31195 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325–63–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 [NRC–2009–0279 and NRC–2014–0044] RIN 3150–AJ29 and RIN 3150–AJ38 Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 Rulemaking activities; discontinuation. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301– 415–0223, email: Cindy.Flannery@ nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities III. Radiation Protection (RIN 3150–AJ29; NRC–2009–0279) IV. Reactor Effluents (RIN 3150–AJ38; NRC– 2014–0044) V. Conclusion I. Background In SECY–16–0009, ‘‘Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and ReBaselining of Agency Activities,’’ dated January 31, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16028A208), the NRC staff requested Commission approval to implement recommendations on work to be shed, de-prioritized, or performed with fewer resources. Two of the items listed to be shed (i.e., discontinued) were the rulemakings that would have amended the radiation protection regulations in part 20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and the reactor effluents regulations in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY–16–0009, dated April 13, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16104A158), the Commission approved discontinuing the two rulemaking activities and directed the NRC staff to publish a Federal Register notice to inform the public that the rulemakings are being discontinued. A discussion of the NRC’s decision to discontinue these two rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III and IV of this document. II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be discontinued, the NRC staff requests approval from the Commission to discontinue it. The Commission provides its decision in an SRM. If the Commission approves discontinuing the rulemaking activity, the NRC staff will inform the public of the Commission’s decision. A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public comments, the NRC staff will consider those comments before discontinuing the rulemaking activity; however, the NRC staff will not provide individual comment responses. E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations After Commission approval to discontinue a rulemaking activity, the NRC staff will update the next edition of the Unified Agenda to indicate that the rulemaking is discontinued. The rulemaking activity will appear in the completed actions section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES III. Radiation Protection (RIN 3150– AJ29; NRC–2009–0279) The NRC staff provided an analysis of the potential need to update the radiation protection regulation in SECY–08–0197, ‘‘Options to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,’’ dated December 18, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091310193), to the Commission. SECY–08–0197 presented the regulatory options of more closely aligning the NRC’s radiation protection regulatory framework (primarily set forth in 10 CFR part 20) with the 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) contained in ICRP Publication 103. In the SRM for SECY–08–0197, dated April 2, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090920103), the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to begin engagement with stakeholders and interested parties to initiate development of the technical basis 1 for a possible revision of the NRC’s radiation protection regulations, as appropriate and where scientifically justified, to achieve greater alignment with the recommendations in ICRP Publication 103. After extensive stakeholder engagement, the NRC staff determined that an additional evaluation of the substantive policy issues was needed. This additional policy evaluation was provided as SECY–12–0064, ‘‘Recommendations for Policy and Technical Direction to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,’’ dated April 25, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121020108). The paper summarized the NRC staff’s interactions with stakeholders as directed by the SRM for SECY–08–0197, 1 The terms ‘‘technical basis’’ and ‘‘regulatory basis,’’ as used in this document, are synonymous. The NRC’s Management Directive (MD) 6.3, ‘‘The Rulemaking Process’’ (http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ ML1320/ML13205A400.pdf), explains that a regulatory basis is a detailed analysis, prepared by the NRC staff, describing why a regulation should be promulgated, amended, or repealed, and the scientific, technical, policy, and legal rationale for that potential regulatory action. If approved by the Commission, the regulatory basis will be used by the NRC staff in its development of a proposed rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 and provided recommendations for potential revisions to the NRC’s radiation protection regulations. In the SRM for SECY–12–0064, dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12352A133), the Commission approved in part and disapproved in part the NRC staff’s recommendations. Specifically, the Commission approved the NRC staff’s development of a draft regulatory basis for a revision to 10 CFR part 20 to align with the most recent methodology and terminology for dose assessment in ICRP Publication 103, including consideration of any conforming changes to all NRC regulations. The Commission directed the NRC staff to develop improvements in the NRC’s guidance for those segments of the regulated community that would benefit from more effective implementation of the As Low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) strategies and programs to comply with regulatory requirements. The Commission also directed the NRC staff to continue discussions with stakeholders regarding dose limits for the lens of the eye and the embryo/fetus. In addition, the Commission directed the NRC staff to continue discussions with stakeholders on alternative approaches to deal with individual protection at or near the current dose limit. Finally, the Commission directed the NRC staff to improve reporting of occupational exposure by the NRC and Agreement State licensees to the NRC’s Radiation Exposure Information Reporting System database. In the SRM for SECY–12–0064, the Commission disapproved the NRC staff’s recommendations to develop a draft regulatory basis to reduce the occupational total effective dose equivalent from 5 rem (50 mSv) per year to 2 rem (20 mSv) per year. The Commission also disapproved the elimination of traditional or ‘‘English’’ dose units to measure radiation exposure from the NRC’s regulations. Rather, the Commission directed the continuation of the use of both traditional and International System (SI) units in the NRC’s regulations. In response to the Commission’s direction in the SRM for SECY–12– 0064, the NRC staff published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014), to obtain input from members of the public and other stakeholders on the development of a regulatory basis that would support potential changes to the NRC’s current radiation protection regulations. The ANPR stated that the NRC’s goal was to achieve greater alignment between the NRC’s radiation protection regulations PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 95411 and the recommendations contained in ICRP Publication 103, primarily with respect to the recommendations concerning dose assessment methodology and terminology. The NRC received over 90 individual comment letters and almost 3,000 form letters on the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR. Although some comments supported a potential revision of the NRC’s regulations to align more closely with ICRP Publication 103 methodology and terminology for dose assessment, the majority of comments did not support revising the 10 CFR part 20 regulations. The major reasons given for not revising the NRC’s regulations were the following: (1) The NRC’s current regulations remain protective of both occupational workers and members of the public; (2) the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations propose measures that go beyond what is needed to provide adequate protection and are unlikely to yield a substantial increase in safety that is justified in light of its cost; (3) the industry’s current operating procedures and practices protect both occupational workers and members of the public and go beyond the applicable regulatory requirements; (4) amending the applicable regulations would place significant resource burdens on licensees resulting in costly modifications to existing facilities that would result in little, if any, improvement in occupational or public radiological safety; (5) the cumulative effect of regulation (CER) resulting from the changes described in the ANPR for 10 CFR part 20, in conjunction with the prospective U.S. Department of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) changes to 40 CFR part 190 and to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, will place substantial resource burdens on licensees, while yielding little or no additional protection of occupational workers or the public; and (6) the NRC actions are premature without the publication of the peer approved implementation documents for the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations. While some commenters supported the changes described in the ANPR to more closely align with the ICRP Publication 103 methodology and terminology, these commenters also acknowledged that consideration should be given to the resource burden associated with implementation. Some commenters supported the incorporation of the ICRP Publication 103 dose methodology in the form of revisions to include the weighting factors for eight organs, which are the colon, stomach, bladder, liver, esophagus, skin, brain, and salivary glands, but did not support changes to E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM 28DER1 95412 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2016 / Rules and Regulations sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES the current NRC dose terminology. On the other hand, one commenter indicated that terminology should be adopted in order to be consistent with the terminology used by the U.S. Department of Energy, as revised in 2007, but use of the updated methodology should be delayed until the updated dose coefficients are published by ICRP. Finally, one commenter supported revision of 10 CFR part 20 to align more closely with ICRP Publication 103 methodology and terminology, but acknowledged that the realignment may result in little, if any, improvement in occupational or public safety. As explained in SECY–16–0009, the additional resource expenditure in this area did not result in a recommendation for a revised rule. The current NRC regulatory framework continues to provide adequate protection of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment. In addition, a majority of the comments submitted and meeting feedback from stakeholders did not support the proposed changes. Therefore, the NRC staff believes that there is minimal adverse impact on the NRC’s mission, principles, or values by discontinuing this rulemaking. In the SRM for SECY–16–0009, the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to discontinue this rulemaking. IV. Reactor Effluents (RIN 3150–AJ38; NRC–2014–0044) The NRC published an ANPR in the Federal Register (80 FR 25237; May 4, 2015), to obtain input from members of the public and other stakeholders on the development of a regulatory basis for a potential revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, the NRC’s regulations for licensees of light water cooled reactors to meet the ALARA standard with respect to radioactive effluents from such reactor sites. The publication of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, ANPR was also in response to the Commission’s direction in the SRM for SECY–12–0064, which stated that the NRC staff should, along with the development of the draft regulatory basis for the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, engage in a parallel effort to develop a draft regulatory basis for aligning the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives with the most recent terminology and dose-related methodology published in ICRP Publication 103. In the ANPR, the NRC staff identified specific questions and issues with respect to a possible revision of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, and related guidance. The NRC staff planned to consider public and other VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 stakeholder input on these questions and issues to develop the regulatory basis. The NRC received 20 comment letters on the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, ANPR. The comments, in addition to feedback from the August 24, 2015, NRC public meeting held in Rockville, MD, included the following: (1) The potential revisions will result in intangible benefits such as transparency in the regulatory process, consistent terminology and methodology, and comparison of technologies and operations across international borders and environmental media; (2) implementation of the potential revisions will result in a resource burden; (3) the potential revisions are unlikely to be cost-beneficial with little to no incremental improvement in the health and safety of occupational workers, the public, or the environment; (4) in lieu of the potential revisions, limited changes in the NRC guidance to address changes in methodology and terminology would require fewer licensee resources; and (5) should the NRC proceed with rulemaking, consideration of on-going work on the accuracy of the effluent doses to members of the public could further inform the proposed rulemaking. Overall, the commenters recognized a need to update the NRC’s regulations based on the advances in science and technology; however, the implementation costs would be a significant burden to the industry that would not be justified by improvements in public and occupational protection. In addition, some commenters provided additional options for the NRC to consider, should it continue with rulemaking, including limited scope updates to existing NRC guidance. As explained in SECY–16–0009, the staff recommended that this rulemaking activity be discontinued because during the development of the regulatory basis for the proposed rule change, the staff determined that the regulations do not require changes at this time. Therefore, based on this determination and consideration of the comments received, the NRC staff believes that there is minimal adverse impact on the NRC’s mission, principles, or values by discontinuing this rulemaking. In the SRM for SECY–16–0009, the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to discontinue this rulemaking. V. Conclusion The NRC is no longer pursuing the revisions to regulations in 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, for the reasons discussed in this document. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for these rulemaking activities and reference this document to indicate that they are no longer being pursued. These rulemaking activities will appear in the completed actions section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking activities in the future, it will inform the public through new rulemaking entries in the Unified Agenda. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 2016–31372 Filed 12–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 308 RIN 3064–AE52 Rules of Practice and Procedure Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is adjusting the maximum amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Adjustment Act). The FDIC is also amending its rules of practice and procedure to correct a technical error from the previous inflation-adjustment rulemaking. SUMMARY: This rule is effective on January 15, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth P. Rosebrock, Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division (202) 898–6609, or Graham N. Rehrig, Senior Attorney, Legal Division (202) 898–3829. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: I. Policy Objectives The Final Rule changes the maximum limit for CMPs according to inflation as mandated by Congress in the 2015 Adjustment Act.1 The intended effect of annually adjusting maximum civil money penalties in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index is 1 Public E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM Law 114–74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584. 28DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95410-95412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31372]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 20 and 50

[NRC-2009-0279 and NRC-2014-0044]
RIN 3150-AJ29 and RIN 3150-AJ38


Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Rulemaking activities; discontinuation.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing 
the rulemaking activities associated with potential changes to its 
radiation protection and reactor effluents regulations. The purpose of 
this action is to inform members of the public that these rulemaking 
activities are being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of 
the NRC's decision to discontinue them. These rulemaking activities 
will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda 
of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).

DATES: Effective December 28, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed 
in this document are discontinued.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-2009-0279 and NRC-2014-0044 
when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding 
this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to 
this document using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-2009-0279 and NRC-
2014-0044. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; 
telephone: 301-415-3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical 
questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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.
     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, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Lauron, Office of New 
Reactors, telephone: 301-415-2736, email: Carolyn.Lauron@nrc.gov; or 
Cindy Flannery, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
telephone: 301-415-0223, email: Cindy.Flannery@nrc.gov. Both are staff 
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities
III. Radiation Protection (RIN 3150-AJ29; NRC-2009-0279)
IV. Reactor Effluents (RIN 3150-AJ38; NRC-2014-0044)
V. Conclusion

I. Background

    In SECY-16-0009, ``Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated 
Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities,'' dated January 
31, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16028A208), the NRC staff requested 
Commission approval to implement recommendations on work to be shed, 
de-prioritized, or performed with fewer resources. Two of the items 
listed to be shed (i.e., discontinued) were the rulemakings that would 
have amended the radiation protection regulations in part 20 of title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and the reactor 
effluents regulations in 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. In the Staff 
Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-16-0009, dated April 13, 2016 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16104A158), the Commission approved 
discontinuing the two rulemaking activities and directed the NRC staff 
to publish a Federal Register notice to inform the public that the 
rulemakings are being discontinued.
    A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue these two 
rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III and IV of this 
document.

II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities

    When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be 
discontinued, the NRC staff requests approval from the Commission to 
discontinue it. The Commission provides its decision in an SRM. If the 
Commission approves discontinuing the rulemaking activity, the NRC 
staff will inform the public of the Commission's decision.
    A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the 
rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public 
comments, the NRC staff will consider those comments before 
discontinuing the rulemaking activity; however, the NRC staff will not 
provide individual comment responses.

[[Page 95411]]

    After Commission approval to discontinue a rulemaking activity, the 
NRC staff will update the next edition of the Unified Agenda to 
indicate that the rulemaking is discontinued. The rulemaking activity 
will appear in the completed actions section of that edition of the 
Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions.

III. Radiation Protection (RIN 3150-AJ29; NRC-2009-0279)

    The NRC staff provided an analysis of the potential need to update 
the radiation protection regulation in SECY-08-0197, ``Options to 
Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to 
the 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection,'' dated December 18, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML091310193), to the Commission. SECY-08-0197 presented the regulatory 
options of more closely aligning the NRC's radiation protection 
regulatory framework (primarily set forth in 10 CFR part 20) with the 
2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological 
Protection (ICRP) contained in ICRP Publication 103. In the SRM for 
SECY-08-0197, dated April 2, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090920103), 
the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to begin 
engagement with stakeholders and interested parties to initiate 
development of the technical basis \1\ for a possible revision of the 
NRC's radiation protection regulations, as appropriate and where 
scientifically justified, to achieve greater alignment with the 
recommendations in ICRP Publication 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``technical basis'' and ``regulatory basis,'' as 
used in this document, are synonymous. The NRC's Management 
Directive (MD) 6.3, ``The Rulemaking Process'' (http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1320/ML13205A400.pdf), explains that a regulatory basis is a 
detailed analysis, prepared by the NRC staff, describing why a 
regulation should be promulgated, amended, or repealed, and the 
scientific, technical, policy, and legal rationale for that 
potential regulatory action. If approved by the Commission, the 
regulatory basis will be used by the NRC staff in its development of 
a proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After extensive stakeholder engagement, the NRC staff determined 
that an additional evaluation of the substantive policy issues was 
needed. This additional policy evaluation was provided as SECY-12-0064, 
``Recommendations for Policy and Technical Direction to Revise 
Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance,'' dated April 25, 2012 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML121020108). The paper summarized the NRC staff's 
interactions with stakeholders as directed by the SRM for SECY-08-0197, 
and provided recommendations for potential revisions to the NRC's 
radiation protection regulations.
    In the SRM for SECY-12-0064, dated December 17, 2012 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12352A133), the Commission approved in part and 
disapproved in part the NRC staff's recommendations. Specifically, the 
Commission approved the NRC staff's development of a draft regulatory 
basis for a revision to 10 CFR part 20 to align with the most recent 
methodology and terminology for dose assessment in ICRP Publication 
103, including consideration of any conforming changes to all NRC 
regulations. The Commission directed the NRC staff to develop 
improvements in the NRC's guidance for those segments of the regulated 
community that would benefit from more effective implementation of the 
As Low As is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) strategies and programs to 
comply with regulatory requirements. The Commission also directed the 
NRC staff to continue discussions with stakeholders regarding dose 
limits for the lens of the eye and the embryo/fetus.
    In addition, the Commission directed the NRC staff to continue 
discussions with stakeholders on alternative approaches to deal with 
individual protection at or near the current dose limit. Finally, the 
Commission directed the NRC staff to improve reporting of occupational 
exposure by the NRC and Agreement State licensees to the NRC's 
Radiation Exposure Information Reporting System database. In the SRM 
for SECY-12-0064, the Commission disapproved the NRC staff's 
recommendations to develop a draft regulatory basis to reduce the 
occupational total effective dose equivalent from 5 rem (50 mSv) per 
year to 2 rem (20 mSv) per year. The Commission also disapproved the 
elimination of traditional or ``English'' dose units to measure 
radiation exposure from the NRC's regulations. Rather, the Commission 
directed the continuation of the use of both traditional and 
International System (SI) units in the NRC's regulations.
    In response to the Commission's direction in the SRM for SECY-12-
0064, the NRC staff published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPR) in the Federal Register (79 FR 43284; July 25, 2014), to obtain 
input from members of the public and other stakeholders on the 
development of a regulatory basis that would support potential changes 
to the NRC's current radiation protection regulations. The ANPR stated 
that the NRC's goal was to achieve greater alignment between the NRC's 
radiation protection regulations and the recommendations contained in 
ICRP Publication 103, primarily with respect to the recommendations 
concerning dose assessment methodology and terminology.
    The NRC received over 90 individual comment letters and almost 
3,000 form letters on the 10 CFR part 20 ANPR. Although some comments 
supported a potential revision of the NRC's regulations to align more 
closely with ICRP Publication 103 methodology and terminology for dose 
assessment, the majority of comments did not support revising the 10 
CFR part 20 regulations. The major reasons given for not revising the 
NRC's regulations were the following: (1) The NRC's current regulations 
remain protective of both occupational workers and members of the 
public; (2) the ICRP Publication 103 recommendations propose measures 
that go beyond what is needed to provide adequate protection and are 
unlikely to yield a substantial increase in safety that is justified in 
light of its cost; (3) the industry's current operating procedures and 
practices protect both occupational workers and members of the public 
and go beyond the applicable regulatory requirements; (4) amending the 
applicable regulations would place significant resource burdens on 
licensees resulting in costly modifications to existing facilities that 
would result in little, if any, improvement in occupational or public 
radiological safety; (5) the cumulative effect of regulation (CER) 
resulting from the changes described in the ANPR for 10 CFR part 20, in 
conjunction with the prospective U.S. Department of Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) changes to 40 CFR part 190 and to 10 CFR part 
50, appendix I, will place substantial resource burdens on licensees, 
while yielding little or no additional protection of occupational 
workers or the public; and (6) the NRC actions are premature without 
the publication of the peer approved implementation documents for the 
ICRP Publication 103 recommendations.
    While some commenters supported the changes described in the ANPR 
to more closely align with the ICRP Publication 103 methodology and 
terminology, these commenters also acknowledged that consideration 
should be given to the resource burden associated with implementation. 
Some commenters supported the incorporation of the ICRP Publication 103 
dose methodology in the form of revisions to include the weighting 
factors for eight organs, which are the colon, stomach, bladder, liver, 
esophagus, skin, brain, and salivary glands, but did not support 
changes to

[[Page 95412]]

the current NRC dose terminology. On the other hand, one commenter 
indicated that terminology should be adopted in order to be consistent 
with the terminology used by the U.S. Department of Energy, as revised 
in 2007, but use of the updated methodology should be delayed until the 
updated dose coefficients are published by ICRP. Finally, one commenter 
supported revision of 10 CFR part 20 to align more closely with ICRP 
Publication 103 methodology and terminology, but acknowledged that the 
realignment may result in little, if any, improvement in occupational 
or public safety.
    As explained in SECY-16-0009, the additional resource expenditure 
in this area did not result in a recommendation for a revised rule. The 
current NRC regulatory framework continues to provide adequate 
protection of the health and safety of workers, the public, and the 
environment. In addition, a majority of the comments submitted and 
meeting feedback from stakeholders did not support the proposed 
changes. Therefore, the NRC staff believes that there is minimal 
adverse impact on the NRC's mission, principles, or values by 
discontinuing this rulemaking. In the SRM for SECY-16-0009, the 
Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to discontinue this 
rulemaking.

IV. Reactor Effluents (RIN 3150-AJ38; NRC-2014-0044)

    The NRC published an ANPR in the Federal Register (80 FR 25237; May 
4, 2015), to obtain input from members of the public and other 
stakeholders on the development of a regulatory basis for a potential 
revision to 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, the NRC's regulations for 
licensees of light water cooled reactors to meet the ALARA standard 
with respect to radioactive effluents from such reactor sites. The 
publication of the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, ANPR was also in 
response to the Commission's direction in the SRM for SECY-12-0064, 
which stated that the NRC staff should, along with the development of 
the draft regulatory basis for the 10 CFR part 20 regulations, engage 
in a parallel effort to develop a draft regulatory basis for aligning 
the 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, design objectives with the most recent 
terminology and dose-related methodology published in ICRP Publication 
103. In the ANPR, the NRC staff identified specific questions and 
issues with respect to a possible revision of 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, and related guidance. The NRC staff planned to consider public and 
other stakeholder input on these questions and issues to develop the 
regulatory basis.
    The NRC received 20 comment letters on the 10 CFR part 50, appendix 
I, ANPR. The comments, in addition to feedback from the August 24, 
2015, NRC public meeting held in Rockville, MD, included the following: 
(1) The potential revisions will result in intangible benefits such as 
transparency in the regulatory process, consistent terminology and 
methodology, and comparison of technologies and operations across 
international borders and environmental media; (2) implementation of 
the potential revisions will result in a resource burden; (3) the 
potential revisions are unlikely to be cost-beneficial with little to 
no incremental improvement in the health and safety of occupational 
workers, the public, or the environment; (4) in lieu of the potential 
revisions, limited changes in the NRC guidance to address changes in 
methodology and terminology would require fewer licensee resources; and 
(5) should the NRC proceed with rulemaking, consideration of on-going 
work on the accuracy of the effluent doses to members of the public 
could further inform the proposed rulemaking.
    Overall, the commenters recognized a need to update the NRC's 
regulations based on the advances in science and technology; however, 
the implementation costs would be a significant burden to the industry 
that would not be justified by improvements in public and occupational 
protection. In addition, some commenters provided additional options 
for the NRC to consider, should it continue with rulemaking, including 
limited scope updates to existing NRC guidance.
    As explained in SECY-16-0009, the staff recommended that this 
rulemaking activity be discontinued because during the development of 
the regulatory basis for the proposed rule change, the staff determined 
that the regulations do not require changes at this time. Therefore, 
based on this determination and consideration of the comments received, 
the NRC staff believes that there is minimal adverse impact on the 
NRC's mission, principles, or values by discontinuing this rulemaking. 
In the SRM for SECY-16-0009, the Commission approved the NRC staff's 
recommendation to discontinue this rulemaking.

V. Conclusion

    The NRC is no longer pursuing the revisions to regulations in 10 
CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I, for the reasons discussed 
in this document. In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC 
will update the entry for these rulemaking activities and reference 
this document to indicate that they are no longer being pursued. These 
rulemaking activities will appear in the completed actions section of 
that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future 
editions. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking 
activities in the future, it will inform the public through new 
rulemaking entries in the Unified Agenda.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson,
Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-31372 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P