[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49301-49305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24713]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 76

RIN 3150-AF85


Certification Renewal and Amendment Processes

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its regulations that apply to gaseous diffusion plants. In 1994, these 
regulations established the process by which the NRC would assume 
regulatory authority for the Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion 
plants. These plants first came under NRC oversight on March 3, 1997. 
While implementing the initial certification and amendment processes 
specified in the 1994 regulations, the NRC staff identified several 
areas in these processes that should be revised and improved so that 
they are more effective and efficient. This proposed rulemaking would 
modify the process for certificate renewals, establish a process for 
certificate amendments comparable to the process currently used to 
amend a fuel cycle license, revise the appeal process for amendments, 
eliminate the ``significant'' designation for amendments, simplify the 
criteria for persons who are eligible to file a petition for review of 
an amendment action, remove references to the initial application 
because the initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the 
time periods associated with filing a petition for review.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before 
November 16, 1998. Comments received after this date will be considered 
if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure 
consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attn: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    You may access the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through 
the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the 
availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web 
browser supports that function.
    For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. 
Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail [email protected].
    Copies of comments received may be examined or copied for a fee at 
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), 
Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John L. Telford, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6229, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Paducah and Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) first 
came under NRC oversight on March 3, 1997. Since that date, as the NRC 
implemented the initial certification and numerous certificate 
amendments under the processes specified in the 1994 regulations, the 
staff has identified several areas to improve the renewal and amendment 
processes so that they are more effective and efficient. Also, in the 
1994 regulations, the certificate renewal period was 1 year. However, 
by amendment of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, and 
implementing rulemaking, this period was recently modified to allow up 
to 5 years between certificate renewals. These events have caused the 
NRC to reexamine the part 76 certificate renewal and amendment 
processes. Hence, the objective of this proposed rule is to revise and 
improve the current regulations so that the staff can effectively and 
efficiently handle certificate renewals as well as the number of 
certificate amendments that could reasonably be expected over the 
recently established period of up to 5 years between certificate 
renewals. This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for 
certificate renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments 
comparable to the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, 
revise the appeal process for amendments, eliminate the ``significant'' 
designation for amendments, simplify the criteria for persons who are 
eligible to file a petition for review of a certificate amendment 
action, remove references to the initial application because the 
initial certificates have been issued, and lengthen the time periods 
associated with filing a petition for review.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    Currently, Sec. 76.37 specifies that the Director of the Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (the Director) shall publish a 
Federal Register notice of receipt of an application for renewal. This 
proposed rule would replace ``shall'' with ``may, at his or her 
discretion,'' and insert ``for renewal'' after the first occurrence of 
the word ``application'' in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). Replacing 
``shall'' with ``may, at his or her discretion,'' allows the Director 
to determine if a Federal Register notice is warranted for an 
application for renewal, on a case-by-case basis. There are two reasons 
for proposing this action. First, if the application does not address 
any new safety issues or there have not been any major changes to the 
facility or its operating procedures that would substantially increase 
the risk associated with the facility, then the Director may decide 
that a Federal Register notice is not necessary. This flexibility would 
allow the agency to focus its resources on safety issues that have 
significant potential risk. Second, there is no requirement in the AEA 
to notice an application for certificate renewal. Furthermore, similar 
actions for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities are not noticed. 
Also, adding ``for renewal'' clarifies that the application is 
specifically for renewal.
    In Sec. 76.39, the phrase ``for renewal'' would be inserted after 
each occurrence of the word ``application.'' This clarifies that the 
application being discussed in Sec. 76.39 is specifically for renewal.
    Section 76.45 would be modified in paragraph (a) to remove the 
responsibility for making the initial decision on an amendment 
application

[[Page 49302]]

from the Director. This change allows the decision to grant or deny an 
amendment application to be delegated to the branch chief level. This 
would contribute to a more efficient use of agency resources and is 
comparable to the process used for facilities regulated by the 
Commission under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.
    Section 76.45(b) would be deleted. The first sentence currently 
requires that the Director determine whether the proposed activities 
are ``significant'', and if so, follow the procedures specified in 
Secs. 76.37 and 76.39. This sentence would be deleted because the 
procedures specified in Sec. 76.37 to be followed by the Director would 
become discretionary, and the procedures specified in Sec. 76.39 are 
currently discretionary. Accordingly, it would not be logical to compel 
the Director to follow either of them. This deletion would eliminate 
the current distinction between ``significant'' and ``not significant'' 
proposed activities. This deletion is intended to provide a more 
flexible and efficient regulatory process. However, the public's 
opportunity to follow each amendment action remains the same because 
licensing documents are placed in the Commission's Public Document 
Room, and the public would have an opportunity to file a petition for 
review of an amendment as described in proposed Sec. 76.45(d). In 
addition, the last sentence in Sec. 76.45(b) would be deleted because 
decisions on certificate amendment applications would be delegated to 
the branch chief level. This delegation would be comparable to the 
process currently used for 10 CFR part 30, 40, and 70 facilities.
    The current Sec. 76.45(c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) 
because the current paragraph (b) would be deleted.
    In proposed Sec. 76.45(c), the first sentence would provide that a 
certificate amendment would become effective when issued. This would 
allow the NRC staff to handle issues that need to be addressed quickly 
to avoid an unnecessary operational upset of a large gaseous diffusion 
plant, ensure adequate protection of public health and safety from 
radiological hazards, and/or provide for the common defense and 
security. The second sentence of Sec. 76.45(c) would provide that the 
staff may, at its discretion, publish notice of its decision on an 
amendment application in the Federal Register. The staff would take 
this action, on a case-by-case basis, whenever warranted. For example, 
if the application does not address any new safety issues or there have 
not been any major changes to the facility or its operating procedures 
that would substantially increase the risk associated with the 
facility, then the staff may decide that a Federal Register notice is 
not necessary. This flexibility would allow the NRC to devote its 
resources to safety issues that have significant potential risk. Also, 
there is no requirement in the AEA to notice a certificate amendment 
application. Furthermore, the Commission does not notice similar 
actions for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 facilities.
    Currently, a decision on an amendment application may be appealed 
by filing a request for the Commission's review. Proposed 
Sec. 76.45(d), concerning the staff's determination on an amendment 
application, would establish procedures for the United States 
Enrichment Corporation (Corporation), or any person whose interests may 
be affected, to file a petition for the Director's review. Under the 
proposed rule, it is the initial determination on a certificate 
amendment application that would be delegated to the branch chief; 
therefore, it is logical for the Director to be the first level of 
review. This process would contribute to a more efficient use of agency 
resources because an appeal issue may be resolved by the Director and, 
thus, not need the Commission's review.
    Proposed Sec. 76.45(e), concerning the Director's decision, would 
establish procedures for either the Corporation, or any person whose 
interests may be affected and who filed a petition for review or filed 
a response to a petition for review under Sec. 76.45(d), to file a 
petition for the Commission's review. This proposed rule would have the 
initial review of a staff determination on an amendment application 
rendered by the Director; therefore, it is logical for the Commission 
to be the final level of review.
    In Sec. 76.62(c) the phrase, ``who submitted written comments in 
response to the Federal Register notice on the application or 
compliance plan under Sec. 76.37, or provided oral comments at any 
meeting held on the application or compliance plan conducted under 
Sec. 76.39'' would be removed. This would eliminate restrictions that 
limit those entities who may file a petition requesting review of the 
Director's decision regarding issuance of a certificate and/or approval 
of a compliance plan. Elimination of these restrictions is consistent 
with the Commission's practice for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 
facilities. Further, in the event that a Federal Register notice is not 
issued for a certificate renewal, the notice of the Director's decision 
would provide the first published opportunity for a person whose 
interest may be affected to be aware of the action. Also, the number of 
days specified in Sec. 76.62(c) would be increased, e.g., 15 days 
becomes 30 days. This would provide more time for the Corporation or 
other member of the public whose interests may be affected to file a 
petition for review on a certificate renewal action, since the time 
period for a certificate renewal was recently extended from annually to 
up to 5 years and, therefore, the need to act within 15 days because of 
the time constraint associated with annual renewals has been removed. 
Also, the sentence, ``Unless the Commission grants the petition for 
review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of the 
Federal Register notice, the Director's initial decision on the 
certificate application or compliance plan becomes effective and 
final,'' would be revised to read: ``If the Commission does not issue a 
decision or otherwise act within 90 days after the publication of the 
Federal Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect.'' 
This change would make clear that the Director's decision is effective 
upon issuance and would eliminate a potential 60-day suspension of the 
effectiveness of the Director's decision, if a petition for review is 
filed. The Director's decision would remain in effect unless it is 
changed by the Commission. This procedure would also be more consistent 
with the process for license renewals pursuant to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 
and 70. In addition, to accommodate the increased time for both filing 
a petition for review and responding to a petition, the time provided 
for the Commission to act would be increased from 60 to 90 days 
following publication of the Federal Register notice.
    The changes made in Sec. 76.62(c) would also be made in 
Sec. 76.64(d) for the same reasons.
    In the introductory text of Sec. 76.91, reference to Sec. 76.35(d) 
would be changed to Sec. 76.35(f) to correct a typographical error.
    In addition, part 76 would be modified to remove references to the 
initial application that are no longer relevant because the initial 
certificates have been issued. In Secs. 76.33 (a)(1), (b), (c), (d), 
and (e), and 76.35, references to ``initial'' would be removed. Section 
76.9(c) would be removed as no longer relevant because of the reference 
to the initial certification application. Phrases in Secs. 76.21(a), 
76.36(a), 76.60(e)(2), and 76.91(n) concerning initial certification 
would be removed. References in Secs. 76.7(e)(1), 76.60(c)(2), 
76.60(d)(2),

[[Page 49303]]

and 76.60(e)(1) to the NMSS Director's initial decision would be 
removed.
    Section 76.33 would also be amended to correct a printing error in 
the regulatory text. In Sec. 76.33(a)(2) the redundant phrase ``the 
names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal office,'' would be 
removed.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

    The NRC has determined that this regulation is the type of action 
described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) and (3). 
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an 
environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The information collection requirements contained in this part of 
limited applicability apply to a wholly-owned instrumentality of the 
United States. Therefore, Office of Management and Budget clearance is 
not required pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
5301 et seq).

Regulatory Analysis

    This proposed rulemaking would modify the process for certificate 
renewals, establish a process for certificate amendments comparable to 
the process currently used to amend a fuel cycle license, revise the 
appeal process for amendments, eliminate the ``significant'' 
designation for amendments, simplify the criteria for persons who are 
eligible to file a petition for review of an amendment action, remove 
references to the initial application because the initial certificates 
have been issued, and lengthen the time periods associated with filing 
a petition for review.
    Although current 10 CFR part 76 contains a process for certificate 
amendment and the GDP certificates have been amended several times, 
these licensing actions have identified that the process described in 
Sec. 76.45 has several deficiencies that should be corrected and that 
the process should be revised and improved so that it is more effective 
and efficient, as discussed above. The proposal being considered 
parallels the process currently used for 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 
facilities. It also removes the ambiguity associated with determining 
who can petition the NRC for review of an amendment application 
decision.
    Also, since the statute has been amended to allow up to a 5-year 
certificate renewal period instead of an annual certificate renewal 
requirement, the lengthened certificate period has permitted 
consideration of improvements to the certificate renewal process. 
Because the time constraints of an annual certification process have 
been removed, appropriate changes to the time for appeals and lifting 
of restrictions on who may appeal a certification decision in the 
proposed rule would more closely resemble the process for renewal of 
materials licenses under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70.
    A no-change option would maintain the deficiencies and ambiguities 
in both processes and would not result in an improved process which is 
more effective and efficient.

Impacts on the Corporation

    An uncomplicated certificate amendment process is expected to 
provide a more timely regulatory process. If the identified 
deficiencies and ambiguities in the amendment process are not 
corrected, there is a potential for expense due to plant operational 
delays and reduced efficiencies that may be related to amendment 
requests. However, clarification of who can petition the Director for 
review of a staff determination on an amendment application and/or 
extension of the period for requesting a review may result in 
additional petitions. Similarly, the lifting of restrictions on who can 
petition for review of a certification renewal decision and the 
lengthening of the time for such petitions may result in additional 
petitions. This rulemaking is not expected to have any adverse economic 
impacts on the Corporation.

Benefit

    An uncomplicated process for certificate amendment is expected to 
result in a more effective and efficient NRC review process that would 
provide more timely completion of amendment reviews. Clarification of 
who can petition the Director for review of a certificate amendment 
determination would remove undesirable ambiguities. Specifically, the 
proposed rule would remove a restriction on who could petition for 
review by eliminating the current requirement that a petition for 
review only be filed by a person who had previously provided comments. 
The proposed rule would allow anyone whose interests may be affected to 
file a petition for review. Also, extension of the time periods 
associated with filing a petition for review would provide more time 
for the public to participate in the amendment process. The proposed 
rule also provides the same removal of restrictions on who may petition 
for review of a certification renewal decision and extension of time 
for petitions for review of a certification renewal decision. Further, 
the proposed rule provides the staff discretion in publishing the 
Federal Register notice of receipt of the application for Certificate 
renewal. Exercise of this discretion permits the staff to use its 
resources in the most effective and efficient manner.

Preferred Option

    The preferred option is to amend the regulations to eliminate 
ambiguities, reduce inefficiencies, better define the processes for 
certificate renewals and amendments, allow immediately effective 
amendments, and allow more time for public participation, while 
continuing to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
    This constitutes the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
the Commission certifies that this rulemaking will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it only addresses the United States Enrichment Corporation or 
its successor. The Corporation does not fall within the scope of the 
definition of ``small entities'' set forth in 10 CFR 2.810 or the Small 
Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small 
Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121.

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this 
proposed rule; therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this 
proposed rule because these amendments do not involve any provisions 
that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Ch. I.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 76

    Certification, Criminal penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Special nuclear 
material, Uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion.
    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. 553; the NRC is proposing to 
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 76.

PART 76--CERTIFICATION OF GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANTS

    1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:


[[Page 49304]]


    Authority: Secs. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, secs. 1312, 
1701, as amended, 106 Stat. 2932, 2951, 2952, 2953, 110 Stat. 1321-
349 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297b-11, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 204, 
206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846); 
sec. 234(a), 83 Stat. 444, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 
1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243(a)).
    Sec. 76.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sec. 76.22 is also issued under sec. 193(f), 
as amended, 104 Stat. 2835, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 
1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243(f)). Sec. 76.35(j) also issued under 
sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

    2. In Sec. 76.7, paragraph (e)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.7  Employee protection.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) The Corporation shall prominently post the revision of NRC 
Form 3, ``Notice to Employees,'' referenced in 10 CFR 19.11(c). This 
form must be posted at locations sufficient to permit employees 
protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their 
place of work. Premises must be posted during the term of the 
certificate, and for 30 days following certificate termination.
* * * * *


Sec. 76.9  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 76.9, paragraph (c) is removed.
    4. In Sec. 76.21, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.21  Certificate required.

    (a) The Corporation or its contractors may not operate the gaseous 
diffusion plants at Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, unless an 
appropriate certificate of compliance, and/or an approved compliance 
plan is in effect pursuant to this part. Except as authorized by the 
NRC under other provisions of this chapter, no person other than the 
Corporation or its contractors may acquire, deliver, receive, possess, 
use, or transfer radioactive material at the gaseous diffusion plants 
at Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky.
* * * * *
    5. Section 76.33 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.33  Application procedures.

    (a) Filing requirements. (1) An application for a certificate of 
compliance must be tendered by filing 20 copies of the application with 
the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, with 
copies sent to the NRC Region III Office and appropriate resident 
inspector, in accordance with Sec. 76.5 of this part.
    (2) The application must include the full name, address, age (if an 
individual), and citizenship of the applicant. If the applicant is a 
corporation or other entity, it shall indicate the State where it was 
incorporated or organized, the location of the principal office, the 
names, addresses, and citizenship of its principal officers, and shall 
include information known to the applicant concerning the control or 
ownership, if any, exercised over the applicant by any alien, foreign 
corporation, or foreign government.
    (b) Oath or affirmation. An application for a certificate of 
compliance must be executed in a signed original by a duly authorized 
officer of the Corporation under oath or affirmation.
    (c) Pre-filing consultation. The Corporation may confer with the 
Commission's staff before filing an application.
    (d) Additional information. At any time during the review of an 
application, the Corporation may be required to supply additional 
information to the Commission's staff to enable the Commission or the 
Director, as appropriate, to determine whether the certificate should 
be issued or denied, or to determine whether a compliance plan should 
be approved.
    (e) Withholdable information. An application which contains 
Restricted Data, National Security Information, Safeguards Information, 
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information, proprietary data, or other 
withholdable information, must be prepared in such a manner that all 
such information or data are separated from the information to be made 
available to the public.
    6. In Sec. 76.35, the section heading and introductory paragraph 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.35  Contents of application.

    The application for a certificate of compliance must include the 
information identified in this section.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 76.36, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.36  Renewals.

    (a) The Corporation shall file periodic applications for renewal, 
as required by Sec. 76.31.
* * * * *
    8. Section 76.37 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.37  Federal Register notice.

    The Director may, at his or her discretion, publish in the Federal 
Register:
    (a) A notice of the filing of an application for renewal 
(specifying that copies of the application, except for Restricted Data, 
Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information, Classified National 
Security Information, Safeguards Information, Proprietary Data, or 
other withholdable information will be made available for public 
inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, 
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC, and in the local public document 
room at or near the location of the plant);
    (b) A notice of opportunity for written public comment on the 
application for renewal; and
    (c) The date of any scheduled public meeting regarding the 
application for renewal.
    9. In Sec. 76.39, paragraphs (a), the introductory text of (b), 
(b)(1), and (b)(4) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.39  Public meeting.

    (a) A public meeting will be held on an application for renewal if 
the Director, in his or her discretion, determines that a meeting is in 
the public interest with respect to a decision on the application for 
renewal.
    (b) Conduct of public meeting.
    (1) The Director shall conduct any public meeting held on the 
application for renewal.
* * * * *
    (4) Members of the public will be given an opportunity during a 
public meeting to make their views regarding the application for 
renewal known to the Director.
* * * * *
    10. Section 76.45 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.45  Application for amendment of certificate.

    (a) Contents of amendment application. In addition to the 
application for certification submitted pursuant to Sec. 76.31, the 
Corporation may at any time apply for amendment of the certificate to 
cover proposed new or modified activities. The amendment application 
should contain sufficient information to make findings of compliance or 
acceptability for the proposed activities as required for the original 
certificate.
    (b) Oath or affirmation. An application for an amendment of the 
certificate of compliance must be executed in a signed original by the 
Corporation under oath or affirmation.
    (c) Amendment application determinations. If the NRC staff approves 
an application for a certificate amendment, it will be effective when 
issued by the NRC staff to the Corporation. If an application for a 
certificate amendment is not approved by the NRC staff, the Corporation 
will be informed in writing. The NRC staff may, at its discretion, 
publish notice of its determination on an amendment application in the 
Federal Register.

[[Page 49305]]

    (d) Request for review of staffs determination on an amendment 
application. The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be 
affected, may file a petition requesting the Director's review of a NRC 
staff determination on an amendment application. A petition requesting 
the Director's review may not exceed 30 pages and must be filed within 
30 days after the date of the staff's determination. Any person 
described in this paragraph may file a written response to a petition 
requesting the Director's review. This response may not exceed 30 pages 
and must be filed within 15 days after the filing date of the petition 
requesting the Director's review. The Director may adopt, modify, or 
set aside the findings, conclusions, conditions, or terms in the 
staff's amendment determination by providing a written basis for the 
action. If the Director does not issue a decision or otherwise act 
within 60 days after receiving the petition for review, the staff's 
determination on the amendment application remains in effect.
    (e) Request for review of a Director's decision. The Corporation, 
or any person whose interest may be affected and who filed a petition 
for review or filed a response to a petition for review under 
Sec. 76.45(d), may file a petition requesting the Commission's review 
of a Director's decision on an amendment application. A petition 
requesting the Commission's review may not exceed 30 pages and must be 
filed within 30 days after the date of the Director's decision. A 
petition requesting the Commission's review may be either: delivered to 
the Rulemakings and Adjudications Branch of the Office of the Secretary 
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or 
sent by mail or telegram to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff. Any person described in this paragraph may file a 
written response to a petition requesting the Commission's review. This 
response may not exceed 30 pages and must be filed within 15 days after 
the filing date of the petition requesting the Commission's review. The 
Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its 
judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision. 
The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, 
conclusions, conditions, or terms in the Director's amendment review 
decision and will state the basis of its action in writing. If the 
Commission does not issue a decision or otherwise act within 90 days 
after receiving the petition for review, the Director's decision, under 
Sec. 76.45(d), on the amendment application remains in effect.
    11. In Sec. 76.60, paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(2) 
are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.60  Regulatory requirements which apply.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The Corporation shall post NRC Form 3 during the term of the 
certificate and for 30 days following certificate termination.
    (d) * * *
    (2) The Corporation shall comply with the requirements in this part 
or as specified in an approved plan for achieving compliance.
    (e) * * *
    (1) The Corporation shall comply with the requirements in 
Secs. 21.6 and 21.21.
    (2) Under Sec. 21.31, procurement documents issued by the 
Corporation must specify that the provisions of 10 CFR part 21 apply.
* * * * *
    12. In Sec. 76.62, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.62  Issuance of certificate and/or approval of compliance plan.

* * * * *
    (c) The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected, 
may file a petition, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting review of the 
Director's decision. This petition must be filed with the Commission 
not later than 30 days after publication of the Federal Register 
notice. Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to 
any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 15 days after 
the filing of the petition. If the Commission does not issue a decision 
or otherwise act within 90 days after the publication of the Federal 
Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect. The 
Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its 
judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision.
    13. In Sec. 76.64, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.64  Denial of certificate or compliance plan.

* * * * *
    (d) The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected, 
may file a petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting 
review of the Director's decision. This petition for review must be 
filed with the Commission not later than 30 days after publication of 
the Federal Register notice. Any person described in this paragraph may 
file a response to any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, 
within 15 days after the filing of the petition for review. If the 
Commission does not issue a decision or otherwise act within 90 days 
after the publication of the Federal Register notice, the Director's 
decision remains in effect. The Commission may adopt, by order, further 
procedures that, in its judgment, would serve the purpose of review of 
the Director's decision.
    14. In Sec. 76.91, the introductory text and paragraph (n) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 76.91  Emergency planning.

    The Corporation shall establish, maintain, and be prepared to 
follow a written emergency plan. The emergency plan submitted under 
Sec. 76.35(f) must include the following information:
* * * * *
    (n) Comment from offsite response organizations. The Corporation 
shall allow the offsite response organizations expected to respond in 
case of an accident 60 days to comment on the emergency plan before 
submitting it to NRC. The Corporation shall provide any comments 
received within the 60 days to the NRC with the emergency plan.
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September, 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-24713 Filed 9-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P