[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60513-60528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25563]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 60513]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
RIN 3150-AI30
[NRC-2009-0044]
Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to clarify and streamline its process for addressing
petitions for rulemaking (PRMs). These amendments are intended to
improve transparency and to make the PRM process more efficient and
effective.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0044 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0044. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. For
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials
referenced in this document are provided in the ``Availability of
Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration
(ADM), telephone: 301-415-3280, email: [email protected]; or Anthony
de Jes[uacute]s, Senior Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone:
301-415-1106, email: [email protected]; or Jennifer Borges,
Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone: 301-415-3647, email:
[email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Discussion
III. Public Comment Analysis
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Summary of the NRC's Petition for Rulemaking Process
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Plain Writing
X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Availability of Documents
I. Background
The NRC's requirements, policies, and practices governing the PRM
process have remained substantially unchanged since their initial
issuance in 1979 (44 FR 61322; October 25, 1979). During the past 20
years, the NRC has received an average of nine PRMs per year and plans
its budget and assigns resources based on this average. In recent
years, however, the NRC has experienced a substantial increase in the
number of PRMs submitted for consideration and docketed 25 PRMS in
fiscal year (FY) 2011 alone. This increase in PRMs has presented a
significant resource challenge to the NRC.
In a memorandum to the other Commissioners entitled, ``Streamlining
the NRR [Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation] Rulemaking Process''
(COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006), dated April 7, 2006 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML060970295), then-Chairman Nils J. Diaz and then-Commissioner
Edward McGaffigan, Jr., proposed that, because of the general increase
in rulemaking activities, the NRC staff should streamline its
rulemaking process by removing unnecessary constraints, while
simultaneously enhancing the transparency of and public participation
in the process. The memorandum also invited the development of
additional mechanisms for ``streamlining and increasing the
transparency of the rulemaking process, thus allocating the appropriate
level of resources for the most important rulemaking actions and
ensuring that the staff's hands are not tied by perceived or real
procedural prerequisites that are necessary for a given rulemaking.''
In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated May 31, 2006 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML061510316), responding to COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-
0006, the Commission directed the NRC staff to undertake numerous
measures to streamline the rulemaking process, including an evaluation
of the overall effectiveness of the interoffice Rulemaking Process
Improvement Implementation Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML031360205), and
to ``further seek to identify any other potential options that could
streamline the rulemaking process.'' The Commission also instructed the
NRC staff to identify other potential options that could streamline the
rulemaking process for all program offices.
In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff provided
its recommendations to the Commission in SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of
the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement
Implementation Plan,'' dated August 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071780644). The NRC staff included in SECY-07-0134 a recommendation
to review the NRC's PRM process with the objective to reduce the time
needed to complete an action. The NRC staff also recommended in SECY-
07-0134 that
[[Page 60514]]
the NRC review the procedures used by other Federal agencies to process
PRMs in order to identify best practices that could make the NRC's PRM
process more timely and responsive, while also ensuring that PRMs are
handled in a manner that is open, transparent, and compliant with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.), Section 551 et seq. In an SRM responding to SECY-07-0134,
dated October 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072980427), the
Commission indicated support for the NRC staff's recommended review of
the PRM process: ``The Petition for Rulemaking process needs some
increased attention and improvement. The staff's overall effort to
improve the [PRM] process should focus on provisions that would make
the NRC's process more efficient while improving the process'
transparency and consistency.''
Concurrently, in an SRM responding to COMGBJ-07-0002, ``Closing Out
Task Re: Rulemaking on [part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR)] Tables S-3 and S-4,'' dated August 6, 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML072180094), the Commission directed the NRC staff to
``consider developing a process for dispositioning a petition in a more
effective and efficient manner so that existing petitions that are
deemed old can be closed out in a more timely manner and prevent future
petitions from remaining open for periods longer than necessary.''
In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff examined
the regulations, policies, procedures, and practices that govern the
NRC's PRM process, as well as the practices and processes used by
several other Federal agencies to resolve PRMs.
Consequently, the NRC published a proposed rule to amend the PRM
process in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 25886). The
public comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 17, 2013.
This final rule has been informed by public comments and reflects the
NRC's goal to make its PRM process more efficient and effective, while
enhancing transparency and public understanding of the PRM process.
II. Discussion
A. The NRC's Framework for Dispositioning a PRM
The administrative procedures that a Federal agency must follow
with respect to PRMs are codified in the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. Paragraph
553(e) provides that ``[e]ach agency shall give an interested person
the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a
rule.'' In addition, 5 U.S.C. 555(e) provides that ``[p]rompt notice
shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written
application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in
connection with any agency proceeding'' and that ``[e]xcept in
affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the
notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for
denial.'' However, the APA does not provide further detail on how
agencies should disposition a PRM or what constitutes ``prompt''
notice. A brief survey of other Federal agencies' practices showed that
the NRC has a robust and active PRM program; most agencies do not
include requirements in the CFR for processing PRMs.
The NRC's requirements governing the rulemaking process are set
forth in 10 CFR part 2, ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure,''
subpart H, ``Rulemaking.'' In particular, 10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for
rulemaking,'' and 10 CFR 2.803, ``Determination of petition,''
establish the NRC's framework for disposition of a PRM concerning the
NRC's regulations. The NRC's requirements for PRMs have remained
substantially unchanged since their initial issuance in 1979, and the
NRC's processes and procedures for PRMs historically have been
established by and implemented through internal NRC policies and
practices. To improve the PRM process, the NRC has reviewed both its
regulatory framework associated with the PRM process and its internal
policies, procedures, and practices.
B. Changes to the PRM Process
This final rule clarifies and refines the NRC's long-standing
practices for processing PRMs. The NRC believes that these amendments
improve our current policies and practices for evaluating PRMs and
communicating information on the status of PRMs and rulemaking
activities to the petitioners and the public. By establishing a clearly
defined administrative process to reflect agency action on a PRM, the
NRC has enhanced the consistency, timeliness, and transparency of our
actions and increased the efficient use of NRC resources.
NRC Consultation Assistance to Petitioners
A significant change in this final rule expands the consultation
assistance that the NRC staff may provide to the petitioner. Currently,
consultation on a PRM is limited to the pre-filing stage; the NRC has
revised its requirements to allow petitioners to consult directly with
the NRC staff before and after filing a PRM with the NRC and to clarify
what consultation assistance the NRC is permitted to provide. This
change provides an opportunity for additional interaction with the
petitioner after filing and will increase communication on issues of
concern to the petitioner and improve the transparency of the petition
process.
Content of a Petition
This final rule also clarifies and expands the description of the
kind of information that must be included in a petition. At times, a
submitter may fail to include in the petition adequate information for
the NRC to process the request, which creates the potential for
processing delays and the need for the NRC to request additional
information. In particular, this final rule adds a cross-reference to
existing NRC requirements for the inclusion of an environmental report
with those PRMs under 10 CFR 51.68, ``Environmental report--
rulemaking,'' that seek exemption from licensing and regulatory
requirements for authorizing general licenses for any equipment,
device, commodity or other product containing byproduct material,
source material or special nuclear material. This change increases the
likelihood that the NRC will have complete information at the time a
petition is filed, which will assist the NRC in processing the petition
in a timely manner.
Changes in Deadlines
This final rule removes the implied and actual deadlines for
docketing, for both the NRC and for the public. The NRC's internal goal
to docket a new petition has not changed; the NRC will continue its
current practice to docket a new petition within 30 days of receipt.
However, based on the increased number and complexity of PRMs the NRC
has been receiving, this final rule will not include this target so as
to avoid setting unrealistic expectations in instances where NRC staff
requires more than 30 days to deliberate and decide the appropriate
course of action. The NRC staff may require more time to make initial
decisions when a PRM includes complex issues or there are competing
priorities.
This final rule also removes the deadline for a petitioner to
resubmit a PRM returned by the NRC because it did not meet the NRC's
docketing requirements. Formerly, the NRC would advise the petitioner
when a PRM did not meet the docketing requirements and hold the PRM for
90 days to allow the petitioner to submit a revised petition, before
formally rejecting the
[[Page 60515]]
PRM. Under the docketing process in this final rule, the NRC will
simply return the PRM to the petitioner with an explanation why the
petition was not docketed, with no time period specified by which the
PRM must be resubmitted. A resubmitted PRM will be considered by the
NRC ``without prejudice;'' that is, the NRC will not consider the
petition as having been previously denied on the merits solely because
the initial submission was returned due to procedural deficiencies.
This change clarifies that there is no deadline for resubmission of a
PRM.
Suspension Requests
The NRC's proposed rule would have established two separate paths
for obtaining suspension of an adjudication involving licensing
proceedings (``adjudicatory licensing proceeding''), in order to
provide clarity to the way in which a petitioner could request
suspension. The NRC received several comments that, for a variety of
reasons discussed later in this final rule, did not support the
proposed revisions. After considering the comments on the proposed
rule, the NRC has determined that there are a number of additional
factors for the NRC to consider with respect to requests for suspension
of adjudicatory proceedings based on PRMs. The NRC intends to gather
additional stakeholder input on those factors before developing a final
NRC provision on suspension requests; therefore, to facilitate timely
adoption of the clarifications and process improvements presented in
the proposed PRM rule, the NRC has decided to retain, in unchanged
form, the suspension language formerly located in Sec. 2.802(d); to
re-designate it as Sec. 2.802(e) in this final rule; and to evaluate
these types of suspensions in a subsequent rulemaking. However, in
response to public comments, the NRC's new title for this paragraph
(the former paragraph (d) did not contain a title) indicates that the
suspension is with respect to an ``adjudication involving licensing.''
Neither the addition of the title to this paragraph nor its re-
designation from paragraph (d) to (e) of Sec. 2.802 is intended to
suggest any change in the applicable NRC law governing suspensions or
the application of this provision to individual suspension requests in
PRMs.
Minor Re-Structuring From Proposed Rule
This final rule has been restructured slightly from the proposed
rule; for clarity, all PRM provisions that address the requirements
applicable to the petitioner are in one section (Sec. 2.802), and the
NRC's actions on a PRM are in a separate section (Sec. 2.803). An
overview of the revised docketing process follows, and a detailed
discussion of all changes, including the reorganization of Sec. Sec.
2.802 and 2.803 and conforming changes, is provided in Section IV,
``Section-by-Section Analysis,'' of this final rule.
This final rule codifies the NRC's historical PRM docketing review
policy and practice of notifying the petitioner that the NRC has
received the PRM, evaluating the PRM information according to specified
docketing criteria, and posting the petition online. At its discretion,
the NRC may request public comment on a docketed petition through a
notice published in the Federal Register.
NRC's Docketing Review of a PRM
The NRC describes the process and criteria it uses to determine if
a PRM may be docketed in Sec. 2.803. In the proposed rule, the NRC
referred to this step as ``acceptance.'' In this final rule, the NRC
uses the term ``docketing,'' and no longer uses the term
``acceptance.'' The NRC is making this change to prevent any potential
misunderstanding that ``acceptance'' means that the NRC has agreed with
the substance of the PRM and has decided that a rule should be
developed and adopted as suggested by the petitioner in the PRM. After
the close of the public comment period on this proposed rule, the NRC
noted an example of possible misunderstanding in connection with public
media reports on the NRC's notice of docketing for PRM-51-31,
``Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor
Operation'' (79 FR 24595; May 1, 2014). The NRC recognizes that it uses
the terms, ``acceptance review'' and ``acceptance'' to refer to the
NRC's process for evaluating a license application to determine if it
meets the NRC's minimum standards for docketing. The NRC's recent
experience suggests that the general public may be misled by the use of
the term, ``acceptance,'' in the context of PRMs. Accordingly, the NRC
is not using this term in paragraphs (b) or (c) of Sec. 2.803 in this
final rule.
Section 2.803 of this final rule describes, without change from the
proposed rule, the NRC's docketing review process for a PRM, including
what actions the NRC will take if the NRC determines that the PRM does
not meet the NRC's requirements for docketing. This section also
contains the criteria that the NRC uses to determine whether a PRM may
be docketed. These three criteria are: (1) The PRM includes the
information required by Sec. 2.802(c), (2) the regulatory changes
requested in the PRM are within the legal authority of the NRC, and (3)
the PRM raises a potentially valid issue that warrants further detailed
consideration by the NRC. These criteria are intended to ensure that
the NRC does not unnecessarily expend rulemaking resources on
unsupported petitions, petitions that the NRC has no legal authority to
address through rulemaking, or on matters that are already addressed in
the NRC's regulations. Including these criteria in the final rule,
which reflect the NRC's existing practice but were not expressly set
forth in the former language of 10 CFR part 2, subpart H, is intended
to increase public understanding of the factors that the NRC uses in
deciding whether to docket a PRM.
Administrative Closure of the PRM Docket
The NRC's process for dispositioning a PRM historically had been a
matter of internal policy. With this final rule, the NRC is including a
description of the dispositioning process in its regulations in order
to enhance the transparency of its PRM process. The considerations for
resolving a PRM are based on the NRC's experience in processing PRMs,
insights from the NRC's initiative to streamline its PRM process, and
information from the NRC's review of other Federal agencies' PRM
regulations and practices. The amendments to the PRM process will allow
the NRC to examine the merits of a PRM, the immediacy of the concern,
the availability of NRC resources, whether the NRC is already
considering the issue in other NRC processes, the relative priority of
the issue raised in the PRM, any public comment received (if comment is
requested), and the NRC's past decisions and current policy on the
issue raised in the PRM. A summary of the NRC's considerations for
dispositioning PRMs follows.
Section 2.803 of this final rule outlines the process for
administrative closure of a PRM docket, once the NRC has determined its
course of action for the PRM. The requirements provide two outcomes,
derived from the NRC's recent review of the PRM process, for closing a
PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action: (1) Denial
of the PRM in its entirety, indicating a determination not to pursue a
rulemaking action to address the issues raised in the PRM (this will
also constitute final ``resolution'' of the PRM), or (2) initiation of
a rulemaking action addressing some or all the requested rule changes
in the PRM.
[[Page 60516]]
Initiation of a rulemaking action may take one of two forms: (1)
Initiation of a new, ``standalone'' rulemaking focused on some or all
of the matters raised in the PRM, or (2) integration of some or all of
the matters raised in the PRM into an existing or planned rulemaking
(including the early stages of an NRC effort to decide whether to
pursue rulemaking, (e.g., when the NRC is considering whether to
develop a regulatory basis or to issue an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking)). The NRC will publish a Federal Register notice to inform
the public of its determined course of action, which will enhance the
transparency of the NRC's PRM process and better communicate the NRC's
planned approach to addressing the PRM. Implementing this process will
enhance the NRC's ability to close PRMs effectively and efficiently.
With either course of action, the PRM docket will be closed,
although the PRM itself would not be completely and finally
``resolved'' until the NRC acts on the last remaining portion of the
PRM's request. Final NRC action on the PRM (``resolution'') will be a
final rule addressing all of the petitioner's requested changes, a
final rule addressing some (but not all) of the petitioner's requested
changes, or a notice published in the Federal Register of the NRC's
decision not to address any of the petitioner's requested changes in a
rulemaking action.
Notification of Petitioners of Closure of a PRM Docket by the NRC
Paragraph (h)(2) of Sec. 2.803 of this final rule explains how the
NRC will notify the petitioner on the determination of the petition.
The NRC sends the petitioner written notification and publishes a
notice in the Federal Register, describing the NRC's determination to
consider all or some of the issues in a rulemaking or to deny the
petition. If the NRC closes a PRM docket under Sec. 2.803(h)(2)(ii)
but subsequently decides not to carry out the planned rulemaking to
publication of a final rule, the NRC will notify the petitioner in
writing of this decision and publish a notice in the Federal Register
explaining the basis for its decision. These communications explain the
basis for the NRC's decision not to carry out the planned rulemaking to
publication and/or not to include the issues raised in the PRM in a
rulemaking action.
``Resolution'' of a Petition for Rulemaking
Paragraph (i) of Sec. 2.803 of this final rule addresses how a PRM
ultimately is resolved and distinguishes final resolution of a PRM from
administrative closure of a PRM docket, as described in Sec.
2.803(h)(2). Resolution of one or more elements of a PRM occurs when
the NRC publishes a Federal Register notice informing the public that
any planned regulatory action related to one or more elements of the
PRM has been concluded (i.e., the NRC may resolve an entire PRM, or
parts of a PRM at different times). For rulemaking actions, resolution
requires publication in the Federal Register of the final rule related
to the PRM, which will include a discussion of how the published final
rule addresses the issues raised in the PRM.
Also, Sec. 2.803(i) notes that the NRC's denial of the PRM at any
stage of the regulatory process or the petitioner's withdrawal of the
PRM before the NRC has entered the rulemaking process will conclude all
planned regulatory action related to the PRM. As applicable, the
Federal Register notice resolving the PRM will include a discussion of
the NRC's grounds for denial or information on the withdrawal that the
petitioner submitted. This type of resolution represents final agency
action on those elements of the PRM that are addressed in the Federal
Register notice.
Other Administrative Changes and Updates
Finally, several amendments in this final rule reflect routine
administrative updates to information such as instructions for
submitting petitions and communicating with the NRC. In recent years,
the NRC, like many Federal agencies, has been moving away from formal,
printed publications and making greater use of its Web site and other
online resources such as the Federal rulemaking Web site
(www.regulations.gov) to provide the public with more timely
information on agency actions. The NRC no longer publishes a semiannual
summary of PRMs, so the final rule explains in detail the various
methods the public may use to access online status updates and other
information on NRC rulemakings and PRMs. In addition to making these
procedural updates, the NRC is providing additional information on its
Web site to assist members of the public interested in the NRC's PRM
process.
III. Public Comment Analysis
A. Overview of Public Comments
The NRC received seven comment letters on the proposed rule from a
member of the public, a public advocacy group, non-governmental
organizations, and the nuclear industry.
The majority of the comments received were in favor of the goals of
the proposed amendments to the PRM process. However, three nuclear
industry commenters (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), AREVA NP Inc.
(AREVA), and STARS Alliance LLC. (STARS)) opposed the proposed
amendments to new paragraphs (b) and (e) of Sec. 2.802 and new
paragraphs (h) and (i) of Sec. 2.803. One comment from the Executive
Board of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) recommended
enhancements to the availability of information regarding PRM
activities. Two comments from a member of the public and the public
advocacy group Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) were out-of-scope, as
they did not address the merits of the proposed rule.
Information about obtaining the comments received on the proposed
rule is available in Section XIV, ``Availability of Documents,'' of
this final rule.
B. Public Comments and Overall NRC Responses
Comments are organized by topics included in the proposed rule,
followed by the NRC's response.
Licensing Proceedings in the Petition for Rulemaking Process
1. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed Sec.
2.802(e)(2) but should return to the language in current Sec. 2.802(d)
because the proposed changes would effectively allow PRM petitioners to
``participate in licensing proceedings'' without meeting standing and
contention admissibility standards applicable to those proceedings.
NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC did not intend to allow persons requesting a
suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding (``adjudicatory
licensing proceeding'' in the proposed rule) to avoid having to meet
applicable requirements for participating in the proceeding, such as
the standing and contention admissibility standards for persons who
wish to be a party (a person could also participate as an interested
State, local government body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe).
However, after further consideration of the comments, the NRC
believes there are additional factors that the NRC must consider with
respect to requests for suspension of adjudicatory proceedings based on
PRMs. Stakeholder input on those factors would be desirable before
developing a final NRC provision on these types of suspension requests.
Therefore, to facilitate the NRC's timely adoption of the
clarifications and
[[Page 60517]]
process improvements presented in the proposed PRM rule, the NRC has
decided to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly
located in Sec. 2.802(d) and now re-designated as paragraph (e) of
Sec. 2.802 in this final rule. The NRC will evaluate these suspensions
in a subsequent rulemaking. However, in response to the issues raised
in the comment summary, the heading for Sec. 2.802(e) states that the
suspension is with respect to an ``adjudication involving licensing.''
Neither the addition of the heading to this paragraph nor its re-
designation from paragraph (d) to (e) of Sec. 2.802 is intended to
suggest any change in the applicable NRC law governing suspensions or
the application of this provision to individual suspension requests in
PRMs.
2. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed Sec.
2.802(e) but should return to the language in current Sec. 2.802(d).
The proposed rule appears to address extraordinary circumstances that
occurred following the Fukushima accident, when petitions were filed
with the NRC to initiate rulemaking to address safety issues associated
with the accident or to suspend certain licensing proceedings because
of issues related to the Fukushima accident.
The NRC has not explained why these petitions were problematic or
why a rulemaking solution is needed, which itself has created separate
problems. The Commission has inherent authority to take action in
individual proceedings as necessary; in support of this comment,
commenters cited the NRC's Policy Statement on the Conduct of
Adjudications, 48 NRC 18 (1998). NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The origins of the proposed changes
in Sec. 2.802(d) were the NRC's procedural and administrative lessons-
learned from dealing with the rulemaking and suspension petitions filed
with the NRC after the Fukushima accident. The Commission agrees that
it has inherent authority to take action in individual proceedings as
it deems necessary, at any time, in response to a suspension request in
whatever form.
However, upon consideration, the NRC believes a number of
additional factors should be considered by the NRC before making
changes to the suspension provision in former Sec. 2.802(d).
Stakeholder input on those factors is desirable in developing any final
NRC provision on suspension requests. Accordingly, the NRC has decided
to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly located
in paragraph (d) and now re-designated as paragraph (e) of Sec. 2.802
in this final rule. The re-designation of the suspension provision from
paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) of Sec. 2.802 is an administrative
change intended to minimize the need for re-designations of paragraphs
in future revisions to Sec. 2.802. The NRC is not making changes to
the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request for
suspension as a result of this re-designation.
Determination and Resolution of Petition for Rulemakings
1. Comment: The proposed revisions to Sec. 2.803(h) and (i),
creating a two-part process for closing a PRM, will confuse, rather
than clarify, the agency's procedure for resolving PRMs. Final
disposition of the PRM should occur either when the NRC denies the PRM,
or when the NRC grants the PRM by initiating a rulemaking. There is no
reason to withhold ``final action'' on a PRM, which has already
effectively been granted, until resolution of the resultant rulemaking
proceeding. The NRC's determination of whether to deny a PRM or
initiate a rulemaking should result in the PRM's closure. At that
point, a decision has been made on whether the issues raised in the PRM
are worthy of further review or not. That decision is sufficient to
close the PRM, even if the PRM's substantive request is still subject
to deliberation through the rulemaking process. NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that
the NRC's determination whether to deny a PRM or initiate rulemaking
should result in the PRM's closure. The NRC also agrees with the
commenters' assertion that the NRC's decision to deny (in full or part)
a PRM constitutes ``final agency action.''
However, an NRC decision closing a PRM docket on the basis of the
NRC's intent to consider the PRM issues in a new or ongoing rulemaking
is not the ultimate ``resolution'' of the PRM. An NRC decision closing
a PRM docket and instituting rulemaking as proposed by the PRM would
not constitute ``final agency action,'' inasmuch as the determination
to consider the PRM issues in a rulemaking does not represent an NRC
determination to propose or adopt a final regulation requested in the
PRM (or alternatively, not to adopt a regulation as requested in the
PRM). The proposed rule's new terminology was intended to distinguish
between the NRC's procedures with respect to the closure of the PRM
docket (``final disposition of the PRM'') versus the NRC's procedures
for ultimate resolution of the rulemaking requests contained in the
PRM.
The NRC recognizes that the statement of considerations for the
proposed rule may not have been sufficiently clear in explaining the
NRC's intent that the proposed revisions to Sec. 2.802 are intended to
(1) clearly indicate that the NRC may ``dispose'' of multiple requests
for rulemaking in a PRM or portions of a request for rulemaking in a
PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions, (2) reflect that there is no
overall agency ``resolution'' of a PRM until there is final agency
action on all of the rulemaking requests in the petition, and (3) use
terms that clearly distinguish between the PRM docket (which is an NRC
administrative process) and agency final action on the substantive
rulemaking requests in the PRM.
This statement of considerations includes a more detailed
explanation of these concepts in Section V, ``Summary of the NRC's
Revised Petition for Rulemaking Process,'' which describes the PRM
process and the rule terminology that applies to each stage and action
of the PRM process. In addition, the NRC staff has developed a diagram
entitled, ``The Petition for Rulemaking Process'' (Figure 1) (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14259A474), which is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/petition-rule.html. This diagram is also reproduced in Section V. of this
statement of considerations.
2. Comment: The commenters support the proposed rule language,
which indicates that, if a PRM is ``granted,'' then the NRC will track
the PRM through the rulemaking process. The commenters stated that the
Federal Register notice for any resulting final rule should make clear
its origin in (or relationship to) the previously ``granted'' PRM. The
commenters also agreed that, if the NRC initiates a rulemaking in
response to a PRM but terminates the rulemaking before publication of a
final rule (either because of withdrawal by the petitioner or
subsequent decision by the agency), then the NRC should publish a
Federal Register notice providing a well-reasoned basis for its
decision that is supported by the administrative record (e.g., a
regulatory/technical basis or a proposed rule and response to public
comments). NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that if
a PRM is ``granted,'' then the NRC should track a PRM through the
rulemaking process, as suggested by the proposed rule. No
[[Page 60518]]
change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.
3. Comment: The Federal Register notice, which ensures that a PRM
is administratively tracked throughout the rulemaking process, supports
``closing'' of a PRM upon the NRC's initial determination that the PRM
should be denied or granted via initiation of a rulemaking. NEI, AREVA,
STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees. The provisions in the proposed
rule for ``tracking'' a PRM throughout the rulemaking process supported
the ``closing'' of the PRM docket upon the NRC's initial determination
that a PRM should be denied (in part), or granted. As discussed in
response to an earlier comment, the final rule distinguishes between
the closing of a PRM docket versus final agency action on all or a part
of the substantive rulemaking requests in the PRM. Furthermore, this
final rule clarifies that the NRC may ``dispose of'' and/or finally
determine multiple requests for rulemakings in a PRM or portions of a
request for rulemaking in a PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions.
If there will be multiple NRC actions for a single PRM, the NRC must
keep the PRM docket ``open'' until there is a final ``determination''
of the last remaining aspects of the rulemaking request in a PRM. At
that point, the PRM docket may be closed as the NRC has completed its
determination of how to ``treat'' the rulemaking requests. That
``treatment'' may be denial of that last remaining aspect (which would
also ``resolve'' the PRM) or it may be a determination that the
rulemaking request should be addressed in a rulemaking activity (either
through a newly initiated rulemaking activity or included in an
existing rulemaking). This determination, however, is not
``resolution'' of the PRM. Resolution only occurs when the agency
either adopts a final rule as requested in the PRM, or declines to
adopt a final rule as requested in the PRM.
Given the NRC's desire to have the flexibility to act on portions
of rulemaking requests in a PRM, the NRC concludes that the PRM process
must reflect procedures and terminology that clearly distinguish
between NRC actions with respect to the PRM docket and NRC actions on
the substance of the rulemaking. The commenter's proposal would, in the
NRC's view, blur this distinction and would not facilitate clear
understanding by all stakeholders on the NRC's PRM process. However, as
discussed in response to Comment 1 of this section, the NRC has in this
statement of considerations clarified the NRC's actions when making a
determination on and resolving a PRM.
4. Comment: The NRC should not remove the language in Sec.
2.802(f), which states that a determination of the adequacy of a PRM
will ordinarily be made within 30 days of the NRC's receipt of the PRM.
The use of the term ``ordinarily'' in the existing rule appears to
provide the NRC with the same flexibility with respect to the 30-day
target that the proposed rule states is the basis for the removal of
the 30-day language. Therefore, given that the NRC apparently intends
to continue its current practice of ordinarily issuing determinations
within 30 days and the current rule language allows the NRC flexibility
with respect to this timeframe, the rationale provided in the proposed
rule does not support removal of the 30-day timeframe. Further,
removing this timeframe from the rule increases regulatory uncertainty
and decreases transparency, which is contrary to the purpose of this
rulemaking. The rule should continue to provide petitioners with a
reasonable degree of clarity with respect to the timeframes involved in
the evaluation of PRMs. AREVA, NEI, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC confirms the commenters' supposition that the
NRC intends to continue its current practice to perform a docketing
review and notify the petitioner in writing of the docketing of the PRM
or the deficiencies found in the PRM within a 30-day period. However,
the NRC disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to continue to
include the 30-day timeframe. As the NRC stated in the proposed rule's
statement of considerations, past experience has shown that lengthy and
complex PRMs may require more than 30 days for a thorough docketing
review. Furthermore, the number of lengthy and complex PRMs being
received by the NRC each year is increasing. The NRC believes that
including the 30-day timeframe in the final rule sets unrealistic
expectations in instances where NRC staff requires more than 30 days to
deliberate and decide the appropriate course of action.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these
comments.
Petition for Rulemaking Activities
1. Comment: The NRC should publish a list of PRM activities and
make it available in an easily identified location on the agency's Web
site. The locations identified in proposed Sec. 2.803(j)(1) and (3)
are hard to find on the NRC's Web site and ``may cause confusion to the
public.'' OAS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The NRC's public Web site was
modified to include a list of PRM activities in an easily identified
location. The NRC Web site has a new Web page that lists all ``open''
petitions (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-years.html). This Web
page, which supplements the Web pages listed in new paragraphs (j)(1)
and (3) of Sec. 2.803, may be accessed from the Petition for
Rulemaking Dockets Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year.html). This list
contains the year when a particular PRM was docketed, the Docket ID,
the PRM docket number, and the title of all ``open'' petitions. The
Docket IDs listed in the new Web page are linked to regulations.gov,
which provides publicly available documents such as NRC-issued Federal
Register notices, supporting documents, public comments, and other
related documents. From this new Web page, the public can also
subscribe to GovDelivery to receive notifications each time the Web
page is updated. GovDelivery allows the NRC's Web site visitors to
subscribe, via email, to agency social media content. Subscribers can
customize their subscription list and choose settings for notification
of added or changed information.
In addition, the NRC will continue publishing on the agency's Web
site the Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year report, which includes
descriptions of agency actions on PRMs. This report may be accessed
from the Rulemaking Documents Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these
comments.
Comments in Support of Amendments
1. Comment: The commenter supports the NRC's proposed amendments to
revise the PRM process. The commenter agrees that the proposed
revisions would streamline the NRC rulemaking process, remove
unnecessary constraints, enhance transparency, and clarify and improve
communications with the petitioners who submit a PRM. Health Physics
Society.
NRC Response: No response necessary.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these
comments.
2. Comment: The commenter commends the NRC staff on its willingness
to confer informally with PRM applicants.
[[Page 60519]]
NRC Response: No response necessary.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these
comments.
Out-of-Scope Comments
1. Comment: The comment, ``The NRC completely failed us (TMIA) at
every level of the rulemaking process,'' and an attachment, dated
October 31, 2008, set forth the commenter's views as to the adequacy of
the NRC's resolution of a PRM submitted by the commenter (PRM-73-11)
and the commenter's views about the NRC's statements regarding public
outreach at a public meeting. TMIA.
NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope
because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM
process changes in the proposed rule.
2. Comment: The comment describes the commenter's interactions with
the NRC staff regarding concerns the commenter has raised related to
the TMI accident and regarding upgrades to filters and vents at nuclear
power plants. TMIA.
NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope
because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM
process changes in the proposed rule.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these
comments.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
The NRC is amending its regulations to streamline its process for
addressing PRMs. Additionally, the NRC is amending its regulations in
Sec. Sec. 2.802, 2.803, and 2.811 to make miscellaneous corrections
and conforming changes. These changes include the reorganization of
Sec. Sec. 2.802 and 2.803, the addition of paragraph headings, updates
to the PRM filing process, and editorial changes to the language for
clarity and consistency.
A. Section 2.802, Petition for Rulemaking--Requirements for Filing
Paragraph (a), Filing a Petition for Rulemaking
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 2.802, which informs petitioners how to
submit a PRM, is revised to clarify and update the PRM filing process.
Paragraph (a) specifies the regulations subject to a PRM by indicating
that the NRC's regulations are contained under chapter I of 10 CFR.
Paragraph (b), Consultation With the NRC
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 2.802, which provides the process by which a
prospective petitioner may consult with the NRC before filing a PRM,
now permits consultation with the NRC both before and after filing a
PRM.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i), which establishes that petitioners may consult
with the NRC staff about the process of filing and responding to a PRM,
now includes other stages of the PRM process during which consultation
may occur. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) limits NRC staff consultation on a PRM
to describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking, closing,
amending, withdrawing, and resolving a PRM. These limitations are
consistent with the existing limitations on NRC participation in the
filing of PRMs.
New paragraph (b)(3) is added to clearly specify that the NRC staff
will not advise a petitioner on whether a PRM should be amended or
withdrawn.
Paragraph (c), Content of Petition
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 2.802, which generally describes the content
requirements of a PRM, is restructured and revised. Paragraph (c)(1)
establishes that a petitioner must clearly and concisely articulate in
a PRM the information required under new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through
(c)(1)(viii). In paragraph (c)(1), the terms ``clearly and concisely''
are added to convey the NRC's expectation that PRMs be ``clear'' (i.e.,
do not contain ambiguous or confusing arguments, terminology, or
phraseology) and ``concise'' (i.e., do not present the perceived
problem or proposed solution with a description that is longer than
necessary).
Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) specify information that
must be provided in each PRM. The former text of paragraph (c)(1),
which required that a PRM set forth a general solution to a problem or
specify the regulation that is to be revoked or amended, is revised and
redesignated as new paragraph (c)(1)(v). The additional text under
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) describes the specific
information required to be included in a PRM. Most of the requirements
are similar to the information required in the existing rule, except
that each topic is listed separately for increased clarity.
New paragraph (c)(1)(i) requires all petitioners to specify contact
information--including a name, telephone number, mailing address, and
email address (if available)--that the NRC may use to contact the
petitioner. New paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies additional information
for petitioners who are organizations or corporations to submit: The
petitioner's organizational status, the petitioner's State of
incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and
authority of the individual signing the PRM on behalf of the
corporation or organization. By adding this paragraph, the NRC is
reducing the likelihood of misleading the public about the
organizational or corporate status and identity of a petitioner.
New paragraph (c)(1)(iii) includes information from existing
paragraph (c)(3) and requires a petitioner to present the problem or
issue that the petitioner believes the NRC should address through
rulemaking. This added paragraph clarifies that a petitioner must
specifically state the problem or issue that the requested rulemaking
would address, including any specific circumstance in which the NRC's
codified requirements are incorrect, incomplete, inadequate, or
unnecessarily burdensome. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that the
submittal of specific examples of incompleteness or unnecessary burden
to support the petitioner's assertion that a problem or issue exists
that the NRC should address through rulemaking would be of interest to
the NRC when reviewing the PRM. Providing this information in the PRM
will result in a clearer argument for the problems or issues being
presented by a petitioner and will increase the efficiency of the NRC's
review of the PRM.
New paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires the petitioner to cite, enclose,
or reference any publicly available data used to support the
petitioner's assertion of a problem or issue. This requirement was in
former paragraph (c)(3) but is now modified to add the phrase ``Cite,
enclose, or reference'' to provide options to the petitioner for
providing the supporting data. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) specifies that the
citations, enclosures, or references to technical, scientific, or other
data must be submitted to support the petitioner's assertion that a
problem or issue exists and that all submitted data must be publicly
available; consequently the word ``relevant'' and the phrase
``reasonably available to the petitioner'' in former paragraph (c)(3)
are removed.
New paragraph (c)(1)(v) includes information from former paragraph
(c)(1) and requires a petitioner to present a proposed solution to the
problems or issues identified in the PRM; this proposed solution may
include revision or removal of specific regulations under 10 CFR
chapter I. Rather than providing a ``general
[[Page 60520]]
solution'' as required by the former paragraph (c)(1), paragraph
(c)(1)(v) now requires a petitioner to present a ``proposed solution''
to clarify that the solution is only a proposal for the NRC to
consider. Paragraph (c)(1)(v) also provides an example--including
``specific regulations or regulatory language to add, amend, or delete
in 10 CFR Chapter I''--to guide petitioners in preparing a proposed
solution to the problem or issue identified in the PRM.
New paragraph (c)(1)(vi) requires a petitioner to provide an
analysis, discussion, or argument linking the problem or issue
identified in the PRM with the proposed solution. The requirement to
provide supporting information was already included in former paragraph
(c)(3). The requirement to explain through an analysis, discussion, or
argument how the proposed solution would solve the problem or issue
raised in the PRM is new.
New paragraph (c)(1)(vii) includes information from former
paragraph (c)(1) and requires the petitioner to cite, enclose, or
reference any other publicly available data or information that the
petitioner deems necessary to support the proposed solution and
otherwise prepare the PRM for the NRC's docketing review under Sec.
2.803(b). Similar to paragraph (c)(1)(iv), the phrase ``Cite, enclose,
or reference'' is added to provide options to the petitioner for
providing the supporting data.
Text from former paragraph (c)(1) is revised and incorporated into
new paragraph (c)(1)(v), as previously described. As a result, the
former paragraph (c)(1) is removed.
Text from former paragraph (c)(2) is removed because it is
generally incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through
(c)(1)(iii), making the former paragraph (c)(2) unnecessary.
Text from former paragraph (c)(3), which required a petitioner to
include various kinds of supporting information, is revised and
incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi),
and (c)(1)(vii), as previously described. As a result, the former
paragraph (c)(3) is removed.
In addition to the requirements in Sec. 2.802(c)(1)(i)-(vii), new
paragraph (c)(2) encourages the petitioner to consider the two other
review criteria listed in new paragraph (b) of Sec. 2.803 when
preparing a PRM. The NRC does not intend to require specialized
explanations that discourage potential petitioners from submitting
PRMs. Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) are intended to provide petitioners
the opportunity to include information that will assist the NRC in its
evaluation of the PRM under Sec. 2.803(b). However, the NRC will not
deny a petition solely on the basis that the petition did not provide
information addressing paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii).
New paragraph (c)(3) requires the PRM to designate a lead
petitioner if the petition is signed by multiple petitioners. The NRC's
former practice was to treat the first signature listed on a petition
as that of the lead petitioner. New paragraph (c)(3) requires that a
lead petitioner be designated in a PRM and codifies the NRC's practice
of sending communications about the petition to the lead petitioner.
New paragraph (c)(3) also alerts the public of the lead petitioner's
responsibility to disseminate communications received from the NRC to
all petitioners.
Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) adds a cross-reference to the environmental
assessment requirements that apply to PRMs at 10 CFR 51.68.
Paragraph (d), [RESERVED]
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 2.802 is reserved, and the subject matter
addressed in former paragraph (d), on requests for suspension of
adjudications involving licensing (``licensing proceedings'' in former
paragraph (d)), is addressed without substantive change in paragraph
(e).
Paragraph (e), Request for Suspension of an Adjudication Involving
Licensing
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 2.802 describes how a PRM petitioner may
request a suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding in
which the PRM petitioner is a ``participant,'' on the basis of the
matters addressed in the petitioner's PRM. The re-designation of the
suspension provision from paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) is an
administrative change intended to minimize the need for re-designations
of paragraphs in future revisions to Sec. 2.802. The NRC is not making
changes to the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request
for suspension as a result of this re-designation.
Former paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) in Sec. 2.802 are moved to
Sec. 2.803.
Paragraph (f), Amendment; Withdrawal
New paragraph (f) of Sec. 2.802, which discusses amendment or
withdrawal of a PRM by a petitioner, is added to inform petitioners
where and how to submit these filings and what information should be
included.
B. Section 2.803, Petition for Rulemaking--NRC Action
Section 2.803 describes how the NRC will process, consider, and
make a determination on a PRM.
Paragraph (a), Notification of Receipt
New paragraph (a) of Sec. 2.803 has no counterpart in the
superseded version of Sec. 2.803. New paragraph (a) of Sec. 2.803
indicates that the NRC shall notify the petitioner that the NRC has
received the PRM.
Paragraph (b), Docketing Review
New paragraph (b) of Sec. 2.803 addresses docketing review--a
matter that was formerly addressed in the superseded version of Sec.
2.802(f). Paragraph (b) differs from former Sec. 2.802(f) by stating
clearly that the NRC will deny the PRM if it does not include the
information required by Sec. 2.802(c). It also differs from former
Sec. 2.802(f) by adding two new docketing criteria. Under the new
docketing review process, the NRC will determine not only if the
rulemaking changes requested in the petition are within the legal
authority of the NRC but also that the PRM raises a potentially valid
issue that warrants further detailed consideration by the NRC (e.g.,
confirm that the NRC's regulations do not already provide what the PRM
is requesting).
Paragraph (b) does not include the restriction in former Sec.
2.802(f) limiting the docketing decision to the Executive Director for
Operations, and is silent on which NRC official may make the docketing
determination. Therefore, the Executive Director for Operations may
delegate the docketing decision to the appropriate organizational level
within the NRC staff.
Finally, paragraph (b) describes the process the NRC will use if
the NRC determines that a PRM does not meet the requirements for
docketing (i.e., an ``insufficient'' PRM). Paragraph (b) differs from
former Sec. 2.802(f) by removing a 90-day period for a petitioner to
fix and resubmit an insufficient PRM, with the deficiencies corrected.
Under paragraph (b) a deficient PRM may now be resubmitted, with
deficiencies addressed, at any time without prejudice or time
limitation.
Paragraph (c), Docketing
New paragraph (c) of Sec. 2.803 addresses docketing, which was
addressed in former Sec. 2.802(e). Paragraph (c)(1) lists three
criteria, each of which must be met in order for the NRC to docket a
PRM. That paragraph also expressly states that the NRC will assign a
docket number to a PRM that is docketed. Paragraph (c)(2) describes how
the NRC will make a docketed PRM available to the public, that is, by
posting the document in ADAMS (the NRC's official records management
[[Page 60521]]
system), on the NRC's public Web site, and on the Federal rulemaking
Web site (regulations.gov); and by publishing a notice of docketing in
the Federal Register.
Paragraph (d), NRC Communication With Petitioners
New paragraph (d) of Sec. 2.803 notifies the public that the NRC
will send all communications to the lead petitioner identified in the
petition, according to new paragraph Sec. 2.802(c)(3), and that this
communication will constitute notification to all petitioners.
Therefore, any NRC obligation to inform a petitioner is satisfied when
the NRC sends the required notification to the lead petitioner.
Paragraphs (e) Through (f), [RESERVED].
Newly designated paragraphs (e) through (f) of Sec. 2.803 are
marked ``Reserved.''
Paragraph (g), Public Comment on a Petition for Rulemaking; Hearings
New paragraph (g)(1) of Sec. 2.803 incorporates information from
former Sec. 2.802(e) text pertaining to the NRC's discretion to
request public comment on a docketed PRM. Information in the former
Sec. 2.802(e) that specified how a PRM may be published for public
comment in the Federal Register is replaced by a concise statement
specifying that the NRC, at its discretion, may solicit public comment
on a docketed PRM.
When the NRC publishes a Federal Register notice (FRN) requesting
public comment on a PRM, the NRC's current practice is to include
standard language in the FRN cautioning the public not to include
identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission. This new cautionary language is
incorporated into this final rule. Paragraph (g)(2) includes this
caveat so that affected stakeholders will be aware of this practice.
Paragraph (g)(3) denotes that no hearing will be held on a PRM
unless the Commission determines to hold a hearing as a matter of its
discretion. This rule of practice, formerly in Sec. 2.803, is moved to
paragraph 2.803(g)(3) and amended for clarity. The text ``the
Commission deems it advisable'' is replaced with ``the Commission
determines to do so, at its discretion.'' This amendment clarifies that
the NRC has discretionary authority to hold a hearing on a docketed
PRM.
Paragraph (h), Determination on a Petition for Rulemaking; Closure of
Docket on a Petition for Rulemaking
Existing regulations in Sec. 2.803 require the NRC to resolve PRMs
by either issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or denying the
petition. New paragraph (h)(1) of Sec. 2.803 codifies a nonexclusive
list of the methods and criteria that the NRC may use to determine a
course of action for a PRM. These methods and criteria include
consideration of the issues raised in the PRM about its merits, the
immediacy of an identified safety or security concern, the relative
availability of resources, the relative issue priority compared to
other NRC rulemaking activities, whether the NRC is already considering
the issues in other NRC processes, the substance of public comments
received, if requested, and the NRC's past decisions and current
policy.
Paragraph (h)(1)(i) establishes that the NRC will determine whether
a PRM will be granted based upon the merits of the PRM. For the purpose
of this final rule, the term ``merits'' includes the completeness and
technical accuracy of the documents, logic associated with the
petitioner's desired rule change, and the appropriateness or worthiness
of the desired change compared to the current regulatory structure
(e.g., existing regulation, associated regulatory guidance, and
inspection program guidance).
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) states that the NRC may determine whether a
PRM will be docketed based upon the immediacy of the safety or security
concerns raised in the PRM. By adding this paragraph, the NRC intends
to first determine whether immediate regulatory action (e.g., an order)
is needed.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) states that the NRC may determine whether a
PRM will be docketed based upon the availability of NRC resources and
the priority of the issues raised in the PRM compared with other NRC
rulemaking activities. By adding this paragraph, the NRC will establish
that if immediate action is not necessary, the NRC will consider the
availability of resources and compare the issues raised in the PRM to
other NRC rulemaking issues to determine the PRM's priority relative to
other rulemaking activities.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) states that the NRC may determine whether a
PRM will be docketed based on whether the NRC is already considering
the issues raised in the PRM in other NRC processes. The NRC has
multiple processes for considering potential issues related to its
mission: For example, the allegation process, formal and informal
hearings, and Commission deliberation to determine appropriate action
on issues not related to rulemaking. One resulting action could be to
initiate a rulemaking, but the Commission has other options available,
such as addressing the issue through an order, guidance, or an internal
management directive. The NRC will use the most efficient process to
resolve issues raised by a petitioner.
Paragraph (h)(1)(v) states that the NRC may determine a course of
action on a PRM based on the substance of any public comments received,
if public comments are requested. Although the NRC may decide not to
request public comments on a PRM, if public comment is requested, the
NRC will consider the information commenters provide when determining a
course of action for a PRM.
Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) states that the NRC may determine what action
will be taken on a PRM based on the NRC's past decisions and current
policy related to the issues raised in the PRM. This paragraph will
inform the public that the NRC could consider past Commission decisions
when determining a course of action for a PRM.
Paragraph (h)(2) establishes a process for administrative closure
of a PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action for
the PRM using the methodology and criteria in paragraph (h)(1).
Paragraph (h)(2) establishes that a PRM docket will be administratively
closed when the NRC responds to the PRM by taking a regulatory action
and publishing a document in the Federal Register that describes this
action. New paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) provide two specific
categories for administrative closure of a PRM docket. Paragraph (h)(2)
states that the NRC will administratively close a PRM docket by taking
a regulatory action in response to the PRM that establishes a course of
action for the PRM. In this situation, the NRC will publish a notice in
the Federal Register describing the determined regulatory action,
including the related Docket ID, as applicable. Paragraph (h)(2)(i)
explains that the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket by
deciding not to undertake a rulemaking to address the issues that the
PRM raised, effectively denying the PRM, and notifying the petitioner
in writing why the PRM was denied. Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) explains that
the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket by initiating a
rulemaking action, such as addressing the PRM in an ongoing or planned
rulemaking or initiating a new rulemaking activity. The NRC will
[[Page 60522]]
inform the petitioner in writing of its determination and the
associated Docket ID of the rulemaking action.
Paragraph (h)(2)(i) provides that the NRC may administratively
close a PRM docket if the NRC decides not to engage in rulemaking to
address the issues in the PRM. The NRC will publish a notice in the
Federal Register informing the public that the petition has been denied
and the grounds for the denial. This notice will address the
petitioner's request and any public comments received by the NRC. The
PRM docket will be closed by this method when the NRC concludes that
rulemaking should not be conducted in response to the PRM. In certain
cases, the NRC may deny some of the issues raised in a PRM but also
decide to address the remaining issues by initiating a rulemaking
action, as described in paragraph (h)(2)(ii). In these instances, the
Federal Register notice will identify the rulemaking Docket ID for the
related rulemaking.
With regard to new rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides that
the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket if the NRC decides to
address the subject matter of the PRM in a new rulemaking. The NRC will
publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the NRC's decision
to initiate the new rulemaking and informing the public of the Docket
ID of the new rulemaking. The NRC will also add a description of the
new rulemaking in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda). The PRM
docket will be closed by this method when the NRC determines that
issues raised in the PRM merit consideration in a rulemaking and that
there is currently no other rulemaking (ongoing or planned) into which
the petitioner's requested rulemaking could be incorporated.
With regard to planned rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides
that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC is
currently planning a rulemaking related to the subject of the PRM and
the NRC decides to address the PRM in that planned rulemaking. The NRC
will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the NRC's
decision to address the PRM in a planned rulemaking and informing the
public of the Docket ID of the planned rulemaking. A PRM docket will be
closed by this method when the NRC determines that issues raised in the
PRM merit consideration in a rulemaking and a planned rulemaking exists
in which the issues raised in the PRM could be addressed.
With regard to ongoing rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides
that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC has a
rulemaking in progress that is related to the issues raised in the PRM.
The NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the
public that the subject of the PRM will be addressed as part of the
ongoing rulemaking. The PRM docket will be closed by this method when
the NRC determines that issues raised in the PRM merit consideration in
a rulemaking and an ongoing rulemaking exists in which the issues in
the PRM can be addressed.
The list of potential rulemaking actions in new paragraph
(h)(2)(ii) is not intended to be exhaustive because the NRC may
initiate other rulemaking actions, at its discretion, on issues raised
in the PRM. For example, the NRC could extend the comment period for a
proposed rule that addresses the subject matter of the PRM to allow it
to be addressed in the ongoing rulemaking.
For all PRM dockets that are closed by initiating a rulemaking
action, as described in paragraph (h)(2), the NRC will include
supplementary information in the published proposed and final rule
discussing how the NRC decided to address the issues raised in the PRM.
As further discussed in new paragraph (i)(2) of Sec. 2.803, if the
NRC closes a PRM docket under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) by initiating a
rulemaking action, resolution will require the ultimate publication of
a final rule discussing how the PRM is addressed in the published final
rule. However, if later in the rulemaking process the NRC decides to
terminate the associated rulemaking, termination of that rulemaking
also constitutes denial of the PRM. The NRC will describe the agency's
grounds for denial in a Federal Register notice, which will include the
reason for the NRC's decision not to publish a final rule on the
rulemaking associated with the PRM. The Federal Register notice also
will address the issues raised in the PRM and significant public
comments, if public comments were solicited. As with denials earlier in
the PRM process, the NRC will notify the petitioner of the denial of
the PRM.
Paragraph (i), Petition for Rulemaking Resolution
Under the former text in Sec. 2.803, the NRC was required to
resolve PRMs either by addressing the PRM issues in a final rule or by
denying the petition. New paragraph (i) of Sec. 2.803, Petition for
rulemaking resolution, expands and clarifies how a PRM is resolved.
Resolution of a PRM requires the NRC to conclude all planned regulatory
action on the issues presented by the PRM and to publish a Federal
Register notice to inform the public that all planned regulatory action
on the PRM is concluded. Resolution of a PRM may occur in whole or in
part; however, complete resolution of a PRM does not occur until all
PRM issues are addressed in final by the NRC. New paragraph (i) of
Sec. 2.803 describes three methods for resolving a PRM: (1)
Publication of a final rule, (2) withdrawal of the PRM by the
petitioner before the NRC has entered into the rulemaking process, or
(3) denial of the PRM by the NRC at any stage of the process. For
resolution of a PRM through publication of a final rule, the NRC will
include a discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the
published final rule of how the regulatory action addresses the issues
raised by the petitioner. For resolution of a PRM through denial by the
NRC at any stage of the regulatory process, the NRC will publish a
Federal Register notice discussing the grounds for denial of the PRM.
For resolution of a PRM through withdrawal by the petitioner, the NRC
will publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public that
the petitioner has withdrawn the docketed PRM. Although the NRC expects
that withdrawal would occur infrequently, paragraph (i) explains the
means for the NRC to resolve the petition and inform members of the
public of the withdrawal and resolution of the PRM.
The former text in paragraph (g) of Sec. 2.802 indicated that a
semiannual summary of PRMs before the Commission will be publicly
available for inspection and copying. This statement is removed from
this final rule because the NRC no longer publishes this semiannual
summary. Instead, members of the public can find updates on the status
of PRMs by the means described in paragraph (j) of Sec. 2.803.
Paragraph (j), Status of Petitions for Rulemakings and Rulemakings
New paragraph (j) of Sec. 2.803 explains where the public can view
the status of PRMs and adds the heading, Status of petitions for
rulemakings and rulemakings, to indicate the subject of the paragraph.
Paragraph (j)(1) provides the Web site addresses for the most current
information on PRMs and on active rulemakings. Paragraph (j)(2)
indicates that the NRC will provide a summary of planned and existing
rulemakings in the Government-wide Unified Agenda. Paragraph (j)(3)
explains that information on all docketed PRMs, rulemakings, and public
comments is available online in ADAMS and in the Federal rulemaking Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 60523]]
As previously discussed, if the NRC closes a PRM docket by
initiating a rulemaking action under new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of Sec.
2.803 but later determines that a final rule should not be published,
the NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the
grounds for its denial of the PRM, including the reason for the NRC's
decision not to issue a final rule. The notice will be added into the
previously closed PRM docket, and the status of the PRM will be updated
and made available to the public as described in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(3).
C. Section 2.811, Filing of Standard Design Certification Application;
Required Copies
Paragraph (e), Pre-application consultation, of Sec. 2.811
explains the pre-application consultation process for standard design
certification applications and is revised by correcting references and
updating the email address for pre-application consultation.
Corrections to paragraph (e) consist of removing the references to
``Sec. 2.802(a)(1)(i) through (iii)'' and replacing them with ``Sec.
2.802(b)(1),'' with respect to the subject matters permitted for pre-
application consultation, correcting the term ``petitioner'' to
``applicant''; replacing the reference ``Sec. 2.802(a)(2)'' with
``Sec. 2.802(b)(2),'' regarding limitations on pre-application
consultations; and removing the unnecessary capitalization of the word
``before.'' In addition, the email address for pre-application
consultation is updated by replacing ``[email protected]'' with
``[email protected].''
V. Summary of the NRC's Revised Petition for Rulemaking Process
Any person may submit a PRM to the NRC, requesting that the NRC
adopt a new regulation, amend (revise the language of) an existing
regulation, or revoke (withdraw) an existing regulation. A ``person''
may be an individual or an entity such as an organization, company
(corporation), a governmental body (e.g., a State or a municipality),
or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe.
When a PRM is received by the NRC, the NRC acknowledges the receipt
of the petition by sending correspondence to the petitioner informing
the petitioner of the NRC's receipt. The NRC then assigns the PRM for
consideration to the NRC technical staff.
If the PRM does not include the information required by Sec.
2.802, or the information provided is insufficient for the NRC to
docket the petition, then the NRC sends a letter to the petitioner
explaining the reasons why the NRC cannot docket the petition and begin
to consider the requests in the petition. The NRC identifies what
information is not included in the petition, or why the information
provided is insufficient, and includes a reference to the corresponding
paragraph in Sec. 2.802(c) requiring the information.
The petitioner may resubmit the petition, with deficiencies
addressed, at any time without prejudice or time limitation. If the
petitioner provides the requested information and the information
provided is determined by the NRC to be complete and meet the
requirements in Sec. 2.802(c), then the NRC dockets the petition and
publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the NRC has
docketed the petition. The notice may or may not include an opportunity
for members of the public to provide comments. In general, the NRC
determines whether to provide an opportunity for public comment based
upon a balancing of several factors, including whether the NRC needs
additional information to help resolve the petition. Finally, the
notice explains how members of the public can stay informed regarding
any future NRC action that addresses the issues raised in the PRM.
The NRC's resolution of a PRM may occur, in whole or in part, by
one or more of the following actions: (1) The NRC decides to adopt a
final rule addressing the problem raised in the PRM (``granting'' the
PRM); (2) the NRC decides not to adopt a new regulation or change an
existing regulation as requested in the PRM (``denying'' the PRM); or
(3) the petitioner decides to withdraw the request before the NRC has
entered the rulemaking process. Complete resolution of the PRM does not
occur until all portions of the PRM are addressed by the NRC in one of
the three ways previously described. It is possible that the
petitioner's concerns may not be addressed exactly as requested in the
PRM. In this situation, the NRC would consider the PRM to be
``partially granted and partially denied,'' and the statement of
considerations will explain how the final rule addresses the problem
raised in the PRM, but why the NRC decided to adopt a regulatory
approach, which is different than that described in the PRM.
If the PRM is denied by the NRC, or if the petition is withdrawn by
the petitioner, the NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register
stating the grounds for the denial or informing the public that the
petitioner has withdrawn the petition.
The NRC staff has developed a diagram entitled, ``The Petition for
Rulemaking Process'' (Figure 1) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14259A474),
which provides a visual representation of the NRC's PRM process under
Sec. Sec. 2.802 and 2.803, as amended in this final rule. This diagram
is also available as a separate document on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
[[Page 60524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC15.200
[[Page 60525]]
VI. Regulatory Analysis
This rule clarifies and streamlines the NRC's process for
addressing PRMs. The amendments in this rule improve transparency and
make the PRM process more efficient and effective. These amendments do
not result in a cost to the NRC or to petitioners in this process, and
a benefit accrues to the extent that potential confusion over the
meaning of the NRC's regulations is removed.
The more substantive changes in this rule do not impose costs upon
either the NRC or petitioners but instead benefit both. The process
improvements for evaluating PRMs and activities addressing PRMs and
establishing an administrative process for closing a PRM docket to
reflect agency action on a PRM reduce burdens on petitioners, the NRC,
and participants in the process.
The option of preserving the status quo is not preferred. Failing
to correct errors and clarify ambiguities would result in continuing
confusion over the meaning of the petition for rulemaking rules, which
could lead to the unnecessary waste of resources. The NRC believes that
this rule improves the consistency, timeliness, efficiency, and
openness of the NRC's actions and increases the efficient use of the
NRC's resources in its PRM process.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the NRC certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this
final rule because these amendments are administrative in nature and do
not involve any changes that impose backfitting as defined in 10 CFR
chapter 1, or are inconsistent with any of the issue finality
provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
IX. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) 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).
X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
that is a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain information collection
requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a request for information or an information collection
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
XII. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a rule as define in the Congressional Review Act
(5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, OMB has not found it to be a major rule as
defined in the Congressional Review Act.
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-113) requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC has revised its
regulations to streamline the process the NRC uses when it receives a
PRM. This action concerns the NRC's procedures governing its
consideration and resolution of PRMs. These procedures do not
constitute a ``government unique standard'' within the meaning and
intention of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995.
XIV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through the methods indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006, ML060970295.
``Streamlining the NRR
Rulemaking Process''.
SRM-COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06- ML061510316.
0006, ``Streamlining the NRR
Rulemaking Process''.
SECY-03-0131, ``Rulemaking ML031360205.
Process Improvement
Implementation Plan''.
SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of the ML071780644.
Overall Effectiveness of the
Rulemaking Process Improvement
Implementation Plan''.
SRM-SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of ML072980427.
the Overall Effectiveness of the
Rulemaking Process Improvement
Implementation Plan''.
SRM-COMGBJ-07-0002, ``Closing out ML072180094.
Task Re: Rulemaking on Tables S-
3 and S-4''.
Proposed Rule: Revisions to the ML13107B459.
Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comments on PR-10 CFR Part 2-- ML14149A306 (package).
Revisions to the Petition for
Rulemaking Process.
Comment (01) of Scott Portzline ML13140A166.
on PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions
to the Petition for Rulemaking
Process.
Comment (02) of Marvin I. Lewis ML13178A162.
re PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions
to the Petition for Rulemaking
Process.
Comment (03) of Richard Vetter re ML13186A240.
PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions to
the Petition for Rulemaking
Process.
Comment (04) of Alan Jacobson, ML13198A587.
Chair--Organization of Agreement
States, regarding PR-10 CFR Part
2--Revisions to the Petition for
Rulemaking Process.
Comment (05) of Pedro Salas, ML13198A588.
Director--Regulatory Affairs,
AREVA NP Inc., regarding PR-10
CFR Part 2--Revisions to the
Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comment (06) of Ellen Ginsburg on ML13200A079.
behalf of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) re PR-10 CFR
Part 2--Revisions to the
Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comment (07) of Scott Bauer on ML13231A046.
behalf of STARS Alliance re PR-
10 CFR Part 2--Revisions to the
Petition for Rulemaking Process.
The Petition for Rulemaking ML14259A474.
Process (diagram).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60526]]
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct
material, Classified information, Confidential business information;
Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste,
Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste
treatment and disposal.
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; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR part 2.
PART 2--AGENCY RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81,
102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42
U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846);
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42
U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j)
also issued under Sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373
(28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
0
2. Revise Sec. 2.802 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.802 Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing.
(a) Filing a petition for rulemaking. Any person may petition the
Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation in 10 CFR chapter
I. The petition for rulemaking should be addressed to the Secretary,
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and sent by mail
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; by email to [email protected]; or by hand
delivery to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern time) on Federal workdays.
(b) Consultation with the NRC. A petitioner may consult with the
NRC staff before and after filing a petition for rulemaking by
contacting the Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 1-800-368-5642.
(1) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a
petition for rulemaking, the assistance that the NRC staff may provide
is limited to the following:
(i) Describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking,
closing, amending, withdrawing, and resolving a petition for
rulemaking;
(ii) Clarifying an existing NRC regulation and the basis for the
regulation; and
(iii) Assisting the petitioner to clarify a petition for rulemaking
so that the Commission is able to understand the issues of concern to
the petitioner.
(2) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a
petition for rulemaking, in providing the assistance permitted in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the NRC staff will not draft or
develop text or alternative approaches to address matters in the
petition for rulemaking.
(3) In any consultation regarding a petition for rulemaking, the
NRC staff will not advise a petitioner on whether a petition should be
amended or withdrawn.
(c) Content of petition. (1) Each petition for rulemaking filed
under this section must clearly and concisely:
(i) Specify the name of the petitioner, a telephone number, a
mailing address, and an email address (if available) that the NRC may
use to communicate with the petitioner;
(ii) If the petitioner is an organization, provide additional
identifying information (as applicable) including the petitioner's
organizational or corporate status, the petitioner's State of
incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and
authority of the individual who signed the petition on behalf of the
organizational or corporate petitioner.
(iii) Present the specific problems or issues that the petitioner
believes should be addressed through rulemaking, including any specific
circumstances in which the NRC's codified requirements are incorrect,
incomplete, inadequate, or unnecessarily burdensome;
(iv) Cite, enclose, or reference publicly-available technical,
scientific, or other data or information supporting the petitioner's
assertion of the problems or issues;
(v) Present the petitioner's proposed solution to the problems or
issues raised in the petition for rulemaking (e.g., a proposed solution
may include specific regulations or regulatory language to add to,
amend in, or delete from 10 CFR chapter I);
(vi) Provide an analysis, discussion, or argument that explains how
the petitioner's proposed solution solves the problems or issues
identified by the petitioner; and
(vii) Cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly-available data
or information supporting the petitioner's proposed solution; and
(viii) If required by 10 CFR 51.68 of this chapter, submit a
separate document entitled ``Petitioner's Environmental Report,'' which
contains the information specified in 10 CFR 51.45.
(2) To assist the NRC in its evaluation of the petition for
rulemaking, the petitioner should clearly and concisely:
(i) Explain why the proposed rulemaking solution is within the
authority of the NRC to adopt; and
(ii) Explain why rulemaking is the most favorable approach to
address the problem or issue, as opposed to other NRC actions such as
licensing, issuance of an order, or referral to another Federal or
State agency.
(3) If the petition is signed by multiple petitioners, the petition
must designate a lead petitioner who is responsible for disseminating
communications received from the NRC to co-petitioners.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Request for suspension of an adjudication involving licensing.
The petitioner may request the Commission to suspend all or any part of
any licensing proceeding to which the petitioner is a participant
pending disposition of the petition for rulemaking.
(f) Amendment; withdrawal. If the petitioner wants to amend or
withdraw a docketed petition for rulemaking, then the petitioner should
include the docket number and the date that the original petition for
rulemaking was submitted in a filing addressed to the Secretary,
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and sent by mail
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; or by email to [email protected].
0
3. Revise Sec. 2.803 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.803 Petition for rulemaking--NRC action.
(a) Notification of receipt. Following receipt of a petition for
rulemaking, the NRC will acknowledge its receipt to the petitioner.
(b) Docketing review. (1) The NRC will evaluate the petition for
rulemaking, including supporting data or information submitted under
Sec. 2.802(c), for sufficiency according to the review criteria in
Sec. 2.803(b).
(2) If the NRC determines that the petition for rulemaking does not
include
[[Page 60527]]
the information set out in Sec. 2.802(c), that the regulatory change
sought by the petitioner is not within the legal authority of the NRC,
or that the petition for rulemaking does not raise a potentially valid
issue that warrants further consideration, then the NRC will notify the
petitioner in writing and explain the deficiencies in the petition for
rulemaking.
(3) The petitioner may resubmit the petition for rulemaking without
prejudice.
(c) Docketing. (1) The NRC will docket a petition for rulemaking
and assign a docket number to the petition if the NRC determines the
following:
(i) The petition for rulemaking includes the information required
by paragraph Sec. 2.802(c),
(ii) The regulatory change sought by the petitioner is within the
NRC's legal authority, and
(iii) The petition for rulemaking raises a potentially valid issue
that warrants further consideration.
(2) A copy of the docketed petition for rulemaking will be posted
in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
and on the Federal rulemaking Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov.
The NRC will publish a notice of docketing in the Federal Register
informing the public that the NRC is reviewing the merits of the
petition for rulemaking. The notice of docketing will include the
docket number and explain how the public may track the status of the
petition for rulemaking.
(d) NRC communication with petitioners. If the petition is signed
by multiple petitioners, any NRC obligation to inform a petitioner (as
may be required under 10 CFR part 2, subpart H) is satisfied, with
respect to all petitioners, when the NRC transmits the required
notification to the lead petitioner.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) [Reserved]
(g) Public comment on a petition for rulemaking; hearings. (1) At
its discretion, the NRC may request public comment on a docketed
petition for rulemaking.
(2) The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov and enter the comment submissions into ADAMS,
without removing identifying or contact information from comment
submissions. Anyone requesting or aggregating comments from other
persons for submission to the NRC is responsible for informing those
persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do
not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submissions.
(3) No adjudicatory or legislative hearing under the procedures of
10 CFR part 2 will be held on a petition for rulemaking unless the
Commission determines to do so, at its discretion.
(h) Determination on a petition for rulemaking; Closure of docket
on a petition for rulemaking. (1) Determination. Following docketing of
a petition for rulemaking, the NRC's determination on the petition for
rulemaking may be based upon, but is not limited to, the following
considerations:
(i) The merits of the petition;
(ii) The immediacy of the safety, environmental, or security
concern raised;
(iii) The availability of NRC resources and the priority of the
issues raised in relation to other NRC rulemaking issues;
(iv) Whether the problems or issues are already under consideration
by the NRC in other NRC processes;
(v) The substance of any public comment received, if comment is
requested; and
(vi) The NRC's relevant past decisions and current policies.
(2) Petition for rulemaking docket closure. After the NRC
determines the appropriate regulatory action in response to the
petition for rulemaking, the NRC will administratively close the docket
for the petition. The NRC will publish a notice describing that action
with any related Docket Identification number (Docket ID), as
applicable, in the Federal Register. The NRC may make a determination
on a petition for rulemaking and administratively close the docket for
the petition for rulemaking by:
(i) Deciding not to undertake a rulemaking to address the issue
raised by the petition for rulemaking, and informing the petitioner in
writing of the grounds for denial.
(ii) Initiating a rulemaking action (e.g., initiating a new
rulemaking, addressing the petition for rulemaking in an ongoing
rulemaking, addressing the petition for rulemaking in a planned
rulemaking) that considers the issues raised by a petition for
rulemaking, and informing the petitioner in writing of this decision
and the associated Docket ID of the rulemaking action, if applicable.
(i) Petition for rulemaking resolution. (1) Petition for rulemaking
resolution published in the Federal Register. The NRC will publish a
Federal Register notice informing the public that it has concluded all
planned regulatory action with respect to some or all of the issues
presented in a petition for rulemaking. This may occur by adoption of a
final rule related to the petition for rulemaking, denial by the NRC of
the petition for rulemaking at any stage of the regulatory process, or
the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition for rulemaking before the
NRC has entered the rulemaking process. As applicable, the Federal
Register notice will include a discussion of how the regulatory action
addresses the issue raised by the petitioner, the NRC's grounds for
denial of the petition for rulemaking, or information on the
withdrawal. The notice will normally include the NRC's response to any
public comment received (if comment is requested), unless the NRC has
indicated that it will not be providing a formal written response to
each comment received.
(2) NRC decision not to proceed with rulemaking after closure of a
petition for rulemaking docket. If the NRC closes a petition for
rulemaking docket under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section but
subsequently decides not to carry out the planned rulemaking to
publication of a final rule, the NRC will notify the petitioner in
writing of this decision and publish a notice in the Federal Register
explaining the basis for its decision. The decision not to complete the
rulemaking action will be documented as denial of the petition for
rulemaking in the docket of the closed petition for rulemaking, in the
Web sites, in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions, online in ADAMS, and at http://www.regulations.gov as described in paragraph (j) of this section.
(j) Status of petitions for rulemaking and rulemakings. (1) The NRC
provides current information on rulemakings and petitions for
rulemaking in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
(2) The NRC includes a summary of the NRC's planned and ongoing
rulemakings in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda), published semiannually.
This Unified Agenda is available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain/.
(3) All docketed petitions, rulemakings, and public comments are
posted online in ADAMS and at http://www.regulations.gov.
0
4. In Sec. 2.811, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.811 Filing of standard design certification application;
required copies.
* * * * *
(e) Pre-application consultation. A prospective applicant for a
standard
[[Page 60528]]
design certification may consult with NRC staff before filing an
application by writing to the Director, Division of New Reactor
Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, with respect to the subject matters listed in Sec. 2.802(b)(1).
A prospective applicant also may telephone the Rules, Announcements,
and Directives Branch, toll free on 1-800-368-5642, or send an email to
[email protected] on these subject matters. In addition, a
prospective applicant may confer informally with NRC staff before
filing an application for a standard design certification, and the
limitations on consultation in Sec. 2.802(b)(2) do not apply.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of October, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-25563 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P