Review of Administrative Rules, 19464-19466 [2018-09359]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19464
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 83, No. 86
Thursday, May 3, 2018
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
[NRC–2017–0214]
Review of Administrative Rules
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is initiating a
retrospective review of administrative
requirements to identify outdated or
duplicative administrative requirements
that may be eliminated without an
adverse effect on public health or safety,
common defense and security,
protection of the environment, or
regulatory efficiency and effectiveness.
The NRC is providing an outline of its
strategy and is seeking public comment
on the criteria that the NRC proposes to
use to identify administrative
regulations for possible elimination.
This retrospective review of
administrative regulations will
complement the NRC’s existing strategy
for retrospective analysis of existing
regulations.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments by July 2,
2018. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the Commission is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received before this date. The NRC will
not prepare written responses to each
individual comment, due to the NRC’s
schedule for completing the
retrospective review of administrative
regulations.
DATES:
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0214. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Ms.
Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
For technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Margaret S. Ellenson, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards;
telephone: 301–415–0894; email:
Margaret.Ellenson@nrc.gov; or Mr.
Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards;
telephone: 301–415–1078; email:
Andrew.Carrera@nrc.gov; both are staff
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
INFORMATION CONTACT
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–
0214 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0214.
• 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in 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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–
0214 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
On August 11, 2017, the NRC
announced that the agency is initiating,
beginning in the fall of the calendar year
2017, a retrospective review of its
administrative regulations to identify
those rules that are outdated or
duplicative. Once identified, the
regulations will be evaluated to
determine whether they can be
eliminated without impacting the
agency’s mission. The retrospective
review supports the NRC’s ongoing
regulatory planning and retrospective
analysis of existing regulations (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14002A441).
The Retrospective Review of
Administrative Regulations Strategy
On November 22, 2017, the NRC staff
issued SECY–17–0119, ‘‘Retrospective
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Review of Administrative Regulations’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML17286A069),
which provided for Commission
approval the NRC staff’s proposed
strategy for the retrospective review of
regulations. The staff requirements
memorandum associated with SECY–
17–0119 approved the NRC staff’s
proposal and directed staff to
implement the strategy. Overall, the goal
of the retrospective review is to enhance
the management and administration of
regulatory activities and to ensure that
the agency’s regulations remain current
and effective. The review is intended to
identify regulatory changes that are
administrative in nature that will make
the information submittal, record
keeping, and reporting processes more
efficient for the staff, applicants, and
licensees. The strategy takes into
consideration the agency’s overall
statutory responsibilities, including
mandates to issue new regulations, the
number of regulations in chapter I of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and available resources.
This effort will not impact the NRC’s
mission, as it will be limited to
identifying outdated or duplicative,
non-substantive administrative
regulations.
III. Discussion
This notice provides an outline of the
NRC’s approved strategy for the
retrospective review (see Table 1) and
requests public comment on the criteria
the NRC proposes to use to evaluate
potential changes to the requirements.
19465
In summary, the retrospective review
strategy involves seven steps—(1)
developing criteria to evaluate potential
regulatory changes to administrative
requirements; (2) gathering NRC staff
input on administrative regulations that
might fit the proposed criteria; (3)
reviewing historical correspondence
documents submitted to the NRC related
to eliminating duplicative or outdated
administrative regulations; (4) including
opportunities for public comment; (5)
interacting with the public throughout
the review process by conducting public
meetings; (6) reviewing stakeholder
input; and (7) developing rules or
rulemaking plans to eliminate or modify
administrative requirements, as
appropriate.
TABLE 1—RETROSPECTIVE REVIEW ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND TIMELINE
Action
Description
Approximate completion timeframe
Step 1: Develop
Evaluation Criteria.
Develop criteria to ensure administrative regulations are evaluated in a consistent manner. The criteria will be used as guides to determine whether the
administrative requirement is duplicative or outdated and if the requirement(s) should be considered for potential elimination or modification. The
criteria are being disseminated to external stakeholders for comment via this
notice and will be discussed in a public meeting.
Provide an email address or other mechanism for NRC staff to provide input
on administrative requirements that may be outdated or duplicative and that
the Commission should consider for elimination or modification.
Review relevant historical letters received from members of the public, other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, Federally-recognized Tribes,
non-governmental organizations, and representative industry groups related
to eliminating duplicative or outdated administrative regulations.
Request public input to identify administrative requirements that may be outdated or duplicative and that the Commission should consider for elimination
or modification. The comment period will be open for a period of approximately 60 days.
Finalize criteria after close of public
comment period for this notice and
after final review and approval by the
Commission.
Schedule public meetings (in-person, webinar, and teleconference-capable)
during the comment periods to provide awareness and answer questions to
clarify the purpose and scope of the activity. Although verbal comments will
not be accepted during the meetings, staff will provide instruction on how
attendees can submit written comments.
Compile and analyze the input and assign to the regulation ‘‘owner’’ for the assigned office to review each proposal to determine if it has merit.
Meetings will be held during the public
comment period for this notice and
during the public comment period for
the second notice (Step 4).
Step 2: Gather NRC
Staff Input.
Step 3: Historical
Correspondence
Review.
Step 4: Request for
Public Input on
Outdated or Duplicative Administrative Requirements.
Step 5: Conduct Public Meetings.
Step 6: Review Input
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Step 7: Develop
Rulemaking Activities to Eliminate or
Modify Requirements.
For any administrative requirements that have been identified for elimination or
modification, the potential outcomes could include:
• A consolidated administrative rulemaking; ................................................
• Inclusion into an existing planned rulemaking; or .....................................
• A stand-alone specific rulemaking .............................................................
Public input will be critical to
identifying potential changes to
administrative requirements as well as
to provide data on the benefits and costs
of existing NRC administrative
regulations. The NRC will conduct two
public meetings to discuss the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
retrospective review process and
recommendations. In addition, the NRC
will seek input from the NRC’s existing
committees (the Committee to Review
Generic Requirements, Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and
the Advisory Committee on the Medical
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Concurrently with request for public
input as outlined in Steps 1 and 4.
Beginning concurrent with Step 4.
Within 4 months after the public comment period closes for this notice.
Initial review and assignment of the
input will be targeted for after completion of the public meetings (Step
5). Recommendations (i.e., no action
or accept for regulatory change)
should be submitted to the Commission for its review and approval within 18 months after initiation of the activities.
The schedule for any rulemaking activities will be determined using the
budget and rulemaking prioritization
methodologies. Rulemaking plans
will be submitted to the Commission
for its review and approval.
Uses of Isotopes), other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
Federally-recognized Tribes, and nongovernmental organizations. All input
that the NRC receives will be used to
inform the retrospective review
recommendations.
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
19466
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
For the purpose of this review,
administrative regulations are those that
impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or address areas of agency
organization, procedure, or practice.
Consistent with Step 1 of the strategy,
the NRC developed the draft criteria and
goals listed below to evaluate potential
regulatory changes of this nature. The
evaluation criteria would serve as
factors of consideration to guide the
staff’s decisionmaking. The staff is not
proposing to use the criteria to make
stand-alone determinations. Instead, the
criteria will be weighed against other
activities outlined in the strategy, such
as staff programmatic experience and,
comments received, and the
correspondence review. Draft criteria 1–
3 are intended to ‘‘screen-in’’
regulations for inquiry for potential
elimination or modification, as they
address whether a regulation is outdated
or duplicative. These screening-in
criteria are not intended to be mutually
exclusive. A given regulation may
satisfy one or more of the criteria. Draft
criterion 4 is intended to ‘‘screen-out’’
regulations from further inquiry or for
potential elimination or modification so
as to avoid unintended consequences.
Specific points about which the NRC
seeks public comment are described in
the Section IV, ‘‘Specific Questions,’’ of
this document.
Draft Criteria for Selecting Changes to
Administrative Requirements
1. Routine and periodic recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, such as
directives to submit recurring reports,
which the NRC has not consulted or
referenced in programmatic operations
or policy development in the last 3
years.
The goal of this criterion is to identify
outdated requirements for information
collection.
2. Reports or records that contain
information reasonably accessible to the
agency from alternative resources or
routine reporting requirements where
less frequent reporting would meet
programmatic needs.
The goal of this criterion is to identify
duplicative information or overused
collection requirements.
3. Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that result in significant
burden. For example, more than
$100,000 overall per potential
regulatory change; or over 1,000
reporting hours for each affected
individual or entity over a 3-year
period; or 10 hours for each affected
individual or entity each calendar year
or per application.
The goal of this criterion is to ensure
that elimination or modification of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 02, 2018
Jkt 244001
outdated or duplicative recordkeeping
and reporting requirements could result
in appreciable reductions in burden for
the NRC, licensees, or both. The
criterion is not intended to be used as
a stand-alone consideration, but rather
as a tool to ensure that the retrospective
review is focused on efforts that will in
fact result in a reduction in burden.
4. Reports or records that contain
information used by other Federal
agencies, State and local governments,
or Federally-recognized Tribes will be
eliminated from the review.
The goal of this criterion is to
decrease the potential for unintended
consequences. For example, the NRC
collects certain information on behalf of
other government agencies. It is not the
intent of this effort to change that
practice.
IV. Specific Questions
The NRC is providing an opportunity
for the public to submit information and
comments on the criteria that the NRC
proposes to use to identify
administrative requirements for
potential modification or elimination.
You may suggest other criteria; please
provide supporting rationale for any
alternative criteria you recommend that
the NRC use in conducting its review.
The NRC is particularly interested in
gathering input in the following areas:
1. Do the proposed evaluation criteria
serve the purposes described in this
notice? Why or why not?
2. The NRC is considering whether
the burden reduction minimum is
appropriate. Is ‘‘significant burden’’ the
appropriate measure? Are the examples
given for Criterion 3 appropriate or
useful? Should the NRC use different
bases for measuring ‘‘significant
burden,’’ and if so, what are these
measures and how would they result in
a more accurate or complete
measurement of burden?
3. The NRC is considering multiple
thresholds for different classes of
regulated entities, as a single threshold
might not be useful to identify burden
reductions for all licensee types. What
is the appropriate threshold for your
entity class (e.g., operating reactor,
industrial radiographer, fuel cycle
facility)?
4. Are there other evaluation criteria
the NRC should consider using in its
retrospective review of administrative
regulations? What are those criteria and
why?
V. Public Meetings
Public input will be critical to
identifying potential regulatory changes
as well as to provide data on the
benefits and costs of existing NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulations. The NRC will conduct two
public meetings to discuss the
Retrospective Review process and
recommendations.
The NRC will publish a notice of the
location, time, and agenda of any
meetings in the Federal Register, on
www.Regulations.gov, and on the NRC’s
public meeting website at least 10
calendar days before the meeting.
Stakeholders should monitor the NRC’s
public meeting website for information
about the public meeting at: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/publicmeetings/index.cfm.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of April, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–09359 Filed 5–2–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2018–0361; Product
Identifier 2017–NM–160–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A318, A319, and A320
series airplanes, and Model A321–111,
–112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231,
–232, –251N, –253N, and –271N
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that more
restrictive maintenance requirements
and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. This proposed AD would
require revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the specified maintenance
requirements and airworthiness
limitations. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
SUMMARY:
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by June 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\03MYP1.SGM
03MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19464-19466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09359]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2018 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 19464]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
[NRC-2017-0214]
Review of Administrative Rules
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is initiating a
retrospective review of administrative requirements to identify
outdated or duplicative administrative requirements that may be
eliminated without an adverse effect on public health or safety, common
defense and security, protection of the environment, or regulatory
efficiency and effectiveness. The NRC is providing an outline of its
strategy and is seeking public comment on the criteria that the NRC
proposes to use to identify administrative regulations for possible
elimination. This retrospective review of administrative regulations
will complement the NRC's existing strategy for retrospective analysis
of existing regulations.
DATES: Submit comments by July 2, 2018. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this
date. The NRC will not prepare written responses to each individual
comment, due to the NRC's schedule for completing the retrospective
review of administrative regulations.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0214. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Ms. Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret S. Ellenson, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-0894; email:
[email protected]; or Mr. Andrew Carrera, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-1078; email:
[email protected]; both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0214.
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 [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in 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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0214 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
On August 11, 2017, the NRC announced that the agency is
initiating, beginning in the fall of the calendar year 2017, a
retrospective review of its administrative regulations to identify
those rules that are outdated or duplicative. Once identified, the
regulations will be evaluated to determine whether they can be
eliminated without impacting the agency's mission. The retrospective
review supports the NRC's ongoing regulatory planning and retrospective
analysis of existing regulations (ADAMS Accession No. ML14002A441).
The Retrospective Review of Administrative Regulations Strategy
On November 22, 2017, the NRC staff issued SECY-17-0119,
``Retrospective
[[Page 19465]]
Review of Administrative Regulations'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17286A069), which provided for Commission approval the NRC staff's
proposed strategy for the retrospective review of regulations. The
staff requirements memorandum associated with SECY-17-0119 approved the
NRC staff's proposal and directed staff to implement the strategy.
Overall, the goal of the retrospective review is to enhance the
management and administration of regulatory activities and to ensure
that the agency's regulations remain current and effective. The review
is intended to identify regulatory changes that are administrative in
nature that will make the information submittal, record keeping, and
reporting processes more efficient for the staff, applicants, and
licensees. The strategy takes into consideration the agency's overall
statutory responsibilities, including mandates to issue new
regulations, the number of regulations in chapter I of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, and available resources. This effort will
not impact the NRC's mission, as it will be limited to identifying
outdated or duplicative, non-substantive administrative regulations.
III. Discussion
This notice provides an outline of the NRC's approved strategy for
the retrospective review (see Table 1) and requests public comment on
the criteria the NRC proposes to use to evaluate potential changes to
the requirements. In summary, the retrospective review strategy
involves seven steps--(1) developing criteria to evaluate potential
regulatory changes to administrative requirements; (2) gathering NRC
staff input on administrative regulations that might fit the proposed
criteria; (3) reviewing historical correspondence documents submitted
to the NRC related to eliminating duplicative or outdated
administrative regulations; (4) including opportunities for public
comment; (5) interacting with the public throughout the review process
by conducting public meetings; (6) reviewing stakeholder input; and (7)
developing rules or rulemaking plans to eliminate or modify
administrative requirements, as appropriate.
Table 1--Retrospective Review Activity Description and Timeline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate completion
Action Description timeframe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Develop Evaluation Criteria Develop criteria to ensure administrative Finalize criteria after
regulations are evaluated in a consistent close of public comment
manner. The criteria will be used as guides to period for this notice
determine whether the administrative and after final review
requirement is duplicative or outdated and if and approval by the
the requirement(s) should be considered for Commission.
potential elimination or modification. The
criteria are being disseminated to external
stakeholders for comment via this notice and
will be discussed in a public meeting.
Step 2: Gather NRC Staff Input..... Provide an email address or other mechanism for Concurrently with request
NRC staff to provide input on administrative for public input as
requirements that may be outdated or outlined in Steps 1 and
duplicative and that the Commission should 4.
consider for elimination or modification.
Step 3: Historical Correspondence Review relevant historical letters received Beginning concurrent with
Review. from members of the public, other Federal Step 4.
agencies, State and local governments,
Federally-recognized Tribes, non-governmental
organizations, and representative industry
groups related to eliminating duplicative or
outdated administrative regulations.
Step 4: Request for Public Input on Request public input to identify administrative Within 4 months after the
Outdated or Duplicative requirements that may be outdated or public comment period
Administrative Requirements. duplicative and that the Commission should closes for this notice.
consider for elimination or modification. The
comment period will be open for a period of
approximately 60 days.
Step 5: Conduct Public Meetings.... Schedule public meetings (in-person, webinar, Meetings will be held
and teleconference-capable) during the comment during the public comment
periods to provide awareness and answer period for this notice
questions to clarify the purpose and scope of and during the public
the activity. Although verbal comments will comment period for the
not be accepted during the meetings, staff second notice (Step 4).
will provide instruction on how attendees can
submit written comments.
Step 6: Review Input............... Compile and analyze the input and assign to the Initial review and
regulation ``owner'' for the assigned office assignment of the input
to review each proposal to determine if it has will be targeted for
merit. after completion of the
public meetings (Step 5).
Recommendations (i.e., no
action or accept for
regulatory change) should
be submitted to the
Commission for its review
and approval within 18
months after initiation
of the activities.
Step 7: Develop Rulemaking For any administrative requirements that have The schedule for any
Activities to Eliminate or Modify been identified for elimination or rulemaking activities
Requirements. modification, the potential outcomes could will be determined using
include: the budget and rulemaking
A consolidated administrative prioritization
rulemaking;. methodologies. Rulemaking
Inclusion into an existing planned plans will be submitted
rulemaking; or. to the Commission for its
A stand-alone specific rulemaking..... review and approval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public input will be critical to identifying potential changes to
administrative requirements as well as to provide data on the benefits
and costs of existing NRC administrative regulations. The NRC will
conduct two public meetings to discuss the retrospective review process
and recommendations. In addition, the NRC will seek input from the
NRC's existing committees (the Committee to Review Generic
Requirements, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the
Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes), other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, Federally-recognized Tribes, and
non-governmental organizations. All input that the NRC receives will be
used to inform the retrospective review recommendations.
[[Page 19466]]
For the purpose of this review, administrative regulations are
those that impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements or address
areas of agency organization, procedure, or practice. Consistent with
Step 1 of the strategy, the NRC developed the draft criteria and goals
listed below to evaluate potential regulatory changes of this nature.
The evaluation criteria would serve as factors of consideration to
guide the staff's decisionmaking. The staff is not proposing to use the
criteria to make stand-alone determinations. Instead, the criteria will
be weighed against other activities outlined in the strategy, such as
staff programmatic experience and, comments received, and the
correspondence review. Draft criteria 1-3 are intended to ``screen-in''
regulations for inquiry for potential elimination or modification, as
they address whether a regulation is outdated or duplicative. These
screening-in criteria are not intended to be mutually exclusive. A
given regulation may satisfy one or more of the criteria. Draft
criterion 4 is intended to ``screen-out'' regulations from further
inquiry or for potential elimination or modification so as to avoid
unintended consequences. Specific points about which the NRC seeks
public comment are described in the Section IV, ``Specific Questions,''
of this document.
Draft Criteria for Selecting Changes to Administrative Requirements
1. Routine and periodic recordkeeping and reporting requirements,
such as directives to submit recurring reports, which the NRC has not
consulted or referenced in programmatic operations or policy
development in the last 3 years.
The goal of this criterion is to identify outdated requirements for
information collection.
2. Reports or records that contain information reasonably
accessible to the agency from alternative resources or routine
reporting requirements where less frequent reporting would meet
programmatic needs.
The goal of this criterion is to identify duplicative information
or overused collection requirements.
3. Recordkeeping and reporting requirements that result in
significant burden. For example, more than $100,000 overall per
potential regulatory change; or over 1,000 reporting hours for each
affected individual or entity over a 3-year period; or 10 hours for
each affected individual or entity each calendar year or per
application.
The goal of this criterion is to ensure that elimination or
modification of outdated or duplicative recordkeeping and reporting
requirements could result in appreciable reductions in burden for the
NRC, licensees, or both. The criterion is not intended to be used as a
stand-alone consideration, but rather as a tool to ensure that the
retrospective review is focused on efforts that will in fact result in
a reduction in burden.
4. Reports or records that contain information used by other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, or Federally-recognized
Tribes will be eliminated from the review.
The goal of this criterion is to decrease the potential for
unintended consequences. For example, the NRC collects certain
information on behalf of other government agencies. It is not the
intent of this effort to change that practice.
IV. Specific Questions
The NRC is providing an opportunity for the public to submit
information and comments on the criteria that the NRC proposes to use
to identify administrative requirements for potential modification or
elimination. You may suggest other criteria; please provide supporting
rationale for any alternative criteria you recommend that the NRC use
in conducting its review. The NRC is particularly interested in
gathering input in the following areas:
1. Do the proposed evaluation criteria serve the purposes described
in this notice? Why or why not?
2. The NRC is considering whether the burden reduction minimum is
appropriate. Is ``significant burden'' the appropriate measure? Are the
examples given for Criterion 3 appropriate or useful? Should the NRC
use different bases for measuring ``significant burden,'' and if so,
what are these measures and how would they result in a more accurate or
complete measurement of burden?
3. The NRC is considering multiple thresholds for different classes
of regulated entities, as a single threshold might not be useful to
identify burden reductions for all licensee types. What is the
appropriate threshold for your entity class (e.g., operating reactor,
industrial radiographer, fuel cycle facility)?
4. Are there other evaluation criteria the NRC should consider
using in its retrospective review of administrative regulations? What
are those criteria and why?
V. Public Meetings
Public input will be critical to identifying potential regulatory
changes as well as to provide data on the benefits and costs of
existing NRC regulations. The NRC will conduct two public meetings to
discuss the Retrospective Review process and recommendations.
The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of
any meetings in the Federal Register, on www.Regulations.gov, and on
the NRC's public meeting website at least 10 calendar days before the
meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website
for information about the public meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-09359 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
