[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60513-60528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25563]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 60513]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150-AI30
[NRC-2009-0044]


Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
regulations to clarify and streamline its process for addressing 
petitions for rulemaking (PRMs). These amendments are intended to 
improve transparency and to make the PRM process more efficient and 
effective.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0044 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may 
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of 
the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2009-0044. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at 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]. For 
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials 
referenced in this document are provided in the ``Availability of 
Documents'' section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration 
(ADM), telephone: 301-415-3280, email: [email protected]; or Anthony 
de Jes[uacute]s, Senior Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone: 
301-415-1106, email: [email protected]; or Jennifer Borges, 
Regulations Specialist, RADB, ADM, telephone: 301-415-3647, email: 
[email protected]; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Discussion
III. Public Comment Analysis
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
V. Summary of the NRC's Petition for Rulemaking Process
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
IX. Plain Writing
X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XII. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XIV. Availability of Documents

I. Background

    The NRC's requirements, policies, and practices governing the PRM 
process have remained substantially unchanged since their initial 
issuance in 1979 (44 FR 61322; October 25, 1979). During the past 20 
years, the NRC has received an average of nine PRMs per year and plans 
its budget and assigns resources based on this average. In recent 
years, however, the NRC has experienced a substantial increase in the 
number of PRMs submitted for consideration and docketed 25 PRMS in 
fiscal year (FY) 2011 alone. This increase in PRMs has presented a 
significant resource challenge to the NRC.
    In a memorandum to the other Commissioners entitled, ``Streamlining 
the NRR [Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation] Rulemaking Process'' 
(COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006), dated April 7, 2006 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML060970295), then-Chairman Nils J. Diaz and then-Commissioner 
Edward McGaffigan, Jr., proposed that, because of the general increase 
in rulemaking activities, the NRC staff should streamline its 
rulemaking process by removing unnecessary constraints, while 
simultaneously enhancing the transparency of and public participation 
in the process. The memorandum also invited the development of 
additional mechanisms for ``streamlining and increasing the 
transparency of the rulemaking process, thus allocating the appropriate 
level of resources for the most important rulemaking actions and 
ensuring that the staff's hands are not tied by perceived or real 
procedural prerequisites that are necessary for a given rulemaking.''
    In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated May 31, 2006 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML061510316), responding to COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-
0006, the Commission directed the NRC staff to undertake numerous 
measures to streamline the rulemaking process, including an evaluation 
of the overall effectiveness of the interoffice Rulemaking Process 
Improvement Implementation Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML031360205), and 
to ``further seek to identify any other potential options that could 
streamline the rulemaking process.'' The Commission also instructed the 
NRC staff to identify other potential options that could streamline the 
rulemaking process for all program offices.
    In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff provided 
its recommendations to the Commission in SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of 
the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement 
Implementation Plan,'' dated August 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071780644). The NRC staff included in SECY-07-0134 a recommendation 
to review the NRC's PRM process with the objective to reduce the time 
needed to complete an action. The NRC staff also recommended in SECY-
07-0134 that

[[Page 60514]]

the NRC review the procedures used by other Federal agencies to process 
PRMs in order to identify best practices that could make the NRC's PRM 
process more timely and responsive, while also ensuring that PRMs are 
handled in a manner that is open, transparent, and compliant with the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title 5 of the United States Code 
(U.S.C.), Section 551 et seq. In an SRM responding to SECY-07-0134, 
dated October 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072980427), the 
Commission indicated support for the NRC staff's recommended review of 
the PRM process: ``The Petition for Rulemaking process needs some 
increased attention and improvement. The staff's overall effort to 
improve the [PRM] process should focus on provisions that would make 
the NRC's process more efficient while improving the process' 
transparency and consistency.''
    Concurrently, in an SRM responding to COMGBJ-07-0002, ``Closing Out 
Task Re: Rulemaking on [part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR)] Tables S-3 and S-4,'' dated August 6, 2007 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML072180094), the Commission directed the NRC staff to 
``consider developing a process for dispositioning a petition in a more 
effective and efficient manner so that existing petitions that are 
deemed old can be closed out in a more timely manner and prevent future 
petitions from remaining open for periods longer than necessary.''
    In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff examined 
the regulations, policies, procedures, and practices that govern the 
NRC's PRM process, as well as the practices and processes used by 
several other Federal agencies to resolve PRMs.
    Consequently, the NRC published a proposed rule to amend the PRM 
process in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 25886). The 
public comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 17, 2013. 
This final rule has been informed by public comments and reflects the 
NRC's goal to make its PRM process more efficient and effective, while 
enhancing transparency and public understanding of the PRM process.

II. Discussion

A. The NRC's Framework for Dispositioning a PRM

    The administrative procedures that a Federal agency must follow 
with respect to PRMs are codified in the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. Paragraph 
553(e) provides that ``[e]ach agency shall give an interested person 
the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a 
rule.'' In addition, 5 U.S.C. 555(e) provides that ``[p]rompt notice 
shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written 
application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in 
connection with any agency proceeding'' and that ``[e]xcept in 
affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the 
notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for 
denial.'' However, the APA does not provide further detail on how 
agencies should disposition a PRM or what constitutes ``prompt'' 
notice. A brief survey of other Federal agencies' practices showed that 
the NRC has a robust and active PRM program; most agencies do not 
include requirements in the CFR for processing PRMs.
    The NRC's requirements governing the rulemaking process are set 
forth in 10 CFR part 2, ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure,'' 
subpart H, ``Rulemaking.'' In particular, 10 CFR 2.802, ``Petition for 
rulemaking,'' and 10 CFR 2.803, ``Determination of petition,'' 
establish the NRC's framework for disposition of a PRM concerning the 
NRC's regulations. The NRC's requirements for PRMs have remained 
substantially unchanged since their initial issuance in 1979, and the 
NRC's processes and procedures for PRMs historically have been 
established by and implemented through internal NRC policies and 
practices. To improve the PRM process, the NRC has reviewed both its 
regulatory framework associated with the PRM process and its internal 
policies, procedures, and practices.

B. Changes to the PRM Process

    This final rule clarifies and refines the NRC's long-standing 
practices for processing PRMs. The NRC believes that these amendments 
improve our current policies and practices for evaluating PRMs and 
communicating information on the status of PRMs and rulemaking 
activities to the petitioners and the public. By establishing a clearly 
defined administrative process to reflect agency action on a PRM, the 
NRC has enhanced the consistency, timeliness, and transparency of our 
actions and increased the efficient use of NRC resources.
NRC Consultation Assistance to Petitioners
    A significant change in this final rule expands the consultation 
assistance that the NRC staff may provide to the petitioner. Currently, 
consultation on a PRM is limited to the pre-filing stage; the NRC has 
revised its requirements to allow petitioners to consult directly with 
the NRC staff before and after filing a PRM with the NRC and to clarify 
what consultation assistance the NRC is permitted to provide. This 
change provides an opportunity for additional interaction with the 
petitioner after filing and will increase communication on issues of 
concern to the petitioner and improve the transparency of the petition 
process.
Content of a Petition
    This final rule also clarifies and expands the description of the 
kind of information that must be included in a petition. At times, a 
submitter may fail to include in the petition adequate information for 
the NRC to process the request, which creates the potential for 
processing delays and the need for the NRC to request additional 
information. In particular, this final rule adds a cross-reference to 
existing NRC requirements for the inclusion of an environmental report 
with those PRMs under 10 CFR 51.68, ``Environmental report--
rulemaking,'' that seek exemption from licensing and regulatory 
requirements for authorizing general licenses for any equipment, 
device, commodity or other product containing byproduct material, 
source material or special nuclear material. This change increases the 
likelihood that the NRC will have complete information at the time a 
petition is filed, which will assist the NRC in processing the petition 
in a timely manner.
Changes in Deadlines
    This final rule removes the implied and actual deadlines for 
docketing, for both the NRC and for the public. The NRC's internal goal 
to docket a new petition has not changed; the NRC will continue its 
current practice to docket a new petition within 30 days of receipt. 
However, based on the increased number and complexity of PRMs the NRC 
has been receiving, this final rule will not include this target so as 
to avoid setting unrealistic expectations in instances where NRC staff 
requires more than 30 days to deliberate and decide the appropriate 
course of action. The NRC staff may require more time to make initial 
decisions when a PRM includes complex issues or there are competing 
priorities.
    This final rule also removes the deadline for a petitioner to 
resubmit a PRM returned by the NRC because it did not meet the NRC's 
docketing requirements. Formerly, the NRC would advise the petitioner 
when a PRM did not meet the docketing requirements and hold the PRM for 
90 days to allow the petitioner to submit a revised petition, before 
formally rejecting the

[[Page 60515]]

PRM. Under the docketing process in this final rule, the NRC will 
simply return the PRM to the petitioner with an explanation why the 
petition was not docketed, with no time period specified by which the 
PRM must be resubmitted. A resubmitted PRM will be considered by the 
NRC ``without prejudice;'' that is, the NRC will not consider the 
petition as having been previously denied on the merits solely because 
the initial submission was returned due to procedural deficiencies. 
This change clarifies that there is no deadline for resubmission of a 
PRM.
Suspension Requests
    The NRC's proposed rule would have established two separate paths 
for obtaining suspension of an adjudication involving licensing 
proceedings (``adjudicatory licensing proceeding''), in order to 
provide clarity to the way in which a petitioner could request 
suspension. The NRC received several comments that, for a variety of 
reasons discussed later in this final rule, did not support the 
proposed revisions. After considering the comments on the proposed 
rule, the NRC has determined that there are a number of additional 
factors for the NRC to consider with respect to requests for suspension 
of adjudicatory proceedings based on PRMs. The NRC intends to gather 
additional stakeholder input on those factors before developing a final 
NRC provision on suspension requests; therefore, to facilitate timely 
adoption of the clarifications and process improvements presented in 
the proposed PRM rule, the NRC has decided to retain, in unchanged 
form, the suspension language formerly located in Sec.  2.802(d); to 
re-designate it as Sec.  2.802(e) in this final rule; and to evaluate 
these types of suspensions in a subsequent rulemaking. However, in 
response to public comments, the NRC's new title for this paragraph 
(the former paragraph (d) did not contain a title) indicates that the 
suspension is with respect to an ``adjudication involving licensing.'' 
Neither the addition of the title to this paragraph nor its re-
designation from paragraph (d) to (e) of Sec.  2.802 is intended to 
suggest any change in the applicable NRC law governing suspensions or 
the application of this provision to individual suspension requests in 
PRMs.
Minor Re-Structuring From Proposed Rule
    This final rule has been restructured slightly from the proposed 
rule; for clarity, all PRM provisions that address the requirements 
applicable to the petitioner are in one section (Sec.  2.802), and the 
NRC's actions on a PRM are in a separate section (Sec.  2.803). An 
overview of the revised docketing process follows, and a detailed 
discussion of all changes, including the reorganization of Sec. Sec.  
2.802 and 2.803 and conforming changes, is provided in Section IV, 
``Section-by-Section Analysis,'' of this final rule.
    This final rule codifies the NRC's historical PRM docketing review 
policy and practice of notifying the petitioner that the NRC has 
received the PRM, evaluating the PRM information according to specified 
docketing criteria, and posting the petition online. At its discretion, 
the NRC may request public comment on a docketed petition through a 
notice published in the Federal Register.
NRC's Docketing Review of a PRM
    The NRC describes the process and criteria it uses to determine if 
a PRM may be docketed in Sec.  2.803. In the proposed rule, the NRC 
referred to this step as ``acceptance.'' In this final rule, the NRC 
uses the term ``docketing,'' and no longer uses the term 
``acceptance.'' The NRC is making this change to prevent any potential 
misunderstanding that ``acceptance'' means that the NRC has agreed with 
the substance of the PRM and has decided that a rule should be 
developed and adopted as suggested by the petitioner in the PRM. After 
the close of the public comment period on this proposed rule, the NRC 
noted an example of possible misunderstanding in connection with public 
media reports on the NRC's notice of docketing for PRM-51-31, 
``Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor 
Operation'' (79 FR 24595; May 1, 2014). The NRC recognizes that it uses 
the terms, ``acceptance review'' and ``acceptance'' to refer to the 
NRC's process for evaluating a license application to determine if it 
meets the NRC's minimum standards for docketing. The NRC's recent 
experience suggests that the general public may be misled by the use of 
the term, ``acceptance,'' in the context of PRMs. Accordingly, the NRC 
is not using this term in paragraphs (b) or (c) of Sec.  2.803 in this 
final rule.
    Section 2.803 of this final rule describes, without change from the 
proposed rule, the NRC's docketing review process for a PRM, including 
what actions the NRC will take if the NRC determines that the PRM does 
not meet the NRC's requirements for docketing. This section also 
contains the criteria that the NRC uses to determine whether a PRM may 
be docketed. These three criteria are: (1) The PRM includes the 
information required by Sec.  2.802(c), (2) the regulatory changes 
requested in the PRM are within the legal authority of the NRC, and (3) 
the PRM raises a potentially valid issue that warrants further detailed 
consideration by the NRC. These criteria are intended to ensure that 
the NRC does not unnecessarily expend rulemaking resources on 
unsupported petitions, petitions that the NRC has no legal authority to 
address through rulemaking, or on matters that are already addressed in 
the NRC's regulations. Including these criteria in the final rule, 
which reflect the NRC's existing practice but were not expressly set 
forth in the former language of 10 CFR part 2, subpart H, is intended 
to increase public understanding of the factors that the NRC uses in 
deciding whether to docket a PRM.
Administrative Closure of the PRM Docket
    The NRC's process for dispositioning a PRM historically had been a 
matter of internal policy. With this final rule, the NRC is including a 
description of the dispositioning process in its regulations in order 
to enhance the transparency of its PRM process. The considerations for 
resolving a PRM are based on the NRC's experience in processing PRMs, 
insights from the NRC's initiative to streamline its PRM process, and 
information from the NRC's review of other Federal agencies' PRM 
regulations and practices. The amendments to the PRM process will allow 
the NRC to examine the merits of a PRM, the immediacy of the concern, 
the availability of NRC resources, whether the NRC is already 
considering the issue in other NRC processes, the relative priority of 
the issue raised in the PRM, any public comment received (if comment is 
requested), and the NRC's past decisions and current policy on the 
issue raised in the PRM. A summary of the NRC's considerations for 
dispositioning PRMs follows.
    Section 2.803 of this final rule outlines the process for 
administrative closure of a PRM docket, once the NRC has determined its 
course of action for the PRM. The requirements provide two outcomes, 
derived from the NRC's recent review of the PRM process, for closing a 
PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action: (1) Denial 
of the PRM in its entirety, indicating a determination not to pursue a 
rulemaking action to address the issues raised in the PRM (this will 
also constitute final ``resolution'' of the PRM), or (2) initiation of 
a rulemaking action addressing some or all the requested rule changes 
in the PRM.

[[Page 60516]]

Initiation of a rulemaking action may take one of two forms: (1) 
Initiation of a new, ``standalone'' rulemaking focused on some or all 
of the matters raised in the PRM, or (2) integration of some or all of 
the matters raised in the PRM into an existing or planned rulemaking 
(including the early stages of an NRC effort to decide whether to 
pursue rulemaking, (e.g., when the NRC is considering whether to 
develop a regulatory basis or to issue an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking)). The NRC will publish a Federal Register notice to inform 
the public of its determined course of action, which will enhance the 
transparency of the NRC's PRM process and better communicate the NRC's 
planned approach to addressing the PRM. Implementing this process will 
enhance the NRC's ability to close PRMs effectively and efficiently.
    With either course of action, the PRM docket will be closed, 
although the PRM itself would not be completely and finally 
``resolved'' until the NRC acts on the last remaining portion of the 
PRM's request. Final NRC action on the PRM (``resolution'') will be a 
final rule addressing all of the petitioner's requested changes, a 
final rule addressing some (but not all) of the petitioner's requested 
changes, or a notice published in the Federal Register of the NRC's 
decision not to address any of the petitioner's requested changes in a 
rulemaking action.
Notification of Petitioners of Closure of a PRM Docket by the NRC
    Paragraph (h)(2) of Sec.  2.803 of this final rule explains how the 
NRC will notify the petitioner on the determination of the petition. 
The NRC sends the petitioner written notification and publishes a 
notice in the Federal Register, describing the NRC's determination to 
consider all or some of the issues in a rulemaking or to deny the 
petition. If the NRC closes a PRM docket under Sec.  2.803(h)(2)(ii) 
but subsequently decides not to carry out the planned rulemaking to 
publication of a final rule, the NRC will notify the petitioner in 
writing of this decision and publish a notice in the Federal Register 
explaining the basis for its decision. These communications explain the 
basis for the NRC's decision not to carry out the planned rulemaking to 
publication and/or not to include the issues raised in the PRM in a 
rulemaking action.
``Resolution'' of a Petition for Rulemaking
    Paragraph (i) of Sec.  2.803 of this final rule addresses how a PRM 
ultimately is resolved and distinguishes final resolution of a PRM from 
administrative closure of a PRM docket, as described in Sec.  
2.803(h)(2). Resolution of one or more elements of a PRM occurs when 
the NRC publishes a Federal Register notice informing the public that 
any planned regulatory action related to one or more elements of the 
PRM has been concluded (i.e., the NRC may resolve an entire PRM, or 
parts of a PRM at different times). For rulemaking actions, resolution 
requires publication in the Federal Register of the final rule related 
to the PRM, which will include a discussion of how the published final 
rule addresses the issues raised in the PRM.
    Also, Sec.  2.803(i) notes that the NRC's denial of the PRM at any 
stage of the regulatory process or the petitioner's withdrawal of the 
PRM before the NRC has entered the rulemaking process will conclude all 
planned regulatory action related to the PRM. As applicable, the 
Federal Register notice resolving the PRM will include a discussion of 
the NRC's grounds for denial or information on the withdrawal that the 
petitioner submitted. This type of resolution represents final agency 
action on those elements of the PRM that are addressed in the Federal 
Register notice.
Other Administrative Changes and Updates
    Finally, several amendments in this final rule reflect routine 
administrative updates to information such as instructions for 
submitting petitions and communicating with the NRC. In recent years, 
the NRC, like many Federal agencies, has been moving away from formal, 
printed publications and making greater use of its Web site and other 
online resources such as the Federal rulemaking Web site 
(www.regulations.gov) to provide the public with more timely 
information on agency actions. The NRC no longer publishes a semiannual 
summary of PRMs, so the final rule explains in detail the various 
methods the public may use to access online status updates and other 
information on NRC rulemakings and PRMs. In addition to making these 
procedural updates, the NRC is providing additional information on its 
Web site to assist members of the public interested in the NRC's PRM 
process.

III. Public Comment Analysis

A. Overview of Public Comments

    The NRC received seven comment letters on the proposed rule from a 
member of the public, a public advocacy group, non-governmental 
organizations, and the nuclear industry.
    The majority of the comments received were in favor of the goals of 
the proposed amendments to the PRM process. However, three nuclear 
industry commenters (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), AREVA NP Inc. 
(AREVA), and STARS Alliance LLC. (STARS)) opposed the proposed 
amendments to new paragraphs (b) and (e) of Sec.  2.802 and new 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of Sec.  2.803. One comment from the Executive 
Board of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) recommended 
enhancements to the availability of information regarding PRM 
activities. Two comments from a member of the public and the public 
advocacy group Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) were out-of-scope, as 
they did not address the merits of the proposed rule.
    Information about obtaining the comments received on the proposed 
rule is available in Section XIV, ``Availability of Documents,'' of 
this final rule.

B. Public Comments and Overall NRC Responses

    Comments are organized by topics included in the proposed rule, 
followed by the NRC's response.
Licensing Proceedings in the Petition for Rulemaking Process
    1. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed Sec.  
2.802(e)(2) but should return to the language in current Sec.  2.802(d) 
because the proposed changes would effectively allow PRM petitioners to 
``participate in licensing proceedings'' without meeting standing and 
contention admissibility standards applicable to those proceedings. 
NEI, AREVA, STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC did not intend to allow persons requesting a 
suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding (``adjudicatory 
licensing proceeding'' in the proposed rule) to avoid having to meet 
applicable requirements for participating in the proceeding, such as 
the standing and contention admissibility standards for persons who 
wish to be a party (a person could also participate as an interested 
State, local government body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe).
    However, after further consideration of the comments, the NRC 
believes there are additional factors that the NRC must consider with 
respect to requests for suspension of adjudicatory proceedings based on 
PRMs. Stakeholder input on those factors would be desirable before 
developing a final NRC provision on these types of suspension requests.
    Therefore, to facilitate the NRC's timely adoption of the 
clarifications and

[[Page 60517]]

process improvements presented in the proposed PRM rule, the NRC has 
decided to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly 
located in Sec.  2.802(d) and now re-designated as paragraph (e) of 
Sec.  2.802 in this final rule. The NRC will evaluate these suspensions 
in a subsequent rulemaking. However, in response to the issues raised 
in the comment summary, the heading for Sec.  2.802(e) states that the 
suspension is with respect to an ``adjudication involving licensing.'' 
Neither the addition of the heading to this paragraph nor its re-
designation from paragraph (d) to (e) of Sec.  2.802 is intended to 
suggest any change in the applicable NRC law governing suspensions or 
the application of this provision to individual suspension requests in 
PRMs.
    2. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed Sec.  
2.802(e) but should return to the language in current Sec.  2.802(d). 
The proposed rule appears to address extraordinary circumstances that 
occurred following the Fukushima accident, when petitions were filed 
with the NRC to initiate rulemaking to address safety issues associated 
with the accident or to suspend certain licensing proceedings because 
of issues related to the Fukushima accident.
    The NRC has not explained why these petitions were problematic or 
why a rulemaking solution is needed, which itself has created separate 
problems. The Commission has inherent authority to take action in 
individual proceedings as necessary; in support of this comment, 
commenters cited the NRC's Policy Statement on the Conduct of 
Adjudications, 48 NRC 18 (1998). NEI, AREVA, STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The origins of the proposed changes 
in Sec.  2.802(d) were the NRC's procedural and administrative lessons-
learned from dealing with the rulemaking and suspension petitions filed 
with the NRC after the Fukushima accident. The Commission agrees that 
it has inherent authority to take action in individual proceedings as 
it deems necessary, at any time, in response to a suspension request in 
whatever form.
    However, upon consideration, the NRC believes a number of 
additional factors should be considered by the NRC before making 
changes to the suspension provision in former Sec.  2.802(d). 
Stakeholder input on those factors is desirable in developing any final 
NRC provision on suspension requests. Accordingly, the NRC has decided 
to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly located 
in paragraph (d) and now re-designated as paragraph (e) of Sec.  2.802 
in this final rule. The re-designation of the suspension provision from 
paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) of Sec.  2.802 is an administrative 
change intended to minimize the need for re-designations of paragraphs 
in future revisions to Sec.  2.802. The NRC is not making changes to 
the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request for 
suspension as a result of this re-designation.
Determination and Resolution of Petition for Rulemakings
    1. Comment: The proposed revisions to Sec.  2.803(h) and (i), 
creating a two-part process for closing a PRM, will confuse, rather 
than clarify, the agency's procedure for resolving PRMs. Final 
disposition of the PRM should occur either when the NRC denies the PRM, 
or when the NRC grants the PRM by initiating a rulemaking. There is no 
reason to withhold ``final action'' on a PRM, which has already 
effectively been granted, until resolution of the resultant rulemaking 
proceeding. The NRC's determination of whether to deny a PRM or 
initiate a rulemaking should result in the PRM's closure. At that 
point, a decision has been made on whether the issues raised in the PRM 
are worthy of further review or not. That decision is sufficient to 
close the PRM, even if the PRM's substantive request is still subject 
to deliberation through the rulemaking process. NEI, AREVA, STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that 
the NRC's determination whether to deny a PRM or initiate rulemaking 
should result in the PRM's closure. The NRC also agrees with the 
commenters' assertion that the NRC's decision to deny (in full or part) 
a PRM constitutes ``final agency action.''
    However, an NRC decision closing a PRM docket on the basis of the 
NRC's intent to consider the PRM issues in a new or ongoing rulemaking 
is not the ultimate ``resolution'' of the PRM. An NRC decision closing 
a PRM docket and instituting rulemaking as proposed by the PRM would 
not constitute ``final agency action,'' inasmuch as the determination 
to consider the PRM issues in a rulemaking does not represent an NRC 
determination to propose or adopt a final regulation requested in the 
PRM (or alternatively, not to adopt a regulation as requested in the 
PRM). The proposed rule's new terminology was intended to distinguish 
between the NRC's procedures with respect to the closure of the PRM 
docket (``final disposition of the PRM'') versus the NRC's procedures 
for ultimate resolution of the rulemaking requests contained in the 
PRM.
    The NRC recognizes that the statement of considerations for the 
proposed rule may not have been sufficiently clear in explaining the 
NRC's intent that the proposed revisions to Sec.  2.802 are intended to 
(1) clearly indicate that the NRC may ``dispose'' of multiple requests 
for rulemaking in a PRM or portions of a request for rulemaking in a 
PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions, (2) reflect that there is no 
overall agency ``resolution'' of a PRM until there is final agency 
action on all of the rulemaking requests in the petition, and (3) use 
terms that clearly distinguish between the PRM docket (which is an NRC 
administrative process) and agency final action on the substantive 
rulemaking requests in the PRM.
    This statement of considerations includes a more detailed 
explanation of these concepts in Section V, ``Summary of the NRC's 
Revised Petition for Rulemaking Process,'' which describes the PRM 
process and the rule terminology that applies to each stage and action 
of the PRM process. In addition, the NRC staff has developed a diagram 
entitled, ``The Petition for Rulemaking Process'' (Figure 1) (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML14259A474), which is available on the NRC's public Web 
site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking/petition-rule.html. This diagram is also reproduced in Section V. of this 
statement of considerations.
    2. Comment: The commenters support the proposed rule language, 
which indicates that, if a PRM is ``granted,'' then the NRC will track 
the PRM through the rulemaking process. The commenters stated that the 
Federal Register notice for any resulting final rule should make clear 
its origin in (or relationship to) the previously ``granted'' PRM. The 
commenters also agreed that, if the NRC initiates a rulemaking in 
response to a PRM but terminates the rulemaking before publication of a 
final rule (either because of withdrawal by the petitioner or 
subsequent decision by the agency), then the NRC should publish a 
Federal Register notice providing a well-reasoned basis for its 
decision that is supported by the administrative record (e.g., a 
regulatory/technical basis or a proposed rule and response to public 
comments). NEI, AREVA, STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that if 
a PRM is ``granted,'' then the NRC should track a PRM through the 
rulemaking process, as suggested by the proposed rule. No

[[Page 60518]]

change was made to the final rule in response to this comment.
    3. Comment: The Federal Register notice, which ensures that a PRM 
is administratively tracked throughout the rulemaking process, supports 
``closing'' of a PRM upon the NRC's initial determination that the PRM 
should be denied or granted via initiation of a rulemaking. NEI, AREVA, 
STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC disagrees. The provisions in the proposed 
rule for ``tracking'' a PRM throughout the rulemaking process supported 
the ``closing'' of the PRM docket upon the NRC's initial determination 
that a PRM should be denied (in part), or granted. As discussed in 
response to an earlier comment, the final rule distinguishes between 
the closing of a PRM docket versus final agency action on all or a part 
of the substantive rulemaking requests in the PRM. Furthermore, this 
final rule clarifies that the NRC may ``dispose of'' and/or finally 
determine multiple requests for rulemakings in a PRM or portions of a 
request for rulemaking in a PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions. 
If there will be multiple NRC actions for a single PRM, the NRC must 
keep the PRM docket ``open'' until there is a final ``determination'' 
of the last remaining aspects of the rulemaking request in a PRM. At 
that point, the PRM docket may be closed as the NRC has completed its 
determination of how to ``treat'' the rulemaking requests. That 
``treatment'' may be denial of that last remaining aspect (which would 
also ``resolve'' the PRM) or it may be a determination that the 
rulemaking request should be addressed in a rulemaking activity (either 
through a newly initiated rulemaking activity or included in an 
existing rulemaking). This determination, however, is not 
``resolution'' of the PRM. Resolution only occurs when the agency 
either adopts a final rule as requested in the PRM, or declines to 
adopt a final rule as requested in the PRM.
    Given the NRC's desire to have the flexibility to act on portions 
of rulemaking requests in a PRM, the NRC concludes that the PRM process 
must reflect procedures and terminology that clearly distinguish 
between NRC actions with respect to the PRM docket and NRC actions on 
the substance of the rulemaking. The commenter's proposal would, in the 
NRC's view, blur this distinction and would not facilitate clear 
understanding by all stakeholders on the NRC's PRM process. However, as 
discussed in response to Comment 1 of this section, the NRC has in this 
statement of considerations clarified the NRC's actions when making a 
determination on and resolving a PRM.
    4. Comment: The NRC should not remove the language in Sec.  
2.802(f), which states that a determination of the adequacy of a PRM 
will ordinarily be made within 30 days of the NRC's receipt of the PRM. 
The use of the term ``ordinarily'' in the existing rule appears to 
provide the NRC with the same flexibility with respect to the 30-day 
target that the proposed rule states is the basis for the removal of 
the 30-day language. Therefore, given that the NRC apparently intends 
to continue its current practice of ordinarily issuing determinations 
within 30 days and the current rule language allows the NRC flexibility 
with respect to this timeframe, the rationale provided in the proposed 
rule does not support removal of the 30-day timeframe. Further, 
removing this timeframe from the rule increases regulatory uncertainty 
and decreases transparency, which is contrary to the purpose of this 
rulemaking. The rule should continue to provide petitioners with a 
reasonable degree of clarity with respect to the timeframes involved in 
the evaluation of PRMs. AREVA, NEI, STARS.
    NRC Response: The NRC confirms the commenters' supposition that the 
NRC intends to continue its current practice to perform a docketing 
review and notify the petitioner in writing of the docketing of the PRM 
or the deficiencies found in the PRM within a 30-day period. However, 
the NRC disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to continue to 
include the 30-day timeframe. As the NRC stated in the proposed rule's 
statement of considerations, past experience has shown that lengthy and 
complex PRMs may require more than 30 days for a thorough docketing 
review. Furthermore, the number of lengthy and complex PRMs being 
received by the NRC each year is increasing. The NRC believes that 
including the 30-day timeframe in the final rule sets unrealistic 
expectations in instances where NRC staff requires more than 30 days to 
deliberate and decide the appropriate course of action.
    No change was made to this final rule in response to these 
comments.
Petition for Rulemaking Activities
    1. Comment: The NRC should publish a list of PRM activities and 
make it available in an easily identified location on the agency's Web 
site. The locations identified in proposed Sec.  2.803(j)(1) and (3) 
are hard to find on the NRC's Web site and ``may cause confusion to the 
public.'' OAS.
    NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The NRC's public Web site was 
modified to include a list of PRM activities in an easily identified 
location. The NRC Web site has a new Web page that lists all ``open'' 
petitions (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year/open-petitions-all-years.html). This Web 
page, which supplements the Web pages listed in new paragraphs (j)(1) 
and (3) of Sec.  2.803, may be accessed from the Petition for 
Rulemaking Dockets Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/rulemaking-ruleforum/petitions-by-year.html). This list 
contains the year when a particular PRM was docketed, the Docket ID, 
the PRM docket number, and the title of all ``open'' petitions. The 
Docket IDs listed in the new Web page are linked to regulations.gov, 
which provides publicly available documents such as NRC-issued Federal 
Register notices, supporting documents, public comments, and other 
related documents. From this new Web page, the public can also 
subscribe to GovDelivery to receive notifications each time the Web 
page is updated. GovDelivery allows the NRC's Web site visitors to 
subscribe, via email, to agency social media content. Subscribers can 
customize their subscription list and choose settings for notification 
of added or changed information.
    In addition, the NRC will continue publishing on the agency's Web 
site the Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year report, which includes 
descriptions of agency actions on PRMs. This report may be accessed 
from the Rulemaking Documents Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
    No change was made to this final rule in response to these 
comments.
Comments in Support of Amendments
    1. Comment: The commenter supports the NRC's proposed amendments to 
revise the PRM process. The commenter agrees that the proposed 
revisions would streamline the NRC rulemaking process, remove 
unnecessary constraints, enhance transparency, and clarify and improve 
communications with the petitioners who submit a PRM. Health Physics 
Society.
    NRC Response: No response necessary.
    No change was made to this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    2. Comment: The commenter commends the NRC staff on its willingness 
to confer informally with PRM applicants.

[[Page 60519]]

    NRC Response: No response necessary.
    No change was made to this final rule in response to these 
comments.
Out-of-Scope Comments
    1. Comment: The comment, ``The NRC completely failed us (TMIA) at 
every level of the rulemaking process,'' and an attachment, dated 
October 31, 2008, set forth the commenter's views as to the adequacy of 
the NRC's resolution of a PRM submitted by the commenter (PRM-73-11) 
and the commenter's views about the NRC's statements regarding public 
outreach at a public meeting. TMIA.
    NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope 
because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM 
process changes in the proposed rule.
    2. Comment: The comment describes the commenter's interactions with 
the NRC staff regarding concerns the commenter has raised related to 
the TMI accident and regarding upgrades to filters and vents at nuclear 
power plants. TMIA.
    NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope 
because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM 
process changes in the proposed rule.
    No change was made to this final rule in response to these 
comments.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The NRC is amending its regulations to streamline its process for 
addressing PRMs. Additionally, the NRC is amending its regulations in 
Sec. Sec.  2.802, 2.803, and 2.811 to make miscellaneous corrections 
and conforming changes. These changes include the reorganization of 
Sec. Sec.  2.802 and 2.803, the addition of paragraph headings, updates 
to the PRM filing process, and editorial changes to the language for 
clarity and consistency.

A. Section 2.802, Petition for Rulemaking--Requirements for Filing

Paragraph (a), Filing a Petition for Rulemaking
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  2.802, which informs petitioners how to 
submit a PRM, is revised to clarify and update the PRM filing process. 
Paragraph (a) specifies the regulations subject to a PRM by indicating 
that the NRC's regulations are contained under chapter I of 10 CFR.
Paragraph (b), Consultation With the NRC
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  2.802, which provides the process by which a 
prospective petitioner may consult with the NRC before filing a PRM, 
now permits consultation with the NRC both before and after filing a 
PRM.
    Paragraph (b)(1)(i), which establishes that petitioners may consult 
with the NRC staff about the process of filing and responding to a PRM, 
now includes other stages of the PRM process during which consultation 
may occur. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) limits NRC staff consultation on a PRM 
to describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking, closing, 
amending, withdrawing, and resolving a PRM. These limitations are 
consistent with the existing limitations on NRC participation in the 
filing of PRMs.
    New paragraph (b)(3) is added to clearly specify that the NRC staff 
will not advise a petitioner on whether a PRM should be amended or 
withdrawn.
Paragraph (c), Content of Petition
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  2.802, which generally describes the content 
requirements of a PRM, is restructured and revised. Paragraph (c)(1) 
establishes that a petitioner must clearly and concisely articulate in 
a PRM the information required under new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 
(c)(1)(viii). In paragraph (c)(1), the terms ``clearly and concisely'' 
are added to convey the NRC's expectation that PRMs be ``clear'' (i.e., 
do not contain ambiguous or confusing arguments, terminology, or 
phraseology) and ``concise'' (i.e., do not present the perceived 
problem or proposed solution with a description that is longer than 
necessary).
    Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) specify information that 
must be provided in each PRM. The former text of paragraph (c)(1), 
which required that a PRM set forth a general solution to a problem or 
specify the regulation that is to be revoked or amended, is revised and 
redesignated as new paragraph (c)(1)(v). The additional text under 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) describes the specific 
information required to be included in a PRM. Most of the requirements 
are similar to the information required in the existing rule, except 
that each topic is listed separately for increased clarity.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(i) requires all petitioners to specify contact 
information--including a name, telephone number, mailing address, and 
email address (if available)--that the NRC may use to contact the 
petitioner. New paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies additional information 
for petitioners who are organizations or corporations to submit: The 
petitioner's organizational status, the petitioner's State of 
incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and 
authority of the individual signing the PRM on behalf of the 
corporation or organization. By adding this paragraph, the NRC is 
reducing the likelihood of misleading the public about the 
organizational or corporate status and identity of a petitioner.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(iii) includes information from existing 
paragraph (c)(3) and requires a petitioner to present the problem or 
issue that the petitioner believes the NRC should address through 
rulemaking. This added paragraph clarifies that a petitioner must 
specifically state the problem or issue that the requested rulemaking 
would address, including any specific circumstance in which the NRC's 
codified requirements are incorrect, incomplete, inadequate, or 
unnecessarily burdensome. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that the 
submittal of specific examples of incompleteness or unnecessary burden 
to support the petitioner's assertion that a problem or issue exists 
that the NRC should address through rulemaking would be of interest to 
the NRC when reviewing the PRM. Providing this information in the PRM 
will result in a clearer argument for the problems or issues being 
presented by a petitioner and will increase the efficiency of the NRC's 
review of the PRM.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires the petitioner to cite, enclose, 
or reference any publicly available data used to support the 
petitioner's assertion of a problem or issue. This requirement was in 
former paragraph (c)(3) but is now modified to add the phrase ``Cite, 
enclose, or reference'' to provide options to the petitioner for 
providing the supporting data. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) specifies that the 
citations, enclosures, or references to technical, scientific, or other 
data must be submitted to support the petitioner's assertion that a 
problem or issue exists and that all submitted data must be publicly 
available; consequently the word ``relevant'' and the phrase 
``reasonably available to the petitioner'' in former paragraph (c)(3) 
are removed.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(v) includes information from former paragraph 
(c)(1) and requires a petitioner to present a proposed solution to the 
problems or issues identified in the PRM; this proposed solution may 
include revision or removal of specific regulations under 10 CFR 
chapter I. Rather than providing a ``general

[[Page 60520]]

solution'' as required by the former paragraph (c)(1), paragraph 
(c)(1)(v) now requires a petitioner to present a ``proposed solution'' 
to clarify that the solution is only a proposal for the NRC to 
consider. Paragraph (c)(1)(v) also provides an example--including 
``specific regulations or regulatory language to add, amend, or delete 
in 10 CFR Chapter I''--to guide petitioners in preparing a proposed 
solution to the problem or issue identified in the PRM.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(vi) requires a petitioner to provide an 
analysis, discussion, or argument linking the problem or issue 
identified in the PRM with the proposed solution. The requirement to 
provide supporting information was already included in former paragraph 
(c)(3). The requirement to explain through an analysis, discussion, or 
argument how the proposed solution would solve the problem or issue 
raised in the PRM is new.
    New paragraph (c)(1)(vii) includes information from former 
paragraph (c)(1) and requires the petitioner to cite, enclose, or 
reference any other publicly available data or information that the 
petitioner deems necessary to support the proposed solution and 
otherwise prepare the PRM for the NRC's docketing review under Sec.  
2.803(b). Similar to paragraph (c)(1)(iv), the phrase ``Cite, enclose, 
or reference'' is added to provide options to the petitioner for 
providing the supporting data.
    Text from former paragraph (c)(1) is revised and incorporated into 
new paragraph (c)(1)(v), as previously described. As a result, the 
former paragraph (c)(1) is removed.
    Text from former paragraph (c)(2) is removed because it is 
generally incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 
(c)(1)(iii), making the former paragraph (c)(2) unnecessary.
    Text from former paragraph (c)(3), which required a petitioner to 
include various kinds of supporting information, is revised and 
incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), 
and (c)(1)(vii), as previously described. As a result, the former 
paragraph (c)(3) is removed.
    In addition to the requirements in Sec.  2.802(c)(1)(i)-(vii), new 
paragraph (c)(2) encourages the petitioner to consider the two other 
review criteria listed in new paragraph (b) of Sec.  2.803 when 
preparing a PRM. The NRC does not intend to require specialized 
explanations that discourage potential petitioners from submitting 
PRMs. Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) are intended to provide petitioners 
the opportunity to include information that will assist the NRC in its 
evaluation of the PRM under Sec.  2.803(b). However, the NRC will not 
deny a petition solely on the basis that the petition did not provide 
information addressing paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii).
    New paragraph (c)(3) requires the PRM to designate a lead 
petitioner if the petition is signed by multiple petitioners. The NRC's 
former practice was to treat the first signature listed on a petition 
as that of the lead petitioner. New paragraph (c)(3) requires that a 
lead petitioner be designated in a PRM and codifies the NRC's practice 
of sending communications about the petition to the lead petitioner. 
New paragraph (c)(3) also alerts the public of the lead petitioner's 
responsibility to disseminate communications received from the NRC to 
all petitioners.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) adds a cross-reference to the environmental 
assessment requirements that apply to PRMs at 10 CFR 51.68.
Paragraph (d), [RESERVED]
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  2.802 is reserved, and the subject matter 
addressed in former paragraph (d), on requests for suspension of 
adjudications involving licensing (``licensing proceedings'' in former 
paragraph (d)), is addressed without substantive change in paragraph 
(e).
Paragraph (e), Request for Suspension of an Adjudication Involving 
Licensing
    Paragraph (e) of Sec.  2.802 describes how a PRM petitioner may 
request a suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding in 
which the PRM petitioner is a ``participant,'' on the basis of the 
matters addressed in the petitioner's PRM. The re-designation of the 
suspension provision from paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) is an 
administrative change intended to minimize the need for re-designations 
of paragraphs in future revisions to Sec.  2.802. The NRC is not making 
changes to the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request 
for suspension as a result of this re-designation.
    Former paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) in Sec.  2.802 are moved to 
Sec.  2.803.
Paragraph (f), Amendment; Withdrawal
    New paragraph (f) of Sec.  2.802, which discusses amendment or 
withdrawal of a PRM by a petitioner, is added to inform petitioners 
where and how to submit these filings and what information should be 
included.

B. Section 2.803, Petition for Rulemaking--NRC Action

    Section 2.803 describes how the NRC will process, consider, and 
make a determination on a PRM.
Paragraph (a), Notification of Receipt
    New paragraph (a) of Sec.  2.803 has no counterpart in the 
superseded version of Sec.  2.803. New paragraph (a) of Sec.  2.803 
indicates that the NRC shall notify the petitioner that the NRC has 
received the PRM.
Paragraph (b), Docketing Review
    New paragraph (b) of Sec.  2.803 addresses docketing review--a 
matter that was formerly addressed in the superseded version of Sec.  
2.802(f). Paragraph (b) differs from former Sec.  2.802(f) by stating 
clearly that the NRC will deny the PRM if it does not include the 
information required by Sec.  2.802(c). It also differs from former 
Sec.  2.802(f) by adding two new docketing criteria. Under the new 
docketing review process, the NRC will determine not only if the 
rulemaking changes requested in the petition are within the legal 
authority of the NRC but also that the PRM raises a potentially valid 
issue that warrants further detailed consideration by the NRC (e.g., 
confirm that the NRC's regulations do not already provide what the PRM 
is requesting).
    Paragraph (b) does not include the restriction in former Sec.  
2.802(f) limiting the docketing decision to the Executive Director for 
Operations, and is silent on which NRC official may make the docketing 
determination. Therefore, the Executive Director for Operations may 
delegate the docketing decision to the appropriate organizational level 
within the NRC staff.
    Finally, paragraph (b) describes the process the NRC will use if 
the NRC determines that a PRM does not meet the requirements for 
docketing (i.e., an ``insufficient'' PRM). Paragraph (b) differs from 
former Sec.  2.802(f) by removing a 90-day period for a petitioner to 
fix and resubmit an insufficient PRM, with the deficiencies corrected. 
Under paragraph (b) a deficient PRM may now be resubmitted, with 
deficiencies addressed, at any time without prejudice or time 
limitation.
Paragraph (c), Docketing
    New paragraph (c) of Sec.  2.803 addresses docketing, which was 
addressed in former Sec.  2.802(e). Paragraph (c)(1) lists three 
criteria, each of which must be met in order for the NRC to docket a 
PRM. That paragraph also expressly states that the NRC will assign a 
docket number to a PRM that is docketed. Paragraph (c)(2) describes how 
the NRC will make a docketed PRM available to the public, that is, by 
posting the document in ADAMS (the NRC's official records management

[[Page 60521]]

system), on the NRC's public Web site, and on the Federal rulemaking 
Web site (regulations.gov); and by publishing a notice of docketing in 
the Federal Register.
Paragraph (d), NRC Communication With Petitioners
    New paragraph (d) of Sec.  2.803 notifies the public that the NRC 
will send all communications to the lead petitioner identified in the 
petition, according to new paragraph Sec.  2.802(c)(3), and that this 
communication will constitute notification to all petitioners. 
Therefore, any NRC obligation to inform a petitioner is satisfied when 
the NRC sends the required notification to the lead petitioner.
Paragraphs (e) Through (f), [RESERVED].
    Newly designated paragraphs (e) through (f) of Sec.  2.803 are 
marked ``Reserved.''
Paragraph (g), Public Comment on a Petition for Rulemaking; Hearings
    New paragraph (g)(1) of Sec.  2.803 incorporates information from 
former Sec.  2.802(e) text pertaining to the NRC's discretion to 
request public comment on a docketed PRM. Information in the former 
Sec.  2.802(e) that specified how a PRM may be published for public 
comment in the Federal Register is replaced by a concise statement 
specifying that the NRC, at its discretion, may solicit public comment 
on a docketed PRM.
    When the NRC publishes a Federal Register notice (FRN) requesting 
public comment on a PRM, the NRC's current practice is to include 
standard language in the FRN cautioning the public not to include 
identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly 
disclosed in their comment submission. This new cautionary language is 
incorporated into this final rule. Paragraph (g)(2) includes this 
caveat so that affected stakeholders will be aware of this practice.
    Paragraph (g)(3) denotes that no hearing will be held on a PRM 
unless the Commission determines to hold a hearing as a matter of its 
discretion. This rule of practice, formerly in Sec.  2.803, is moved to 
paragraph 2.803(g)(3) and amended for clarity. The text ``the 
Commission deems it advisable'' is replaced with ``the Commission 
determines to do so, at its discretion.'' This amendment clarifies that 
the NRC has discretionary authority to hold a hearing on a docketed 
PRM.
Paragraph (h), Determination on a Petition for Rulemaking; Closure of 
Docket on a Petition for Rulemaking
    Existing regulations in Sec.  2.803 require the NRC to resolve PRMs 
by either issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or denying the 
petition. New paragraph (h)(1) of Sec.  2.803 codifies a nonexclusive 
list of the methods and criteria that the NRC may use to determine a 
course of action for a PRM. These methods and criteria include 
consideration of the issues raised in the PRM about its merits, the 
immediacy of an identified safety or security concern, the relative 
availability of resources, the relative issue priority compared to 
other NRC rulemaking activities, whether the NRC is already considering 
the issues in other NRC processes, the substance of public comments 
received, if requested, and the NRC's past decisions and current 
policy.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(i) establishes that the NRC will determine whether 
a PRM will be granted based upon the merits of the PRM. For the purpose 
of this final rule, the term ``merits'' includes the completeness and 
technical accuracy of the documents, logic associated with the 
petitioner's desired rule change, and the appropriateness or worthiness 
of the desired change compared to the current regulatory structure 
(e.g., existing regulation, associated regulatory guidance, and 
inspection program guidance).
    Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) states that the NRC may determine whether a 
PRM will be docketed based upon the immediacy of the safety or security 
concerns raised in the PRM. By adding this paragraph, the NRC intends 
to first determine whether immediate regulatory action (e.g., an order) 
is needed.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) states that the NRC may determine whether a 
PRM will be docketed based upon the availability of NRC resources and 
the priority of the issues raised in the PRM compared with other NRC 
rulemaking activities. By adding this paragraph, the NRC will establish 
that if immediate action is not necessary, the NRC will consider the 
availability of resources and compare the issues raised in the PRM to 
other NRC rulemaking issues to determine the PRM's priority relative to 
other rulemaking activities.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) states that the NRC may determine whether a 
PRM will be docketed based on whether the NRC is already considering 
the issues raised in the PRM in other NRC processes. The NRC has 
multiple processes for considering potential issues related to its 
mission: For example, the allegation process, formal and informal 
hearings, and Commission deliberation to determine appropriate action 
on issues not related to rulemaking. One resulting action could be to 
initiate a rulemaking, but the Commission has other options available, 
such as addressing the issue through an order, guidance, or an internal 
management directive. The NRC will use the most efficient process to 
resolve issues raised by a petitioner.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(v) states that the NRC may determine a course of 
action on a PRM based on the substance of any public comments received, 
if public comments are requested. Although the NRC may decide not to 
request public comments on a PRM, if public comment is requested, the 
NRC will consider the information commenters provide when determining a 
course of action for a PRM.
    Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) states that the NRC may determine what action 
will be taken on a PRM based on the NRC's past decisions and current 
policy related to the issues raised in the PRM. This paragraph will 
inform the public that the NRC could consider past Commission decisions 
when determining a course of action for a PRM.
    Paragraph (h)(2) establishes a process for administrative closure 
of a PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action for 
the PRM using the methodology and criteria in paragraph (h)(1). 
Paragraph (h)(2) establishes that a PRM docket will be administratively 
closed when the NRC responds to the PRM by taking a regulatory action 
and publishing a document in the Federal Register that describes this 
action. New paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) provide two specific 
categories for administrative closure of a PRM docket. Paragraph (h)(2) 
states that the NRC will administratively close a PRM docket by taking 
a regulatory action in response to the PRM that establishes a course of 
action for the PRM. In this situation, the NRC will publish a notice in 
the Federal Register describing the determined regulatory action, 
including the related Docket ID, as applicable. Paragraph (h)(2)(i) 
explains that the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket by 
deciding not to undertake a rulemaking to address the issues that the 
PRM raised, effectively denying the PRM, and notifying the petitioner 
in writing why the PRM was denied. Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) explains that 
the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket by initiating a 
rulemaking action, such as addressing the PRM in an ongoing or planned 
rulemaking or initiating a new rulemaking activity. The NRC will

[[Page 60522]]

inform the petitioner in writing of its determination and the 
associated Docket ID of the rulemaking action.
    Paragraph (h)(2)(i) provides that the NRC may administratively 
close a PRM docket if the NRC decides not to engage in rulemaking to 
address the issues in the PRM. The NRC will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register informing the public that the petition has been denied 
and the grounds for the denial. This notice will address the 
petitioner's request and any public comments received by the NRC. The 
PRM docket will be closed by this method when the NRC concludes that 
rulemaking should not be conducted in response to the PRM. In certain 
cases, the NRC may deny some of the issues raised in a PRM but also 
decide to address the remaining issues by initiating a rulemaking 
action, as described in paragraph (h)(2)(ii). In these instances, the 
Federal Register notice will identify the rulemaking Docket ID for the 
related rulemaking.
    With regard to new rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides that 
the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket if the NRC decides to 
address the subject matter of the PRM in a new rulemaking. The NRC will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the NRC's decision 
to initiate the new rulemaking and informing the public of the Docket 
ID of the new rulemaking. The NRC will also add a description of the 
new rulemaking in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal 
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda). The PRM 
docket will be closed by this method when the NRC determines that 
issues raised in the PRM merit consideration in a rulemaking and that 
there is currently no other rulemaking (ongoing or planned) into which 
the petitioner's requested rulemaking could be incorporated.
    With regard to planned rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides 
that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC is 
currently planning a rulemaking related to the subject of the PRM and 
the NRC decides to address the PRM in that planned rulemaking. The NRC 
will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the NRC's 
decision to address the PRM in a planned rulemaking and informing the 
public of the Docket ID of the planned rulemaking. A PRM docket will be 
closed by this method when the NRC determines that issues raised in the 
PRM merit consideration in a rulemaking and a planned rulemaking exists 
in which the issues raised in the PRM could be addressed.
    With regard to ongoing rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides 
that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC has a 
rulemaking in progress that is related to the issues raised in the PRM. 
The NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the 
public that the subject of the PRM will be addressed as part of the 
ongoing rulemaking. The PRM docket will be closed by this method when 
the NRC determines that issues raised in the PRM merit consideration in 
a rulemaking and an ongoing rulemaking exists in which the issues in 
the PRM can be addressed.
    The list of potential rulemaking actions in new paragraph 
(h)(2)(ii) is not intended to be exhaustive because the NRC may 
initiate other rulemaking actions, at its discretion, on issues raised 
in the PRM. For example, the NRC could extend the comment period for a 
proposed rule that addresses the subject matter of the PRM to allow it 
to be addressed in the ongoing rulemaking.
    For all PRM dockets that are closed by initiating a rulemaking 
action, as described in paragraph (h)(2), the NRC will include 
supplementary information in the published proposed and final rule 
discussing how the NRC decided to address the issues raised in the PRM.
    As further discussed in new paragraph (i)(2) of Sec.  2.803, if the 
NRC closes a PRM docket under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) by initiating a 
rulemaking action, resolution will require the ultimate publication of 
a final rule discussing how the PRM is addressed in the published final 
rule. However, if later in the rulemaking process the NRC decides to 
terminate the associated rulemaking, termination of that rulemaking 
also constitutes denial of the PRM. The NRC will describe the agency's 
grounds for denial in a Federal Register notice, which will include the 
reason for the NRC's decision not to publish a final rule on the 
rulemaking associated with the PRM. The Federal Register notice also 
will address the issues raised in the PRM and significant public 
comments, if public comments were solicited. As with denials earlier in 
the PRM process, the NRC will notify the petitioner of the denial of 
the PRM.
Paragraph (i), Petition for Rulemaking Resolution
    Under the former text in Sec.  2.803, the NRC was required to 
resolve PRMs either by addressing the PRM issues in a final rule or by 
denying the petition. New paragraph (i) of Sec.  2.803, Petition for 
rulemaking resolution, expands and clarifies how a PRM is resolved. 
Resolution of a PRM requires the NRC to conclude all planned regulatory 
action on the issues presented by the PRM and to publish a Federal 
Register notice to inform the public that all planned regulatory action 
on the PRM is concluded. Resolution of a PRM may occur in whole or in 
part; however, complete resolution of a PRM does not occur until all 
PRM issues are addressed in final by the NRC. New paragraph (i) of 
Sec.  2.803 describes three methods for resolving a PRM: (1) 
Publication of a final rule, (2) withdrawal of the PRM by the 
petitioner before the NRC has entered into the rulemaking process, or 
(3) denial of the PRM by the NRC at any stage of the process. For 
resolution of a PRM through publication of a final rule, the NRC will 
include a discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the 
published final rule of how the regulatory action addresses the issues 
raised by the petitioner. For resolution of a PRM through denial by the 
NRC at any stage of the regulatory process, the NRC will publish a 
Federal Register notice discussing the grounds for denial of the PRM. 
For resolution of a PRM through withdrawal by the petitioner, the NRC 
will publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the public that 
the petitioner has withdrawn the docketed PRM. Although the NRC expects 
that withdrawal would occur infrequently, paragraph (i) explains the 
means for the NRC to resolve the petition and inform members of the 
public of the withdrawal and resolution of the PRM.
    The former text in paragraph (g) of Sec.  2.802 indicated that a 
semiannual summary of PRMs before the Commission will be publicly 
available for inspection and copying. This statement is removed from 
this final rule because the NRC no longer publishes this semiannual 
summary. Instead, members of the public can find updates on the status 
of PRMs by the means described in paragraph (j) of Sec.  2.803.
Paragraph (j), Status of Petitions for Rulemakings and Rulemakings
    New paragraph (j) of Sec.  2.803 explains where the public can view 
the status of PRMs and adds the heading, Status of petitions for 
rulemakings and rulemakings, to indicate the subject of the paragraph. 
Paragraph (j)(1) provides the Web site addresses for the most current 
information on PRMs and on active rulemakings. Paragraph (j)(2) 
indicates that the NRC will provide a summary of planned and existing 
rulemakings in the Government-wide Unified Agenda. Paragraph (j)(3) 
explains that information on all docketed PRMs, rulemakings, and public 
comments is available online in ADAMS and in the Federal rulemaking Web 
site at http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 60523]]

    As previously discussed, if the NRC closes a PRM docket by 
initiating a rulemaking action under new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of Sec.  
2.803 but later determines that a final rule should not be published, 
the NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register explaining the 
grounds for its denial of the PRM, including the reason for the NRC's 
decision not to issue a final rule. The notice will be added into the 
previously closed PRM docket, and the status of the PRM will be updated 
and made available to the public as described in paragraphs (j)(1) 
through (j)(3).

C. Section 2.811, Filing of Standard Design Certification Application; 
Required Copies

    Paragraph (e), Pre-application consultation, of Sec.  2.811 
explains the pre-application consultation process for standard design 
certification applications and is revised by correcting references and 
updating the email address for pre-application consultation. 
Corrections to paragraph (e) consist of removing the references to 
``Sec.  2.802(a)(1)(i) through (iii)'' and replacing them with ``Sec.  
2.802(b)(1),'' with respect to the subject matters permitted for pre-
application consultation, correcting the term ``petitioner'' to 
``applicant''; replacing the reference ``Sec.  2.802(a)(2)'' with 
``Sec.  2.802(b)(2),'' regarding limitations on pre-application 
consultations; and removing the unnecessary capitalization of the word 
``before.'' In addition, the email address for pre-application 
consultation is updated by replacing ``[email protected]'' with 
``[email protected].''

V. Summary of the NRC's Revised Petition for Rulemaking Process

    Any person may submit a PRM to the NRC, requesting that the NRC 
adopt a new regulation, amend (revise the language of) an existing 
regulation, or revoke (withdraw) an existing regulation. A ``person'' 
may be an individual or an entity such as an organization, company 
(corporation), a governmental body (e.g., a State or a municipality), 
or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe.
    When a PRM is received by the NRC, the NRC acknowledges the receipt 
of the petition by sending correspondence to the petitioner informing 
the petitioner of the NRC's receipt. The NRC then assigns the PRM for 
consideration to the NRC technical staff.
    If the PRM does not include the information required by Sec.  
2.802, or the information provided is insufficient for the NRC to 
docket the petition, then the NRC sends a letter to the petitioner 
explaining the reasons why the NRC cannot docket the petition and begin 
to consider the requests in the petition. The NRC identifies what 
information is not included in the petition, or why the information 
provided is insufficient, and includes a reference to the corresponding 
paragraph in Sec.  2.802(c) requiring the information.
    The petitioner may resubmit the petition, with deficiencies 
addressed, at any time without prejudice or time limitation. If the 
petitioner provides the requested information and the information 
provided is determined by the NRC to be complete and meet the 
requirements in Sec.  2.802(c), then the NRC dockets the petition and 
publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the NRC has 
docketed the petition. The notice may or may not include an opportunity 
for members of the public to provide comments. In general, the NRC 
determines whether to provide an opportunity for public comment based 
upon a balancing of several factors, including whether the NRC needs 
additional information to help resolve the petition. Finally, the 
notice explains how members of the public can stay informed regarding 
any future NRC action that addresses the issues raised in the PRM.
    The NRC's resolution of a PRM may occur, in whole or in part, by 
one or more of the following actions: (1) The NRC decides to adopt a 
final rule addressing the problem raised in the PRM (``granting'' the 
PRM); (2) the NRC decides not to adopt a new regulation or change an 
existing regulation as requested in the PRM (``denying'' the PRM); or 
(3) the petitioner decides to withdraw the request before the NRC has 
entered the rulemaking process. Complete resolution of the PRM does not 
occur until all portions of the PRM are addressed by the NRC in one of 
the three ways previously described. It is possible that the 
petitioner's concerns may not be addressed exactly as requested in the 
PRM. In this situation, the NRC would consider the PRM to be 
``partially granted and partially denied,'' and the statement of 
considerations will explain how the final rule addresses the problem 
raised in the PRM, but why the NRC decided to adopt a regulatory 
approach, which is different than that described in the PRM.
    If the PRM is denied by the NRC, or if the petition is withdrawn by 
the petitioner, the NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
stating the grounds for the denial or informing the public that the 
petitioner has withdrawn the petition.
    The NRC staff has developed a diagram entitled, ``The Petition for 
Rulemaking Process'' (Figure 1) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14259A474), 
which provides a visual representation of the NRC's PRM process under 
Sec. Sec.  2.802 and 2.803, as amended in this final rule. This diagram 
is also available as a separate document on the NRC's public Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.

[[Page 60524]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC15.200


[[Page 60525]]



VI. Regulatory Analysis

    This rule clarifies and streamlines the NRC's process for 
addressing PRMs. The amendments in this rule improve transparency and 
make the PRM process more efficient and effective. These amendments do 
not result in a cost to the NRC or to petitioners in this process, and 
a benefit accrues to the extent that potential confusion over the 
meaning of the NRC's regulations is removed.
    The more substantive changes in this rule do not impose costs upon 
either the NRC or petitioners but instead benefit both. The process 
improvements for evaluating PRMs and activities addressing PRMs and 
establishing an administrative process for closing a PRM docket to 
reflect agency action on a PRM reduce burdens on petitioners, the NRC, 
and participants in the process.
    The option of preserving the status quo is not preferred. Failing 
to correct errors and clarify ambiguities would result in continuing 
confusion over the meaning of the petition for rulemaking rules, which 
could lead to the unnecessary waste of resources. The NRC believes that 
this rule improves the consistency, timeliness, efficiency, and 
openness of the NRC's actions and increases the efficient use of the 
NRC's resources in its PRM process.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 
605(b)), the NRC certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VIII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this 
final rule because these amendments are administrative in nature and do 
not involve any changes that impose backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 
chapter 1, or are inconsistent with any of the issue finality 
provisions in 10 CFR part 52.

IX. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal 
agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized 
manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the 
Plain Writing Act, as well as the Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing,'' published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 
31883).

X. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

    The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action 
that is a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, 
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental 
assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

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

Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a request for information or an information collection 
requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

XII. Congressional Review Act

    This final rule is a rule as define in the Congressional Review Act 
(5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, OMB has not found it to be a major rule as 
defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIII. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-113) requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that 
are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless 
the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC has revised its 
regulations to streamline the process the NRC uses when it receives a 
PRM. This action concerns the NRC's procedures governing its 
consideration and resolution of PRMs. These procedures do not 
constitute a ``government unique standard'' within the meaning and 
intention of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995.

XIV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to 
interested persons through the methods indicated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Document                       ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006,     ML060970295.
 ``Streamlining the NRR
 Rulemaking Process''.
SRM-COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-      ML061510316.
 0006, ``Streamlining the NRR
 Rulemaking Process''.
SECY-03-0131, ``Rulemaking         ML031360205.
 Process Improvement
 Implementation Plan''.
SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of the  ML071780644.
 Overall Effectiveness of the
 Rulemaking Process Improvement
 Implementation Plan''.
SRM-SECY-07-0134, ``Evaluation of  ML072980427.
 the Overall Effectiveness of the
 Rulemaking Process Improvement
 Implementation Plan''.
SRM-COMGBJ-07-0002, ``Closing out  ML072180094.
 Task Re: Rulemaking on Tables S-
 3 and S-4''.
Proposed Rule: Revisions to the    ML13107B459.
 Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comments on PR-10 CFR Part 2--     ML14149A306 (package).
 Revisions to the Petition for
 Rulemaking Process.
Comment (01) of Scott Portzline    ML13140A166.
 on PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions
 to the Petition for Rulemaking
 Process.
Comment (02) of Marvin I. Lewis    ML13178A162.
 re PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions
 to the Petition for Rulemaking
 Process.
Comment (03) of Richard Vetter re  ML13186A240.
 PR-10 CFR Part 2--Revisions to
 the Petition for Rulemaking
 Process.
Comment (04) of Alan Jacobson,     ML13198A587.
 Chair--Organization of Agreement
 States, regarding PR-10 CFR Part
 2--Revisions to the Petition for
 Rulemaking Process.
Comment (05) of Pedro Salas,       ML13198A588.
 Director--Regulatory Affairs,
 AREVA NP Inc., regarding PR-10
 CFR Part 2--Revisions to the
 Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comment (06) of Ellen Ginsburg on  ML13200A079.
 behalf of Nuclear Energy
 Institute (NEI) re PR-10 CFR
 Part 2--Revisions to the
 Petition for Rulemaking Process.
Comment (07) of Scott Bauer on     ML13231A046.
 behalf of STARS Alliance re PR-
 10 CFR Part 2--Revisions to the
 Petition for Rulemaking Process.
The Petition for Rulemaking        ML14259A474.
 Process (diagram).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 60526]]

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
material, Classified information, Confidential business information; 
Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, 
Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex 
discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting 
the following amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

PART 2--AGENCY RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 
102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 
U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 
2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 
U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j) 
also issued under Sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 
(28 U.S.C. 2461 note).


0
2. Revise Sec.  2.802 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.802  Petition for rulemaking--requirements for filing.

    (a) Filing a petition for rulemaking. Any person may petition the 
Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation in 10 CFR chapter 
I. The petition for rulemaking should be addressed to the Secretary, 
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and sent by mail 
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; by email to [email protected]; or by hand 
delivery to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern time) on Federal workdays.
    (b) Consultation with the NRC. A petitioner may consult with the 
NRC staff before and after filing a petition for rulemaking by 
contacting the Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 1-800-368-5642.
    (1) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a 
petition for rulemaking, the assistance that the NRC staff may provide 
is limited to the following:
    (i) Describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking, 
closing, amending, withdrawing, and resolving a petition for 
rulemaking;
    (ii) Clarifying an existing NRC regulation and the basis for the 
regulation; and
    (iii) Assisting the petitioner to clarify a petition for rulemaking 
so that the Commission is able to understand the issues of concern to 
the petitioner.
    (2) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a 
petition for rulemaking, in providing the assistance permitted in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the NRC staff will not draft or 
develop text or alternative approaches to address matters in the 
petition for rulemaking.
    (3) In any consultation regarding a petition for rulemaking, the 
NRC staff will not advise a petitioner on whether a petition should be 
amended or withdrawn.
    (c) Content of petition. (1) Each petition for rulemaking filed 
under this section must clearly and concisely:
    (i) Specify the name of the petitioner, a telephone number, a 
mailing address, and an email address (if available) that the NRC may 
use to communicate with the petitioner;
    (ii) If the petitioner is an organization, provide additional 
identifying information (as applicable) including the petitioner's 
organizational or corporate status, the petitioner's State of 
incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and 
authority of the individual who signed the petition on behalf of the 
organizational or corporate petitioner.
    (iii) Present the specific problems or issues that the petitioner 
believes should be addressed through rulemaking, including any specific 
circumstances in which the NRC's codified requirements are incorrect, 
incomplete, inadequate, or unnecessarily burdensome;
    (iv) Cite, enclose, or reference publicly-available technical, 
scientific, or other data or information supporting the petitioner's 
assertion of the problems or issues;
    (v) Present the petitioner's proposed solution to the problems or 
issues raised in the petition for rulemaking (e.g., a proposed solution 
may include specific regulations or regulatory language to add to, 
amend in, or delete from 10 CFR chapter I);
    (vi) Provide an analysis, discussion, or argument that explains how 
the petitioner's proposed solution solves the problems or issues 
identified by the petitioner; and
    (vii) Cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly-available data 
or information supporting the petitioner's proposed solution; and
    (viii) If required by 10 CFR 51.68 of this chapter, submit a 
separate document entitled ``Petitioner's Environmental Report,'' which 
contains the information specified in 10 CFR 51.45.
    (2) To assist the NRC in its evaluation of the petition for 
rulemaking, the petitioner should clearly and concisely:
    (i) Explain why the proposed rulemaking solution is within the 
authority of the NRC to adopt; and
    (ii) Explain why rulemaking is the most favorable approach to 
address the problem or issue, as opposed to other NRC actions such as 
licensing, issuance of an order, or referral to another Federal or 
State agency.
    (3) If the petition is signed by multiple petitioners, the petition 
must designate a lead petitioner who is responsible for disseminating 
communications received from the NRC to co-petitioners.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Request for suspension of an adjudication involving licensing. 
The petitioner may request the Commission to suspend all or any part of 
any licensing proceeding to which the petitioner is a participant 
pending disposition of the petition for rulemaking.
    (f) Amendment; withdrawal. If the petitioner wants to amend or 
withdraw a docketed petition for rulemaking, then the petitioner should 
include the docket number and the date that the original petition for 
rulemaking was submitted in a filing addressed to the Secretary, 
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and sent by mail 
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; or by email to [email protected].

0
3. Revise Sec.  2.803 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.803  Petition for rulemaking--NRC action.

    (a) Notification of receipt. Following receipt of a petition for 
rulemaking, the NRC will acknowledge its receipt to the petitioner.
    (b) Docketing review. (1) The NRC will evaluate the petition for 
rulemaking, including supporting data or information submitted under 
Sec.  2.802(c), for sufficiency according to the review criteria in 
Sec.  2.803(b).
    (2) If the NRC determines that the petition for rulemaking does not 
include

[[Page 60527]]

the information set out in Sec.  2.802(c), that the regulatory change 
sought by the petitioner is not within the legal authority of the NRC, 
or that the petition for rulemaking does not raise a potentially valid 
issue that warrants further consideration, then the NRC will notify the 
petitioner in writing and explain the deficiencies in the petition for 
rulemaking.
    (3) The petitioner may resubmit the petition for rulemaking without 
prejudice.
    (c) Docketing. (1) The NRC will docket a petition for rulemaking 
and assign a docket number to the petition if the NRC determines the 
following:
    (i) The petition for rulemaking includes the information required 
by paragraph Sec.  2.802(c),
    (ii) The regulatory change sought by the petitioner is within the 
NRC's legal authority, and
    (iii) The petition for rulemaking raises a potentially valid issue 
that warrants further consideration.
    (2) A copy of the docketed petition for rulemaking will be posted 
in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
and on the Federal rulemaking Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov. 
The NRC will publish a notice of docketing in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the NRC is reviewing the merits of the 
petition for rulemaking. The notice of docketing will include the 
docket number and explain how the public may track the status of the 
petition for rulemaking.
    (d) NRC communication with petitioners. If the petition is signed 
by multiple petitioners, any NRC obligation to inform a petitioner (as 
may be required under 10 CFR part 2, subpart H) is satisfied, with 
respect to all petitioners, when the NRC transmits the required 
notification to the lead petitioner.
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) [Reserved]
    (g) Public comment on a petition for rulemaking; hearings. (1) At 
its discretion, the NRC may request public comment on a docketed 
petition for rulemaking.
    (2) The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov and enter the comment submissions into ADAMS, 
without removing identifying or contact information from comment 
submissions. Anyone requesting or aggregating comments from other 
persons for submission to the NRC is responsible for informing those 
persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do 
not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submissions.
    (3) No adjudicatory or legislative hearing under the procedures of 
10 CFR part 2 will be held on a petition for rulemaking unless the 
Commission determines to do so, at its discretion.
    (h) Determination on a petition for rulemaking; Closure of docket 
on a petition for rulemaking. (1) Determination. Following docketing of 
a petition for rulemaking, the NRC's determination on the petition for 
rulemaking may be based upon, but is not limited to, the following 
considerations:
    (i) The merits of the petition;
    (ii) The immediacy of the safety, environmental, or security 
concern raised;
    (iii) The availability of NRC resources and the priority of the 
issues raised in relation to other NRC rulemaking issues;
    (iv) Whether the problems or issues are already under consideration 
by the NRC in other NRC processes;
    (v) The substance of any public comment received, if comment is 
requested; and
    (vi) The NRC's relevant past decisions and current policies.
    (2) Petition for rulemaking docket closure. After the NRC 
determines the appropriate regulatory action in response to the 
petition for rulemaking, the NRC will administratively close the docket 
for the petition. The NRC will publish a notice describing that action 
with any related Docket Identification number (Docket ID), as 
applicable, in the Federal Register. The NRC may make a determination 
on a petition for rulemaking and administratively close the docket for 
the petition for rulemaking by:
    (i) Deciding not to undertake a rulemaking to address the issue 
raised by the petition for rulemaking, and informing the petitioner in 
writing of the grounds for denial.
    (ii) Initiating a rulemaking action (e.g., initiating a new 
rulemaking, addressing the petition for rulemaking in an ongoing 
rulemaking, addressing the petition for rulemaking in a planned 
rulemaking) that considers the issues raised by a petition for 
rulemaking, and informing the petitioner in writing of this decision 
and the associated Docket ID of the rulemaking action, if applicable.
    (i) Petition for rulemaking resolution. (1) Petition for rulemaking 
resolution published in the Federal Register. The NRC will publish a 
Federal Register notice informing the public that it has concluded all 
planned regulatory action with respect to some or all of the issues 
presented in a petition for rulemaking. This may occur by adoption of a 
final rule related to the petition for rulemaking, denial by the NRC of 
the petition for rulemaking at any stage of the regulatory process, or 
the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition for rulemaking before the 
NRC has entered the rulemaking process. As applicable, the Federal 
Register notice will include a discussion of how the regulatory action 
addresses the issue raised by the petitioner, the NRC's grounds for 
denial of the petition for rulemaking, or information on the 
withdrawal. The notice will normally include the NRC's response to any 
public comment received (if comment is requested), unless the NRC has 
indicated that it will not be providing a formal written response to 
each comment received.
    (2) NRC decision not to proceed with rulemaking after closure of a 
petition for rulemaking docket. If the NRC closes a petition for 
rulemaking docket under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section but 
subsequently decides not to carry out the planned rulemaking to 
publication of a final rule, the NRC will notify the petitioner in 
writing of this decision and publish a notice in the Federal Register 
explaining the basis for its decision. The decision not to complete the 
rulemaking action will be documented as denial of the petition for 
rulemaking in the docket of the closed petition for rulemaking, in the 
Web sites, in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 
and Deregulatory Actions, online in ADAMS, and at http://www.regulations.gov as described in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (j) Status of petitions for rulemaking and rulemakings. (1) The NRC 
provides current information on rulemakings and petitions for 
rulemaking in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/rulemaking.html.
    (2) The NRC includes a summary of the NRC's planned and ongoing 
rulemakings in the Government-wide Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 
and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda), published semiannually. 
This Unified Agenda is available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain/.
    (3) All docketed petitions, rulemakings, and public comments are 
posted online in ADAMS and at http://www.regulations.gov.
0
4. In Sec.  2.811, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.811  Filing of standard design certification application; 
required copies.

* * * * *
    (e) Pre-application consultation. A prospective applicant for a 
standard

[[Page 60528]]

design certification may consult with NRC staff before filing an 
application by writing to the Director, Division of New Reactor 
Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, with respect to the subject matters listed in Sec.  2.802(b)(1). 
A prospective applicant also may telephone the Rules, Announcements, 
and Directives Branch, toll free on 1-800-368-5642, or send an email to 
[email protected] on these subject matters. In addition, a 
prospective applicant may confer informally with NRC staff before 
filing an application for a standard design certification, and the 
limitations on consultation in Sec.  2.802(b)(2) do not apply.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of October, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-25563 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P