ML20217C444
| ML20217C444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1998 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR15878, RULE-PR-2 NUDOCS 9803270027 | |
| Download: ML20217C444 (5) | |
Text
Lll' 00CKETED USMRC DOCKET NUMEER PROPOSEE, RULE $.2 (7590-01-P]
'98 m 25 A8:24
([pQFA/fg1g)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFL RJ 10 CFR PART 2 ADJ' "
iF RIN 3150-AF23 Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for Submission J
i I
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l l
ACTION:
Proposed rule: Witharawal.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a notice of
SUMMARY
l proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Reaister on March 28, 1995 (60 FR 15878), pertaining to petitions for rulemaking.
The proposed rule would have provided incentive of more expeditious disposition by the NRC to those l petitioners who submitted detailed supporting information in their petitions l
l which facilitated NRC review. The proposed rule would also have delineated factors that affect priorities for review of the petitions.
In lieu of the proposed rulemaking, the information in the proposed rule together with l
additional guidance will be provided in a Regulatory Guide to be developed by the NRC and distributed to the industry and the public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
T.Y. Chang, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone U (301) 415-6450.
'f.003G 1
p il P71 L
i 9803270027 980131
[M m Gh96 PDR PR 2 60FR15878 PDR d blFR 9378 L
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Background
On March 28, 1995 (60 FR 15878), the NRC published a notice of proposed f
rulemaking for public comment in the Federal Reaister, entitled " Petition for Rulemaking; Procedure for Submission", to amend' 6 2.802, Petition for i
Rulemaking..The proposed rule would have provided incentive of more expeditious disposition by the NRC to those petitioners who submitted detailed-The L.,
supporting information in their petitf.ons which facilitated NRC review.
proposed rule would also have delineated factors that affect priorities for review of the petitions.
l t
I Twelve comment letters were received on the proposed rule.
The industry and various Federal and local governmental agencies generally commended the NRC for proposing ways to improve the process of petitioning for rulemaking, i
but most commenters thought it is unnecessary to codify the criteria for expedited processing of petitions for rulemaking in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Instead, it was suggested that documents such as regulatory guides and information letters, which are guidance rather than rules, were more appropriate vehicles to provide this information.
1 1
Three of the four nonnuclear, nongovernment commenters also opposed the proposed rulemaking, on the grounds that (1) the NRC was passing off its responsibilities for analysis and documentation to the public, who could not i
i 2
e m
possibly undertake this type of burden, and (2) the NRC might ignore safety issues raised by the public that might not be thoroughly documented in favor of issues that would be beneficial to the industry and that were well documented but were not real safety issues.
These two aspects were fully discussed in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule stated that "The proposed changes would aff ay petitioner two options: submit the minimal threshold information in the petition that is required by the current rule and be subject to the regular processing procedures, or submit more detailed supporting information and analyses in the petition in return for a more expeditious processing procedure by the NRC.
The proposed revisions would not change any existing provision regarding petitions for rulemaking if they meet the minimum threshold requirement of the current 5 2.802(c)."
Further, the proposed rule stated that " Consideration of safety significance is the first criterion for prioritizing the review and disposition of petitions.
It is the primary concern of the NRC to ensure that design and operation of NRC licensed facilities are carried out in a manner which assures adequate protection of public health and safety, of the environment, and of national security. Therefore, petitions found by the NRC In to raise a concern in this regard would receive immediate NRC attention."
addition, the proposed rule stated that " Petitions containing supporting information additional to those currently required would improve their priority for review and receive more expeditious disposition."
The NRC originally proposed to amend the current 5 2.802 as a rule change.
After reviewing comments on the proposed 5 2.802, however, the NRC 3
i
i l-l 4
-became convinced that there is strong merit in the comments recommending against codification of the criteria for expedited processing of the petitions if.
for rulemaking, because (1) the proposed procedure does not impose mandatory -
l
. requirements, and (2) the proposed procedure is clearly of an administrative
~ nature.
Therefore, the proposed rule is not required and is being withdrawn, and the information in the proposed rule will be provided in a Regulatory Guide to l
be developed by the NRC and distributed to the industry and the public.
In l
l addition to the information originally intended to be included in the revised f 2.802, the Regulatory Guide will also provide guidance for preparation of more detailed petitions for rulemaking.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the proposed rule, the NRC has identified a need to establish an administrative framework to facilitate concerned parties j
submittal of proposals to issue, amend, or rescind any generic regulatory L
guidance document.
Generic regulatory guidance documents are documents such as regulatory guides, bulletins, generic letters and sections of the Standard l-Review Plan (including Branch Technical Positions), which do not have the force and effect of a regulation, but are used by the NRC to identify or i
i A
clarify acceptable NRC staff positions which comply with NRC regulations.
l formal procedure which enables interested parties to propose changes to these regulatory guidance documents does not now exist. Therefore, a separate i
4 L
-e Regulatory Guide will be developed by the flRC to provide guidance for preparation and submission of proposals for generic regulatory guidance documents.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this )/
day of. ?'
- W t
, 1996.
(.-
For the Nuclear Regulatory cont.li s s ion.
d
?,<.
j Jahry C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission.
5 L