[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66660-66661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26582]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 6, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 66660]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

[NRC-2013-0050]
RIN 3150-AJ24


Potential Changes to Interlocutory Appeals Process for 
Adjudicatory Decisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that presented possible 
changes to its interlocutory appeals process for certain adjudicatory 
decisions. The NRC published the ANPR on April 5, 2013, and solicited 
public comments. Based upon the limited public comments received, the 
NRC does not believe that amendments to the current regulations are 
warranted at this time.

DATES: The ANPR to make changes to the NRC's interlocutory appeals 
process for certain adjudicatory decisions that was published on April 
5, 2013 (78 FR 20498), is withdrawn on November 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0050 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this final rule. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this final rule by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0050. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this final rule.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this document (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tison Campbell, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
telephone: 301-415-8579; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On April 5, 2013 (78 FR 20498), the NRC published an ANPR 
soliciting public comment on proposed changes to its process for 
interlocutory review of rulings on requests for hearings or petitions 
to intervene under Sec.  2.311 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC presented four options for amending the 
10 CFR 2.311 interlocutory review provision:
    (1) Retaining the current rule without any change (status quo), 
which permits interlocutory appeals, without any threshold 
requirements, of rulings on requests for hearings or petitions to 
intervene regarding only whether the hearing or intervention should be 
granted or denied in its entirety.
    (2) Increasing the scope of 10 CFR 2.311 beyond just whether the 
hearing or intervention should be granted or denied in its entirety to 
encompass the interlocutory review of each individual contention 
admissibility determination. All appeals would have to be made 
immediately following the issuance of the ruling by the presiding 
officer.
    (3) Increasing the scope of 10 CFR 2.311 to encompass the 
interlocutory review of each individual contention admissibility 
determination, except for the admission or denial of contentions 
grounded in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 
(NEPA). For decisions on environmental contentions partially admitting 
or partially denying a request or petition, the appeal of which would 
only be entertained either a) after the issuance of a final 
Environmental Impact Statement (or other NEPA document) or, 
alternatively, b) after a final decision in the proceeding 
(noninterlocutory).
    (4) Reducing the scope of 10 CFR 2.311 to include only 
interlocutory review of whether a request for hearing or petition to 
intervene was properly denied in its entirety. Orders granting a 
hearing, but only admitting some contentions would not be immediately 
appealable by any party.
    In addition to presenting these options, the NRC sought comment on 
clarifying the interlocutory review process.

II. Public Comment on the Potential Changes to 10 CFR 2.311

    The NRC received a single response during the public comment 
period, from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI suggested that the 
rulemaking be deferred, suspended, or withdrawn because it will not 
clearly improve safety or efficiency, and therefore should not be an 
agency priority. In its comments, NEI indicated that there is little 
information available to help predict the advantages and disadvantages 
of each potential option described in the ANPR. Because of this, NEI 
supported Option 1--to not take any action at this time. NEI noted that 
if the NRC were to proceed with a rulemaking, Option 2 may result in 
some increased efficiency. NEI did not support Options 3 or 4, and 
stated that Option 4 would be an inequitable standard.

III. Reasons for Withdrawing the ANPR

    The sole public response to the ANPR argued that the NRC should 
preserve its existing interlocutory appeals standards. No public 
comments were received in favor of modifying the rule. Accordingly, the 
NRC believes that there is not significant public interest in a rule 
change at this time. The NRC also received no public comments 
suggesting that the current interlocutory appeals process is 
inefficient, prejudicial, or otherwise deficient. For these reasons, 
the NRC is withdrawing the ANPR.


[[Page 66661]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of October 2013

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane,
General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-26582 Filed 11-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P