ML20195K456

Proposed Rules 10CFR19,20,30,31,32,34,40,50,61 & 70, Stds for Protection Against Radiation,Availability of Supplemental Info. Rule Makes Available Supplemental Info

ML20195K456
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1986
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
FRN-51FR30870, RULE-PR-19, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-31, RULE-PR-32, RULE-PR-34, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70 PR-860829, NUDOCS 8802040213
Download: ML20195K456 (5)

Text

_ _.

e 30870 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.168 / Friday. August 29, 1986 / Proposed Rules 1.lst of Subjects in 9 CMt Part 151 Authority: 19 tf.S c.1:02. 7 CFR 217,2.51.

10 CFR Part 20 have been made since a.d 3rt 2fdl.

that t.me. ils is the first complete Animals. Animal pedigree. Imports.

Purebred animals. _

2. In i 151.9. the chart in paragraph (a) revision of Sese regalations in os er 25 3 ears. This resimon will bnns the would be amended by addmg the Comm:ssion's radiation protection PART 151-RECOGNITION OF followeg after Code 2303 under the standards into accord with current BREEDS AND 800KS OF RECORD OF heading "Herses" recommendations of the Internaticnal i 151.9 Reco9mted Weeds arso books of Commission on Radiological Protectic, Accordingly 9 CFR Part 151 would be record.

(ICRP). The revision is also consistent amended as follows:

w:th Radiation Protection G2 dance to Federal Agencies for Occupational

1. The authority citation for Part 151 (a) would continue to read as follows:

e.xposure, which has been prepared for the signature of the Pres. dent under the lesdership of the Ensironrnental Measas Protection Agency.

m

,., v

e....m e,.w 3.emo On March 30.1980. the Commiss.on published an Advance Notke of Prcposed Rulemaking (45 FR IF.il u.a. w. s m m w.>

4. - 5 m a o suo.a o.,, e. omm 5,.

announcing its initat.on of a rulemaking am x

.. >... u :. : am= w proceeding for the purpose of updating its radiation protection standards. The notice desenbed in detail the elements being considered for incorporation into the proposed rule and schettated public Dane at washegten. DC. this 19th 4 of rece.s ed after iis date will be ecmment thereon. About 70 responses August 19ee-cens!dered if it is practical to do so, but were received in res;onse to this notice.

l. K. Atwell.

assurance of consideration cannot be In addition, numeroas rreetings were Uc;uty Mmmiste:!or. WtenecT M 3 3:ven except as to corratents filed or. or held between the cognizantNRC staff (FR Doc.88-195 ? Eled 8-:o* a 43 4.ml bef:re this date. The comment period for members preparing the revision and e.w a coce ice.a.a the preposed Part 20 revision is being groups assnciated with States, unions.

eeended to this name date, thereby the nuclear industry. Wensees, public prouding. ore than 80 days of interest groups, radiation protection NUCLEAR REGULATORY cen: crent comment period.

organaations, and other Federal COMMISSION Accasssts: Submit written cornments agencies. On December 20,1985. the or any other informat.on concerning this Commission published a proposed 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 31, 32. 34 matter to the Secretary at.he revision of Part 20 in the Federal

40. 50. 61, and 70 Commission. U.S. Nucieat Regulatory Registee (50 FR 51992). A corrected Standards for Prc,tection Against Commission. Washington. DC 20555.

version was published in the Federal Radlation: Avattability of Supplemental Attention; Dwketing and Seryk.e Register on Janusry 9.1988 (51 FR 10921.

Information Branch. Copies of the proposed revision There is an ongomg public crrnment of to CFR Part 20 ind de accompanymg penod on the proposed rt:e.

Ao1NCY: Nuclear Regulatory Regu!stery Analvs.s that supports this

g. 73, gacgf jg;,

Cmis sica.

Backfit Ana!) sts may be exammed. and Actom Proposed rule; avat!.bdity of copied for a fee. at the Cammission's On Se;te.ber :0 1985. the 7

s.p plemental mforma tion.

Pubhc Document Rocm st 1717 H Stre.it.

Comm:ss.on pubits.cd s fina: rale (!0 NW. Washington. DC. Sing:e copies of FR 36M7 comme called $e "bamit suuuAmy:On January 9.1986, the these documents may be obtsined from rule"i13 CTR 50.M,. deh sets for*h Nuclear Regulatory Commission the person indicated under the Won reawrments on =.;otng new or published for public comment a rumsm msonu Afiow CONTACT a nandtd requiremea.ts on nuclear 4

proposed revision of Ita radiation headmg

o wer reactor facd.t;es icensed by the protection standards.10 CFR Part 20. If Co r.rnissien under 10 CFR Part 50. This roa rumaa mrwu Anon com implemented. that rule would require Robert E. Ale *ander. Division of redate uts fer6 6e foMowmg changes in the reestion protection procedures at nuclear power teactors Regu!at

ry Applicatio.:s. Office of

1. • M_ " ' **0'30**";

3. h R @ a Res earch, U S.

1. ; set.:n mm9:a ( ll"The t

and other NRC licensed activities.

Section 50.109 of the Commission :

Nuclear hgulatx3 Commission.

Cc-su W.3 r we a sisNmm regulations requires that a backfit Washmatm DC 00555. Telephone pot) ad ecm tad anths:s putsasnt to m.4 pampn M.ith.s sece:n for backf:ts analysis be prepared for proposed NRC 49 " f mks :o impest.'

regulations that require changes to SUP%EutWAM Womu ATioN:

, g, g 7 g,.,

.TM operating procedures foi nuclear pw'

l. 3ack ground Camm.m:

-O re b.re :he backim.n; reactor facilities licensed by the cf a Ig:

.)s-

. w en it je'ermmes.

Commission under 10 CFR Part 50 Th s 1

F_, m If n' ion tased 4 on.he'. nab 5:s descrbed e net:ce provides such an anal)s!s for e 7, Comm:ss.ns pvm stand.rds pan ga;-.' :f

.s :

n ?.st m proposed rtvision of 10 CFR Part :n cd m - na radian prn: con

s i era:%.

.se.n de curi.i schcits pt.blic comment on it.

i.q, dents far :ts ;6censeas are gtm prcN.c. :( $ u. !.; Wh3 a-d catus: Comments on this backfit m to CFR P.rt 0 The or@nal Part :0 safen a he co amen defenso ad analysis must be submitted in wntma on wa s.!wed en 14naary 29.1957 (22 FR sec.rit, to te n;.ud frc.m es hu e er before October 31.1986. Comments SW Ahgh a%t MO 1mendments to aN th ( e ctrcct and initect W3. f 8802040213 860826 PDR PR 19 51FR30870 PDR

i lE Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.198 / Friday. August 29. 1986 / Proposed Rules 30871 w.

,plementation for that facthty are and sing:e epics a edab!e from the f P u ru//m;cc x R d. w g;cci just!'ied in view of the increased NRC stiff cantact.

Espo.1/ T;c..' / h; o; e s E7 eIto reach thle determination.L State. rent /Specif0 O&ect ws to be The pnnup4i tm;act of :he w wn A Ch!'"d

" dd D' I i""#;30'II"'d> D'"

150109(c) sets forth coete&n factors that and merewp.to-date warke* ~cte'iun are to be considered in the backfit The proposed reusan of 10 CFR Part The added pro:ect.cn rm.t f"m s the analysis. These factors and the 20 intended to:

gollow mg.

analyses ane prennted in

a. Update the quarter-centurpMd 10

s. T he limit for annual worker do<es accor panyirgis notice ^

section IJ o CFR Part 20 to incorporee advances in would be 5 rems (effectise whe e body gl. Draft Badfit Analysis science and naw concepts of radiation dosel per year. Workers are permt"ed to pr tection red:ddogy and philoscphy:

recen e 12 rems per year (3 rems p-r The proposed nvision to 10 CFR Part 20 is not anticipated to requrie physical

b. Implement cend.ng Federal quarter) under the current Part 20 modilication to nuclear power reactors Radiation Gu; dance on occupational prouding that de worker's aserage rad 4 tion protect:cn:

dcse does not exceed 3 rems per 3 ear (er other licensed facihties). However.

the defimtion of a "backfit" in

c. I.Tp!ement the pnnc: pal current Betw een 200 and 400 workers recue 150100(a)(1) includes the modification dose.hmetag recommen f at: ens of the more than 5 rems per year ander the

f or addit

en to the procedures or ICRP:

misting rule. The Part 20 raus:en wcu!d csaruzation required to design.

d. Incerpome 'he ICRP "effective proude for Planned Spec;al Exposures instruct or operate a nuclear power duse eras alent" concept:

which would a!!ow worker doses to reactor facility. Even though the Part 20

e. Update the lim.ts on airborne esceed 3 rems per year. but only under rule is applicable to all NRC bcensees radionu:!:de intakes. effluent releases ury stringently controlled conduiv.t and erefore is broader in scope than and doses frca inhaled cr musted

b. The worker dose litntt fer the 'Backfit Rule." it would resu't in the rad!c u.chdas as:ng upao daie metabolic ecremities wou:d be reduced ircm 5 t.)

j need for revisions in the operating models and Jose factors: and 50 rems per year.

procedures dealing with radiation LR utre that licensees hne

c. A hmit would be placed on -he dose protection, at nuclear power reactor

• rop ns 'or keep ng rdiauon to the embryo / fetus. There is cu: rem:y fac:uties bcensed under 10 CFR Part 50

..as low as is reasonably no specific hmit in the NRC repiations and. consequently, a baMit analysis is

,g.,g.. ( AL4pA)-

to protect the embryo / fetus.

y to be performed for pawer rei.ctor

d. Allowable intakes of radionuclides fac:lities.

2. Cerer:!Cescr;tton rf the Actiors to would be based upon the trest i

Paragraph 50.109(c) requires be Req:r/ red of the Lice::see of radiobiological. me tabobc. and consideration of the pnenty and APPhCCat dostmetric data. For a number of

!t:

radionuclides the intake hmits would be nlig to er regulatory The pr:ncipal rew or additional osd low ered activities. Ir:plementation of the actions that would be required of proposed revision of to CFR Part 20 hcensees by be propcsed to CFR Part

e. Doses would be limited by should not s:gnificantly affect any other

0 reunions are to

considenng both internal and esternal backfits or sa'fety.related activities. In

a. Sum. under sorne circumstances, the radiati n doses added together rather than evaluarirg them separately as order to minimize the trnpact of the est. mated dou from radionuclides aMoned by the present tv'e.

re'ratrung and revisions of procedures.

este nst to the body and from Se proposed implementation pened of radionuc!: des de;o' sited in the body:

E an Mats wou d be expreued as W e d g-dms waM by ea tre Part 20 rewston extends over a five-

b. If not preucusly dcne, proude I

'E

> ear pened. Therefore the chances documentation cf propes f:riaeping

" 7. r*s m W j'e n"f m W b u ed nw

~m required to implement the Part 20 esposun, as low as is reasonsbly ws.cn would not conflict with and do achievable" DJl.

not need to be further pnonnzed with

c. Proude increased protection for de

" ' \\. a & n' % [,e w -M M l

respect to other activittes at nuclear embryolfetus when female workers s

g nw er p. ants.

decIare themselves pregnant:

Parag aph 50.100(c) of the backfit rule e

a 'o 'orr :4te and

.ilso sets forth certain factors which are

d. Employ the latest ICRP itmi's on i,..g.c. prm ns a keep.vo k a-airborne radionuclida intakes. effluent to be ccasidered in the backfit analysis.

,y,.,,

4,3.v as is reamne s releases and does from inhaled or er. de" ( ALARA).

These factors and how the proposed Part 20 revision relates In each are it'gested radionuclides: and i,~

3d C summanzed below. hose summary

e. Modify traines guides eperatirg t, Q:, f g;

-f,s; statements are based ois the Regulatory procedates. and manuals to incor:erate

-r C.' ' C#'C C# ;^ O'!CF8 Analysis which desenbes the the new concepts and req :.rements and anticipated benefits and anticipated

cs'de retta.ntng of employees on thesa y esho,

J te: t',or : rc; s costs that wou!d be associated with de n 9.e; s and dett imp!amentation.

,o w d.u'h :2c..

3.w e me e r cc..:= h.,sT'srm 20c.w,a "nplementation of the proposed

y,.,.,. g 3,3,, g pg e,g

.. ; c c. ;

j

%.,,... e !) ; ; n c: mil tension. were it to be adopted. This Regulatory Analy sis is the pnmary

" '" f,". ~.,. "g.

r

.m:. es.nc e:..;_

4 cr ; m r.

, s. it c nG' cmn ; -

source of the estimates of the benehts

' ~

"~

and the impacts desenbed in th:2 draft s.? R :4:t M genars!!y apphes only

0.. :. ; T: e f X e j ec backfit analysis and is incorporated as

--i i!.s te releases of radioactis e as3. :ited we. s a

.s ;r.

c.4. r.

part of this draft backfit analysis.

~ ' al so there would be no direct the on m is: siM and 3.d> tcJ Copies of the Regulatory Analysis are

-.:3 t = r:s'ss associated with in the Rag :c ry Ans'.:.s's nd s..e available for inspection in the Public i,;hv.i! ra:mes of ruicactive summented in be.:tice of prepmd Ibromant rmm (se.e " Accaissts")

c.a s'r:a t s.

rulemak:ng (51 FR 11:1L The total l

i I

30672 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.168 / Friday. August 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules estimated costs for all affected licensees These impacts would be spread oser weathted by the: relata e health rak are $33 million for imtial implementation the 3.> ear implementation pened. For and summed to gne a neequa a'ent and $7.8 million additional costs per this reasen and the fact that the impact dose. lThe curr:nt Part 20 uses the year thereafter. Of these amounts. a would be distributed over several NRC "ct.:.c 41 oraan" c:ntept ano does not

$13.1 million inithl cost and $2.5 mdlion offices, the Part 20 implementation consa.ier deses tc orgens other tc,a the annual cost are estimated to apply to should not have a maler impact on NRC cntical organ in semng 41:e d!c c.n.ts

{

on radionuchce intakel: and nuclear power reactors. nese costs programs.

1

• Requines licensees to desekp and may be reduced as a result of the five-

s. Potentic/ /n coc t of D#erences in irnplement a pr pam and preccdures for year implementation pericd mentioned Peci/ity Type. Des Rn. er Age on the kupmg ratauen npouns 'as b as in the propcsed revision.

Referency and Practicality of t?e

• N " ".* * *' A #.

6. Potentic/ Safety impact of Changes in ProposedAct;on W. " *'I*' # #'*

C*9 Plant or Operational Completsty.

Since the propcsed revisions sulrect to Appenda I cf to CFR Part !0

/nc!ading Relationships to Pmposed and pnncipally affect perating procedures the present regulat: ens exhcrt the Existing Regu/ctory Requirements ra ther than facility physical design.

licensee to keep radianon exposures Any safety impacts and changes in there would be no significant impact "ALARA". but do not make tS;s a plant compleuty would be negligible.

ficm d:fferences in facility type, design requirerent.)

since the proposed rule should not entvl or age.

In spite of these ex;ected changes in plant desi Some of tne 9.tre t'e Pr:pesed Revisions Interim or improvements. the Commission's propose anges cou increase What is the analy sis does not show unequivoc: ally hat dr andi ts of

'i orleccsing Them on an he ne p cedur s re f.

implemented they are expected to y-"

the increased protection. Howeur the become routine Tne preposed rule. wuh modifications. Commission believes that there are The impact of mod fying operating is mtended 'o be issued as a final rule.

additional relevant and matenal factors procedures, manuals. and records would O/her Pec~~'s not amenable to quantitative cost be minimized by a five. year comparisons and having sigmficant implementation period dunng which The Environmental Protection bearing on this issue. inclumngr licensees may develop the necessary Agency, in cooperation with NRC and

• Incorporation of updated new procedures. manuals, and, records other Federal Agencies, has prepared Presidential 8uidance on r.idiation and convert to the new system at any revised Federal guidance on radiation time most convenient to the licensee.

protection for workers. This guidance,if pmtecnom

• Consistency with international appraed by the Prest' dent, would standards, particularly with regord to

7. The Estimated Resource Burden on greatly influence the formulation of international commerce.

the NRC cod the A vot/ ability of These occupational radiation protection

• 1.'pdating the technical basis far the R " # # ##

standards The proposed Part 20 Part 20 limits; and Costs to the NRC would primarily be mcdifications would implement the new

• Consistency of the methods and associated with the preparation of new guidance if the Part 20 resision is not technical approaches for radiation regulatory guides for implementing the adopted. NRC regulations would not be new procedures and revising existin8 consistent with the new Federal protection regulations and those for current rtsm assessment methodolegies.

regulatory guides, branch technical guidance and tha regulations of other Berace rf de public health positions and inspectten procedures to Federal agencies.

reflect ie part 20 revisions. it has been impw.trunts and the add.nonal estimated that this effort would cansist Conclusion qu, lit,.a e f utcrs bearr a en the issue l

of 5 to ? new regulatory guides requinns The proposed revisions wtil proude de it. bed abcs e. the Com msnon 0.2 staff. years per guide or 1 to I A staff-ir. proved public health protection by bi ha es sat tne ru'e ucuid be y ears total and approximately $350K of vtttue of:

promt :44':d eu1 tng it na) not technical support effort. At least seven

• L:miting routine annual proude a subm 'm.:: case in the existing regulatory guides would require occupational doses to 5 rems and es etall pro'ccten of 2e publ:e health revision. resulting in an additional staff-deleting the present 5(N-18) formula and safet) for 'he mmen defense an 1 year of effort. lt is estimated that option which allows doses up to 12 rems seca- :). In 4dtl.tri me Cc mmisuon Ns teatatnely conc!uded pend:na approximately one staff year would be per year:

imposing a limit on radiatien doses con.dcut.cn ta.9c com ents. that required in both throft' ice of Nuclear a

Material Safety and Safeysards (NMSS) to the embr> o fetus. (No spectfic lirnit ween 41 hcten sainotae as weil s and the Office of Nuclear Reactor eusts in the present Part 20 for de WPt.tae. ara tnen mto A.w.-

he P.,f.9 to be dern.i Regulation (NRR) to modify license enbryo. fetus);

conditions and technical specificatices

• l'pdating the radionuclide intake fr.m

rep.md reusten of ?.rt ;0

' ei w cd n n tcestscf m to comply with the proposed revision.

!r.i s based upon current scientific datt u

The largest impact in NT C would be e L.J.n2 substantially low er limits for r.;enu 1 m Mcau..

'Yd~ w in the Office of Inspection and m.sl red enuchdes sach as uranium.

ed ; Cm o e, M 4 -. r :1. :

Enforcement and the NRC Regional

.c " :o mw rehes upon more 'han 25-r..

m.s : %nm ma Offices to revise inspection procede

.2 menodelosy and information).

. e a:e u e or. v ; Pe.'.

_ieWA.,

m and to train inspectors on the new

• Drs.dm; hmits for the combined r,

regu!:tions and procedures. It is n i ; rom bo h internal and esternal tr

- - iN

, et estirmted that this weuld require abat m:i.acn sources. (The current Part 20 ca.. a t se a m 5 staff years total.Once the new r 9.ts 9e es a!uations to be done M R"g t f r Comments procedures are in place, there should ns t,c;ca:elg be any sigmficant resource espeed tures

• . a. nrat.:g the ~e(fectn e dose" T% C rn - m ;'.7 ~

above current levels.

c..m gt w heety organ deses are ce.s t

• s P

Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.168 / Friday August 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 30673 (1) The draft Backfit Analysis for the increase in the overall protection of the Far the Nuc' ear Repator) Cememssa proposed revision of Part 20:

public health and safety.

' Given the sa mu el l. Chilk.

(2) Whether the hmission has above conclusion of the staff that this Se m :W.ee c.

us.w r

adequately implemented I $0.100 as it threshold is not met in the p:oposed (FR Doc. 86-1963 Fdd S-n-4e s 45 i.- I applies to the proposed Part 20 revision:

revision to Part 20. the Commission is eu,2 eeet n,wm (3) Whether the proposed revision of here asking the public whether the 10 Part 20 would provide a substantial application of the threshold standard in increase in the overall protection of to CFR 50.109(a)(3) should be suspended 10 CFR Parts 19,20,30,31,32,34,40, public health and safety that will justify for the Part 20 revisions. Lwould 50,61 and 70 the direct and indirect costs of particularly appreciate receiving implementing this rule; and comments from those that believe the Standards for Protection Against (4) Whether, because of other factors threshold standard should be suspended Radiation: Extension of Comment which support the proposed Part 20 as to why the Part 20 rulemaking I8 d shoul b'e uspended for t is j deserves special treatment under the maggy. Nuclear Re@ tory BacW Rule. Ir4 addition. I would Commission.

if it is found that the proposed amendments do not meet the criteria in appaciate comments on whe&n de ACTION: Preposed rule: estemon of Cor. mission should develop entena that section.

comment penod.

In addition to the abow quistion s***8 *** b U"U U" d "

Commissicner Bernthal also would like will not apply the threshold standards of suwesAmy: On january 9.1988. the comments on the fcllcwing two issues:

10 CR 50.109(a)(3) and whether such Nuclear Regulatory Commission

1. In regard to the Backfit Analysis, entena should be subjected to published for pt'blic comment a comment is solicited on whether cntens rulemaking.

proposed revision of its radiation for Commission suspension of the CcmmissionerBerntAc!'s Views protection standards.10 Cm Part 20.

"substantialincrease" threshold should This Notice extends the comment pened be developed and made subject to The public should be aware of the fact from September 12.19% to October 31.

rule naking.

that the Commission has for nearly a 1988 in order to be coincident with the 7 Comment is also solicited on year attempted to adapt the Backfit Rule comment pened for the draft backfit whether the Backfit Rule. given its to c.i re,lemaking, even rulemaking that analysis for this ;roposed rulemaking evident defects and limitations in such has ncthing to do with powerplant that is being published elsewnere in tMs cases should continue to be applied at hardware and the originalintent of the issue.

all to Commission rulemaking per se.

Backfit Rule. This rulemaking and the DATA: Comments on the proposed IV. Additional Comments of the NRC accompanying analysis illustrates the revision must be submitted in wnt.g o Commissioners difficulty. When applied to human-cr before October 31,1988. Comments factors and certain other rulemaking. the received from this date wil be Commissioner Roberts ' Views Backfit Ru'.e continues to exact NRC considered if it is practical to do so, but resources wholly disproportionate to assurance of this consideranon cannot Cornmissioner Roberts disapproved any conceivable benefit to the public.

be given except as to comments f; led en the toposed revision to Part 20 because The record already shows cases or before this date. The comment pe"od onjhj,p o cs d ba t analysis fer Ws where the Commission has been forcsd l

demors at hat e changes would d

provide a "substantis!" reduction in the to sidestep a strict reading of the cost-radiation dose received by workers and benefit requirements of the Backfit Rule.

AccRtssts: Submit wntten commes members of the public.

when it nevertheless finds broad or any other informanon conce neg 'h.i agreement that a rulemakir;is in the matter to the Secretary cf the Comm ssiener Asse/stine s Views public interest (e g. In the case of Commission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I

h blicati f th.

conveston of non.pown n. Mon from NNW' WE8h K N Backfi alYsi HEU [ Highly Ennched Uran:um] to 1.EU Attention: Docketing and Sersice obtaining pubb. s for the purpese of e comment on the (Low Enriched Uranium)).

Branc...Cc;ws of de preposed revistan of 10 CFR P:rt 20 and the accomp anying adequacy of the Commission's I therefore believe the public may reg 2atory analysis that support this compliance with its Backfit Rule. The wish to comment direct!y on the MQ m!ysts may be examined and NRC staff has written that it "..does question of whether the Comruss;.en coped for a fee at tre Commission's not beheve that the Part 20 revision will should continue its attempts to apply the Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street.

provide a ' substantial change in the Backfit Rule to all rulemaking. or

,.M. Wasug'en. CC. Single ccpies of radiation doses received by workers and whether &e Rule should be revoked as these hcume..ts may be obtained from members of the public."(See SECY it apphes to rulemaking activity;er ss-the persen i..dicated under the "Fom 48A. page 2. "Backfit Analysis for Alternatively, the public may wish to FURTHER INFORMAtoM CCNTACT" Proposed Revision of to CFR Part 20,,

cons der whether the Commusica h a a in g.

dated May 19.1988.) The Commissten s should amend the Backfit Rule to Backfit Rule (10 CFR 50109) requires a FOR FetR wCRMAtCN contact 1

C8 C

8 ""

8Y Pabert E. A'exader. Diusion cf two prong test to be met before the

.mfits may be weighed by the Regalatc y A;;M:anens. Office of Cor.missten can promulgate a new cr mmssi n in the cost. benefit balance.

Nuclear Rerda:ory Research. U S.

revised regulation such as the Part ;0 when such considerations are found by Nuclear Regulatory Commissten.

proposed revisions. One of the requ: red the Commission to be in the pubhc Washingt0n. DC 20555. te:ephone (Tct) tests contained in 10 CFR 50.109(alp) is interest.

m -7976.

that any revision to the Commission's regulations affecting part 50 licensees Dated at Wash no:n. DC. this 26th day cf sum!MtNT AM INFORM At0N: The must provide ". a substantial August 1986.

NaClear Regulat0ry Commission is

.L

s Fedesal Regle6er / Vol. 51. No.186 / Friday. AuFust 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 3esps proposing ts rense its supstaasewtAary MP0 meta 7)oer: The lending or loan participations, it will Federal Horne Loan Bank ("Board") on repropose an> such action for pubhc pertalang to radiation May 9,1966, proposed to reinstitute comment.

standards.The was requiremeats for nationmde leading and A few commenters peuconed the I

p;.blished in the receRA4.

on january 9.1986 (51 FR 1 enat loans participations and to expand Board for a pubhc bearing on the docurnent (51 FR 1122). the esion axistmg loan escordkeepmg nauenmde lendmg and losn indicated that it was publishing the requirements. Board Res. No. aH7L parucipatico portons of the proposal.

proposed Port 2e revision wuhout previously adopted as Board Res. No.

Because the Board intends to repropose waitin6 for the preparatton of a backfit 8H29 on April 24.1986. 51 FR 17634 for public comment any acuan that analysis in accordance mth j 50.109 of (Mn' 14.1986). The proposal would have might in the future seetn desirable. it is 10 CFR Part 50L The Comisisaacn noted (1) hnured the amount of whole loans unnecessary at this time to grant the that such an analysis could be prepared secured by couateral(other than first peouens for a public heanng. and the and if necessary, public comment on the hens on owner. occupied homer) located Boar-! hereby danaes dem. Should the back. fit analysts could be obtained at a outside the normallendmg temtones Board repropose acton on these latu date. A draft backfit analysis is

("nanonmde loans") of insured subiects, pettboners may renew their institutions that they could purchase or requests for a pubhc hearing if they so published elsewhere m this issue of an onginate mthout the pnor approval of destre.

Federal Registar. The change in the comment penod on the proporci Part 20 the Pnnc:palSupervisory Agent:(2)

B> m rderal Hm W Bd BM restaton. exunAng it to October 31.

limited the abihty of insured instrunons M S**D "'

1986, is coaricMient wuh the comment to pamcipate m ongmanng secured h4 period on the draft beckfu analysts and loans or to purchase pamespation Int Dx. ee-G595 Ft'ed 6-06-en &45 aml will provide at least 60 da) of interests in such loans without the pnor suae ecos smew concurrent comment period for both approval of the prmcipal Supervisory Agent; snd (3) escanded and clanfied documents.

the Board's existmg mimmum Dewd wanbmstoa. DC. the m day of recordeeptng reqarements for loans.

OkPt.RTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION August. tasa loan purchases and participutions. and Federal Aviaticri Administration 5 For the Nudeur Regdatory Commissio't timeshare loans in acco dance with the I

Samuel l. Oak.

extsting requirement that records be g g y

9 g%,

acewate and complete. The Board b g

pg 7.g,

g separate acnon is adopttng as a fina

( Airspece Docaret iso. to-Aw A 301 rule with modifications the loan recordkeeping pomon of the proposal.

Proposed Alteration of Detroit, Mt.

m Con H to Mmmen s Mce Term 6nelW Ame FEDEAAL HOME LOAN SANK BOARD the Board ts withdrswing the Cerrection nanonmde lending and toen 12 C.FR Parta 545 and 563 participanon pemons of the proposal in FR Doc. 86-18152. b4gmning on I40 8 H 54-Al pending further staff study of the baues page 20056,in the inue of Wednesday.

^

9.

ke 6e powunt Nanonende Leading and Loan co t

t s't cMhs Pa@h Re@ntents; nat:onwide lenmag poruon of te

1. On pahe 28957. in te Ont column.

Withdrawal of Proposed Ruh proposal addressed the wrene aspect of m Se %tacrey citanon. second kne.

the problem of asset queyty. They aged iW5" sheJd read WM41 and Datee August 15.1986 that the asset quality proolec is related actMcy:FederalReser e System.

to loan underwruing, not loan locat.on.

f 71 ac t tconected) actions Proposed rulet withdraw al.

In addition. concarna were raised es er 2 On me see pageed column. the We potendalinWuon of de acadary last panz :5 cf') 7OW should be summanv: The Federal Home Loan Bank market and 'he availabtlity of cre6t.

co tre.ed to read as foHows:

Board (Beard)is withdrawmg the Commenters addressing the loan In Ato D. wheres er '05W ra6al" nattenwide lendmg arrd loan perticipation pomon of the proposal speeats ubstitute "047'T t050'M) particpation portion of its proposals of ppMH senoos concMn oVM be ra&al'. whunu 72P raier appean May 9.1986. 51 FR 179aOdey 14.1986.

requirement for divestiture of ubsntute ~317'T (32rM) radiar Th Bond h ddrqh partictpation mterests and the potennal w nuner "U6' rasal" appea.rs proposals pendirts furthe staff etudy of enfhet Wrween the proposed retamage

,uNte te "220*T (226*M) rad:al" and issues ratsed by the cos=====ts re;utr*ments and the Board s loans to-w Nueva* "20r.f rad.al" appears DaTs:This withdrawalis effective one-borrower rule. Commente s also sdsntE[e ~ 197'T I200'M1 rad'al" August 15.1986.

op posed the proposed waiver procedure ron evRTuta useonasATiou ccert AC '

as unworkable and as addmg an Joseph A. McKenne. Director. Policy ele nent of delay to the lending process.

Analysis Divtston. Office of Policy sad The Board is pe suaded that 14 CFR Part 75 1

Economte Research. (202) 377-6763:

commenters have raised substantial Diana Carmus. Financial Antlyst. Office issues that require further study before I Airspace ooetet No. s6-aso-51 of Exammations and Sirpervision. (202) the Board decides what action, tf any, to 377-6820: or C. Dawn Cauecy. Attraney.

the on nationwtde lening and loan proposed Alteration of Jet Route h 89-G A

)

Regulations and Legislet on Division.

participanons. The Board ts therefore Office of General Counsel. (202) 3'7-withdrawing the portions of he proposal O"'

6472. Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

concerning nationwids lendmg and Inan In FR Doc. 86-18U0 begmnma on pave 1700 C Street. NW. Wasmngton. DC.

participanons. Should the Board decide

20552, to act in thw future on naitonwide 28957. tn the issue of Wednendw

,