Agreement State Program Policy Statement, 46840-46843 [2017-21542]
Download as PDF
46840
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov at least 24
hours prior to the teleconference.
Dated: October 3, 2017.
Ann Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2017–21697 Filed 10–4–17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Request for Information (RFI)—MidScale Research Infrastructure
AGENCY:
National Science Foundation
(NSF).
ACTION:
Request for Information (RFI).
This Request for Information
(RFI) is issued in response to the
American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act (AICA). NSF seeks
information on existing and future
needs for mid-scale research
infrastructure projects from the USbased NSF science and engineering
community. The AICA requires NSF to
‘‘evaluate the existing and future needs,
across all disciplines supported by the
Foundation, for mid-scale projects’’ and
‘‘develop a strategy to address the
needs.’’ The input will be used to assess
the needs for mid-scale RI from the USbased NSF science and engineering
community in order to develop a
strategy, in accordance with the AICA.
DATES: To be considered, submissions
must be received no later than
December 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
midscale@nsf.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions: For the purposes of this
RFI, NSF defines Research
Infrastructure (RI) as any combination of
facilities, equipment, instrumentation,
computational hardware and software,
and the necessary human capital in
support of the same. This includes
upgrades to existing major research
facilities. Mid-scale RI requires an
investment that falls between the
maximum award funded by NSF’s Major
Research Instrumentation Program
(MRI; $4 million) and that of a major
multi-user research facility project ($100
million or more), as defined in AICA.
Background: Enabling Mid-scale
Research Infrastructure is one of NSF’s
Ten Big Ideas. Given priorities in the
current budget climate, NSF has been
able to fund smaller mid-scale RI
projects through its individual scientific
directorates. Instrumentation and
equipment up to $4 million has been
routinely funded through the MRI
program. Large-scale RI projects have
been successfully funded through the
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:40 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC)
Account. In November 2016, the
eligibility threshold for potential
inclusion in the MREFC Account was
lowered from approximately a $100
million Total Project Cost (TPC), i.e.,
total cost to NSF, depending on the
directorate, to a fixed $70 million TPC.
This adjustment was an initial step to
support potential priorities in mid-scale
science and infrastructure.
Objective: The purpose of this RFI is
to assess the needs for mid-scale RI from
the US-based NSF science and
engineering community in order to
develop a strategy, in accordance with
the AICA. The AICA requires NSF to
‘‘evaluate the existing and future needs,
across all disciplines supported by the
Foundation, for mid-scale projects’’ and
‘‘develop a strategy to address the
needs.’’ This RFI focuses on mid-scale
research infrastructure projects with an
anticipated NSF contribution of between
$20 million and $100 million towards
construction and/or acquisition. This
range is of primary interest to NSF as it
will help us anticipate the potential
impact of lowering the MREFC
threshold as well as identifying
promising projects that remain difficult
to address within program budgets due
to the comparatively large investment
needed in a relatively short period of
time. After the submission period ends,
and the information is analyzed, NSF
will summarize the high-level insights
drawn from this analysis for the science
community and internal NSF use.
Please note that funding for mid-scale RI
projects in this range of investment has
not been identified; nor does this RFI
imply an intent on the part of NSF to
issue a call for proposals. In addition,
responses to this RFI do not constitute
any commitment on behalf of the
submitters or their institutions to submit
a proposal or carry out an RI project.
What We Are Looking For:
Submissions should identify ideas for
mid-scale RI projects in the following
format:
1. Concept title and description. The
description should include the potential
for any inter-agency or international
partnerships and contributions that are
part of the TPC;
2. Point of contact (in case additional
clarification is needed);
3. Contact of your Authorized
Organizational Representative. Note,
this contact will receive a copy of the
survey submission;
4. New, transformative science or
scientific breakthroughs to be enabled
by project;
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5. Evidence of research community
support (list of reports, decadal surveys,
other publications);
6. Rough order of magnitude TPC
(fully loaded, i.e. inclusive of indirect
and/or Facility and Administration
costs) with a percentage breakdown by
the following major budget categories:
(1) Physical components including
structures, equipment, instrumentation,
and hardware; (2) other computational
resources, including software and
firmware; and (3) human capital;
7. Concept of operations: anticipated
duration and level of federal and nonfederal support.
Who should respond:
Researchers, users, and leaders at U.S.
based colleges and universities as well
as non-profits who are well positioned
to advance and support a mid-scale
project throughout its lifecycle.
How should you respond:
To submit your concept, please use
this link: https://
www.surveymonkey.com/r/midscale_
2017 and complete the online
questionnaire no later than December 8,
2017. Please use the email contact field
provided to enable a courtesy copy of
your response to your Authorized
Organizational Representative or
institutional leadership to ensure
institutional awareness of your
submission.
What We Will Do with the
Information: All information submitted
is subject to the Privacy Act. Summary
information would be presented in
aggregate form as part of the high-level
analysis shared publicly.
Dated: October 3, 2017.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2017–21608 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0094]
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Revision to policy statement.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has revised and
consolidated two policy statements on
the NRC’s Agreement State Programs:
The ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy
and Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ and the ‘‘Statement of
Principles and Policy for the Agreement
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM
06OCN1
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
State Program.’’ The resulting single
policy statement has been revised to add
that public health and safety includes
physical protection of agreement
material 1 and to reflect comments
received from Agreement States,
individuals, and the Organization of
Agreement States (OAS).
DATES: This policy statement is effective
on October 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0094 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
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0094. 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.
• 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. The
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement, in its entirety, is in the
attachment to this document.
• 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:
Lance Rakovan, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–2589, email: Lance.Rakovan@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The term ‘‘agreement material’’ means the
materials listed in Subsection 274b. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), over which
the States may receive regulatory authority.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:40 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
I. Background
The ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy
and Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997) presented the NRC’s policy for
determining the adequacy and
compatibility of Agreement State
programs. The ‘‘Statement of Principles
and Policy for the Agreement State
Program’’ (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997) described the respective roles and
responsibilities of the NRC and the
States in the administration of programs
carried out under the 274b. State
Agreement.2 The application of these
two policy statements has significant
influence on the safety and security of
agreement material and on the
regulation of the more than 20,000
Agreement State and NRC materials
licensees, commonly referred to as
National Materials Program (NMP)
licensees.
The NRC staff’s current efforts to
update the Agreement State policy
statements began with the Commission’s
direction provided in the staff
requirements memorandum (SRM) to
SECY–10–0105, ‘‘Final Rule: Limiting
the Quantity of Byproduct Material in a
Generally Licensed Device (RIN 3150–
AI33),’’ issued on December 2, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103360262).
The Commission directed the NRC staff
to update the Commission’s ‘‘Policy
Statement on Adequacy and
Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ and associated guidance
documents to include both safety and
source security considerations in the
compatibility determination process.
Because Agreement State adequacy and
compatibility are closely linked to the
Integrated Materials Performance
Evaluation Program (IMPEP),3 which is
a key component of the Commission’s
‘‘Statement of Principles and Policy for
the Agreement State Program,’’ both
policy statements were revised
concurrently. Both policy statements
were updated to add that public health
and safety includes physical protection
of agreement material. Two working
groups, composed of NRC staff and
Agreement State representatives,
2 Section 274 of the AEA provides a statutory
basis under which the NRC discontinues portions
of its regulatory authority to license and regulate
byproduct materials; source materials; and
quantities of special nuclear materials under critical
mass. The mechanism for the transfer of the NRC’s
authority to a State is an agreement signed by the
Governor of the State and the Chairman of the
Commission, in accordance with Subsection 274b.
of the AEA.
3 The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement
States, developed the IMPEP to evaluate the
adequacy and compatibility of Agreement State
programs and the adequacy of the NRC’s nuclear
materials program activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46841
developed the revisions to the policy
statements. The draft revisions to the
two policy statements were provided to
the Commission on August 14, 2012
(SECY–12–0112, ‘‘Policy Statements on
Agreement State Programs’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12110A183)).
The Commission approved
publication of the draft revisions to the
policy statements for public comment in
the revised SRM to SECY–12–0112,
dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13148A352). The NRC staff
published the two proposed policy
statements on June 3, 2013 (78 FR
33122), for a 75-day comment period.
After receiving requests from the
Organization of Agreement States (OAS)
and the State of Florida to extend the
public comment period, the NRC
extended the comment period to
September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118;
August 16, 2013). The NRC held two
public meetings (July 18 and August 6,
2013) and a topical session during the
OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada,
on August 28, 2013. The NRC staff
specifically solicited comment on
Compatibility Category B, and whether
or not the policy statements should
maintain the language from the 1997
‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and
Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ describing the adoption and
number of compatible regulations.
The NRC staff received 13
submissions from commenters
including Agreement States, industry
organizations, and individuals. These
submissions contained 51 comments on
the policy statements in general and 45
comments on Compatibility Category B.
The need for consistent application and
flexible implementation of the NRC’s
policies was the underlying theme
expressed by the Agreement States in
the written comments as well as during
the public meetings and the OAS topical
session. Some commenters provided
general remarks and addressed specific
sections of the policy statements. Some
commenters also expressed concern that
the inconsistent use of terms (e.g.,
material versus agreement material,
enhanced security measures versus
physical protection of agreement
material, and relinquishing the NRC’s
authority versus discontinuing the
authority) could cause confusion.
Regarding Compatibility Category B, the
comments show a wide variation on the
interpretation of the definition of
Compatibility Category B. The NRC staff
considered the written comments, input
from attendees at the two public
meetings, and comments received at the
OAS topical session and made
modifications to the policy statements
to ensure terms are used appropriately.
E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM
06OCN1
46842
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff’s disposition of these
comments was presented in a comment
resolution table (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14073A549) associated with the June
3, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR
33122).
In COMSECY–14–0028, ‘‘Agreement
State Program Policy Statements:
Update on Recent Activities and
Recommendations for Path Forward,’’
dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14156A277), the NRC staff
proposed consolidating the two policy
statements in a single policy statement.
The Commission approved this plan in
the SRM to COMSECY–14–0028, dated
August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14224A618). Accordingly, the
NRC staff developed a proposed single
consolidated policy statement that:
Identified and eliminated redundant
language between the two policy
statements, removed detailed
information on IMPEP and the
‘‘Principles of Good Regulation’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML15083A026),
added context to make the proposed
policy statement clearer and more
consistent with other recent NRC policy
statements, and added a description of
the NMP.
The Commission approved
publication of the proposed
consolidated Agreement State Program
Policy Statement for public comment in
the SRM to SECY–15–0087, dated
March 22, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16082A514). The NRC staff
published the proposed Agreement
State Program Policy Statement on June
2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), for a 75-day
public comment period. The NRC staff
also held two public webinars during
the comment period. The NRC staff
received 31 comments from commenters
including Agreement States and the
OAS.
The final policy statement is included
in its entirety in the attachment to this
document.
II. Overview of Public Comments
The 31 comments received in
response to the Federal Register notice
of June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), were
considered in developing the final
policy statement along with 131
comments that were received from the
Agreement States when the policy
statements were consolidated. The
comments generally fell within the
following categories: The consolidation
of two policy statements and NRC’s
unilateral decision to consolidate; the
definition and description of adequacy
and compatibility; the use of ‘‘NRC’’ and
‘‘Commission;’’ the use of the terms
‘‘relinquish’’ authority versus
‘‘discontinue’’ authority; the use of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:40 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
terms ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘must’’ versus
‘‘should;’’ the addition of ‘‘significant’’
to ‘‘cross jurisdictional;’’ and deletion of
the section on the Principles of Good
Regulation. Commenters provided
additional comments that did not fall
within those categories as well as
comments that were out of scope of the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement. The NRC staff’s disposition
of the 162 comments is presented in a
comment resolution table (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17044A406). The
following sections summarize the
comments organized in the categories
previously noted, and include the NRC’s
response to the comments.
A. Consolidation of Two Policy
Statements and the NRC’s Unilateral
Decision To Consolidate
Comment: Some commenters opposed
the consolidation of the two policy
statements—the ‘‘Policy Statement on
Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs’’ and the
‘‘Statement of Principles and Policy for
the Agreement State Program’’—into a
single consolidated policy statement
citing the following reasons: (1) The
statements address unique topics
(operational goals of a regulatory
program vs. review of a regulatory
program); (2) the splitting up and
redistribution of the two policy
statements’ sections result in changes in
the emphasis and relationship of both
policy statements, both within each
policy, and to each other; and (3) there
are only five sentences that are common
to both policy statements, which is not
indicative of a great amount of
redundancy. Multiple commenters
believed that the NRC made a unilateral
decision to combine the two policy
statements into a single consolidated
policy statement without input from the
Agreement State working group
members who worked on the individual
policies. One commenter stated an
expectation for the NRC to involve
Agreement State working group
members in all aspects of working group
projects to ensure that documents
adequately address issues of the
Agreement States as well as the NRC.
Four commenters stated that unilateral
action by the NRC damages trust and the
relationship between the NRC and the
Agreement States. Three of the five
commenters cited NRC Management
Directive 5.3, ‘‘Agreement State
Participation in Working Groups’’
(https://scp.nrc.gov/procedures.html)
and noted that the combined policy was
not cooperatively developed.
Response: Two working groups
composed of NRC (headquarters and
regional) staff and Agreement State
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
representatives developed revisions to
these two policy statements. In
COMSECY–14–0028, the NRC staff
proposed a plan to consolidate the two
policy statements into a single policy
statement, while preserving the work
already completed by the two working
groups to update the separate policy
statements. One of the factors leading to
the recommendation for a single policy
statement was the identification, by the
NRC, of redundant language between
the two policy statements. The
Commission approved this plan in the
SRM to COMSECY–14–0028. The NRC
staff consolidated the two Agreement
State Program policy statements into a
single policy statement and removed the
IMPEP and Principles of Good
Regulation details and redundancies. In
2014, the NRC staff provided the draft
consolidated policy statement to
Agreement States. Some expressed
dissatisfaction over not being more
engaged in the decision and process
used to propose consolidation of the
policy statements. The content revisions
that were developed by the two NRC/
Agreement State working groups during
their work on the two separate policy
statements were considered during the
development of the consolidated policy
statement. Additionally, the final
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement reflects comments received
from the Agreement States subsequent
to the consolidation of the two policy
statements.
B. Definition and Description of
Adequacy and Compatibility
Comment: Several commenters
requested that adequacy and
compatibility be better defined
throughout the Agreement State
Program Policy Statement and that a
greater emphasis be placed on public
health and safety.
Response: Corresponding changes
were implemented throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement, as appropriate, for
consistency with the intent of the AEA.
These include revisions in Section C.,
‘‘Statement of Legislative Intent,’’ of the
policy statement.
C. Use of ‘‘NRC’’ and ‘‘Commission’’
Comment: Several commenters
recommended replacing ‘‘NRC’’ with
‘‘Commission’’ or vice versa in various
sections throughout the policy
statement.
Response: The definition of
‘‘Commission’’ was added as a footnote
in the policy statement to mean the five
Commissioners, and the ‘‘NRC’’
indicates the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission as an agency.
E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM
06OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 193 / Friday, October 6, 2017 / Notices
Corresponding changes were
implemented throughout the Agreement
State Program Policy Statement.
D. Use of the Terms ‘‘relinquish’’
Authority Versus ‘‘discontinue’’
Authority
Comment: Several commenters stated
the use of the word ‘‘relinquish’’—in the
context of the NRC’s regulatory
authority when entering into an
agreement—is not accurate and
recommended changing ‘‘relinquish’’ to
‘‘discontinue’’ throughout the policy
statement so the wording is consistent
with Section 274b. of the AEA.
Response: All instances of the word
‘‘relinquish’’ have either been deleted or
replaced with the word ‘‘discontinue’’
throughout the Agreement State
Program Policy Statement.
E. Use of the Terms ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or
‘‘must’’ Versus ‘‘should’’
Comment: Multiple commenters
suggest that ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘will,’’ or ‘‘must’’
should replace ‘‘should’’ or vice versa in
various sections throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement.
Response: Corresponding changes
were implemented throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement, as appropriate, for
consistency with language used in
Section 274b. of the AEA or other
sections of the policy statement.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
F. Add ‘‘significant’’ to ‘‘cross
jurisdictional’’
Comment: Several commenters
suggest that the term ‘‘significant’’
should be added before ‘‘cross
jurisdictional’’ for Compatibility
Category B program elements.
Response: The NRC/Agreement State
working group for the revision of the
‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and
Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ carefully considered the use
of the term ‘‘significant’’ and concluded
that the term was ambiguous and should
not be included as part of the
description of Compatibility Category B.
The term ‘‘cross jurisdictional program
elements’’ was chosen to make the
description of Compatibility Category B
concise and well-defined. No change
was made to the Agreement State
Program Policy Statement as a result of
these comments.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended the deletion of Section
D.1.i, ‘‘Principles of Good Regulation,’’
of the policy statement.
18:40 Oct 05, 2017
Jkt 244001
Response: The Principles of Good
Regulation were initially adopted by the
Commission in 1991 to serve as a guide
to NRC decisionmaking and employee
conduct. In 1997, they were included in
the ‘‘Policy Statement on Adequacy and
Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs’’ and the ‘‘Statement of
Principles and Policy for the Agreement
State Program’’ and were recognized as
part of a common culture that the NRC
and Agreement States share as coregulators. These principles have served
as a foundation for good regulation in
the NMP and are included in the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement to indicate their importance
and that they should continue to form
the basic building blocks for good
regulation in the NMP into the future.
No change was made to the
Agreement State Program Policy
Statement as a result of these comments.
are mandatory for states seeking to
assume or maintain independent
regulatory authority under Section 274
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended. These information collections
were approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), under
control number 3150–0183. The
estimated annual burden for new
Agreement State applications is 2,750
hours, to maintain Agreement State
status is 7,600 hours, and to participate
in IMPEP reviews is 36 hours. Send
comments regarding this information
collection to the Information Services
Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by email to
Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to
the Desk Officer, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202,
(3150–0183) Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
H. Category Health and Safety
Public Protection Notification
Comment: A number of commenters
noted that Category Health and Safety
(H&S) was removed from the policy
statement and recommended that
Category H&S be included.
Response: In the proposed policy
statement, Category H&S was removed
from Section E.2. ‘‘Compatibility.’’ This
section of the policy describes the
program elements required for
compatibility. Program elements
required for H&S are not required for
compatibility. Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’
of the proposed policy statement was
made implicit for Category H&S by
indicating that an adequate program
includes those program elements
necessary to maintain an acceptable
level of protection of public health and
safety. Because Category H&S is one of
six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, and
H&S) that forms the basis for evaluating
and classifying NRC program elements,
a corresponding edit was implemented
in Section E.1. ‘‘Adequacy’’ of the
policy statement.
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless the
document requesting or requiring the
collection displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
III. Procedural Requirements
Congressional Review Act Statement
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of October 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary for the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–21542 Filed 10–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2017–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
Weeks of October 9, 16, 23, 30,
November 6, 13, 2017.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
DATES:
This final Agreement State Program
Policy Statement is a rule as defined in
the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801–808). However, the Office of
Management and Budget has not found
it to be a major rule as defined in the
Congressional Review Act.
Week of October 9, 2017
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
G. Deletion of Principles of Good
Regulation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
46843
Week of October 23, 2017—Tentative
This Policy Statement contains
voluntary guidance for information
collections subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). These information collections
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic
Overview of the Operating Reactors
Business Line (Public) (Contact:
Trent Wertz: 301–415–1568)
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of October 9, 2017.
Week of October 16, 2017—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of October 16, 2017.
E:\FR\FM\06OCN1.SGM
06OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46840-46843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21542]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0094]
Agreement State Program Policy Statement
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Revision to policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised and
consolidated two policy statements on the NRC's Agreement State
Programs: The ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs'' and the ``Statement of Principles and Policy
for the Agreement
[[Page 46841]]
State Program.'' The resulting single policy statement has been revised
to add that public health and safety includes physical protection of
agreement material \1\ and to reflect comments received from Agreement
States, individuals, and the Organization of Agreement States (OAS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``agreement material'' means the materials listed
in Subsection 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(AEA), over which the States may receive regulatory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: This policy statement is effective on October 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0094 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0094. 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.
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. The Agreement State Program Policy
Statement, in its entirety, is in the attachment to this document.
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: Lance Rakovan, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2589, email:
Lance.Rakovan@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement
State Programs'' (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) presented the NRC's
policy for determining the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement
State programs. The ``Statement of Principles and Policy for the
Agreement State Program'' (62 FR 46517; September 3, 1997) described
the respective roles and responsibilities of the NRC and the States in
the administration of programs carried out under the 274b. State
Agreement.\2\ The application of these two policy statements has
significant influence on the safety and security of agreement material
and on the regulation of the more than 20,000 Agreement State and NRC
materials licensees, commonly referred to as National Materials Program
(NMP) licensees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 274 of the AEA provides a statutory basis under
which the NRC discontinues portions of its regulatory authority to
license and regulate byproduct materials; source materials; and
quantities of special nuclear materials under critical mass. The
mechanism for the transfer of the NRC's authority to a State is an
agreement signed by the Governor of the State and the Chairman of
the Commission, in accordance with Subsection 274b. of the AEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC staff's current efforts to update the Agreement State
policy statements began with the Commission's direction provided in the
staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to SECY-10-0105, ``Final Rule:
Limiting the Quantity of Byproduct Material in a Generally Licensed
Device (RIN 3150-AI33),'' issued on December 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML103360262). The Commission directed the NRC staff to update the
Commission's ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs'' and associated guidance documents to include
both safety and source security considerations in the compatibility
determination process. Because Agreement State adequacy and
compatibility are closely linked to the Integrated Materials
Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),\3\ which is a key component of
the Commission's ``Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement
State Program,'' both policy statements were revised concurrently. Both
policy statements were updated to add that public health and safety
includes physical protection of agreement material. Two working groups,
composed of NRC staff and Agreement State representatives, developed
the revisions to the policy statements. The draft revisions to the two
policy statements were provided to the Commission on August 14, 2012
(SECY-12-0112, ``Policy Statements on Agreement State Programs'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12110A183)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NRC, in cooperation with the Agreement States, developed
the IMPEP to evaluate the adequacy and compatibility of Agreement
State programs and the adequacy of the NRC's nuclear materials
program activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission approved publication of the draft revisions to the
policy statements for public comment in the revised SRM to SECY-12-
0112, dated May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13148A352). The NRC
staff published the two proposed policy statements on June 3, 2013 (78
FR 33122), for a 75-day comment period. After receiving requests from
the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) and the State of Florida to
extend the public comment period, the NRC extended the comment period
to September 16, 2013 (78 FR 50118; August 16, 2013). The NRC held two
public meetings (July 18 and August 6, 2013) and a topical session
during the OAS annual meeting in Reno, Nevada, on August 28, 2013. The
NRC staff specifically solicited comment on Compatibility Category B,
and whether or not the policy statements should maintain the language
from the 1997 ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement State Programs'' describing the adoption and number of
compatible regulations.
The NRC staff received 13 submissions from commenters including
Agreement States, industry organizations, and individuals. These
submissions contained 51 comments on the policy statements in general
and 45 comments on Compatibility Category B. The need for consistent
application and flexible implementation of the NRC's policies was the
underlying theme expressed by the Agreement States in the written
comments as well as during the public meetings and the OAS topical
session. Some commenters provided general remarks and addressed
specific sections of the policy statements. Some commenters also
expressed concern that the inconsistent use of terms (e.g., material
versus agreement material, enhanced security measures versus physical
protection of agreement material, and relinquishing the NRC's authority
versus discontinuing the authority) could cause confusion. Regarding
Compatibility Category B, the comments show a wide variation on the
interpretation of the definition of Compatibility Category B. The NRC
staff considered the written comments, input from attendees at the two
public meetings, and comments received at the OAS topical session and
made modifications to the policy statements to ensure terms are used
appropriately.
[[Page 46842]]
The NRC staff's disposition of these comments was presented in a
comment resolution table (ADAMS Accession No. ML14073A549) associated
with the June 3, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 33122).
In COMSECY-14-0028, ``Agreement State Program Policy Statements:
Update on Recent Activities and Recommendations for Path Forward,''
dated July 14, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14156A277), the NRC staff
proposed consolidating the two policy statements in a single policy
statement. The Commission approved this plan in the SRM to COMSECY-14-
0028, dated August 12, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14224A618).
Accordingly, the NRC staff developed a proposed single consolidated
policy statement that: Identified and eliminated redundant language
between the two policy statements, removed detailed information on
IMPEP and the ``Principles of Good Regulation'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15083A026), added context to make the proposed policy statement
clearer and more consistent with other recent NRC policy statements,
and added a description of the NMP.
The Commission approved publication of the proposed consolidated
Agreement State Program Policy Statement for public comment in the SRM
to SECY-15-0087, dated March 22, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16082A514). The NRC staff published the proposed Agreement State
Program Policy Statement on June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), for a 75-day
public comment period. The NRC staff also held two public webinars
during the comment period. The NRC staff received 31 comments from
commenters including Agreement States and the OAS.
The final policy statement is included in its entirety in the
attachment to this document.
II. Overview of Public Comments
The 31 comments received in response to the Federal Register notice
of June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35388), were considered in developing the final
policy statement along with 131 comments that were received from the
Agreement States when the policy statements were consolidated. The
comments generally fell within the following categories: The
consolidation of two policy statements and NRC's unilateral decision to
consolidate; the definition and description of adequacy and
compatibility; the use of ``NRC'' and ``Commission;'' the use of the
terms ``relinquish'' authority versus ``discontinue'' authority; the
use of the terms ``shall,'' ``will,'' or ``must'' versus ``should;''
the addition of ``significant'' to ``cross jurisdictional;'' and
deletion of the section on the Principles of Good Regulation.
Commenters provided additional comments that did not fall within those
categories as well as comments that were out of scope of the Agreement
State Program Policy Statement. The NRC staff's disposition of the 162
comments is presented in a comment resolution table (ADAMS Accession
No. ML17044A406). The following sections summarize the comments
organized in the categories previously noted, and include the NRC's
response to the comments.
A. Consolidation of Two Policy Statements and the NRC's Unilateral
Decision To Consolidate
Comment: Some commenters opposed the consolidation of the two
policy statements--the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility
of Agreement State Programs'' and the ``Statement of Principles and
Policy for the Agreement State Program''--into a single consolidated
policy statement citing the following reasons: (1) The statements
address unique topics (operational goals of a regulatory program vs.
review of a regulatory program); (2) the splitting up and
redistribution of the two policy statements' sections result in changes
in the emphasis and relationship of both policy statements, both within
each policy, and to each other; and (3) there are only five sentences
that are common to both policy statements, which is not indicative of a
great amount of redundancy. Multiple commenters believed that the NRC
made a unilateral decision to combine the two policy statements into a
single consolidated policy statement without input from the Agreement
State working group members who worked on the individual policies. One
commenter stated an expectation for the NRC to involve Agreement State
working group members in all aspects of working group projects to
ensure that documents adequately address issues of the Agreement States
as well as the NRC. Four commenters stated that unilateral action by
the NRC damages trust and the relationship between the NRC and the
Agreement States. Three of the five commenters cited NRC Management
Directive 5.3, ``Agreement State Participation in Working Groups''
(https://scp.nrc.gov/procedures.html) and noted that the combined
policy was not cooperatively developed.
Response: Two working groups composed of NRC (headquarters and
regional) staff and Agreement State representatives developed revisions
to these two policy statements. In COMSECY-14-0028, the NRC staff
proposed a plan to consolidate the two policy statements into a single
policy statement, while preserving the work already completed by the
two working groups to update the separate policy statements. One of the
factors leading to the recommendation for a single policy statement was
the identification, by the NRC, of redundant language between the two
policy statements. The Commission approved this plan in the SRM to
COMSECY-14-0028. The NRC staff consolidated the two Agreement State
Program policy statements into a single policy statement and removed
the IMPEP and Principles of Good Regulation details and redundancies.
In 2014, the NRC staff provided the draft consolidated policy statement
to Agreement States. Some expressed dissatisfaction over not being more
engaged in the decision and process used to propose consolidation of
the policy statements. The content revisions that were developed by the
two NRC/Agreement State working groups during their work on the two
separate policy statements were considered during the development of
the consolidated policy statement. Additionally, the final Agreement
State Program Policy Statement reflects comments received from the
Agreement States subsequent to the consolidation of the two policy
statements.
B. Definition and Description of Adequacy and Compatibility
Comment: Several commenters requested that adequacy and
compatibility be better defined throughout the Agreement State Program
Policy Statement and that a greater emphasis be placed on public health
and safety.
Response: Corresponding changes were implemented throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy Statement, as appropriate, for
consistency with the intent of the AEA. These include revisions in
Section C., ``Statement of Legislative Intent,'' of the policy
statement.
C. Use of ``NRC'' and ``Commission''
Comment: Several commenters recommended replacing ``NRC'' with
``Commission'' or vice versa in various sections throughout the policy
statement.
Response: The definition of ``Commission'' was added as a footnote
in the policy statement to mean the five Commissioners, and the ``NRC''
indicates the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an agency.
[[Page 46843]]
Corresponding changes were implemented throughout the Agreement State
Program Policy Statement.
D. Use of the Terms ``relinquish'' Authority Versus ``discontinue''
Authority
Comment: Several commenters stated the use of the word
``relinquish''--in the context of the NRC's regulatory authority when
entering into an agreement--is not accurate and recommended changing
``relinquish'' to ``discontinue'' throughout the policy statement so
the wording is consistent with Section 274b. of the AEA.
Response: All instances of the word ``relinquish'' have either been
deleted or replaced with the word ``discontinue'' throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy Statement.
E. Use of the Terms ``shall,'' ``will,'' or ``must'' Versus ``should''
Comment: Multiple commenters suggest that ``shall,'' ``will,'' or
``must'' should replace ``should'' or vice versa in various sections
throughout the Agreement State Program Policy Statement.
Response: Corresponding changes were implemented throughout the
Agreement State Program Policy Statement, as appropriate, for
consistency with language used in Section 274b. of the AEA or other
sections of the policy statement.
F. Add ``significant'' to ``cross jurisdictional''
Comment: Several commenters suggest that the term ``significant''
should be added before ``cross jurisdictional'' for Compatibility
Category B program elements.
Response: The NRC/Agreement State working group for the revision of
the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State
Programs'' carefully considered the use of the term ``significant'' and
concluded that the term was ambiguous and should not be included as
part of the description of Compatibility Category B. The term ``cross
jurisdictional program elements'' was chosen to make the description of
Compatibility Category B concise and well-defined. No change was made
to the Agreement State Program Policy Statement as a result of these
comments.
G. Deletion of Principles of Good Regulation
Comment: A number of commenters recommended the deletion of Section
D.1.i, ``Principles of Good Regulation,'' of the policy statement.
Response: The Principles of Good Regulation were initially adopted
by the Commission in 1991 to serve as a guide to NRC decisionmaking and
employee conduct. In 1997, they were included in the ``Policy Statement
on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs'' and the
``Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program''
and were recognized as part of a common culture that the NRC and
Agreement States share as co-regulators. These principles have served
as a foundation for good regulation in the NMP and are included in the
Agreement State Program Policy Statement to indicate their importance
and that they should continue to form the basic building blocks for
good regulation in the NMP into the future.
No change was made to the Agreement State Program Policy Statement
as a result of these comments.
H. Category Health and Safety
Comment: A number of commenters noted that Category Health and
Safety (H&S) was removed from the policy statement and recommended that
Category H&S be included.
Response: In the proposed policy statement, Category H&S was
removed from Section E.2. ``Compatibility.'' This section of the policy
describes the program elements required for compatibility. Program
elements required for H&S are not required for compatibility. Section
E.1. ``Adequacy'' of the proposed policy statement was made implicit
for Category H&S by indicating that an adequate program includes those
program elements necessary to maintain an acceptable level of
protection of public health and safety. Because Category H&S is one of
six categories (A, B, C, D, NRC, and H&S) that forms the basis for
evaluating and classifying NRC program elements, a corresponding edit
was implemented in Section E.1. ``Adequacy'' of the policy statement.
III. Procedural Requirements
Congressional Review Act Statement
This final Agreement State Program Policy Statement is a rule as
defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However,
the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule
as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This Policy Statement contains voluntary guidance for information
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). These information collections are mandatory for states
seeking to assume or maintain independent regulatory authority under
Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. These
information collections were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), under control number 3150-0183. The estimated annual
burden for new Agreement State applications is 2,750 hours, to maintain
Agreement State status is 7,600 hours, and to participate in IMPEP
reviews is 36 hours. Send comments regarding this information
collection to the Information Services Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by email to
Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0183) Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary for the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-21542 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P