Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules NUREG2228, Weld Residual Stress Finite Element Analysis Validation: Part IIProposed Validation Procedure, dated July 2020, which is referenced in RG 1.147, Revision 20.
Paragraph b3iv, Table II
This proposed rule would capitalize the word Years in two of the three column headings.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605b, the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC 10
CFR 2.810.
VI. Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC
requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the Availability of Documents section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC
as indicated under the ADDRESSES
section of this document.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality The provisions in this proposed rule would allow licensees and applicants to voluntarily apply NRC-approved Code Cases, sometimes with NRC-specified conditions. The approved Code Cases are listed in three RGs that are proposed to be incorporated by reference into 50.55a. An applicants or a licensees voluntary application of an approved Code Case does not constitute backfitting, because there is no imposition of a new requirement or new position.
Similarly, voluntary application of an approved Code Case by a 10 CFR part 52 applicant or licensee does not represent NRC imposition of a requirement or action, and therefore is not inconsistent with any issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the NRC finds that this proposed rule does not involve any provisions requiring the preparation of a backfit analysis or documentation demonstrating that one or more of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Feb 01, 2021

Jkt 253001

issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52
are met.
VIII. Plain Writing The Plain Writing Act of 2010 Pub.
L. 111274 requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Plain Language in Government Writing, published June 10, 1998 63 FR 31883.
The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
IX. Environmental Assessment and Proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commissions regulations in subpart A
of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment from this action. Interested parties should note, however, that comments on any aspect of this environmental assessment may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
As voluntary alternatives to the ASME
Code, NRC-approved Code Cases provide an equivalent level of safety.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of accidents is not changed. There are also no significant, non-radiological impacts associated with this action because no changes would be made affecting nonradiological plant effluents and because no changes would be made in activities that would adversely affect the environment. The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.. This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget OMB for approval of the information collections.
Type of submission, new or revision:
Revision.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

7833

The title of the information collection:
Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Regulatory Guides.
The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
How often the collection is required:
On occasion.
Who will be required or asked to report: Operating power reactor licensees and applicants for power reactors under construction.
An estimate of the number of annual responses: 28 reduction.
The estimated number of annual respondents: 28 reduction.
An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 6,720 hours reduction of reporting and recordkeeping hours.
Abstract: This proposed rule is the latest in a series of rulemakings that incorporate by reference the latest versions of several RGs identifying new and revised unconditionally or conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases that are approved for use. The incorporation by reference of these Code Cases will reduce the number of alternative requests submitted by licensees under 50.55az by an estimated 28 requests annually.
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the OMB clearance package and proposed rule is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML20132A240 or can obtained free of charge by contacting the NRCs Public Document reference staff at 1800397
4209, 3014154737, or by email to pdr.resources@nrc.gov. You may obtain information and comment submissions related to the OMB clearance package by searching on https
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
NRC20170025.

E:FRFM02FEP1.SGM

02FEP1