Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process, 60513-60528 [2015-25563]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60513
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 194
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
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.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 2
RIN 3150–AI30
[NRC–2009–0044]
Revisions to the Petition for
Rulemaking Process
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2009–0044. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 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 publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov; or
´
Anthony de Jesus, Senior Regulations
Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone:
301–415–1106, email:
Anthony.deJesus@nrc.gov; or Jennifer
Borges, Regulations Specialist, RADB,
ADM, telephone: 301–415–3647, email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov; 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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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), thenChairman Nils J. Diaz and thenCommissioner 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
60514
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 crossreference 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 § 2.802(d); to re-designate it
as § 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 redesignation from paragraph (d) to (e) of
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
petitioner are in one section (§ 2.802),
and the NRC’s actions on a PRM are in
a separate section (§ 2.803). An
overview of the revised docketing
process follows, and a detailed
discussion of all changes, including the
reorganization of §§ 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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60515
the information required by § 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.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
60516
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 § 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 § 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 § 2.803 of this final
rule addresses how a PRM ultimately is
resolved and distinguishes final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
resolution of a PRM from administrative
closure of a PRM docket, as described in
§ 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, § 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.
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 § 2.802 and new paragraphs (h)
and (i) of § 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.
Other Administrative Changes and
Updates
Licensing Proceedings in the Petition for
Rulemaking Process
1. Comment: The NRC should not
adopt the changes in proposed
§ 2.802(e)(2) but should return to the
language in current § 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. Public Comments and Overall NRC
Responses
Comments are organized by topics
included in the proposed rule, followed
by the NRC’s response.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
process improvements presented in the
proposed PRM rule, the NRC has
decided to retain, in unchanged form,
the suspension language formerly
located in § 2.802(d) and now redesignated as paragraph (e) of § 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 § 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 § 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
§ 2.802(e) but should return to the
language in current § 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
§ 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
§ 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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
designated as paragraph (e) of § 2.802 in
this final rule. The re-designation of the
suspension provision from paragraph
(d) to paragraph (e) of § 2.802 is an
administrative change intended to
minimize the need for re-designations of
paragraphs in future revisions to
§ 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60517
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 § 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 https://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/rulemaking/petitionrule.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 wellreasoned 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60518
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
NRC’s actions when making a
determination on and resolving a PRM.
4. Comment: The NRC should not
remove the language in § 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 § 2.803(j)(1) and
(3) are hard to find on the NRC’s Web
site and ‘‘may cause confusion to the
public.’’ OAS.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemakingruleforum/petitions-by-year/openpetitions-all-years.html). This Web page,
which supplements the Web pages
listed in new paragraphs (j)(1) and (3) of
§ 2.803, may be accessed from the
Petition for Rulemaking Dockets Web
site (https://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 https://
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.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 §§ 2.802,
2.803, and 2.811 to make miscellaneous
corrections and conforming changes.
These changes include the
reorganization of §§ 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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Paragraph (a), Filing a Petition for
Rulemaking
Paragraph (a) of § 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Paragraph (b), Consultation With the
NRC
Paragraph (b) of § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60519
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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60520
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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
§ 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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
NRC in its evaluation of the PRM under
§ 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 crossreference to the environmental
assessment requirements that apply to
PRMs at 10 CFR 51.68.
Paragraph (d), [RESERVED]
Paragraph (d) of § 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 2.802 are moved to § 2.803.
Paragraph (f), Amendment; Withdrawal
New paragraph (f) of § 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Paragraph (a), Notification of Receipt
New paragraph (a) of § 2.803 has no
counterpart in the superseded version of
§ 2.803. New paragraph (a) of § 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 § 2.803
addresses docketing review—a matter
that was formerly addressed in the
superseded version of § 2.802(f).
Paragraph (b) differs from former
§ 2.802(f) by stating clearly that the NRC
will deny the PRM if it does not include
the information required by § 2.802(c). It
also differs from former § 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 § 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 § 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 § 2.803
addresses docketing, which was
addressed in former § 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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 2.803 notifies
the public that the NRC will send all
communications to the lead petitioner
identified in the petition, according to
new paragraph § 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 § 2.803 are marked
‘‘Reserved.’’
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Paragraph (g), Public Comment on a
Petition for Rulemaking; Hearings
New paragraph (g)(1) of § 2.803
incorporates information from former
§ 2.802(e) text pertaining to the NRC’s
discretion to request public comment on
a docketed PRM. Information in the
former § 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
§ 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Paragraph (h), Determination on a
Petition for Rulemaking; Closure of
Docket on a Petition for Rulemaking
Existing regulations in § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60521
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
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
60522
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 § 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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 § 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
§ 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
§ 2.803.
Paragraph (j), Status of Petitions for
Rulemakings and Rulemakings
New paragraph (j) of § 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
As previously discussed, if the NRC
closes a PRM docket by initiating a
rulemaking action under new paragraph
(h)(2)(ii) of § 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 § 2.811 explains the preapplication 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
‘‘§ 2.802(a)(1)(i) through (iii)’’ and
replacing them with ‘‘§ 2.802(b)(1),’’
with respect to the subject matters
permitted for pre-application
consultation, correcting the term
‘‘petitioner’’ to ‘‘applicant’’; replacing
the reference ‘‘§ 2.802(a)(2)’’ with
‘‘§ 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
‘‘NRCREP@nrc.gov’’ with
‘‘Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.’’
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
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 § 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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60523
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
§§ 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 https://www.nrc.gov/
about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
60524
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Docketing letter sen! to
Ptli!IOOer.
Nillite of clod(eling
pubnshed in
Fe<~«al Regisler and pOSied
fo Federal rulemaking Web
site (www.re!llllllliQl'Js.gO¥)
wfth or willloot l'!!llJe& for
public comment
Letter sent lo jletitior~er n. clifying of
determlnatlon and. doCket closure.
~termination and ®cket elosura
notice publlshecl in the
·Federal Aegister.
Lefler senflo petitioner notifying of
determination and d«ket ClOsure.
Determination .and d<leket CIOS\II'!l
nolic:e published in the
Ftlderal Regls!er.
Final re~J~Iaklr:laclitlll published
ill the Ftlderal Regi$.fer.
Nolic:e will inclo.cle .discussioo in
!he rulllrnaking's SQC indicating
how the regulalo!Yacllon
adli"QS~slhe
inuK raised by
Final regulatory a.clion
published in the
Federal~.
Notice will diSC!Isslhe be;Sia for
denying !he PRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
ER07OC15.200</GPH>
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
lite petitiooer.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
60525
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
Public Protection Notification
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.
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.
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.
IX. Plain Writing
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.
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.
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.).
XII. 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Document
ADAMS Accession No.
COMNJD–06–0004/COMEXM–06–0006, ‘‘Streamlining the NRR Rulemaking Process’’ ............................................
SRM–COMNJD–06–0004/COMEXM–06–0006, ‘‘Streamlining the NRR Rulemaking Process’’ ..................................
SECY–03–0131, ‘‘Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation Plan’’ ...............................................................
SECY–07–0134, ‘‘Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation
Plan’’.
SRM–SECY–07–0134, ‘‘Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation Plan’’.
SRM–COMGBJ–07–0002, ‘‘Closing out Task Re: Rulemaking on Tables S–3 and S–4’’ ...........................................
Proposed Rule: Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process ...............................................................................
Comments on PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process ...............................................
Comment (01) of Scott Portzline on PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process ............
Comment (02) of Marvin I. Lewis re PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process ............
Comment (03) of Richard Vetter re PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process .............
Comment (04) of Alan Jacobson, Chair—Organization of Agreement States, regarding PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comment (05) of Pedro Salas, 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 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 behalf of STARS Alliance re PR–10 CFR Part 2—Revisions to the Petition for
Rulemaking Process.
The Petition for Rulemaking Process (diagram) ............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
ML060970295.
ML061510316.
ML031360205.
ML071780644.
ML072980427.
ML072180094.
ML13107B459.
ML14149A306 (package).
ML13140A166.
ML13178A162.
ML13186A240.
ML13198A587.
ML13198A588.
ML13200A079.
ML13231A046.
ML14259A474.
60526
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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
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).
■
2. Revise § 2.802 to read as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 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 Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov; 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.
■ 3. Revise § 2.803 to read as follows:
§ 2.803
action.
Petition for rulemaking—NRC
(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 § 2.802(c),
for sufficiency according to the review
criteria in § 2.803(b).
(2) If the NRC determines that the
petition for rulemaking does not include
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the information set out in § 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 § 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:
https://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 https://
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60527
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 https://
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 https://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/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 https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaMain/.
(3) All docketed petitions,
rulemakings, and public comments are
posted online in ADAMS and at https://
www.regulations.gov.
■ 4. In § 2.811, revise paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
§ 2.811 Filing of standard design
certification application; required copies.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Pre-application consultation. A
prospective applicant for a standard
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
60528
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov 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 § 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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA–2015–3780; Airspace
Docket No. 15–ACE–5]
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule, technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
This action amends Restricted
Areas R–3601A and R–3601B,
Brookville, KS, to re-define the
restricted area boundary segments
described using the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Track visual landmark. The
restricted areas using agency
information is also updated to include
the military service of the using agency.
This action does not affect the overall
restricted area boundaries, designated
altitudes, times of designation, or
activities conducted within the
restricted areas. Additionally, boundary
segment amendments of the Smoky and
Smoky High military operations areas
(MOA), ancillary to the restricted areas
amendments, are being made. Since R–
3601A and R–3601B share boundaries
with the Smoky and Smoky High
MOAs, the FAA included discussion of
the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs
amendments in this rule. Lastly, the
MOAs using agency is being amended to
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 06, 2015
Jkt 238001
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section
40103. Under that section, the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations to
assign the use of the airspace necessary
to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority as
it makes administrative changes to the
descriptions of restricted areas R–3601A
and R–3601B, Brookville, KS.
Background
Modification to Restricted Areas R–
3601A & R–3601B; Brookville, KS
SUMMARY:
match the restricted areas using agency
information.
DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC,
December 10, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)
267–8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In August 1970, the FAA published a
rule in the Federal Register (35 FR
10107, June 19, 1970) establishing the
Brookville, KS, restricted areas R–3601A
and R–3601B in support of U.S. Air
Force (USAF) weapons delivery training
requirements. The two restricted areas
were originally established laterally
adjacent to each other with different
ceilings to be activated for use
individually, as required. Then, in July
2007, the FAA published another rule in
the Federal Register (72 FR 35917, July
2, 2007) that combined the restricted
areas lateral boundaries, divided the
combined areas vertically instead of
laterally, and expanded the vertical
limits to flight level 230 (FL230). The
lower portion of the combined area
(surface to but not including FL180) was
re-designated as R–3601A and the upper
portion (FL180 to FL230) as R–3601B.
The new configuration supported USAF
high altitude release bomb training
requirements for fighter aircraft and new
medium-to-high altitude release bomb
training requirement for bombers.
When the restricted areas lateral
boundaries were combined in 2007, the
boundaries descriptions for R–3601A
and R–3601B used the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Track to identify a segment of
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the restricted area boundaries. The
railroad track was removed years ago
and portions of the railroad right-of-way
is mostly obscured by trees or has been
plowed under for agriculture. Satellite
imagery was used to confirm that the
railroad right-of-way is no longer clearly
visible and is of little use to Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft trying to
navigate by ground reference in the
Salina, KS, local area.
The FAA worked with the USAF to
re-define the affected boundary
segments using geographic (latitude/
longitude) coordinates only. The new
restricted area boundary descriptions
overlay the boundaries previously
identified by the visual landmarks that
no longer exist. As a result of amending
the restricted area boundaries,
corresponding amendments to the
Smoky and Smoky High MOAs
boundaries are also necessary to retain
shared boundary segments between the
restricted areas and the MOAs.
Additionally, the R–3601A and R–
3601B using agency information does
not reflect the military service of the
using agency listed. To correct this
absence of information, the using
agency information for the restricted
areas is being updated. To ensure
standard using agency information for
the restricted areas and MOAs
supporting the Smoky Hill Air National
Guard Range, the Smoky and Smoky
High MOAs using agency information is
also being updated.
Military Operations Areas (MOA)
MOAs are established to separate or
segregate non-hazardous military flight
activities from aircraft operating in
accordance with instrument flight rules
(IFR), and to advise pilots flying under
VFR where these activities are
conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed
through an active MOA only by
agreement with the using agency and
only when air traffic control can provide
approved separation from the MOA
activity. VFR pilots are not restricted
from flying in an active MOA, but are
advised to exercise caution while doing
so. MOAs are nonregulatory airspace
areas that are established or amended
administratively and published in the
National Flight Data Digest (NFDD)
rather than through rulemaking
procedures. When a nonrulemaking
action is ancillary to a rulemaking
action, FAA procedures allow for the
nonrulemaking changes to be included
in the rulemaking action. Since the
Smoky and Smoky High MOAs
amendments are ancillary to the R–
3601A and R–3601B amendments being
made, the MOA changes are addressed
E:\FR\FM\07OCR1.SGM
07OCR1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0044. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 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 https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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: Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov; or Anthony
de Jes[uacute]s, Senior Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone:
301-415-1106, email: Anthony.deJesus@nrc.gov; or Jennifer Borges,
Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone: 301-415-3647, email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov; 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 https://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 (https://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 (https://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 https://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 https://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 ``NRCREP@nrc.gov'' with
``Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.''
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 https://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 Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov; 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 Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov.
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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain/.
(3) All docketed petitions, rulemakings, and public comments are
posted online in ADAMS and at https://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
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov 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
