nrc transmission to meti - request on legal issues related to tmi

8/3/2019 NRC Transmission to METI - Request on Legal Issues Related to TMI

1/7

Wittick, Brian

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Attachments:

Wittick, BrianWednesday, April 20, 2011 7:29 PMCasto, ChuckReynolds, StevenFW : NISA Request50-54(x)&(y)48FR1 3966.pdf

FYI - HQ has provided NISA answers to part of their questions (the legal piece) regarding TMI, and remains inactive dialogue through the normal IP cooperation channels.

VRBrian

From: Bloom, StevenSent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:04 AMTo: bannai-toshihirowmeti.go.jpCc: Foggie, Kirk; Emche, DanielleSubject: NISA Request

Dear Bannai-san,

Below is the response I have gotten from our legal staff regarding your request on legal issues related to TMI:

Strictly speaking, as far as we know, the NR C did not take any action by rule which would deem legal andjustified any responsive action taken by the TMI licensee at the time of and immediately following the 1979accident.

However, the NRC did adopt new regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(x) and (y) to ensure that licensees would beable to take timely and necessary action even though such action would be in violation of the plant's technicalspecifications, license conditions or other regulatory requirements. The final rule for these provisions is 48 FR13966 (April 1, 1983). A copy of the SOC for the final rule is attached. Our legal view is that this regulationmay be applied only when the licensee action is needed to avoid imminent radiological harm the generalpublic, i.e., in quickly emerging situations where fast action is needed to avoid radiological harm to the generalpublic. The staff's practice has been more lenient, however, despite OGC's interpretation.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you,

9&1ei'

Steven Bloom, International Relations SpecialistInternational Cooperation and Assistance Branch (ICA)301-415-2431

O-4F4M/S 0-4E21

VO)

I


2/7

HEINONLINE

Citation: 48 Fed. Reg. 13966 1983

Content downloaded/printed fromHeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Tue Apr 19 16:08:00 2011

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PD F indicates your acceptanceof HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the licenseagreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated fromuncorrected OCR text.


3/7

13966 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 64 / Friday, April 1, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

million or more; will not cause a majorincrease in costs or prices forconsumers, individual industries,Federal, State or local governmentagencies, or geographic regions; and willnot have a significant adverse effect oncompetition, employment or investment,productivity, innovation, or ability ofUnited States-based enterprises tocompete with foreign-based enterprisesin domestic or export markets.

Dr. S. T. Wilson, Jr., Director, NationalProgram Planning Staffs, VS. APHIS,USDA, has determined that anemergency situation exists whichwarrants publication without prioropportunity for a public comment periodon this interim action. This amendmentrelieves restrictions presently imposedon mares over 731 days of age beingimported into the United States, an dshould be made effective immediately inorder to permit affected persons to movethese mares into the United Stateswithout unnecessary restrictions.

Therefore, pursuant to theadministrative procedure provisions in 5U.S.C. 553, it is found upon good causethat notice and otlker public procedurewith respect to this emergency interimaction is impracticable, unnecessary andcontrary to the public interest, and goodcause is found for making thisemergency interim action effective lessthan 30 days after publication of thisdocument in the Federal Register.

Comments have been solicited fo r 60days after publication of this document,and this emergency interim action willbe scheduled for review so that a finaldocument discussing comments receivedand an y amendments required can.bepublished in the Federal Register as

*soon as possible.

Certification Under the RegulatoryFlexibility Ac t

Mr. James 0. Lee, Jr., ActingAdministrator of the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service, hasdetermined that this action will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesbecause it is anticipated that it willaffect only a portion of theapproximately 20 mares ou t of 6,000horses imported into the United Stateseach year which come from countries

whereCEM is known to exist and

whicharrive in the United States without therequired surgical treatmenL

Alternatives Considered

The alternatives considered in makingthis decision were: (1) To allow therequired surgical treatment of suchhorses to be performed at the College ofVeterinary Medicine, University ofCalifornia, Davis, California;and (2) No t

to allow the required surgical treatmentto be performed at that facility.

Alternative 2 was rejected as thiswould leave importers with no optionbut to use the Cornell Universityfacilities io Ithaca, Ne w York.Alternative 1 was adopted because thiswould provide importers with a choiceof facilities, and wou!d eliminate costlytransportation of animals across thecountry for treatment.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92

* Animal diseases. Imports, Livestockand livestock products, Quarantine,Transportation. Contagious equinemetritis (CEM).

PART 92---IMPORTATION OF CERTAINANIMALS AND POULTRY ANDCERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRYPRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHERREQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAINMEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND

SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON

Accordingly, Part 92, Title 9, Code ofFederal Regulations is amended in thefollowing respects:

1. In 92.2(i)X2)(v), the first sentenceof paragraph "I) is amended to read:

92.2 General prohibitions; exceptions.(* * . t

(v) * * * * * ,.

(H ) An y mare subject to theprovisions of 92.2(i)X2)(v) which isfound upon examination during preentryquarantine to have'had an incompleteclitoral sinusectomy, but which isotherwise eligible for entry, may, at theoption and expense of the importer, bemoved to the School of VeterinaryMedicine, Cornell University, Ithaca,New York, or to the College ofVeterinary Medicine, University ofCalifornia, Davis, California, where thesurgery required to qualify such mare forimportation may be performed by alicensed veterinarian mutuallyacceptable to the importer. theUniversity, and the Department. * * *

(Sec. 2, 32 Stat. 792, as amended: secs. 2,11 .76 Stat. 129, 130, 132:sec. 1, 84 StaL 202, (21U.S.C.111, 134a, 134c,and 1340);37 FR 284o4,28477 38 FR 19141)

Done at Washington, D.C., this 30th day ofMarch 1983.1. I. Atwell.Deputy Administrator. Veterinary Services.[FR Do. 83-8W75 iled 30-83; 11:5 arJ

BILLINGCOE 410-34-1

NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

Applicability of Ucense; Conditionsand Technical Specfications In anEmergency

AGENCY:Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTI0OwFinal rule.

4

SUMMARY- The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is amending its regulationsto clarify that all Part 50 licensees maytake reasonable action that departs froma license condition or technicalspecification in an emergency when thisaction is immediately needed to protect.

'the public health and safety. Th e rule isbeing Issued because NRC regulationscurrently do not permit deviations fromlicense conditions or technicalspecifications under any conditions.Emergency situations can arise, though,during which a license condition or atechnical specification could preventnecessary protective action by thelicensee. The rule allows this action tobe taken in emergency circumstances.EFFECTIVE DATE: lune 1, 1983.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.Charles M. Trammell Ill. Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation,U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, D.C. 20555 (Telephone:.301-492-7389).SUPPLEMENTARY IINFORMATION. The ruleclarifies the regulations in 10 CFR Part50 by providing that a licensee may take

reasonable action that departs from alicense condition or a technicalspecification in an emergency whensuch action is immediately needed toprotect the public health and safety.

At present, NRC regulations do notpermit deviations from licenseconditions or technical specificationsunder any circumstances. Emergenciescan arise, though, during whichcompliance with a license condition or atechnical specification could preventnecessary action by a licensee to protectthe public health and safety. Licenseesare understandably reluctant to takeactions contrary to their licenses.Absolute compliance with the license inemergencies can be a barrier to effectiveprotective action by a licensee.

Technical specifications contain a.wide range of operating limitations andrequirements concerning actions to betaken if certain systems fail and if-certain parameters are exceeded. Thebulk of technical specifications aredevoted to keeping the plant parameterswithin safe bounds and keeping safety

4

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 13966 1983


4/7

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 64 / Friday, April 1, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 13967

equipment operable during normaloperation. However, technicalspecifications also require theimplementation of a wide range ofoperating procedures which go intogreat detail as to actions to be taken inthe course of operation to maintainfacility safety. These procedures arebased on the various conditions-normal, transient and accidentconditions-analyzed as part of thelicensing process. Nevertheless,unanticipated circumstances can occurduring the course-of emergencies. ThesecircWnstances may call for responsesdifferent from any considered during thecourse of licensing-e.g., the need toisolate the accumulators to preventnitrogen injection to the core while therewas still substantial pressure in theprimary system was unforeseen in thelicensing process before TMI-2; thus, thetechnical specifications prohibited this.action. Special circumstances requiringa deviation from license requirementsare not necessarily limited to transientsor accidents not analyzed in thelicensing process. Special circumstancescan arise during emergencies involvingmultiple equipment failure or coincidentaccidents where plant emergencyprocedures could be in conflict, or notapplicable to the circumstances. Inaddition, an accident can take a coursedifferent from that visualized when theemergency procedure was written' thusrequiring a protective response atvariance with a procedure required tobe followed by the licensee. Also.performance of routine surveillancetesting, which might fall due during an.emergency, could either divert the

attention of the operating crew from the'emergency or cause the loss ofequipment needed fo r proper protectiveaction.

Technical specifications or licenseconditions can be amended by NRC, andthe rule is not intended to apply incircumstances where time allows thisprocess to be followed. The rule wouldapply only to those emergencysituations where action by the licenseeis required immediately to protect thepublic health arid safety-action whichmay be contrary to a technicalspecification or a license condition.. It is the intent of the rile to ollow

deviations from license requirementsonly in the special circumstancesdescribed. It is not intended thatlicensees be allowed to deviate fromprocedures and other licenserequirements where these areapplicable.

For these reasons, the Commissionbelieves that there should be a specificprovision in the Commission's rules

clearly indicating that a licensee maytake reasonable action that departs froma license condition or technicalspecification in an emergency whensuch action is immediately needed toprotect the public health and safety.

The rule also requires a licensee,under 50.72, to notify the NR COperations Center by telephone ofemergency circumstances requiring it totake any action that departs from alicense condition or a technicalspecification. When time permits, thenotification is made before theprotective action is taken: otherwise, itis made as soon as possible thereafter.The impact of this reporting requirementon licensees is expected to be negligible.

The rule follows the recommendationIn NUREG-OMIa, "Report of SpecialReview Group, Office of Inspection andEnforcement on Lesson Learned fromThree Mile Island"' the NR C establishand announce a firm policy regardingthe applicability of the license underemergency circumstances, with certain

exceptions discussed below.(a) The rule does not require that departure

from a license condition or technicalspecification have the concuirence of the

-most senior licensee and NRC personnelav~ilable at the time before the departure.

While the Commission certainly does notdisagree with the general concept that the.most senior licensee personnel available atthe time should be involved, the rule specifiesthat such action shall be approved by alicensed senior operator as a minimum anddoes not go into further detail as to whichadditional persons should be involved if timepermits or which persons should be involvedunder other circumstances.The personsresponsible for safe operation'ofthe facilityare already identified in the facility licenseand implementing procedures.

(b) The rule does not require theconcurrence of NRC personnel, Receiving the.concurrence" or "approval" of NRCpersonnel would amount to a licenseamendment using procedures contrary tothose existing for amendments. The rulespecifically applies to emergency situationswhere Immediate action is needed and timeis not available for a license amendment.Requiring the concurrence of NRC personnelavailable at the time tends to shift .the burdenof safety from the licensee to NRC--contraryto the rule's intent. It could also shift theburden to NRC personnel on site who may beunqualified to concur in a proposed licendeeaction.

INUREC-celo is available for inspection andcopying for a fee at NR CPublic DocumentRoom.1717 H Street. NW. Washington. D.C. Copies maybe purchased through the NRC/GPO Sales Programby using a GP ODeposit Account, MasterCard orVisa by calling the NRC/CPOSales Office on (301)49Z-9530or by sending a check or money orderpayable to Superintendent of Documents to: SalesManager 05 %U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Washington. D.C.2055. Purchase orders areacceptable fromFederal. state,and localgovernment officesonly.

The rule was published as a proposedrule in the Federal Register on August18, 1982 (47 FR 35996). A sixty-daycomment period expired on October 18,1982.

A total of thirty-seven responses werereceived, representing thirty-nineorganizations or persons. Respondeesincluded: licensees of power reactors(24), individuals (5), research reactorlicensees (2), nuclear steam systemsuppliers (2), professional organizations(2); and on e response each from: a lawfirm, a State, a labor union, and anarchitectural-engineering firm. Copies ofcomments received by the Commissionin response to the notice of proposedrulemaking may be examined in theCommission's Public Document Room at1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.(file PR-SO, 47 FR 35996).

The vast majority of the commenters(thirty-seven) were in favor of the rule.Many expressed enthusiastic support.Only two commenters believed that therule should not be adopted. Eight commenters believed the rule should beissued as proposed. Howeveras aresult, of comments received by others,some changes have been made, asdiscussed below.-

One commenter pointed out thesimilarity between the proposed ruleand the so-called "General PrudentialRule" contained in both theInternational. Regulations for PreventingCollisions at Sea. 1972, and the InlandNavigational Rules Act of 1980. The ruleis identical in each and states:

In construing and complying with theseRules due regard shall be had to all dangersof navigation and collision and to any special

circumstances, including the limitations ofthe vessels involved, which may make adeparture from those rules necessary to avoidimmediate danger. (Rule 2(b)).

The commenter added that aCommanding Officer (of a naval ship) ispermitted to deviate from written rulesto the extent necessary to save his ship,and that there is ample precedent for theproposed NR C rule..

It is also very similar to a rule of theFederal Aviation Administiation (FAA)governing the operation of aircraft, 14CFR 91.3, which states that "[i]n anemergency requiring immediate action,the pilot in command may deviate from

any rule * * to the extentnecessary tomeet that emergency. Each pilot incommand who deviates from a rule* * * shall, upon the request of theAdministrator, send a written report ofthat deviation to the Administrator."

The Commission had both the GeneralPrudential Rule and the FA A rule inmind when it framed the proposed NR Crule. Further, it is clear that Congress



5/7


6/7

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 64 / Friday, April 1, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 33969

or machinery, it would depend on thespecific circumstances of the emergency.The rule does not apply to machinery orthe facility, per se, but would apply ifsuch damage is tied to a possibleadverse effect on public health andsafety.

One commenter suggested that theCommission emphasize the permissivenature of the rule by explaining that itsuse is totally discretionary, that licensees need not invoke it even in anemergency, and that failure to invokethe rule would not constitute a violationof NRC requirements for which anenforcement action may be brought.This comment was not accepted.Whereas the language of the rule ispermissive in nature, licensees areresponsible for operating their facilitiesin such a manner as to protect the publichealth and safety. If, in an emergency,protective action is needed (and noaction consistent with the license thatcan provide adequate or equivalentprotection is immediately apparent) the

licensee would be obliged to take theprotective action that deviates from thelicense. Viewed in this sense, use of therule is not optional.

One commenter suggested that theprovisions of the rule be placed in thefacility operating license indicating thatTechnical Specifications are notintended to prevent a licensee from,undertaking, during the course ofemergency conditions, any actionnecessary to protect public health andsafety. No changes to the rule have beenmade in response to this comment. First,as stated above, the rule applies notonly to technical specifications, but any

NR C requirement, e.g.,regulations, rules,

license conditions, or technicalspecifications. Second, it is notnecessary to place the statement intothe operating license itself, since it isbeing published as a rule in 50.54,"Conditions of licenses." By so doing,the rule applies to all operating licenses.

A commenter suggested that a policystatement to the same safe effect wouldbe better than a rule. This was notaccepted, since the Commission believesthat it would be inappropriate to issue apolicy statement in conflict with a rule.

Only two commenters were not infavor of the rule. One comment statedthat the rule would be abused. TheCommission disagrees with thiscomment, n'oting that several safeguardshave been built into the rule to'preventthis. First, licensees must notify the NRCby telephone when the rule is used.Second, the NR C may require writtenstatements from a licensee concerningits actions after use of the rule. Onecommenter agreed that these provisions

provided adequate safeguards againstabuse.

Two commenters suggested thatwritten notice to the Commission of useof the rule should be mandatory. It ishighly likely that a written report wouldbe required since most violations of thelicense or technical specifications dorequire a written report. To the extentthat the Commission's information

needs related to the event are not met,the Commission would requireadditional information, as provided forin the rule. A mandatory written reportis therefore not deemed essential.

One commenter stated that thereporting requirement "When timepermits, the notification (of the use ofthe rule) shall be made before theprotective action is taken *.. *" wasinconsistent with the use of the term"immediately needed" language Of therule, and implied that a prior reportshould not be required at all. Inresponse, the Commission notes that allpower reactors have dedicated

telephones connected directly to theNR C Operations Center at all times,and, under most circumstances underwhich the rule might need to be used,the licensee would be in contact withthe NR C Operations Center anyway.Therefore, most emergency situationswould allow time to make a priornotification to the NRC, considering theease and speed that it could be done.Second, while the term. "immediately"as used in the rule is not defined, itcould involve a period of hours as theemergency develops, and certainly aperiod of time that is too short to permitNR C approval of a change to the licensebefore the action must be taken (asstated earlier). Therefore, there is notnecessarily an inconsistency betweenthe prior report and the timing of theneed for action. If , however, there is notime for a prior report, it is not required.

One commenter stated that the ruleconstituted an admission that NRC rulesand licenses are not adequate: anotherstated that the rule shows that NR Crules have become unwieldy. TheCommission does not agree with thesecomments, and believes the issuanci ofthe rule will result in. increasedprotection to the public health andsafety. Any attempt to define NR Crequirements to cover al l conceivablecircumstances, as discussed earlier, isbound to fail, and would result inunwieldly regulations.

One comment noted an apparentinconsistency between the rule (whichadmits that unanticipated circumstancescan occur during the course ofemergencies that may call fo r responsesdifferent from any considered during the

course of licensing) and theadmissibility of intervenor contentionsthat are denied litigation at a hearing onthe basis that such senarios areincredible or so unlikely as to be barredfrom litigation.

Th e Commission, in issuing this rule,takes no position whatever as to themerit of any contention involvingemergency circumstances that could bepostulated at a nuclear facility. Rather,the rule assumes that specialcircumstances have occurred whichmakes use of the rule necessary toprotect the public health and safety.

A commenter suggested that use ofthe rule be tied to the "generalemergency" emergency classification,i.e., that the rule should apply only when'a general emergency has been declaredby the licensee. This comment was notaccepted. Emergencies can developrapidly. Us e of the rule should not beencumbered by administrativeprerequisites.

A commenter proposed that a largefee-up to on e million dollars--becharged for use of the rule. The thrust ofthe comment was to ensure thatviolation of NR C requirements becarefully considered. Another suggestedholding hearings after the emergency todetermine justifications for use of therule and to see if other actions couldhave been taken. As stated earlier, theCommission believes that the rulecontains adequate safeguards. Thereforethese comments were not adopted.

Finally, a commenter suggested thatan evaluation be made of each instancein which a devi'ation was made toprevent possible future need for similardeviations. The Commission will revieweach use of the rule both to confirm thatthe intent of the rule was satisfied andalso to analyze the circumstancesleading to the emergency to see whatpermanent corrective action may beappropriate.

Regulatory Analysis

Th e Commission has prepared aregulatory analysis for this regulation.The analysis examines the costs andbenefits of the rule as considered by theCommission. A copy of the regulatory

analysis is available for inspection andcopying fora fee at the NR C PublicDocument Room. M717H Street, NW,Washington. D.C. Single copies of theanalysis may be obtained from CharlesK. Trammell lI, Office of NuclearReactor Regulation, U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington.D.C., 20555, Telephone (301) 492-7389.



7/7

.13970 - Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 64 / Friday,: April 1, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The information collectionrequirements contained in thisregulation have been approved by theOffice of Management and Budget; OM Bapproval No . 3150-0011.

Regulatory Flexibility CertificationIn accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),the Commission hereby certifies thatthese regulations will not, Ifpromulgated, have a significanteconomic impact on a Substantialnumber of small entities. Theseregulations affect licensees that ownand operate nuclear utilization facilitieslicensed under sections 103 and 104 ofthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, asamended. The amendment serves toclarify the applicability of licenseconditions and technical specificationsin an emergency. The clarificationwould be incorporated as a condition ofthe respective operating licensesi and

would require no action oni the part oflicensees, Accordingly, there is no new,significant economic impact on theselicensees; nor do these licensees fallwithin the definition of small businessesset forth in section 3 of the SmallBusiness Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, or withinthe Small Business Size Standards setforth in 19 CFR Part 121.

List of Subjects in 10 CF R Part 50Antitrust, Classified information, Fire

prevention, Intergovernmental relations,Nuclear power plants and reactors,Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactorsiting criteria, and Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974, as amended,and section 553 of Title 5 of the UnitedStates Code, the following amendmentsto Title 10, Chapter I, Code of FederalRegulhtions, Part 50 are published as adocument subject to codification.

PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OFPRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONFACILITIES

1. Th e authority citation fo r Part 50continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 103,104, 161, 182, 183,186.189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954. 955, 956, asamended, sec. 234,83 Stat. 1244, as amended(42 U.S.C. 2133,21.34. 2201. 2.22,3, 2236,2239, 2282); sacs. 201, 202205, 88 Stat. 1242.1244,1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842,5840), unless otherwise noted.

Section 50.7 also Issued under Pub. L 95-001, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).Section 50.78 also issued undersec. 122, 68Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81also Issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954,'asamended (42 U.S.C. 2234).Sections 50.100-

50A02 issued under sec. 18 , 68 Stat. 955 (42U.S.C. 2236).

For the purposes of sec. 223;68 Stat. 958, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2273), 50.10 (a), (b),and (c), 50.44, 50.48, 60.48,50.54, and 50.80(a)are issued undersec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, asamended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)) J 50.10 (b) and(c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611,68Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and

J 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70,50.71,50.72,and50.78 are Issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat 9Kas amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2. New paragraphs (x) and (y) areadded to 50.54 to read as follows:

50.54 Conditions of licenses.a a * *

(x) A licensee may take reasonableaction that departs from a licensecondition or a technical specification(contained in a license issued under thispart) in an emergency when this actionis immediately needed to protect thepublic health and safety and no actionconsistent with license conditions andtechnical specifications that can provideadequate or equivalent protection isimmediately apparent.

(y) Licensee action permitted byparagraph (x) of this section shall beapproved, as a minimum, by a licensedsenior operator prior to taking theaction.

3. A new paragraph (c) is added to 50.72 to read as follows:

50.72 Notification of significantevents.a a a*

(c) Each licensee licensed under 50.21 or 50.22 shall notify the NR COperations Center by telephone ofemergency circumstances requiring it totake any protective action that departsfrom a license condition or a technicalspecification, as permitted by 50.54(x)of this part. When time permits, thenotification must be made before theprotective action is taken; otherwise, thenotification must be made as soon aspossible thereafter. Th e CommissionWmay require written statements from alicensee concerning its actions takenunder the provisions of 50.54(x) of this

partDated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10 day of

March, 1983.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

wnlam 1.Dircks,ExecutiveDirector or Operations.

pF Dom 8$44M5Pileds-.1-ft w45m)0M COOE?50-Oi-M

FEDERAL TRADECOMMISSION

16 CF R Part 13

[Docket C-.31071

Meredith Corp4 Prohibited TradePractices, and Affirmative CorrectiveActions

AGENCY:.Federal Trade Commission.ACTION:Consent Order.

SUMMARY:In settlement of allegedviolations of federal law prohibitingunfair acts and practices and unfairmethods of competition, this consentagreement requires a De s Moines, Iowafranchisor and operator of the BetterHomes and Gardens Real Estate Service(Service), among other things, to ceasemaking false or misleadingrepresentations regarding the Service,its. members, or services offered. Theorder prohibits the dissemination ofadvertisements and promotionalmaterials which represent that allService members offer consumers"setfling-in" services; participate in ahome-building program; and offer"exclusive" home-protection insurance,unless the advertisement clearlydiscloses that not al l members offerthese servit:es. The corporation is alsobarred from making unsubstantiatedrepresentations concerning the Service'sselectlivity in choosing members;training of sales associates of Servicemembers: market size, rank andleadership in terms of sales volume ofService members; or any statementwhich compares Service members toother real estate franchisors as tocalibre of members or membershipstandards. Further, the order requiresthe corporation to send al l members ofthe Better Homes and Gardens RealEstate Service a letter recalling certainadvertising and promotional materials,and an acknowledgment form.DATE:Complaint and order issuedMarch 15,1983.1FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.FTC/PA, Andrew B. Sacks, Washington,D.C. 20580. (202) 724-1490.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATON:. OnMonday, Dec. 27, 1982, there waspublished in the Federal Register, 47 FR57499, a proposed consent agreementwith analysis In the Matter of MeredithCorporation, a corporation, fo r thepurpose of soliciting public comment.Interested parties were given sixty (60)days in which to submit comments,suggestions or objections regarding theproposed form of order.

ICopies of the Complaint and the Decision and',Order filed with the original document.

I
