Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings, 74950-74986 [05-24081]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74950-74986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24081]



[[Page 74949]]

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

Part IV





Nuclear Regulatory Commission





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



10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 13, and 110



Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 74950]]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 13 and 110

RIN 3150-AH74


Use of Electronic Submissions in Agency Hearings

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its regulations to require the use of electronic submissions in all 
agency hearings, except for those conducted on a high-level radioactive 
waste repository application (which are covered under a separate set of 
regulations). The amendments would require the electronic transmission 
of electronic documents in submissions made to the NRC's adjudicatory 
boards, and in serving copies of those submissions on all participants 
to the proceedings. Although exceptions to these requirements would be 
established to allow paper filings in limited circumstances, the NRC 
would maintain a strong preference for fully electronic filing and 
service. The proposed rule builds upon prior NRC rules and developments 
in the Federal courts regarding the use of electronic submissions. The 
Commission is also seeking comment on draft guidance on how to submit 
hearing documents to the NRC electronically.

DATES: Submit comments on the proposed rule and guidance document by 
March 1, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if 
it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure 
consideration only for comments received on or before this date. The 
NRC staff will hold a public meeting to demonstrate electronic filing 
and discuss questions on issues arising from this proposed action. The 
public meeting will be held in the auditorium at NRC Headquarters, Two 
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland on January 
10, 2006, beginning at 9:30 a.m. and ending before noon.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. 
Please include 3150-RIN AH74 in the subject line of your comments. 
Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will 
be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not 
be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC 
cautions you against including personal information such as social 
security numbers and birthdates in your submissions.
    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us 
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's 
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions 
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail 
CAG@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal Rulemaking 
Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone 
(301) 415-1966).
    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 
(301) 415-1101.
    Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be 
viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including 
comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC 
rulemaking Web site at https://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
    Publically available documents created or received at the NRC after 
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic 
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
    From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darani Reddick, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
3841, e-mail dmr1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I. Background.
II. Summary of the E-Filing Process.
III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes.
V. Minor Conforming Changes.
VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards.
VII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.
IX. Regulatory Analysis.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification.
XI. Backfit Analysis.

I. Background

    This proposed rule, E-Filing, would require that submissions in any 
adjudicatory hearing governed by 10 CFR part 2, subpart C; part 13; or 
part 110, be made electronically. The subpart C requirements are 
applicable to hearings held under subparts G, K, L, M, N, and O of 10 
CFR part 2, but they are not applicable to hearings held under subpart 
J governing applications for construction or operation of a high-level 
radioactive waste repository, which are covered by a separate set of 
requirements.
    E-Filing would be one of the ways that the NRC implements the 
provisions of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), see 
Title XVII of Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, enacted October 21, 
1998, Sec. Sec.  1701 et seq., codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504. The GPEA 
requires Government agencies to provide the public with the option of 
electronically maintaining, submitting, or disclosing information 
``where practicable,'' with the goal of lessening the amount of 
paperwork when dealing with the Federal government.
    In crafting the proposed rule, the NRC has relied upon its past 
experience with electronic submissions and has also examined Federal 
court practices.

A. The NRC's Experience With Electronic Submissions

    Well before the passage of the GPEA, the NRC had taken major steps 
to increase the use of electronic documents and electronic 
transmissions. For example, many of the agency's regulations on record 
keeping have long permitted storage in electronic format. After the 
GPEA became law, the NRC began testing the Electronic Information 
Exchange (EIE), a system that permits users to make electronic 
submissions to the agency in a secure manner. The EIE uses digital 
signature technology to authenticate documents and validate the 
identity of the person submitting the information. Upon receipt, the 
EIE system time stamps documents transmitted to the NRC and sends the 
submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document.
    As a result of the testing program, on January 26, 2001, the NRC 
issued Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2001-05, ``Guidance on Submitting

[[Page 74951]]

Documents to the NRC by Electronic Information Exchange or on CD-ROM,'' 
which encouraged power reactor licensees to submit documents to the NRC 
by the EIE process or on CD-ROM. On August 10, 2001, the agency issued 
a letter to certain fuel cycle licensees extending this option to them. 
Thereafter, the NRC greatly expanded its authorization of electronic 
submissions through rulemaking, but those rules did not apply to 
adjudicatory hearings.

B. The E-Rule

    On October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58792), the NRC issued a final rule 
called ``Electronic Maintenance and Submission of Information'' (E-
Rule). The E-Rule allows licensees, vendors, applicants, and members of 
the public to submit documents such as license applications and Freedom 
of Information Act requests to the NRC in an electronic format, such as 
on CD-ROM, by e-mail, or through the NRC's EIE. However, the E-Rule 
does not apply to filings in NRC hearings.
    For the E-Rule, the NRC addressed technical matters (document 
format, size, file naming conventions, resolution, etc.) in a guidance 
document rather than in the regulations to avoid frequent rulemakings 
to incorporate technological advances into NRC practice. Although the 
amendments to the regulations allowed electronic submissions, an 
accompanying guidance document contained the detailed technical 
standards and procedures for electronic submissions to the NRC. The 
Federal Register document for the E-Rule explained the need for the 
standards and procedures by noting that the GPEA only required 
electronic submissions ``where practicable'' (68 FR 58792, 58793, 
October 10, 2003):

    At the very least, it is not ``practicable'' for the agency to 
receive electronic submissions unless they are made in a manner that 
enables the agency to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, 
process and retrieve a page at a time, and archive the submissions.

C. 10 CFR Part 2 Subpart J: Procedures for the High-Level Waste 
Repository Proceedings

    In section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress 
set a short deadline for the NRC to issue a decision on any Department 
of Energy (DOE) application for authorization to construct a geologic 
repository for high-level waste (HLW). Because any licensing proceeding 
on such an application is projected to be the largest, most complex 
hearing before the NRC to date, the NRC determined that all filings in 
the HLW proceedings must be electronic in order to meet the deadline. 
Over the course of several rulemakings, the NRC developed the HLW 
procedures in 10 CFR part 2 subpart J and the corresponding guidance, 
``Guidance for the Submission of Electronic Docket Materials Under 10 
CFR part 2, subpart J'' (HLW Guidance Document). The E-Filing Guidance 
on which we are seeking comments is largely drawn from the subpart J 
regulations.

D. The Use of Electronic Filing by the Federal Courts

    Some Federal courts have developed a system for electronic filing 
with technical standards quite similar to those in subpart J. Because 
the Federal courts and the NRC have distinct needs and serve different 
classes of parties, not every feature of the Federal court system is 
relevant to NRC proceedings. However, certain basic features of the 
electronic filing methods used by some Federal courts are incorporated 
in the NRC's proposed approach, e.g., for filings submitted over the 
Internet, a specific file format that is portable and produces a 
faithful image of the original must be used (i.e., Adobe[reg] Acrobat 
Portable Document Format, also commonly referred to as PDF), and 
submitters are sent a notice of the filing with an Internet location 
from which the filing can be downloaded.

E. The General Approach Taken by E-Filing

    E-Filing would adopt some technical and procedural provisions 
nearly verbatim from the E-Rule, 10 CFR part 2, subpart J, and the 
procedures adopted by the Federal courts. The adoption of technical 
standards from the E-Rule Guidance and subpart J would create 
uniformity across NRC proceedings, making administration easier.
    In addition, E-Filing shares with subpart J a strong preference for 
electronic submission, because electronic filing and service are 
faster, more efficient, and less expensive than the traditional forms 
of filing. Under E-Filing, participants in NRC proceedings would no 
longer have to pay for the copying and service of most documents. In 
lengthy, complex proceedings with multiple participants, this could 
save participants hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in copying and 
mailing costs. Although almost all participants in NRC hearings now 
file pleadings by e-mail (with conforming paper copy to follow), the 
Commission recognizes that not all participants will be able to meet 
the proposed electronic filing and service requirements. The 
Commission, therefore, has created exemptions to the electronic 
submission requirement that participants wishing to file and serve by 
the traditional paper method can request.
    Like the E-Rule and subpart J, E-Filing would have an accompanying 
guidance document (E-Filing Guidance) that would be available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html. As with the E-Rule, this guidance 
would set forth the technical standards for electronic transmission and 
for formatting electronic documents. By not including these standards 
in the rule, it should be easier and faster for the NRC to amend the 
guidance, when warranted, to allow use of the most current technology.

II. Summary of the E-Filing Process

    The following is a step-by-step capsule of the E-Filing process:
    1. Prior to submitting its first filing, an entity seeking to 
participate (participant) in an NRC adjudicatory proceeding would 
request a digital identification (ID) certificate from the Secretary of 
the Commission using the link on the NRC Web site. (See more on digital 
ID certificates in section III.E. of this document).
    2. The participant would log onto the Electronic Information 
Exchange (EIE) and open the E-Filing submission form. The form contains 
a pull-down menu, which allows a previously admitted party to designate 
the proper proceeding. For all initial filings, the participant would 
select the generic docket. (See more on the EIE and generic dockets in 
sections III.C. & III.D. of this document).
    3. The participant would attach its document, digitally sign the 
filing, and authorize transmission to the EIE. (See more on signatures 
and transmission in sections III.H. and III.I. of this document).
    4. The Secretary of the Commission would review the generic account 
for initial filings, establish the appropriate electronic hearing 
docket, send notifications to the applicant/licensee, intervenor(s), 
NRC staff, any interested governmental participant(s), and the 
presiding officer, and create an electronic distribution list based 
upon the digital IDs issued to proceeding participants.
    5. For all subsequent filings, the participant would select the 
intended recipients from the electronic distribution list. The EIE then 
would send all selected recipients an e-mail notification that a filing 
has been made and provide a link to the Internet location of the 
document. The EIE would also send an e-mail to the submitter confirming 
receipt of the filing, and notify the other participants.

[[Page 74952]]

(See more on electronic distribution lists in section III.F. of this 
document).
    6. Each recipient could open the link to the document and view and/
or save the document to its personal computer, thereby enabling access 
to the document without logging back into the system. (See more on 
retrieving documents in section III.O. of this document).

III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    E-Filing represents a major revision to the NRC's methods of filing 
and service in adjudicatory proceedings governed by the part 2, subpart 
C requirements. The proposed rule is thoroughly explained in sections 
III and IV of this document; section III gives a broad overview of some 
of the major concepts involved in E-Filing and section IV provides a 
section-by-section analysis of the amendments to the principal sections 
in subpart C. While some of the details described below may seem 
complex, once a user learns to file electronically, the Commission 
expects that he/she will find the process to be both fast and simple.

A. Conceptual Framework for Electronic Filing and Service

    Filing and service involve the transfer of a document from one 
participant to the presiding officer, the other participants in the 
proceeding, and the Secretary of the Commission. Two types of 
electronic filing and service would exist under E-Filing: fully 
electronic and partially electronic. Fully electronic filing and 
service would involve the electronic transmission of an electronic 
document. Partially electronic filing and service would entail the 
physical delivery or mailing of an optical storage medium (OSM) (such 
as a CD-ROM) containing an electronic document. While E-Filing would 
permit partially electronic filing and service in cases where 
necessary, the NRC rule generally calls for fully electronic filing 
(with certain exceptions permitted by the rule and further described in 
the E-Filing Guidance).

B. Benefits of Electronic Filing and Service

    The benefits of electronic filing and service originate from the 
use of electronic transmission and electronic documents. The electronic 
transmission of documents is more cost effective and faster than 
physical delivery of paper mail. While the added cost and delay of 
physically delivering or mailing one document may be small, the total 
cost and delay could be significant over the course of a proceeding 
with many filings and a large service list.
    In addition, compared to paper documents, electronic documents save 
resources and increase efficiency. Electronic documents are less 
expensive to produce, store, transport, and retrieve than paper 
documents. Electronic documents also have text-searching capability, 
which allows users to review many documents quickly and find those 
sections that are relevant to their needs, along with text-capture 
capability, which enables users to transport entire passages from one 
document to another quickly. Finally, the filing of electronic 
documents in the appropriate format would benefit the NRC because the 
agency already processes filings into electronic formats for storage as 
official agency records.

C. The Electronic Information Exchange

    Under E-Filing, a participant wishing to file a document would be 
required to convert the document into the appropriate electronic format 
and electronically transmit it to an electronic system monitored by the 
NRC, called the Electronic Information Exchange. The NRC would 
establish the EIE, which is a Web site located on the NRC's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html. The EIE would receive, 
store, and distribute documents filed in proceedings covered by this 
proposed rule for which an electronic hearing docket had been 
established. The establishment of dockets for filings received through 
the EIE is discussed later. (See section III.D. of this document).
    To electronically submit a filing, a participant with a digital ID 
would complete a form on the EIE and select the docket from a provided 
drop-down list, which would list all dockets to which that person is a 
participant, as well as a generic docket. All initial filings would be 
sent to a generic docket. The participant would then attach, digitally 
sign, and transmit the document. In doing so, the submittter would 
select the participants to be served electronically from the electronic 
distribution list, which is a list of the board members and other 
individuals involved in the proceeding as participants or party 
representatives. This transmission process could be performed either by 
the owner of a digital ID or another authorized individual, such as a 
secretary or clerk.
    The EIE thereafter would serve all the persons selected by the 
submitter for distribution by sending an e-mail notifying them that a 
document has been filed and providing them with a link from which they 
could save or view the document. This e-mail would constitute service 
upon the participants to whom it was sent. Finally, the EIE would send 
an electronic acknowledgment to the filer, which is an e-mail that 
confirms receipt of the filing and reports that an e-mail has been sent 
to the selected persons on the electronic distribution list.
    A person filing electronically would be able to seek assistance 
through the ``Contact Us about EIE'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html or by calling NRC technical 
help lines.

D. Electronic Hearing Dockets

    The electronic hearing docket is a Web site on the NRC homepage 
that houses a visual presentation of the docket for a particular 
proceeding and a link to all the filings in that proceeding. A 
participant would electronically submit its initial filing, such as a 
petition to intervene and request for hearing, to a generic docket 
number on the EIE. Upon receiving the initial filing, the Secretary of 
the Commission would establish an electronic hearing docket for the 
proceeding using the licensing docket number under which the proceeding 
was designated in the Federal Register notice. If an electronic docket 
has already been established, the Secretary would respond to filings by 
informing the participants of the docket's existence. After creating 
the electronic docket, the Secretary would maintain that docket and all 
publicly available filings would be accessible from that site.
    After a presiding officer is assigned to the proceeding, the 
Secretary would replace the licensing docket number with a proceeding 
docket number. The proceeding docket number would be exactly the same 
numerical digits as the licensing docket number, except that a two or 
three letter suffix is added. The Secretary would inform the 
participants of the modified proceeding docket number, and would 
instruct them to use the proceeding docket number rather than the 
licensing docket number when accessing documents.

E. Digital ID Certificates

    To access the EIE, a participant would obtain a digital ID 
certificate from the NRC, which will be supplied to them at no cost. A 
digital ID certificate is a unique file downloaded onto a participant's 
computer that would identify the participant to the EIE. Digital IDs 
would verify the participant's identity for the EIE when making an 
electronic filing, and would allow the participant to digitally sign 
documents submitted to the EIE.
    A participant must request a digital ID from the NRC before 
submitting its first

[[Page 74953]]

electronic filing with the NRC. If the participant is an organization, 
the digital ID would be assigned to a participant representative, 
rather than the participant itself. The notices of opportunity for 
hearing that the NRC publishes in the Federal Register would remind 
potential participants of this requirement. A participant would apply 
for a digital ID on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html. A participant would be able to seek assistance in obtaining a 
digital ID through the ``Contact Us about EIE'' link located on the NRC 
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html or through the NRC 
technical help lines. After a digital ID is assigned, that ID would 
provide the participant with access to all the EIE proceedings to which 
it is a participant; therefore, only one digital ID would be required 
per participant regardless of the number of proceedings in which it is 
involved. The NRC would reserve the right to revoke a digital ID 
certificate if it were being abused. A participant who anticipates 
participation in NRC proceedings may request a digital ID certificate 
prior to publication of a notice of opportunity for hearing.
    In addition to digital IDs assigned to individuals, Group IDs may 
be assigned to firms or other organizations. Group IDs, which can be 
downloaded onto several computers, allow multiple individuals who do 
not have an individual digital ID to be served with a filing to the 
EIE, thus permitting those individuals to retrieve documents filed in 
the proceeding. Because Group IDs would be assigned to entities, the 
Group ID would not have an electronic signature associated with it and, 
thus, could not be used to electronically sign filings submitted to the 
EIE. At least one representative from the Group ID must obtain an 
individual digital ID to be able to file electronically.

F. Electronic Distribution List

    Each proceeding with an electronic docket would have a distribution 
list, which includes the presiding officer, as well as all of the 
participants (such as the intervenor(s), applicant/licensee, interested 
governmental participant(s), and NRC staff) participating 
electronically in that specific proceeding. Upon receiving an initial 
filing from a participant, the Secretary will add the participant to 
the electronic distribution list, thereby providing the participant 
access to documents that have been and will be filed in the proceeding 
and enable it to electronically file and serve the presiding officer 
and others on the distribution list.

G. Certificates of Service and Service List

    For the following reasons, E-filing will require that submitters 
attach a certificate of service, including a service list, to their 
filings to inform the recipients of the entities who received the 
filing and how they were served. This is because the EIE would not 
create a list of the entities selected to receive the filing. Also, the 
electronic distribution list may not be an all-inclusive list of the 
participants in the proceeding because it would not include any 
participants permitted to file by paper.

H. Signatures

    All electronic documents would be signed and submitted 
electronically using the digital ID certificate assigned to the 
submitter of that document. Proposed Sec.  2.304 (d) provides two ways 
for documents to be signed: with the assigned digital ID certificate or 
with a typed ``Original signed by'' designation.
    To sign a filing with a digital ID certificate, proposed Sec.  
2.304 (d)(1)(I) requires that a signature page containing a signature 
block be added to the electronic document before it is submitted. The 
signature block would consist of the phrase ``Signed (electronically) 
by,'' followed by the signer's name and the capacity in which the 
person is signing. It would also contain the date of signature and the 
signer's postal address, phone number, and e-mail address. The 
participant would not need to sign a paper document if it chooses this 
method of signature. The digital signature would be added at the time 
of submittal to the EIE by the participant clicking the ``Click to 
Digitally Sign Documents'' button. A person authorized by the owner of 
the digital ID, such as a secretary or clerk, could type the signature 
block and submit the document on the owner's behalf. To sign with a 
typed-in ``Original signed by'' designation, the participant would add 
a signature block, as described above, and type in the phrase 
``Original signed by'' on the signature line of the signature block. 
The participant would then sign a paper document and be required to 
retain that copy of the filing with the original signature in its 
records. The NRC staff could also use this method, but would type in 
``/RA/,'' meaning ``Record Approved,'' which is the agency's current 
method of signing digitally filed documents.
    Documents signed under oath or affirmation, such as affidavits, 
must be signed with the ``Original signed by'' designation. The 
participant submitting these documents is required to retain the 
original signed copy in its files.

I. Electronic Transmission

    Under E-Filing, participants would convert their documents into the 
appropriate electronic formats detailed by the E-Filing Guidance and 
electronically transmit these documents to the presiding officer, the 
other participants, and the Secretary of the Commission. E-Filing 
Guidance would set technical standards for filing and service under the 
proposed rule and would define the file sizes and formats for 
electronic transmissions. By putting the technical provisions in the E-
Filing Guidance, the Commission would be able to update the electronic 
transmission standards to keep pace with technology and the changing 
needs of the NRC and the participants in its adjudication without 
additional rulemaking. Exemptions to the electronic transmission 
requirement are discussed below. (See section III.K.).

J. Electronic Document Requirements

    Because the EIE system can accept documents only in specified 
electronic formats, E-Filing, like the E-Rule and subpart J, would have 
specific electronic document standards that would be enumerated in the 
E-Filing Guidance. For the foreseeable future, the only acceptable 
formats are certain types of PDFs. In addition, individual submissions 
cannot exceed 50 megabytes (approximately 5000 pages of text), which 
the NRC considers the upper limit for practical Internet transmissions.
    Similar to the guidance for subpart J, E-Filing Guidance would 
create three categories of documents: simple, large, and complex. 
Simple documents would be documents filed in an acceptable PDF format 
and could be transmitted to the EIE in a single transmission. Large 
documents, meaning documents exceeding 50 megabytes, also would be in 
an acceptable PDF format. The proposed E-Filing Guidance provides that 
these documents should be segmented into smaller files that meet the 
megabyte limit and then transmitted to the EIE, which reunites the 
files into one document. Participants would also be asked to physically 
deliver to all the participants in the proceeding OSMs containing the 
large document in a unified form that could be used as a reference 
copy. Complex documents would be those that (1) are not entirely in an 
acceptable PDF format; (2) contain Classified National Security 
Information or Safeguards Information; or (3) exceed the 50 megabyte 
limit and could not be segmented. The E-Filing Guidance

[[Page 74954]]

would ask participants to electronically submit to the EIE the sections 
of a complex document that are in PDF, do not contain Classified 
National Security Information or Safeguards Information, and could be 
segmented into less than 50 megabytes. The Guidance would also ask 
participants to deliver the entire complex document on an OSM.
    As was previously noted, the current version of the proposed E-
Filing Guidance considers only certain forms of PDF as qualifying 
formats. In choosing PDF over other formats, the NRC considered 
whether:
    (1) The document format is of a type that can be entered as an 
official agency record;
    (2) The format behaves consistently over a broad range of operating 
systems and platforms (meaning pagination remains identical regardless 
of the printer used);
    (3) The format can be easily accessed by most users;
    (4) The format is one to which other document formats can be easily 
converted;
    (5) The format supports images, text, and other types of 
documentary material that can be useful in a hearings context; and
    (6) The format had text-searching and text-capture capabilities.
    PDF has all of these features.

K. Exemptions From the Electronic Filing and Service Requirements

    In recent years, almost all participants to NRC adjudications have 
been filing and serving documents via e-mail in addition to submitting 
paper copies, which are generally regarded as the ``official'' versions 
of the documents. This use of e-mail submissions exists because a vast 
majority of the participants in NRC proceedings have ready access to 
computers, word processing programs, and the Internet. This trend has 
led the NRC to conclude that almost all potential parties are ready to 
take the next step and move to a fully electronic environment. The NRC 
recognizes that implementing a rule governing electronic submission 
could entail initial costs for some persons, since participants would 
need ready access to a computer, software that will save/render 
documents in PDF format, the Internet, and perhaps a scanner. The 
participants might recoup these expenses, however, through cost savings 
in labor, copying, and mailing paper documents to multiple 
participants. The NRC is seeking comments from affected stakeholders, 
particularly those with limited financial resources, about the 
potential costs and savings of the electronic filing requirements of 
this proposed rule.
(1) Good Cause Required for Exemption From Electronic Filing
    Despite these advantages, the NRC recognizes that some individuals 
may not be able to file electronically for a variety of reasons. The 
NRC, therefore, would allow exemptions from the E-Filing rule for 
certain participants in appropriate circumstances. A person who 
requests an exemption from the electronic filing requirement should 
submit a request for authorization from the presiding officer with its 
first filing in the proceeding to participate using traditional paper 
filing and service. ``Good cause'' for such an exemption would depend 
on the party's circumstances and could include such matters as: 
Disability, lack of readily-available Internet access, or the cost of 
purchasing the necessary equipment or software. The presiding officer 
would determine if a participant met the good cause burden on a case-
by-case basis.
    A participant requesting an exemption after submitting its first 
filing electronically, would, in addition to the requisite showing of 
good cause, have to show that an unforeseen change in its circumstances 
occurred leading to the late request for exemption and that granting 
the exemption is in the interests of fairness. Until the presiding 
officer rules on the request, the participant would continue to file 
electronically.
    E-Filing would provide exemptions from the requirement to send the 
filing to the EIE electronically as well as from the requirement to 
submit documents in computer file format. This is discussed below.
(2) Electronic Transmission Exemption
    A participant willing to submit a document in PDF, but capable only 
of delivering the document via OSM or e-mail, could request an 
exemption from electronic transmission over the Internet to the EIE. 
This participant's filings would be exempt from the requirement of 
being sent to the EIE, and could deviate from the guidance that calls 
for filings to be in PDF format as set forth in the E-Filing Guidance.
(3) Electronic Document Exemption
    A participant can also request an exemption from the requirement to 
file documents in PDF format as well as the electronic transmission 
requirement through the EIE. This participant would physically file and 
serve paper documents on the presiding officer and other participants 
in a manner determined by the presiding officer. In return, the 
presiding officer, other participants and the Secretary of the 
Commission would physically serve paper documents on a participant with 
this exemption.
    Although these exemptions would be available for participants in 
NRC proceedings, the NRC believes that the cost savings from electronic 
filing will exceed electronic filing associated equipment/software/
Internet access procurement costs and, thus, encourages potential 
participants to move to electronic filing and service, whenever 
possible, rather than seeking an exemption. When a participant is 
granted either a document exemption or a transmission exemption, E-
Filing would permit a mixed service proceeding, which is discussed in 
the next section.

L. Mixed Service Proceedings and Computation of Time

    The Commission recognizes the possibility that there could be a 
proceeding in which a participant will receive an exemption permitting 
the participant to file and serve paper copies, while the other 
participants will file and serve documents electronically. As mentioned 
previously, if an exemption from electronic filing and formatting is 
granted, the NRC would prefer mixed service proceedings to traditional 
proceedings that rely solely on paper. Mixed service proceedings would 
be proceedings in which some but not all of the participants file and 
serve by the same method. For example, rather than requiring that all 
participants physically serve and file paper documents when one 
participant to the proceeding is granted an electronic documents 
exemption, mixed service proceedings would allow the exempted 
participant to file, serve, and be served physically, while the rest of 
the participants file and serve each other electronically according to 
the standards in the E-Filing Guidance. Standards concerning timelines 
and the number of days for service would be established by the 
presiding officer who grants the electronic filing exemption on a case-
by-case basis as fairness and efficiency considerations dictate.

M. Completeness of Electronic Filings

    Under proposed Sec.  2.302(d)(1), filing by electronic transmission 
or e-mail is considered complete ``when the filer performs the last act 
that it must perform to transmit a document electronically.'' For 
electronic transmissions and e-mail, the ``last act'' would occur when 
the participant hits the ``submit/transmission'' or ``send'' button. 
The language in Sec.  2.302(d)(1)

[[Page 74955]]

and the meaning of ``last act'' are taken from the Advisory Committee 
Notes to the 2002 amendments to Rule 25(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of 
Appellate Procedure, which covers service requirements. The NRC 
proposes to adopt the ``last act'' standard for several reasons. First, 
the ``last act'' standard, which penalizes a party only for events 
within its control, is fair. Upon hitting the send or transmit button, 
a participant relinquishes all control over a document and cannot be 
certain when the document will be received by the NRC's system. Making 
completeness of filing dependent upon receipt of the transmission would 
subject participants to the vagaries of electronic transmission, which 
may include such problems as the filer's Internet connection being 
slower on the day of filing, the filer's Internet service disconnecting 
during transmission, or the filer's connection to the EIE server 
failing to connect because the allotted time for connection ran out.
    Second, the ``last act'' standard conceptually coincides with the 
standard for filing by mail, when a filing is considered complete upon 
depositing the document in a mailbox. In effect, the ``last act'' of 
depositing the document in the mailbox is equivalent to hitting the 
``submit/transmission'' or ``send'' button.

N. Completeness of Filing When Multiple Filing Methods Are Required

    When two or more methods of filing are permitted in a mixed 
proceeding, proposed Sec.  2.302(d)(4) indicates that filing is 
complete when all the methods of filing used are complete. For example, 
if a participant needs to make a filing consisting of three electronic 
documents, one of which is entirely Classified National Security 
Information, E-Filing Guidance would direct the filer to submit the two 
non-classified documents by electronic transfer and all three documents 
on an OSM. If the participant mails the OSM on Monday and performs the 
electronic transfer on Tuesday, filing would be complete Tuesday. 
Although the OSM mailed Monday would contain the entire filing, a 
filing would not be complete until all required filing methods have 
been performed.

O. Retrieving Documents Filed in a Proceeding

    Upon receiving an electronic filing, the EIE would send an e-mail 
notification to all persons selected by the submitter from the 
electronic distribution list by the submitter. The e-mail would notify 
those selected that a filing has been made in the proceeding and would 
provide a link to the document. Each person would then click on the 
link to access the document for viewing and/or saving in PDF compatible 
software and could save the document to his or her own computer. By 
doing so, to re-open the document, the person would be able to access 
it from his or her own computer. Alternatively, once it is processed 
into the agency's ADAMS system, a person could access the document by 
logging onto the Electronic Hearing Docket (EHD) located in the 
Electronic Reading Room, which is available at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. The EHD is a publicly available Web site and no 
digital ID certificate is required to retrieve documents from the EHD. 
A link to the EHD will be available on the NRC Web site.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes

    Although significant changes are proposed for some sections in 10 
CFR part 2 subpart C, other sections in Title 10 require only minor 
modifications to language that currently provides only for paper 
documents. The analysis below focuses on only the sections to which 
significant changes are being proposed: Sec. Sec.  2.302, 2.304, 2.305, 
2.306, 13.9, 13.26, 13.27, 110.89, and 110.90.

A. Section 2.302--Filing of Documents

    Proposed Sec.  2.302 would contain the core of the E-Filing 
requirements. Because the electronic transmission and format 
requirements for filing would apply equally to service and to filing of 
a document, the service requirements in proposed section Sec.  2.305 
rely heavily upon the filing processes provided for in proposed Sec.  
2.302.
1. A New Way To File
    Proposed Sec.  2.302 (a) would introduce a new way to file 
documents--by electronic submission. Accompanying E-Filing Guidance 
would provide the technical standards for electronic submission to the 
EIE.
2. New Certificate of Service and Service List Requirement
    Proposed Sec.  2.302 (c) would require that certificates of service 
be included with all filings to the agency regardless of the method of 
filing. Participants would list all methods of service for each 
participant served, because under E-Filing Guidance, some filings, such 
as those containing Classified National Security Information or 
Safeguards Information, would be partially served electronically over 
the Internet as well as transmitted on a physically delivered OSM. In 
such cases, the participant would serve the other participants to the 
proceeding by both methods for service to be complete.
3. When Filings Are Complete
    Proposed Sec.  2.302 (d)(1)-(4) would specify when filings by 
various methods would be considered complete. For example, filing by 
expedited delivery service (e.g., express or overnight mail) would be 
complete when the document is deposited with the provider of the 
service. For electronic transmissions, the filing would be complete 
when the participant clicks the ``send'' or ``submit/transmission'' 
button.
4. Unsuccessful Transmissions of Filings
    Proposed Sec.  2.302 (e) would require participants filing by 
electronic transmission to make a good faith effort to transmit the 
entire filing. Under 2.302 (e), if the filer ``knows or has reason to 
know'' that the transmission was unsuccessful, then the filing would 
not be considered complete. A filer, however, would not be required to 
take any affirmative steps to ensure that an electronic transmission 
was successful. Filing would not be complete under subsection (e) if, 
for example, the filer's e-mail service notifies the filer that 
delivery was unsuccessful or the system otherwise indicates that the 
filing was not transmitted. In such cases, the good faith effort to 
transmit the entire filing may include, but not be limited to, repeated 
attempts by the same method, calls to applicable NRC technical help 
lines, the use of alternate means of electronic transmission, and, 
finally, if all else fails, the use of an expeditious form of physical 
delivery or mail. Participants aware that a filing was unsuccessful 
should notify the other participants immediately and explain what good 
faith efforts they are conducting to submit the filing successfully.
5. Requesting a Digital ID Certificate
    Under proposed Sec.  2.302(f), to electronically transmit documents 
to the EIE, all participants or representatives, including NRC staff 
and counsel, would need to request a digital ID certificate in advance 
of its first electronic filing. The NRC would issue a digital ID 
certificate that would provide access to the EIE. Application for a 
digital ID certificate can be submitted on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/eie.html.
6. Filing Rrequirements
    Under E-Filing, most participants in NRC adjudications would file 
according to the standards in proposed Sec.  2.302

[[Page 74956]]

(g)(1). Paragraph (g)(1) would direct participants to file documents in 
an electronic format and transmit the documents electronically in 
accordance with the E-Filing Guidance. Also, proposed Sec.  2.302 
(g)(1) would establish that E-Filing Guidance sets out methods for 
filing documents containing Classified National Security Information or 
Safeguards Information, or electronic computer file formats that are 
not accepted by the EIE.
7. Exemptions From the Filing Requirements
    E-Filing would provide for two exemptions to the filing 
requirements specified in paragraph (g)(1): the electronic transmission 
exemption and the electronic document exemption. (See section III.K.).

B. Section 2.304--Formal Requirements for Documents; Signatures; 
Acceptance for Filing

1. Requirements
    Minor conforming amendments would be made to proposed Sec.  2.304 
(b) to clarify that those requirements apply only to paper filings. 
Proposed Sec.  2.304(c) would contain requirements that apply to all 
methods of filing.
2. Signatures
    Existing Sec.  2.304(c) would be amended in proposed Sec.  2.304(d) 
to include two methods of signing electronic documents: digital ID 
certificates or typed in designations. (See section III.H).
3. Multiple Copy Requirements Eliminated
    The multiple copy requirement in the existing Sec.  2.304(d) would 
be eliminated for electronic submissions to save participants time as 
well as the reproduction and mailing expenses associated with multiple 
copies. The multiple copy requirement in Sec.  2.304(b) for paper 
filings would be retained.

C. Section 2.305--Service of Documents; Methods; Proof

1. Service of Documents by the Commission
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(a) would require the Secretary of the 
Commission to serve all documents issued by the Commission or the 
presiding officer by using the same method that the participants to the 
proceeding used when they filed and accepted service. Participants that 
filed by electronic transmission would receive Commission and presiding 
officer issuances by electronic transmission and would not receive 
paper copies. Participants granted an exemption under proposed Sec.  
2.302(g)(2) and (3) would receive service by the methods provided for 
by their exemption. Thus, the same electronic service requirements 
imposed upon the participants would apply to the Commission and the 
presiding officer.
2. Method of Service Accompanying a Filing.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c) would make several changes. First, it would 
allow for electronic service of documents submitted through the EIE. 
Also, proposed Sec.  2.305(c) would no longer require that a paper copy 
accompany a filing served by e-mail because the documents would be 
filed electronically.
    In addition, proposed Sec.  2.305(c) would amend the mandate 
currently given to presiding officers to require service by the most 
expeditious means. Under proposed paragraph (c), a presiding officer 
would be able to tailor service requirements to the individual 
participants rather than utilize only the one method that all 
participants are able to use.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c)(1) would require a participant to serve the 
other participants in the proceeding by the same method that those 
participants filed, unless one of the exceptions in paragraphs (c)(2) 
or (c)(3) applied.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c)(2) would apply to a participant granted the 
electronic transmission exemption under Sec.  2.302(g)(2). When a 
participant has been excused from the electronic transmission 
requirement, that participant would serve the participants in the 
proceeding that filed electronically by physically delivering or 
mailing OSMs and the other participants that did not file by electronic 
transmission by the method in which they filed, for example, first-
class mail.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c)(3) would apply to a participant granted the 
electronic document exemption under Sec.  2.302(g)(3). When a 
participant is relieved of both the electronic format and transmission 
requirements, that participant would serve the other participants who 
filed electronically either in person, by courier/express mail/
expedited delivery service, or by first-class mail, subject to any 
orders of the presiding officer.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c)(4) would require a certificate of service 
and a service list for each filing served.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(c) would be patterned after the proof of 
service requirement found in part 2, subpart J, and would include 
electronic acknowledgment, affidavits, and certificates of counsel. 
However, participants should be cautious when submitting an electronic 
acknowledgment as proof of service. An electronic certificate cannot be 
used as proof of service in mixed service proceedings when some, but 
not all, of the participants are served electronically or when a filing 
is partially electronically submitted and partially physically 
delivered/mailed. In such mixed service proceedings, an electronic 
acknowledgment would not establish that service by a method other than 
electronic transmission to the EIE was made. Further, because the 
timeliness of filing and service under E-Filing is determined by the 
time that the electronic transmission begins rather than ends (see 
proposed Sec.  2.302(d)), the electronic acknowledgment sent from the 
EIE at the completion of the transmission would not necessarily 
correspond to the time service was made.
3. Method of Service Not Accompanying a Filing
    Proposed Sec.  2.305(d) governs material that typically may not be 
part of a ``filing,'' such as demonstrative evidence (e.g., physical 
exhibits or oversized maps or charts), pre-filed testimony, and 
discovery documents exchanged among participants. For material that is 
not filed with the agency, but is served upon other participants, as is 
often the case now with discovery exchanges, the NRC proposes that the 
participants should determine the most efficient and effective methods 
for serving such documents on each other.
4. Service on the Secretary
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (e) would be the same as the existing Sec.  
2.305 (d), except provision is made for electronic service of pleadings 
and pre-filed testimony on the Secretary of the Commission.
5. When Service Is Complete
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (f) would create a completed service standard 
for electronic submissions, as well as amend the standard for e-mail 
and clarify the standard for expedited delivery service. The standards 
for the completion of filing and service thus would be the same because 
receipt of the electronic filing by the EIE triggers an e-mail 
containing a link to the document that is considered to constitute 
service of the document upon the presiding officer and the other 
participants to the proceeding.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (f)(4) would clarify that service by expedited 
delivery service is complete when the document

[[Page 74957]]

is deposited at the expedited delivery provider, which is a method 
analogous to service by mail.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (f)(5) would amend the service completion 
standards for e-mail by no longer requiring that a paper copy 
containing a signature be transmitted to the Secretary. Proposed Sec.  
2.305 (f)(5) would adopt the ``last act'' standard used for filing 
completion in Sec.  2.302 (d)(1) as the service completion standard for 
e-mail.
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (f)(7) would provide that when multiple 
service methods are required, service would not be considered complete 
until each method is complete pursuant to paragraphs (f)(1)-(6) of 
proposed Sec.  2.305. For example, according to E-Filing Guidance, for 
a large document, a participant would serve the complete document both 
by electronic transmission and by physically delivering or mailing an 
OSM. Therefore, the filing would be complete upon serving both the 
electronic transmission of the entire document and the physical 
delivery or mailing of an OSM. However, when a complex document 
containing Safeguards Information is filed, only the portions that do 
not contain the Safeguards Information would be electronically 
transmitted, while the entire document would be transmitted by 
physically delivering or mailing an OSM. In each instance, completion 
of service is dependant on both electronic transmission and the 
physical delivery or mailing of an OSM.
6. Service on the NRC Staff
    Proposed Sec.  2.305 (g) would require that service on the NRC 
staff be in the same or equivalent method as service upon the Secretary 
or the presiding officer.

D. Section 2.306--Time Computation

    The proposed changes made to Sec.  2.306 reflect two different 
goals. One is to expedite proceedings; the other is to ensure that in 
mixed service proceedings in which the filing participant serves some 
electronically and others by physical delivery or mail, the times 
provided for the other participants to respond do not cause unfairness.
1. Changes in the Number of Additional Days Allowed for Responding to 
the Service of a Notice or Other Document
    Current Sec.  2.306 grants an additional day for electronic filings 
received after 5 p.m. in the time zone of the participant receiving the 
filing. The proposed rule would eliminate that provision and grant no 
additional days for documents filed electronically. All electronic 
filings must be filed and served by midnight in the filer's time zone.
    The proposed rule also would reduce from five days to three days 
the number of additional days given to participants responding to 
filings served by first-class mail. This amendment not only saves time 
over the course of a proceeding, but would be consistent with the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The concern that mail service in some 
parts of the country is slower and may take more than three days is 
ameliorated by a study of first-class mail service conducted by an 
independent auditing firm. According to the study, the U.S. Postal 
Service's cross-country service and service to and from rural areas is 
efficient. See 2003 Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations, Ch. 
2, p. 59. Also, three additional days ``is thought to represent a 
reasonable transmission time, and a fair compromise between the 
harshness of measuring time strictly from the date of mailing and the 
indefiniteness of attempting to measure from the date of receipt, which 
in many cases would be unverifiable.'' See Charles Alan Wright and 
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec.  1171 (3d ed. 
2002).
2. How Mixed Service Proceedings and Multiple Service Methods Affect 
the Number of Additional Days Granted for Responding to the Service of 
a Notice or Other Document
    To handle the special time computation problems involved in mixed 
service proceedings, proposed Sec.  2.306(b)(4) would give the 
Commission or presiding officer the authority to determine the proper 
period of time necessary to ensure fairness and efficiency in a mixed 
service proceeding.
    E-Filing would provide for the use of multiple service methods when 
necessary, such as in proceedings where large or complex documents are 
filed. In these instances, response times would be computed according 
to the fastest method used to serve the entire document. For example, 
if a large document is filed, the filing would be complete upon sending 
the electronic transmission, even though the participant must also send 
an OSM containing the filing. However, when a complex document 
containing Safeguards Information is filed, the response time will 
depend on the physical delivery or mailing of an OSM, because that is 
when the Safeguards material would be filed.

E. Part 13--Program Fraud Civil Remedies

1. Section 13.9 Answer
    Proposed Sec.  13.9 indicates that answers should be electronically 
filed in accordance with proposed Sec.  13.26.
2. Section 13.26 Filing and Service of Papers
    The changes proposed to Sec.  13.26 would conform the filing and 
service requirements of Part 13 to those in proposed Sec. Sec.  2.302 
and 2.305.
3. Section 13.27 Computation of Time
    Revised Sec.  13.27 (a) and (b) adopts the proposed wording of 
Sec.  2.306 (a) and (b) regarding not counting Federal legal holidays 
and emergency closures of the Federal government if they are the last 
day of the period when computing the amount of time a participant would 
have to file a response. Proposed Sec.  13.27 (c) adopts the same time 
computation scheme as in proposed Sec.  2.306 (b).
    Existing paragraph (c) would be withdrawn.

F. Part 110--Public Participation Procedures Concerning Export and 
Import of Nuclear Equipment and Materials License Applications

1. Section 110.89 Filing and Service
    The changes proposed to Sec.  110.89 would conform that section's 
filing and service requirements to those in proposed Sec. Sec.  2.302 
and 2.305.
2. Section 110.90 Computation of Time
    Although Sec.  110.90 (a) would adopt the proposed wording of Sec.  
2.306 (a), the substance of Sec.  110.90 (a) would not be altered. The 
proposed language in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section would no 
longer count emergency closures of the Federal government if it is the 
last day of the period when computing the amount of time a participant 
would have to respond. Proposed Sec.  110.90 (c) adopts the same time 
computation scheme as in proposed Sec.  2.306 (b). Existing paragraph 
(d) would be withdrawn.

V. Minor Conforming Changes

    Several sections in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
would require minor modifications to conform to the electronic filing 
and service methods in E-Filing. Changes are proposed to the language 
in Sec. Sec.  1.5, 2.340, 2.390, 2.346, and 2.808 as well as the 
sections discussed above (e.g., Sec.  2.305 (b)) to provide for 
electronic documents as well as for paper documents. The modifications 
consist of changing the word ``paper'' to

[[Page 74958]]

``document'' or ``motion.'' Sections containing language that does not 
exclude electronic documents, such as ``writing'' or ``written,'' would 
not be modified because those sections already conform to the 
electronic filing and service methods being proposed. In addition, 
minor changes include amending the paragraph indexing when proposed 
paragraphs would be inserted or current paragraphs deleted. If, as a 
result of public comments or the NRC's review, it determines conforming 
changes are needed to other sections of the NRC's regulations, the NRC 
will incorporate those changes into the final rule.

VI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical 
standards that are developed by voluntary, private sector, consensus 
standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. This proposed rule establishes 
requirements and standards for the submission of filings to an 
electronic docket in hearings under 10 CFR part 2 subpart C. Through 
this rulemaking, the agency would implement the requirement in the 
Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277, that Federal 
agencies allow electronic submissions of information where practicable; 
therefore, this proposed rule does not constitute the establishment of 
a Government-unique standard as defined in Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular A-199 (1998).

VII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

    The proposed rule amends the filing and service procedures in 10 
CFR part 2 subpart C and makes conforming changes to other parts of 
Title 10 and, therefore, qualifies as an action eligible for the 
categorical exclusion from environmental review under 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor 
an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed 
rulemaking.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed 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.).

IX. Regulatory Analysis

    A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this rulemaking. 
The amendments below will neither impose new, nor relax existing, 
safety requirements and, thus, do not call for the sort of safety/cost 
analysis described in the agency's regulatory analysis guidelines in 
NUREG/BR-0058. Further, the NRC is required by the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277 (44 U.S.C. 3505, note), to allow 
electronic submissions when practicable. The proposed rule states the 
requirements for electronic filing and service in all NRC hearings, 
except those conducted on a high-level radioactive waste repository 
application. The Commission, while strongly preferring that 
participants file and serve their documents electronically, nonetheless 
permits participants to submit paper filings if the participants can 
offer good cause for taking this alternative approach. An analysis of 
costs and benefits, therefore, would not alter the NRC's decision to 
implement the policy embodied in this rule.
    The NRC believes that this proposed rule would reduce the current 
filing costs of persons who deal with the agency. Currently, most 
submissions to the Commission are electronically mailed with a 
conforming paper copy to follow. This rule would eliminate the need to 
mail the paper copy. Because a majority of the participants in NRC 
hearings electronically mail filings, they already have most, if not 
all, of the requisite equipment. Also, the cost of the additional 
equipment and software is minimal in relation to the savings expected 
from eliminating the expenses of copying and postage. Although a 
participant could purchase a scanner and a program that converts 
documents to PDF format for approximately $100 each, the savings in 
copying and postage costs could be hundreds, if not thousands, of 
dollars.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605 
(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
It is probable that some poorly funded entities seeking to intervene 
would be adversely affected by this Rule, but their number is too small 
to necessitate the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification. This rule applies in the context of Commission 
adjudicatory proceedings concerning nuclear reactors or nuclear 
materials. Reactor licensees are large organizations that do not fall 
within the definition of a small business found in section 3 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 15 U.S.C. 
632, within the small business standards set forth in 13 CFR part 121, 
or within the size standards adopted by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Based 
upon the historically low number of requests for hearings involving 
materials licensees, it is not expected that this rule would have any 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses.

XI. Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this 
proposed rule because these amendments modify the procedures to be used 
in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, and do not involve any provisions that 
would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 
76.76. Therefore, a backfit analysis has not been prepared for this 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 1

    Organization and function (Government agencies).

10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex 
discri