[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 22, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50937-50945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21228]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150-AG44


Licensing Proceedings for the Receipt of High-Level Radioactive 
Waste at a Geologic Repository: Licensing Support Network, Design 
Standards for Participating Websites

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend 
its Rules of Practice applicable to the use of the Licensing Support 
Network (LSN) for the licensing proceeding on the disposal of high-
level waste (HLW) at a geologic repository. The proposed amendments 
would establish the basic data structure and transfer standards 
(``design standards'') that LSN participant websites must use to make 
documentary material available. The proposed amendments would also 
clarify the authority of the LSN Administrator to establish guidance 
for LSN participants on how best to meet the design standards and to 
review participant designs for compliance with the standards. Finally, 
the proposed amendments would clarify the timing of participant 
compliance certifications.

DATES: Submit comments October 6, 2000. 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: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking

[[Page 50938]]

website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site provides the capability 
to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports 
that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking 
website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: 
[email protected]).
    Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments 
received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L 
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20003-1527.
    Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, 
are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's 
Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more 
information, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 202-634-3273 or by email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis X. Cameron, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-1642, 
e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 2, subpart J, provide 
for the use of an electronic information management system, the 
Licensing Support Network (LSN), in the HLW repository licensing 
proceeding. Originally promulgated on April 14, 1989, (54 FR 14944), 
the information management system currently required by Subpart J is to 
have the following functions:
    (1) To provide full text search and retrieval access to the 
relevant documents of all parties and potential parties to the HLW 
repository licensing proceeding beginning in the time period before the 
Department of Energy (DOE) license application for the repository is 
submitted;
    (2) To provide for electronic submission of filings by the parties, 
as well as the orders and decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, during the proceeding; and
    (3) To provide access to an electronic version of the HLW 
repository licensing proceeding docket.
    The creation of the LSN (originally called the ``Licensing Support 
System'', but hereinafter the ``LSN'') was stimulated by the 
requirements of Section 114(d)(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
1982 (NWPA). This provision requires the Commission to issue a final 
decision approving or disapproving issuance of the construction 
authorization for a geologic repository for HLW within three years of 
the ``submission'' of the DOE license application. The Commission 
anticipated that the HLW proceeding would involve substantial amounts 
of documents created by well-informed parties on numerous and complex 
issues. The Commission believed that the LSN could facilitate the 
timely NRC technical review, and the timely petitioner ``discovery-
type'' review, of DOE's license application by providing for electronic 
access to relevant documents before the license application is 
submitted, and to supplant the need for the traditional discovery 
process used in NRC proceedings of the physical production of these 
documents after the license application is submitted. In addition, the 
Commission believed that early provision of these documents in an 
easily searchable form would allow for a thorough and comprehensive 
technical review of the license application by all parties and 
potential parties to the HLW licensing proceeding, resulting in better 
focused contentions in the proceeding. The LSN would also facilitate 
agency responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by 
providing the public with electronic access to relevant documents.
    The current requirements contained in the LSN rule require DOE and 
NRC to make their documentary material available in electronic form 
beginning thirty days after DOE's submission of its site recommendation 
to the President of the United States. All other participants must make 
their documents available in electronic form no later than thirty days 
after the date that the repository site selection decision becomes 
final after review by Congress. Originally, the LSN was conceived of as 
a large centralized information management system administered by what 
was then called the Licensing Support System Administrator. In order to 
take advantage of the advances in technology that occurred since the 
promulgation of the original rule, the Commission revised the rule to 
use the Internet to link geographically dispersed sites rather than 
relying on a complex and expensive centralized system (62 FR 60789; 
December 23, 1998). Although the Supplementary Information that 
accompanied these most recent amendments noted that the availability of 
the Internet to link geographically dispersed sites appears to have the 
potential to satisfy the requirements and objectives of Subpart J, no 
specific design for the LSN was set forth in that final rule nor were 
any specific performance requirements established except to specify 
that the overall design must be ``effective and efficient''. At that 
time it was concluded that further evaluation by the LSN Administrator, 
and consultation with the Commission's LSN Advisory Review Panel 
(LSNARP) of potential system users, was necessary before the nature and 
scope of these design requirements would become clear. Under 
Sec. 2.1011(c)(1) of the current rule, the LSN Administrator is also 
responsible for bringing these types of LSN implementation issues to 
the Commission for Commission consideration.
    The Commission now believes that certain minimum design standards 
for data structure and data transfer (``design standards'') for 
individual participant websites are necessary to ensure that the LSN 
meets its objectives and functions. Without such standards, there is a 
potential that the parties and potential parties to the HLW licensing 
proceeding may be unable to identify needed documents efficiently and 
effectively because the system is slow, cumbersome, or simply 
unavailable, given the large number of documents and the many users 
trying to access the system. In addition, the lack of required 
standards may lead to skepticism about document and data integrity. The 
system should ensure that it provides the tools needed for 
participants' document discovery and for the technical staff to perform 
a thorough technical review of the license application. Any 
deficiencies in the information management system for the HLW licensing 
proceeding could easily result in time-consuming disputes that place 
the three-year repository application review schedule at risk. The 
Commission believes the cost of system failure is too high not to try 
to ensure effective operation of the system through establishing some 
minimal design standards.
    In addition to the proposed design standards, the Commission is 
also proposing to supplement the existing responsibilities of the LSN 
Administrator by making it clear that the Administrator has the 
authority to review participant website designs to verify compliance 
with the basic design standards, including the authority to allow 
variances from those standards. In addition, it will make clear that 
the LSN Administrator has the authority to issue guidance to the LSN 
participants on how they might best meet the design standards. The LSN 
Administrator will

[[Page 50939]]

develop this guidance in consultation with the LSNARP. The Commission 
anticipates that the LSN Administrator's guidance will be, in most 
cases, routinely followed by the LSN participants. However, there will 
be flexibility for a participant to deviate from the guidance to take 
into account individual needs and differences as long as the 
fundamental design requirements are met.

II. LSN Design Standards

    The successful implementation of a system to connect diverse 
collections of documents stored by the participants on a wide range of 
hardware and software platforms will depend on the use of data 
structure and transfer standards and protocols. Adherence to these 
standards will ensure usability and exchangeability to the users, and 
verifiability of data integrity to the LSN Administrator. These 
standards must--
    (1) Be broad enough to encompass a wide range of automation 
products;
    (2) Be focused enough to accomplish successful document access;
    (3) Impose the least amount of burden on the participants; and
    (4) Be dynamic enough to address new technologies that may be used 
by as yet unidentified participants.
    These design standards are generally accepted data structure and 
transfer protocols currently in use in the Internet environment, and as 
such, reflect a ``lowest common denominator'' for participant websites 
while allowing the participants the flexibility to select the specific 
technologies (hardware and software) for their websites. The Commission 
also intends to implement a design for the ``LSN site'', discussed 
later, that will ensure that the totality of the individual websites 
operate in an ``effective and efficient'' manner. This ``LSN site'' 
design complements the capabilities of, and relies on compatibility 
with, the design standards for individual participant websites. The 
Commission is proposing the following design standards:
    1. The participants must make textual (or, where non-text, image) 
versions of their documents available on a web-accessible server. Web 
indexing software (also known as a robot, a spider, a crawler) must be 
able to canvass data files and server log files on the participant 
server.
    This proposed clarification establishes a baseline of data and 
documents placed on participant systems, and, a means to revisit those 
servers routinely to identify any changes to documents. This proposed 
revision is consistent with the Administrator's responsibility under 10 
CFR 2. 1011(c)(4) to resolve problems regarding the integrity of LSN 
documentary material.
    This proposed revision does not affect the ability of parties or 
potential parties to correct or revise documents already made available 
on their web sites. Changes to documents previously entered are 
permitted if:
    (1) A corrected or updated document is noted as superseding a 
previously provided document;
    (2) The previous version is not removed; and,
    (3) Other parties or potential parties are notified of the change.
    2. The participants must make bibliographic header data available 
in an accessible, SQL (Structured Query Language)-compliant (ANSI 
IX3.135-1992/ISO 9075-1992) database management system (DBMS). 
Alternatively, the structured data may be made available in a standard 
database readable (e.g., comma delimited) file.
    The proposed criteria provide acceptable electronic formats for 
parties to provide bibliographical information on a document or the 
full text of a document on their individual web pages in a form that 
can be searched by the LSN web site. This proposed clarification 
identifies two ways by which parties or potential parties can make a 
bibliographic header available for use by the LSN. SQL-compliant 
identifies a broad range of widely used database products with proven 
data exchange capability. SQL is a standard interactive and programming 
language for accessing and updating a database. The option for 
providing readable files establishes a low system cost threshold for 
participants in that it does not require investment in a DBMS, yet 
still provides for data formatting so that import routines can be 
easily developed. A ``comma delimited'' file is a way to identify where 
a particular relational database file begins and ends.
    3. Textual material must be formatted to comply with the 
US.ISO_8859-1 character set and be in one of the following acceptable 
formats: plain text, native word processing (Word, WordPerfect), PDF 
(Portable Document Format) Normal, or HTML.
    This proposed clarification simplifies data exchange by 
standardizing on the standard Latin alphabet. It also identifies a 
broad range of widely used text file formats (which the LSN 
participants can designate) for text documents that are viewable with 
current browser/viewer software and can be recognized by state-of-
technology indexing software.
    4. Image files must be formatted as TIFF (Tag Image File Format) 
CCITT G4 for bi-tonal images or PNG (Portable Network Graphics) per 
[http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png-multi.html] format for grey-scale or 
color images, or PDF (Portable Document Format--Image) for compound 
documents. TIFF images will be stored at 300 dpi (dots per inch), grey 
scale images at 150 dpi with eight bits of tonal depth, and color 
images at 150 dpi with 24 bits of color depth. Participants should 
store images on their servers as single image-per-page to facilitate 
retrieval of no more than a single page. Alternatively, images may be 
stored in a page-per-document format if software is incorporated in the 
web server that allows single-page representation and delivery. A ``Tag 
Image File Format'' or ``TIFF'' is a common format for exchanging 
raster (bitmapped) images between application programs.
    This proposed clarification establishes three standard formats, 
usable by the LSN, that parties or potential parties can use to make 
non-textual documentary materials viewable with current browser/viewer 
software. These standards all use predictable algorithms for 
compression and uncompression of files to help ensure compatibility and 
usability. Additionally, all these standard formats have attributes 
that can be used to verify that an image file has not been revised 
since initially being placed on a participant's server.
    5. The parties or potential parties must programmatically link the 
bibliographic header record with the text or image file it represents 
to provide for file delivery and display from participant machines 
using the LSN system.
    This proposed clarification establishes basic information 
management controls to clearly and systematically link the 
bibliographic record entry with the document it describes. The 
bibliographic header must contain fielded data identifying its 
associated text or image file name and directory location.
    6. To facilitate data exchange, participants must follow hardware 
and software standards, including, but not limited to:
    Network access must be HTTP/1.1 [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html] over TCP (Transmission Control Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]).
    Associating server names with IP addresses must follow the DNS 
(Domain Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/

[[Page 50940]]

rfcs/rfc1034.html] and [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html].
    Web page construction must be HTML version 4.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/].
    Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange between 3-mail servers must be 
SMTP (Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html].
    Format of an electronic mail message must be per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html] optionally extended by MIME (Multimedia 
Internet Mail Extensions) per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html] 
to accommodate multimedia e-mail.
    This proposed clarification identifies standard data exchange 
protocols commonly used in the Internet environment to help ensure data 
exchange and usability.

III. The LSN Site Design

    As noted, the Commission also intends to implement a design for the 
``LSN site'' that will ensure that the totality of the individual 
websites operate in an ``efficient and effective'' manner. The proposed 
design standards for individual participant websites are fully 
consistent and supportive of the design for the ``LSN site''. In order 
to evaluate the alternative designs for the ``LSN site'', the Technical 
Working Group of the LSN Advisory Review Panel identified and 
characterized five design alternatives for review by the full Advisory 
Panel. These alternatives were then reviewed by the full LSN Advisory 
Review Panel. The LSN Administrator then evaluated the recommendations 
of the Advisory Review Panel in preparing a Capital Planning and 
Investment Control (CPIC) Business Case Analysis for review by the NRC 
Information Technology Business Council. Two of the alternatives 
identified by the Technical Working Group, Alternatives 2 and 4, were 
not included in this analysis because no members of the LSN Advisory 
Review Panel supported these alternatives. The Business Case and the 
recommendations of the Information Technology Business Council were 
then reviewed by the NRC Executive Council.
    In the Business Case Analysis, the LSN Administrator recommended 
the selection of the alternative originally identified as ``Alternative 
3'' (Design Option 2 in the Regulatory Analysis) in the report of the 
LSN Advisory Review Panel Technical Working Group. The Administrator's 
recommendation was supported by the Information Technology Business 
Council and the Executive Council. A summary comparison of the 
alternative designs is included in the Regulatory Analysis for this 
proposed rule. The entire Business Case Analysis (with budgetary data 
redacted) is available from the LSN Administrator. Contact Dan Graser, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. 20555, telephone 
(301) 415-7401, email [email protected].
    The recommended design is an LSN home page/web site based on portal 
software technology. Web portals include hardware and software capable 
of: indexing all bibliographic data and text documents on a web server; 
establishing a baseline; and then routinely revisiting those servers to 
compare new findings against the previous baseline. The single LSN web 
page standardizes search and retrieval across all collections by 
providing a common user search interface, rather than requiring users 
to learn the search and retrieval commands from each different site.
    Each participant web site acts as a file server to deliver the text 
documents responsive to a query found through a search at the LSN web 
site. The LSN identifies the contents of each server and stores this 
information in its own database, which is then used to respond to 
searches. Users are presented lists of candidate documents that are 
responsive to their search. When the user wants to view a document, the 
LSN directs the participant server to deliver the file back to the 
user.
    In addition to the search and retrieval, the LSN keeps track of how 
data was stored in the participant servers. Software assigns a unique 
identifying number to each file found on a server. The LSN software 
uses its baseline information about documents to identify when the 
participants have updated data on their servers. It also gathers 
information about the performance of the participants' servers 
including availability, number of text or image files delivered, and 
their response times.
    Finally, the LSN will be used to post announcements about the 
overall LSN program and items of interest (hours of availability, 
scheduled outages, etc.) for the participant sites.
    The Commission believes that the recommended design represents the 
least cost to both NRC and the individual parties to the HLW licensing 
proceeding, while at the same time providing high value to the users. 
Because it is based on a proven technical solution that has been 
successfully implemented, the recommended design will provide a 
document discovery system that will facilitate the NRC's ability to 
comply with the schedule for decision on the repository construction 
authorization, will provide an electronic environment that facilitates 
a thorough technical review of relevant documentary material, will 
ensure equitable access to the information for the parties to the HLW 
licensing proceeding, will ensure that document integrity has been 
maintained for the duration of the licensing proceeding, will most 
consistently provide the information tools needed to organize and 
access large participant collections, will feature adequately scaled 
and adaptable hardware and software, and will include comprehensive 
security, backup, and recovery capabilities.

IV. The Role of the LSN Administrator

    The role of the LSN Administrator under the current rule is to 
coordinate access to, and the functioning of, the LSN, as well as to 
coordinate the resolution of problems regarding the availability and 
integrity of documentary material and data. As a necessary supplement 
to the specification of the design standards set forth in this proposed 
rule, the Commission believes that the LSN Administrator should have 
additional responsibilities. The proposed rule would give the LSN 
Administrator the responsibility to review all participant website 
designs to ensure that they meet the design standards and to allow 
variances from the design standards to accommodate changes in 
technology or problems identified during initial operability testing of 
the individual websites or the ``LSN site''. The Administrator would 
also have the authority to develop and issue guidance for LSN 
participants on how best to incorporate the LSN standards in their 
system. Any disputes related to the Administrator's evaluation of 
participant compliance with the design standards would be referred to 
the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer under the authority of 
Sec. 2.1010 of the current rule.
    Sections 2.1011(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the current rule give the 
Administrator the responsibility to ``coordinate the resolution of 
problems'' in regard to ``LSN availability'' and the ``integrity of 
documentary material'', respectively. In order to be more explicit 
regarding the Administrator's responsibilities, the Commission is 
proposing to amend these sections to authorize the Administrator to 
identify problems, notify the participant(s) of the nature of these 
problems, and recommend a course of action to the participant(s) to 
resolve the problem concerning LSN availability, Sec. 2.1011(c)(3), or 
the integrity of documentary material, Sec. 2.1011(c)(4). The LSN 
Administrator would also report all such problems and recommended 
resolutions to the Pre-

[[Page 50941]]

License Application Presiding Officer provided for in Sec. 2.1010 of 
the rule. All disputes over the LSN Administrator's recommendations as 
to documentary material or data availability and integrity will be 
referred to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer.

V. The Timing of Participant Compliance Determinations

    Section 2.1009 of the current rule requires each potential party, 
interested governmental participant, or party to certify to the Pre-
License Application Presiding Officer that the documentary material 
specified in Sec. 2.1003 has been identified and made electronically 
available. In addition, DOE must update this certification at the time 
of submission of the license application to ensure that all documentary 
material generated by DOE between the initial certification and the 
submission of the license application have been made available in the 
LSN. Section 2.1012(a) authorizes the Director of the NRC's Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards not to docket the DOE license 
application if the application is not accompanied by an updated DOE 
certification of compliance with the LSN rule. However, the current 
rule does not specify when the initial certification must be made. The 
Commission is proposing a revision to Sec. 2.1009 to clarify that the 
initial participant certification of compliance (``initial 
certification'') must be made at the time that each participant's 
documentary material must be made available under Sec. 2.1003 of the 
rule (DOE and NRC beginning thirty days after DOE's submission of its 
site recommendation to the President; other participants no later than 
thirty days after the date that the repository site selection decision 
becomes final after review by Congress).
    Although the Commission fully expects DOE to make the initial 
certification at the time that DOE is required to comply with the 
requirement to make its documentary material available, the Commission 
is proposing to adopt a new Sec. 2.1009(c) which would address the 
unlikely possibility that DOE may not be able to make a timely initial 
certification. The basic requirements of the LSN rule have been in 
place for over ten years and the Commission would anticipate full and 
timely DOE compliance with these requirements. However, the Commission 
also recognizes that circumstances may raise the possibility that DOE 
would be unable to provide the initial certification at the time set 
for compliance. Under proposed Sec. 2.1009(c), if DOE cannot make the 
initial certification at the time first required, DOE then would have 
the obligation to make the initial certification as soon as possible. 
In addition, DOE would be required to provide the Pre-License 
Application Presiding Officer with a submission that, with as much 
specificity as is reasonably possible, details the circumstances 
regarding its noncompliance, including (1) the type and volume of the 
documentary material it has not made available so as to preclude it 
from making a certification; (2) an explanation as to why this 
documentary material has not been made electronically available; and 
(3) an estimate of a date certain by which this documentary material 
will be made available. Further, in addition to the section 2.1009(b) 
requirement of a twelve-month certification update, this DOE submission 
must be updated at ninety-day intervals until such time as DOE is able 
to certify that all the documentary material in question is available.
    DOE would remain under an obligation under Sec. 2.1003 to provide 
access to all the documentary material that is available at the time 
specified in Sec. 2.1003 and that is not identified in its submission 
explaining its noncertification, rather than delaying all document 
availability until the time that it can certify compliance. Any 
disputes regarding the DOE noncertification submission and any updates, 
including the validity of the information provided in the submission 
and any updates, would fall within the existing authority of the Pre-
License Application Presiding Officer under Sec. 2.1010.
    The Commission notes that curtailing the amount of time that the 
LSN is available before the submission of the license application would 
reduce the potential benefit that the LSN was to provide in terms of 
facilitating an effective and efficient NRC review of the DOE license 
application and providing complete document disclosure at the outset of 
the proceeding. If DOE is unable to make a timely initial 
certification, this benefit would be substantially diminished. Thus, 
the Commission anticipates that this would be an initiating event for 
the Commission to report to the Secretary of Energy and the Congress, 
pursuant to Section 114(e)(2) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that it 
could not meet the three-year review required under section 114(d) of 
the Act.

VI. Section-by-Section Changes

    The Commission is proposing two major revisions to Sec. 2.1011, 
Management of Electronic Information. The first would add a new 
paragraph (b)(2) to specify the basic design standards for individual 
LSN participant websites. The second major revision would clarify the 
authority of the LSN Administrator in regard to these design standards.
    In Sec. 2.1011:
    Paragraph (b)(2) would include the following design standards for 
LSN participant websites:
    Paragraph (b)(2)(i) would require that the participants make 
textual (or, where non-text, image) versions of their documents 
available on a web accessible server which is able to be canvassed by 
web indexing software (i.e., a ``robot'', ``spider'', ``crawler'') and 
the participant system would be required to make both data files and 
log files accessible to this software.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would require that the participants make 
structured data available in the context of (or, under the control of) 
an accessible SQL-compliant database management system (DBMS). 
Alternatively, the structured data may be made available in a standard 
database readable (e.g., comma delimited) file.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) would require that textual material be 
formatted to comply with the US.ISO__8859-1 character set and be in one 
of the following acceptable formats: native word processing (Word, 
WordPerfect), PDF Normal, or HTML.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) would require that image files be formatted as 
TIFF CCITT G4 for bi-tonal images or PNG (Portable Network Graphics) 
per [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png-multi.html]) format for grey-scale or 
color images, or PDF (Portable Document Format--Image) for compound 
documents. TIFF images will be stored at 300 dpi (dots per inch), grey 
scale images at 150 dpi with eight bits of tonal depth, and color 
images at 150 dpi with 24 bits of color depth. Images found on 
participant machines will be stored as single image-per-page to 
facilitate retrieval of no more than a single page, or alternatively, 
images may be stored in a page-per-document format if software is 
incorporated in the web server that allows single-page representation 
and delivery.
    Paragraph (b)(2)(v) would require that the parties programmatically 
link the bibliographic header record with the text or image file it 
represents. The header record must contain fielded data identifying its 
associated object (text or image) file name and directory location.
    To facilitate data exchange, paragraph (b)(2)(vi) would require 
that participants adhere to hardware and software standards, including 
the following:

[[Page 50942]]

    (A) Network access must be HTTP/1.1 [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html] over TCP (Transmission Control Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]).
    (B) Associating server names with IP addresses must follow the DNS 
(Domain Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1034.html] and 
[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html].
    (C) Web page construction must be HTML version 4.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/].
    (D) Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange between e-mail servers must 
be SMTP (Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html]).
    (E) Format of an electronic mail message must be per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html] optionally extended by MIME (Multimedia 
Internet Mail Extensions) per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html]) 
to accommodate multimedia e-mail.
    Section 2.1011(c) would be amended as follows to clarify the 
responsibilities and authority of the LSN Administrator:
    Paragraph (c)(6) would require that the LSN Administrator evaluate 
LSN participant compliance with the basic design standards in 
Sec. 2.1011(b)(2), and provide for individual variances from the design 
standards to accommodate changes in technology, problems identified 
during initial operability testing of the individual websites or the 
``LSN site'', or the infeasibility of an individual LSN participant's 
strict adherence to guidelines because of unique technical problems 
that would not affect the effectiveness or efficiency of the LSN.
    Paragraph (c)(7) would require that the LSN Administrator issue 
guidance for LSN participants on how best to comply with the design 
standards in Sec. 2.1011(b)(2).
    In Sec. 2.1011, paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) would also be amended 
in order to be more explicit regarding the Administrator's 
responsibilities in regard to LSN availability and the integrity of 
documentary material. The Commission is proposing to amend these 
sections to authorize the Administrator to identify problems, notify 
the participant(s) of the nature of these problems, and recommend a 
course of action to the participant(s) to resolve the problem in regard 
to LSN availability, Sec. 2.1011(c)(3), or the integrity of documentary 
material, Sec. 2.1011(c)(4). In accordance with Sec. 2.1010 of the 
rule, a dispute over the Administrator's evaluation of individual LSN 
participant website compliance with the basic design standards in 
proposed Sec. 2.1011(b)(2) or the Administrator's recommendations as to 
documentary material or data availability and integrity would be 
referred to the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer. In the case 
of such referral, the Commission anticipates that the Pre-License 
Application Presiding Officer may wish to call upon the LSN 
Administrator to investigate and report on particular problems and to 
recommend proposed solutions.
    Section 2.1009 would be amended to clarify that the initial 
participant certification of compliance (``initial certification'') 
must be made at the time that each participant's documentary material 
must be made available under Sec. 2.1003 of the rule.

Plain Language

    The Presidential memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing,'' directed that the government's 
writing be in plain language. This memorandum was published June 10, 
1998 (63 FR 31883). In complying with this directive, editorial changes 
have been made in these proposed revisions to improve the organization 
and readability of the existing language of the paragraphs being 
revised. These types of changes are not discussed further in this 
document. The NRC requests comments on the proposed rule specifically 
with respect to the clarity and reflectiveness of the language used. 
Comments should be sent to the address listed under the ADDRESSES 
caption of the preamble.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. 
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that 
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless 
using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. This proposed rule would establish basic design standards 
that Licensing Support Network participant websites must use to 
participate in the HLW licensing process. The standards in the proposed 
rule are based on World Wide Web Consortium (W3) standards, and/or the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) standards and are not 
government-unique standards.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

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

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The proposed rule does not contain information collection 
requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Public Protection Notification

    If a means used to impose an information collection does not 
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct 
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information 
collection.

Regulatory Analysis

    The following regulatory analysis identifies several alternatives 
(``regulatory options'') to the Commission's proposal to establish 
required design standards for the design of individual participant 
websites. It also provides information on the LSN Administrator's 
evaluation of alternatives for the ``LSN site'' (``design options'').
    Regulatory Options. Option 1 would retain the status quo of the 
existing rule consisting of requirements for participants to provide 
their documentary material in electronic form. Provision of this 
material would be on individual participant websites. No requirements 
would be established to assure that the information on the participant 
websites was readily available to other participants in a timely 
manner. Option 2 would provide for the development of suggested design 
standards by the LSN Administrator in consultation with the LSN 
Advisory Review Panel. Individual participants would be free to adopt 
or reject these suggested standards. Option 3 is reflected in the 
proposed rule. This Option establishes basic design standards for 
individual websites but also provides for flexibility in the 
implementation of the standards.
    In regard to Option 1, the Commission believes that the role of the 
LSN for providing a document discovery system to minimize delay in the 
HLW licensing proceeding, as well as for facilitating the effective 
review and use of relevant licensing information by all parties, is too 
important to not provide contextual guidance to the parties and 
potential parties in the design of individual websites. Individual 
participant judgments on the cost-benefit of providing data without a 
contextual framework of what is necessary to provide for effective data 
availability may compromise effective design.

[[Page 50943]]

Without such guidance, the funds that have been spent on the design and 
development of the LSN would be compromised by poor implementation, 
particularly by parties who have large document collections. Option 2 
would attempt to provide suggested standards through the LSN 
Administrator and the LSN Advisory Review Panel. Unfortunately, there 
is no assurance of consensus on the standards, or that any consensus 
standards would be followed even if they were developed. As with Option 
1, the Commission believes that the role of the LSN in the HLW 
licensing proceeding is too important to not establish minimal 
standards to ensure effective operation. Therefore, the Commission has 
adopted Option 3 which is reflected in the proposed rule.
    LSN Site Design Options. In order to evaluate the alternative 
designs for the ``LSN site'', the Technical Working Group of the LSNARP 
identified and characterized five design alternatives for review by the 
full Advisory Panel. These alternatives were then reviewed by the full 
LSNARP. Two of the alternatives that were identified by the Technical 
Working Group, Alternatives 2 and 4, were not included in this analysis 
because no members of the LSN Advisory Review Panel supported these 
alternatives. Therefore, the Commission ultimately considered three 
options for the design of the LSN site: Design Option 1 (TWG 
Alternative 1); Design Option 2 (TWG Alternative 3); and Design Option 
3 (TWG Alternative 5).
    Design Option 1 is characterized by an LSN homepage/website that 
points end-users to the web accessible documentary collections of each 
of the participants. The LSN homepage/website adds no value to the 
inherent information management capabilities found at any of the 
participant sites. The ``LSN site'' simply serves as a pointer to other 
home pages. This option provides no search and retrieval or file 
delivery processes to any user. The participant web site provides the 
sole search and retrieval tools to access its text documents. 
Participants may use any software to provide text search and retrieval, 
and those packages may represent a wide range of capabilities from 
minimal to fully featured.
    The recommended design, Design Option 2, is characterized by an LSN 
homepage/website developed using portal software technology. Web 
portals represent a fully featured hardware and software environment 
capable of ``crawling'' participant sites, characterizing (to the byte 
level) all structured and unstructured data located at that site, 
establishing a snapshot at defined points-in-time as baselines, and 
then routinely ``recrawling'' those sites and comparing new findings 
against the previous baseline. Portal software adds significant value 
to the inherent information management capabilities found at any of the 
participant sites. Each participant web site acts as a file server to 
deliver to Internet users the text documents responsive to a query 
found through a search at the LSN website.
    Under a portal architecture, the LSN would organize and identify 
the contents of participant collections in its own underlying database 
environment for structured data and would index unstructured data 
located at a ``crawled'' location. The portal software utilizes these 
underlying databases to respond to search queries with lists of 
candidate documents that are responsive to a user's request. When the 
user seeks to retrieve the file, the portal software directs the 
request back to the original source (participant) collection server 
that directly delivers the file back to the user. Portal software 
provides a single user search interface rather than requiring users to 
learn the search and retrieval commands from each different site. 
Portal software contains underlying data dictionaries that 
``interpret'' how data was stored in the participant servers and 
presents it to the user as ``normalized.'' Portal software also assigns 
a unique identifying number to each file regardless of file location.
    Design Option 3 is identical to Design Option 2 except that (1) 
when the user seeks to retrieve the file, the portal software delivers 
the document to a user from the copy maintained on a very large storage 
unit that would be maintained by the LSN Administrator; and (2) the 
storage cache is provided with high-capacity bandwidth under the 
control of the Administrator. Participant servers' versions of the 
document serve as backup copies should the LSN site become inoperative.
    The Commission believes that Design Option 1 is of low benefit in 
terms of delivering efficient or effective access to users and shifts 
the cost burden to individual participants. This Option creates a 
significant risk that system implementation and operation issues may 
result in disputes whose resolution could have a negative impact on the 
agency's ability to meet its three-year schedule for making a decision 
on repository construction authorization. The Commission would also 
note that the LSNARP TWG did not believe that Design Option 1 provided 
the functionality to be effective.
    Although Design Option 3 adds value over and above the design in 
Design Option 2, it also has the highest cost of all alternatives. 
Design Option 3, while it offers more assurance of performance and 
document delivery, has initial costs to NRC almost double those of 
Design Option 2, which fulfills the same number of functional 
requirements as Design Option 3. Design Option 3 also presents a 
potential conflict for the LSN Administrator, who would be in a 
position of being accountable for the availability, accuracy, 
integrity, and custodial chain of participant materials.
    The Commission believes that the recommended design represents the 
least cost to both NRC and the individual parties to the HLW licensing 
proceeding, while at the same time providing high value to the users. 
It is based on a proven technical solution that has been successfully 
implemented; it will provide a document discovery system that will 
facilitate the NRC's ability to comply with the schedule for decision 
on the repository construction authorization; it provides an electronic 
environment that facilitates a thorough technical review of relevant 
documentary material; it ensures equitable access to the information 
for the parties to the HLW licensing proceeding and that document 
integrity has been maintained for the duration of the licensing 
proceeding. Design Option 2 most consistently provides the information 
tools needed to organize and access large participant collections. It 
features adequately scaled and adaptable hardware and software and 
includes comprehensive security, backup, and recovery capabilities.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), 
the Commission has evaluated the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities. The NRC has established standards for determining who 
qualifies as small entities (10 CFR 2.810). The Commission certifies 
that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed 
amendments would modify the NRC's rules of practice and procedure in 
regard to the HLW licensing proceeding. Participants will be required 
to make their documentary material available electronically on a 
website that complies with the basic design standards established in 
the proposed rule. Some of the participants affected by the proposed 
rule, for example, DOE, NRC, the State of Nevada, would not fall within 
the definition of ``small entity'' under the NRC's size standards. 
Other parties and potential parties may qualify as ``small

[[Page 50944]]

entities'' under these size standards. However, the required standards 
reflect standard business practice for making material electronically 
available. In addition, the proposed requirements provide flexibility 
to participants in how these standards are implemented.

Backfit Analysis

    The NRC has determined that a backfit analysis is not required for 
this proposed rule because these amendments would not include any 
provisions that require backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, 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. 553; the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission is proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS AND 
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

    1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs.161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 
U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 
409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 
105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97-425, 
96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 
(42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also 
issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 
938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 
2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 
(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161 b, 
i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended 
(42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 
U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 
Stat. 890, as amended by section 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 
1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under 
sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). 
Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 
2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also 
issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 
U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 
Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 
and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued 
under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 
U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 
U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 
Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135).
    2. In Sec. 2.1009, paragraph (b) is revised and paragraph (c) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1009  Procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) The responsible official designated under paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section shall certify to the Pre-License Application Presiding 
Officer that the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section have been implemented, and that to the best of his or her 
knowledge, the documentary material specified in Sec. 2.1003 has been 
identified and made electronically available. The initial certification 
must be made at the time the participant is required to comply with 
Sec. 2.1003. The responsible official shall update this certification 
at twelve month intervals if necessary. The responsible official for 
the DOE shall also update this certification at the time of submission 
of the license application.
    (c)(1) If DOE is unable to make an initial certification as 
specified in Sec. 2.1003(a), DOE shall make an initial certification as 
soon as possible. In addition, at the time specified in Sec. 2.1003(a) 
for making documentary material available, DOE shall provide the Pre-
License Application Presiding Officer with a submission that describes 
with as much specificity as is reasonably possible the circumstances 
involved, including:
    (i) The type and volume of the documentary material for which it is 
not able to make a certification,
    (ii) An explanation as to why the documentary material has not been 
made electronically available, and
    (iii) An estimate of a date certain by which that documentary 
material will be made available.
    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this 
section, this submission shall be updated at ninety-day intervals until 
such time as DOE is able to certify that the documentary material in 
question is available.
    3. In Sec. 2.1011, paragraphs (b), (c)(3), and (c)(4) are revised 
and paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) are added to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1011  Management of electronic information.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) The NRC, DOE, parties, and potential parties participating 
in accordance with the provision of this subpart shall be responsible 
for obtaining the computer system necessary to comply with the 
requirements for electronic document production and service.
    (2) The NRC, DOE, parties, and potential parties participating in 
accordance with the provision of this subpart shall comply with the 
following standards in the design of the computer systems necessary to 
comply with the requirements for electronic document production and 
service:
    (i) The participants shall make textual (or, where non-text, image) 
versions of their documents available on a web accessible server which 
is able to be canvassed by web indexing software (i.e., a ``robot'', 
``spider'', ``crawler'') and the participant system must make both data 
files and log files accessible to this software.
    (ii) The participants shall make structured data available in the 
context of (or, under the control of) an accessible SQL-compliant (ANSI 
X3.135-1992/ISO 9075-1992) database management system (DBMS). 
Alternatively, the structured data may be made available in a standard 
database readable (e.g., comma delimited) file.
    (iii) Textual material must be formatted to comply with the 
US.ISO__8859-1 character set and be in one of the following acceptable 
formats: plain text, native word processing (Word, WordPerfect), PDF 
Normal, or HTML.
    (iv) Image files must be formatted as TIFF CCITT G4 for bi-tonal 
images or PNG (Portable Network Graphics) per [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-png-multi.html]) format for grey-scale or color images, or PDF 
(Portable Document Format--Image) for compound documents. TIFF images 
will be stored at 300 dpi (dots per inch), grey scale images at 150 dpi 
with eight bits

[[Page 50945]]

of tonal depth, and color images at 150 dpi with 24 bits of color 
depth. Images found on participant machines will be stored as single 
image-per-page to facilitate retrieval of no more than a single page, 
or alternatively, images may be stored in a page-per-document format if 
software is incorporated in the web server that allows single-page 
representation and delivery.
    (v) The participants shall programmatically link the bibliographic 
header record with the text or image file it represents. The header 
record must contain fielded data identifying its associated object 
(text or image) file name and directory location.
    (vi) To facilitate data exchange, participants shall adhere to 
hardware and software standards, including, but not limited to:
    (A) Network access must be HTTP/1.1 [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html] over TCP (Transmission Control Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]).
    (B) Associating server names with IP addresses must follow the DNS 
(Domain Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1034.html] and 
[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html].
    (C) Web page construction must be HTML version 4.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/].
    (D) Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange between e-mail servers must 
be SMTP (Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html]).
    (E) Format of an electronic mail message must be per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html] optionally extended by MIME (Multimedia 
Internet Mail Extensions) per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html]) 
to accommodate multimedia e-mail.
    (c) * * *
    (3) Identify any problems experienced by participants regarding LSN 
availability, including the availability of individual participant's 
data, and provide a recommendation to resolve any such problems to the 
participant(s) and the Pre-license Application Presiding Officer 
relative to the resolution of any disputes regarding LSN availability;
    (4) Identify any problems regarding the integrity of documentary 
material certified in accordance with Sec. 2.1009(b) by the 
participants to be in the LSN, and provide a recommendation to resolve 
any such problems to the participant(s) and the Pre-license Application 
Presiding Officer relative to the resolution of any disputes regarding 
the integrity of documentary material;
* * * * *
    (6) Evaluate LSN participant compliance with the basic design 
standards in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and provide for 
individual variances from the design standards to accommodate changes 
in technology or problems identified during initial operability testing 
of the individual websites or the ``LSN site''.
    (7) Issue guidance for LSN participants on how best to comply with 
the design standards in paragraph (b)(2) of the section.
* * * * *

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-21228 Filed 8-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P