Overview
Title
Information Collection: Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is asking people to help make rules about how special nuclear materials, like tiny pieces of uranium, are used safely. They want people to tell them what they think about these rules by a certain date, and it takes a lot of work from many people to follow these rules.
Summary AI
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has submitted a request to renew an existing information collection related to the "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material" to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This collection requires certain entities to provide information about their use of special nuclear material and is crucial for the NRC's licensing and regulatory decisions. The public is invited to submit comments on this proposal by February 22, 2021. The estimated annual response involves 1,214 responses from 200 respondents, requiring a total of 37,050 hours to comply with the requirements.
Abstract
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material."
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a notice from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the submission of a request to renew an existing information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This collection, titled "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," is essential for gathering crucial data that the NRC uses for licensing and regulation of nuclear materials.
General Summary
The NRC's notice is part of a formal request to renew a collection of information related to the domestic licensing of special nuclear material. This renewal is conducted under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to justify collections of information to minimize the paperwork burden on the public. The document communicates that certain entities using special nuclear materials must provide specific information to the NRC, which is critical for making informed licensing and regulatory decisions. The notice invites public comments until February 22, 2021, and provides details on how to access further particulars and submit feedback.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from this document that could impact its effectiveness and clarity:
Lack of Specificity in Request for Comments: While the NRC seeks public comments, the document does not specify the desired topics or questions for feedback. More precise guidance on what input would be most beneficial could result in more targeted responses.
Disproportionate Numbers Without Context: The estimated annual responses (1,214) and the total hours required (37,050 hours) appear disproportionate without further context. Explanation on why such levels are needed could better justify the demands placed on respondents.
Closed Public Document Room: The document references a now-closed Public Document Room as a resource for obtaining public documents. This might cause confusion, as the notice does provide other methods for document access, but emphasizing these alternatives more strongly would aid clarity.
Complex Language on Legal Compliance: The nuanced language regarding compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act could be difficult for laypersons to understand. A simplified explanation or a brief summary would enhance accessibility.
Lack of Confidential Submission Guidance: Instructions to not include identifying information in comments due to public posting are clear, but there are no guidelines for submitting confidential comments, if necessary.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the public may have minimal direct interaction with this document unless they are stakeholders in the nuclear sector or interested in regulatory processes. The document does, however, open a pathway for public involvement in regulatory matters by inviting comments, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in NRC's activities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For those directly involved in the nuclear materials sector—such as license holders and applicants—the document is significant. It encapsulates critical regulatory and compliance information that ensure safe and legal use of nuclear materials. However, the potential burden of complying with information collections, as signified by the volume of responses and time requirements, may impact small entities or new applicants who lack resources compared to established firms.
Overall, while the notice serves its purpose in continuing regulatory oversight, enhancing the document's clarity and guidance could facilitate better compliance and public participation.
Issues
• The document includes a call for comments but does not clarify the specific topics or questions the NRC is interested in regarding the information collection renewal. Providing specific guidance on the desired feedback could lead to more targeted and useful comments.
• The estimated number of annual responses (1,214) and the total number of hours needed annually to comply (37,050 hours) may seem disproportionate without additional context. It might be helpful to include an explanation of why this level of response and effort is necessary for regulatory compliance.
• The document refers potential respondents to a closed Public Document Room for examining and ordering copies of public documents, which might create confusion. It would be clearer to emphasize alternative methods of accessing documents, especially since the PDR is currently closed.
• The language regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act compliance is technical and may not be easily understood by all readers. Simplifying the explanation or providing a brief summary could enhance clarity.
• The document advises against including identifying information in comments, as they will not be edited before being made public, but does not provide clear steps for confidential submission if needed.
• The use of different time indicators (e.g., continuing basis, annually, every 10 years) without detailed explanation can be confusing for readers attempting to understand compliance timelines.