[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2927]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 9, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 55

RIN 3150-AE39

 

Renewal of Licenses and Requalification Requirements for Licensed 
Operators

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at 
power, test, and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification 
written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during 
the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license 
renewal. The final rule requires that facility licensees shall have a 
requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission and 
shall, upon request consistent with the needs of the Commission's 
inspection program, submit to the Commission a copy of its annual 
operating tests or comprehensive written examinations used for operator 
requalification for review by the Commission. In addition, the final 
rule amends the ``Scope'' provisions of the regulations pertaining to 
operators' licenses to include facility licensees. The amendments will 
improve operational safety at each facility by redirecting NRC 
resources to administer the requalification program by inspecting and 
overseeing facility requalification programs rather than conducting 
requalification examinations. This, in turn, will reduce both licensee 
and NRC costs related to the program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony DiPalo, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, telephone: (301) 492-3784, or Frank Collins, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-3173.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 
authorized and directed the NRC ``to promulgate regulations, or other 
appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and 
qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, 
technicians and other appropriate operating personnel.'' The 
regulations or guidance were to ``establish simulator training 
requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear power plant operator 
licenses and for operator requalification programs; requirements 
governing NRC administration of requalification examinations; 
requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear power plant 
simulators, and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power 
plant licensee personnel training programs.'' On March 25, 1987 (52 FR 
9453), the Commission accomplished the objectives of the NWPA that were 
related to licensed operators by publishing a final rule in the Federal 
Register that amended 10 CFR part 55 and became effective May 26, 1987. 
The amendment revised the licensed operator requalification program by 
establishing (1) simulator training requirements, (2) requirements for 
operating tests at simulators, and (3) instructional requirements for 
the program (formerly appendix A to 10 CFR part 55). The final rule 
also stipulated that in lieu of the Commission accepting certification 
by the facility licensee that the licensee has passed written 
examinations and operating tests given by the facility licensee within 
its Commission approved program developed by using a systems approach 
to training (SAT), the Commission may give a comprehensive 
requalification written examination and an annual operating test. In 
addition, the amended regulations required each licensed operator to 
pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an 
operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 
6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.
    Following the 1987 amendment to part 55, the NRC began conducting 
operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license 
renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC 
determined that the existing regulations have established a high 
standard of licensee performance and that the NRC examiners were 
largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely 
performed by, the facility licensees.
    The NRC revised its requalification examination procedures in 1988 
to focus on performance-based evaluation criteria that closely 
paralleled the training and evaluation process used for a SAT based 
training program. This revision to the NRC requalification examination 
process enabled the NRC to conduct comprehensive examinations for the 
purpose of renewing an individual's license and, at the same time, use 
the results of the examinations to determine the adequacy of the 
facility licensee's requalification training program.
    Since the NRC began conducting its requalification examination 
program, the facility program and individual pass rates have improved 
from 81 to 90 percent and from 83 to 91 percent, respectively, through 
fiscal year 1991. The NRC has also observed a general improvement in 
the quality of the facility licensees' testing materials and in the 
performance of their operating test evaluators. Of the first 79 program 
evaluations conducted, 10 programs were evaluated as unsatisfactory. 
The NRC issued Information Notice No. 90-54, ``Summary of 
Requalification Program Deficiencies,'' dated August 28, 1990, to 
describe the technical deficiencies that contributed to the first 10 
program failures. Since that time only 6 programs, of 120 subsequent 
program evaluations, have been evaluated as unsatisfactory.
    Pilot requalification examinations were conducted during the period 
August through December 1991. The pilot test procedure directed the NRC 
examiners to focus on the evaluation of crews, rather than individuals, 
in the simulator portion of the operating test. In conducting the pilot 
examinations, the NRC examiners and the facility evaluators 
independently evaluated the crews and compared their results. The 
results were found to be in agreement. Furthermore, the NRC examiners 
noted that the facility evaluators were competent at evaluating crews 
and individuals and were aggressive in finding deficiencies and 
recommending remedial training for operators who exhibited weaknesses. 
The performance of the facilities' evaluators during the pilot 
examinations further confirmed that the facility licensees can find 
deficiencies, provide remedial training, and retest their licensed 
operators appropriately.
    In June 1992, the Commission agreed with the staff to proceed with 
initiation of rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for each licensed 
operator to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination 
and operating test administered by the Commission during the term of 
the operator's 6-year license. On December 28, 1992, proposed 
amendments to 10 CFR part 55 on renewal of licensees and 
requalification requirements for licensed operators were submitted to 
the Commission for approval.
    On May 20, 1993 (58 FR 29366), the Commission published a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register to amend 10 CFR part 55. The proposed 
amendments were to:
    1. Delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass an NRC-
administered requalification examination during the term of his or her 
license.
    2. Require that facility licensees submit to the NRC their annual 
requalification operating tests and comprehensive requalification 
written examinations at least 30 days prior to the conduct of these 
tests and examinations.
    3. Include ``Facility Licensees'' in the ``Scope'' of part 55.
    The period for public comment on the proposed amendments ended on 
July 20, 1993.

Summary of Public Comments

    The NRC received 42 comments on the proposed rule. Based on 
analysis of these comments, several changes have been made in the final 
rule. A summary of the public comments and, where appropriate, a 
description of the changes that resulted from them is discussed for 
each of the proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 55.
    1. Proposed Amendment: Delete the requirement that each licensed 
operator pass an NRC-administered requalification examination during 
the term of a licensed operator's 6-year license.
    General Statement: Of the 42 comments received, 36 favored this 
proposed amendment and 6 opposed its adoption. Most of the respondents 
who favored the proposed change based their support on the expectation 
that this change would reduce the regulatory burden on licensees and 
would improve operational safety at nuclear facilities. One respondent 
indicated that while the NRC's involvement has had a positive impact on 
the content and conduct of licensee requalification, utilities have 
proven their ability to develop and administer requalification 
examinations that meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(iii). 
Another respondent representing the utility industry stated that, ``We 
believe the performance-based inspection process will be an effective 
means for ensuring high quality operator requalification programs.'' 
This respondent further stated, ``The proposed rule change will also 
afford better operating crew continuity. Because personnel changes 
occur over time, operating crews may be configured with individuals who 
have or have not had an NRC administered exam. In the past, it has been 
a common practice to reconfigure crews to accommodate the NRC-
administered requalification examination by putting together 
individuals whose 6 years is about to end. Use of this practice to 
facilitate the conduct of requalification exams may not be in the best 
interest of crew coordination and teamwork.''
    The six comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to delete 
the NRC-conducted requalification examination varied in content. For 
example, two public citizen respondents were against a rule change of 
any kind on the basis it would give the public the perception that the 
NRC's authority over the operation of power and non-power reactor 
plants would be weakened. Two respondents, one representing a State 
public service department with over-sight of a nuclear power plant and 
a second representing a State nuclear safety department, urged that 
from a defense-in-depth standpoint to reactor safety the proposed rule 
should be reconsidered. The State of Vermont, in two separate comments, 
indicated that it was because of the current regulation that the NRC 
was able to detect the unsatisfactory requalification program at 
Vermont Yankee and identify corrective actions to ensure safety of the 
plant. The State of Illinois contended that the current regulations 
provided incentive for licensees to maintain quality operator training 
programs and that the likelihood of further improving or even 
maintaining that quality without the periodic independent involvement 
by the NRC is unlikely. The State of Illinois recommended a combination 
of routine NRC inspections of crew examinations on a plant simulator 
and a periodic independent test administered simultaneously to all 
licensed operators every 6 years. Finally, one respondent was opposed 
to this amendment, especially its application to test and research 
reactors and suggested the existing rule be deleted because the 
regulatory analysis for the 1987 rule stated that the rule would not 
apply to non-power reactors (NPR). This same respondent believed it 
important to maintain NRC staff competence in relation to NPR operator 
licensing and felt this could be accomplished by maintaining a nucleus 
of specialized qualified personnel, either as part of or in conjunction 
with the NPR directorate, and through specialized training and 
administration of initial examinations, which occur rather frequently.
    Response: After reviewing the six comments opposing the proposed 
regulation, the Commission has concluded that the basis for this 
requirement remains sound and that it should be adopted. This 
determination is based on the following considerations:
    (i) The NRC believes that since the beginning of the 
requalification program, experience indicates that weaknesses in 
implementation of facility licensee's programs are generally the root 
cause of deficiencies in the performance of operators.
    (ii) The NRC believes if its resources were directed towards 
inspection and oversight of facility licensee's requalification 
programs rather than continuing to conduct individual operator 
requalification examinations, the operational safety at each facility 
will continue to be ensured and in fact, will be improved. A routine 
inspection frequency of once per SALP cycle will ensure consistency 
between inspection scheduling and licensee performance. A minimum 
routine inspection frequency of at least once every 2 years will ensure 
active NRC oversight of facility licensee's requalification programs. 
For facility licensees with good performance, consideration will be 
given to not performing an onsite inspection during the SALP period.
    (iii) The NRC believes that the facility requalification programs 
have been demonstrated to be basically sound during the pilot 
examinations. Given the broad range of possible approaches built into 
the inspection process, the NRC would only conduct examinations when 
they are the most effective tool to evaluate and understand the 
programmatic issues, or if the NRC loses confidence in the facility 
licensee's ability to conduct its own examinations.
    Examples which could result in a regional management decision for a 
``for cause'' requalification examination include:
    a. Requalification inspection results which indicate an ineffective 
licensee requalification program;
    b. Operational problems for which operator error is a major 
contributor;
    c. A SALP Category 3 rating in plant operations attributed to 
operator performance; and
    d. Allegations regarding significant training program deficiencies.
    When conditions such as these exist, the NRC may initiate planning 
to conduct requalification examinations during the next annual 
examination cycle scheduled by the facility.
    Regarding the comments from the State of Vermont, the proposed 
inspection program includes reviews, observations, and parallel grading 
of selected operating tests and written examinations by NRC examiners, 
reviews of operational performance, interviews of facility personnel, 
and a general inspection of the facility licensee's implementation of 
its requalification training program. Application of the inspection 
program in the case of Vermont Yankee would have disclosed 
discrepancies in evaluation of operator performance and also would have 
allowed insight to other, more programmatic, deficiencies. The 
requalification inspection program implements routine NRC inspections 
as recommended by the State of Illinois as well as ``for cause'' 
examinations.
    The Commission believes the existing regulation should not be 
deleted in the case of non-power reactors, as recommended in the public 
comments. A continuing need exists for the regulation to apply to 
operators of all types of reactors. The proposed amendment will 
continue to ensure operational safety at non-power reactors by 
inspecting facility requalification programs rather than conducting 
requalification examinations. The NRC will maintain examiner 
proficiency by conducting examinations for initial license applicants.
    2. Proposed Amendment: Require that facility licensees submit to 
the NRC their annual requalification operating tests and comprehensive 
requalification written examinations at least 30 days prior to 
conducting these tests and examinations.
    General Statement: Of the 42 comments received, only 1 respondent 
favored the amendment as proposed. This response came from a university 
operated research reactor, stating that submitting requalification 
examinations by the facility to the NRC for review prior to 
administering the examination was less burdensome, by comparison, than 
retaining the existing regulation. On the other hand, most respondents 
stated that submitting all examinations and tests to the NRC 30 days 
before their administration would place an undue burden on facility 
licensees and the NRC with little return on the investment. Several 
respondents offered alternatives that included shortening the lead 
time, requiring that the examinations and tests be submitted after they 
are administered, submitting the question banks from which the 
examinations are developed, and simply having the examinations 
available for on-site inspection.
    Response: This requirement was included in the proposed regulation 
so that the NRC could evaluate the proposed examination materials, in 
conjunction with other information already available to the NRC, to 
determine the scope of the on-site inspection. However, the pilot 
inspection program has demonstrated that a facility's proposed 
examinations are not an absolute necessity in preparing for the on-site 
activities. In addition, those facility licensees' examination and 
simulator scenario banks that were evaluated were found to be adequate 
for an effective requalification program to be managed by the 
licensees' staffs. Although being able to review the proposed 
examinations at the NRC did save some on-site inspection effort, the 
inspectors were still able to complete the Temporary Inspection 
procedures within the time allowed (i.e., two inspectors on-site for 1 
week).
    The NRC believes that it will be advantageous to have selected 
examinations available for review at NRC offices in addition to other 
documentation customarily provided, consistent with the Commission's 
inspection program needs. During the on-site inspection, the inspectors 
will observe the facility evaluators administer written examinations 
and operating tests to the crews being evaluated. Although the facility 
examination may last several weeks, the NRC's on-site inspection 
usually lasts only one week. Normally, the NRC intends to request that 
the facility licensee submit only those written examinations or 
operating tests that will be administered during the week of the NRC 
inspection. Obtaining this examination material in advance of the 
inspection will allow the inspectors to prepare for their on-site 
inspection activities by reviewing the examinations or tests before 
they travel to the facility. This advance preparation will result in a 
more effective use of on-site inspection time and reduce the burden on 
the facility licensee by placing fewer demands on their training staff 
during the examination week. Therefore, the NRC will delete the 
amendment to Sec. 55.59(c) as proposed from the final rulemaking and 
will require instead that comprehensive written examinations or 
operating tests be submitted upon request consistent with the 
Commission's inspection program needs and sustained effectiveness of 
the facility licensee's examination and simulator scenario banks.
    3. Proposed Amendment: Include facility licensees in the scope of 
10 CFR part 55, specifically Sec. 55.2, will be revised to include 
facility licensees.
    General Statement: Only 1 of the 42 respondents to the FRN 
addressed and endorsed this provision of the proposed rulemaking.
    Response: The NRC believes the absence of comments regarding this 
proposal substantiates the NRC's position that this is simply an 
administrative correction and does not materially change the intent of 
the regulation. The NRC considers this amendment as an administrative 
addition to these regulations. The NRC proposed this change to 
eliminate the ambiguities between the regulations of parts 50 and 55. 
Section 50.54 (i) through (m) already imposes part 55 requirements on 
facility licensees, and part 55 already specifies requirements for 
facility licensees. On this basis, the NRC has determined that the 
requirement should be adopted.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability

    The Commission has determined that under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal 
Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and 
therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This final rule amends information collection requirements that are 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget, approval number 3150-0101.
    The rule will relax existing information collection requirements 
for the separately cleared, ``Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor 
Operator Licensing Training and Requalification Programs.'' The public 
burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by 
3 hours per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection 
of information. Send comments regarding the estimated burden reduction 
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 
suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records 
Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0101), Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this 
regulation. The analysis examines the values (benefits) and impacts 
(costs) of implementing the regulation for licensed operator 
requalification. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC 
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. 
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Anthony DiPalo, 
Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
telephone (301) 492-3784.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small 
entities. This rule primarily affects the companies that own and 
operate light-water nuclear power reactors and non-power research 
reactors. The companies that own and operate these reactors do not fall 
within the scope of the definition of ``small entity'' set forth in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out 
in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR 
part 121.

Backfit Analysis

    The staff believes that it could ensure and improve operational 
safety at each facility by directing its resources to inspect and 
oversee facility requalification programs rather than conducting 
requalification examinations. The staff's experience since the 
beginning of the requalification program indicates that weaknesses in 
the implementation of the facility programs are generally the root 
cause of significant deficiencies in the performance of licensed 
operators. The staff could more effectively allocate its resources to 
perform on-site inspections of facility requalification examination and 
training programs in accordance with indicated programmatic performance 
rather than scheduling examiners in accordance with the number of 
individuals requiring license renewal. By re-directing the examiner 
resources, the staff expects to find and correct programmatic 
weaknesses earlier, and thus improve operational safety.
    Currently, facility licensees assist in developing and coordinating 
the NRC-conducted requalification examinations. The assistance includes 
providing to the NRC the training material used for development of the 
written examinations and operating tests and providing facility 
personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of 
the examinations. The Commission has concluded on the basis of the 
analysis required by 10 CFR 50.109, that complying with the 
requirements of this final rule would reduce the regulatory burden on 
the facility licensees by reducing the effort expended by the facility 
licensees to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC 
requalification examinations for licensed operators. A smaller increase 
in regulatory burden is anticipated due to a need for the facility 
licensee to provide data and support for periodic requalification 
program inspections.
    As part of the final rule, facility licensees shall have a 
requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission and 
shall, upon request consistent with the Commission's inspection program 
needs, submit a copy of its comprehensive written examinations or 
annual operating tests to the Commission. The NRC has determined that 
the pilot inspection program demonstrated that the facility's proposed 
examinations are not an absolute necessity in preparing for the on-site 
activities. Therefore, the NRC would request test submittal on a case-
by-case basis consistent with the Commission's test inspection program 
needs and review these examinations for conformance with 10 CFR 
55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would continue to expect each facility to 
meet all of the conditions required of a requalification program in 
accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).
    Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions. 
Each operator would be expected to continue to meet all the conditions 
of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing 
the facility requalification examinations for license renewal. Each 
licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the 
requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, 
the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a 
requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his 
or her license in addition to passing the facility licensee's 
requalification examinations, as a condition of license renewal.
    The ``Scope'' of part 55, 10 CFR 55.2, would be revised to include 
facility licensees. This is an administrative addition to these 
regulations. It eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the 
regulations of parts 50 and 55. Part 50, in Sec. 50.54(i) through (m), 
already imposes part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and part 55 
already specifies requirements for facility licensees.
    The Commission believes that licensed operators are one of the main 
components and possibly the most critical component of continued safe 
reactor operation, especially with respect to mitigating the 
consequences of emergency conditions. Two-thirds of the requalification 
programs that have been evaluated as ``unsatisfactory'' had significant 
problems in the quality or implementation of the plant's emergency 
operating procedures (EOPs). In some of these cases, the facility 
licensees did not train their operators on challenging simulator 
scenarios or did not retrain their operators after the EOPs were 
revised. The Commission believes that it could have identified these 
problems sooner by periodic inspection of facility requalification 
training and examination programs. Facility licensees could have then 
corrected these problems and improved overall operator job performance 
sooner.
    This final rule will improve operational safety by providing the 
staff direction to find and correct weaknesses in facility licensee 
requalification programs. The experience gained from conducting NRC 
requalification examinations indicates that the NRC is largely 
duplicating the efforts of the facility licensees to maintain a high 
standard of operator performance. The NRC could now, by amending the 
regulations, more effectively use its resources to oversee facility 
licensee requalification programs rather than conducting individual 
operator requalification examinations. In FY92, the NRC resources 
committed to this program for NRC staff and contractor support were 
approximately 12 FTE and $1.3 million (equivalent to 8 FTE), 
respectively. The staff projects that a slightly larger average number 
of examinations, requiring approximately 1.5 additional staff FTE and 
an additional $200,000 contractual support (equivalent to 1.25 FTE), 
would be conducted in future years if the NRC continues conducting 
requalification examinations for all licensed operators. Thus, if it is 
assumed that without the rule change, this program would continue into 
the future, the relevant baseline NRC burden would approximate $2.85 
(1.35 NRC + 1.5 contractor) million per year in 1992 dollars for FY93 
through FY97. The 13.5 (12 + 1.5) NRC staff years (FTE) were converted 
to $1.35 million ($100,000 per staff year) based on allowances for 
composite wage rates and direct benefits.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\NRC labor costs presented here differ from those developed 
under the NRC's license fee recovery program. For regulatory 
analysis purposes, labor costs are developed under strict 
incremental cost principles wherein only variable costs that are 
directly related to the development, implementation, and operation 
and maintenance of the proposed requirement are included. This 
approach is consistent with guidance set forth in NUREG/CR-3568, ``A 
Handbook for Value Impact Assessment,'' and general cost benefit 
methodology. Alternatively, NRC labor costs for fee recovery 
purposes are appropriately designed for full cost recovery of the 
services rendered and, as such, include non-incremental costs (e.g. 
overhead and administrative and logistical support costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the final rule change, NRR's analysis indicates that NRC 
staff could perform all necessary inspections of requalification exam 
programs with 11 NRC FTEs and $300,000 in contractor support, 
equivalent to 1.85 contractor FTEs, per year. At $100,000 per NRC FTE 
and $162,000 per contractor FTE, this converts to an annual cost in 
1992 dollars of $1.4 million. Thus, the annual savings in NRC operating 
costs is estimated to be on the order of $1.45 million ($2.85 million 
less $1.4 million). Over an assumed 25-year remaining life, based on a 
5% real discount rate, the 1992 present worth savings in NRC resources 
is estimated at about $20.25 million in 1992 dollars.
    Each facility licensee would continue in its present manner of 
conducting its licensed operator requalification program. However, this 
final rule reduces the burden on the facility licensees because each 
facility licensee would have its administrative and technical staff 
expend fewer hours than are now needed to assist in developing and 
conducting the NRC requalification examinations. Facility licensees are 
expected to realize a combined annual operational cost savings of 
approximately $1.24 million. Over an assumed 25-year remaining life, 
based on a 5% real discount rate, the 1992 present worth industry 
savings is estimated at about $17.48 million in 1992 dollars.
    In summary, the final rule will result in improved operational 
safety by providing more timely identification of weaknesses in 
facility licensees' requalification programs. In addition, the final 
rule would also reduce the resources expended by both the NRC and the 
licensees. The Commission has, therefore, concluded that the final rule 
meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, that there would be a 
substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and 
safety and the cost of implementation is justified.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55

    Criminal penalty, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants 
and reactors, Reporting and record-keeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; and 5 
U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 
CFR part 55.

PART 55--OPERATORS' LICENSES

    1. The authority citation for 10 CFR part 55 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953, as 
amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 
2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 
1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
    Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under sec. 
306, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 
also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 
2237).

    2. In Sec. 55.2, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 55.2  Scope.

* * * * *
    (c) Any facility licensee.


Sec. 55.57  [Amended]

    3. Section 55.57 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
    4. In Sec. 55.59, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 55.59  Requalification.

* * * * *
    (c) Requalification program requirements. A facility licensee shall 
have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission 
and shall, upon request consistent with the Commission's inspection 
program needs, submit to the Commission a copy of its comprehensive 
requalification written examinations or annual operating tests. The 
requalification program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c) 
(1) through (7) of this section. In lieu of paragraphs (c) (2), (3), 
and (4) of this section, the Commission may approve a program developed 
by using a systems approach to training.
* * * * *
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 94-2927 Filed 2-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P