98-32211. Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 66721-66735]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-32211]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    10 CFR Parts 2 and 51
    
    RIN 3150-AG09
    
    
    Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers
    
    AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations 
    to provide specific uniform procedures and rules of practice for 
    handling requests for hearings associated with license transfer 
    applications involving material and reactor licenses as well as 
    licenses issued under the regulations governing the independent storage 
    of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Conforming 
    amendments are also made to certain other parts of the Commission's 
    regulations. These new provisions provide for public participation and 
    opportunity for an informal hearing on matters relating to license 
    transfers, specify procedures for filing and docketing applications for 
    license transfers, and assign appropriate authorities for issuance of 
    administrative amendments to reflect approved license transfers. This 
    rulemaking also adds a categorical exclusion that permits processing of 
    transfer applications without preparation of Environmental Assessments.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1998.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Fitzgerald, U.S. Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, telephone (301) 
    415-1607, e-mail [email protected], or Leo Slaggie, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 415-1605 (TDD), e-
    mail [email protected]
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        On September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48644), the NRC published in the 
    Federal Register a proposed rule that would amend NRC's regulations by 
    adding to 10 CFR Part 2, the NRC's Rules of Practice for Domestic 
    Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders, a subpart M, which would 
    establish uniform informal procedures for handling requests for 
    hearings associated with license transfer applications. This initiative 
    is part of a broad effort to improve the effectiveness of the agency's 
    programs and processes.
        A number of categories of NRC licensees, but in particular the 
    electric power industry, have undergone and will continue to undergo 
    significant transformations as a result of changes to the economic and 
    regulatory environment in which they operate. Electric utilities in 
    particular are now operating in an environment which is increasingly 
    characterized by restructuring and organizational change. In recent 
    years, the Commission has seen a significant increase in the number of 
    requests for transfers of NRC licenses. The number of requests related 
    to reactor licenses has increased from a historical average of 2-3 per 
    year to more than 20 requests in fiscal year 1997. With the 
    restructuring that the energy industry is undergoing, the Commission 
    expects this high rate of requests for approval of license transfers to 
    continue. Because of the need for expeditious decisionmaking from all 
    agencies, including the Commission, for these kinds of transactions, 
    timely and effective resolution of requests for transfers on the part 
    of the Commission is essential.
        In general, license transfers do not involve any technical changes 
    to plant operations. Rather, they involve changes in ownership or 
    partial ownership of facilities at a corporate level. Section 184 of 
    the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), specifies, however, 
    that:
    
        [N]o license granted hereunder * * * shall be transferred, 
    assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or 
    involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through
    
    [[Page 66722]]
    
    transfer of control of any license to any person, unless the 
    Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the 
    transfer is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall 
    give its consent in writing. (42 U.S.C. 2234; 10 CFR 30.34 (b), 
    40.46, 50.80, 72.50)
    
        Transfers falling within the foregoing provision include indirect 
    transfers which might entail, for example, the establishment of a 
    holding company over an existing licensee, as well as direct transfers, 
    such as transfer of an ownership interest held by a non-operating, 
    minority owner, and the complete transfer of the ownership and 
    operating authority of a single or majority owner. Although other 
    requirements of the Commission's licensing provisions may also be 
    addressed to the extent relevant to the particular transfer action, 
    typical NRC staff review of such applications consists largely of 
    assuring that the ultimately licensed entity has the capability to meet 
    financial qualification and decommissioning funding aspects of NRC 
    regulations. These financial capabilities are important over the long 
    term, but have no direct or immediate impact on the requirements for 
    day-to-day operations at a licensed facility. The same is generally 
    true of applications involving the transfer of materials licenses.
        Notwithstanding the nature of the issues relevant to a decision on 
    whether to consent to a license transfer, past Commission practice has 
    generally involved the use of formal hearing procedures under the 
    provisions of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G, for license transfers other 
    than those for materials licenses, which have used the informal hearing 
    procedures provided by 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L. However, license 
    transfers do not, as a general proposition, involve the type of 
    technical issues with immediate impact on the actual operation of the 
    facilities that might benefit from review by a multi-member, multi-
    disciplined Atomic Safety and Licensing Board historically used by the 
    Commission in hearings on initial licensing or license amendments that 
    substantially affect the technical operations. It is a matter suitable 
    for reasonable discussion whether such complex hearing procedures 
    provide the best means of reaching decisions on such technical issues, 
    but, be they the best or not, they clearly are not required and are not 
    the most efficient means for resolving the issues encountered in 
    license transfers. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 
    requests for hearings on applications for license transfers should be 
    handled by a separate Subpart of 10 CFR Part 2. This new Subpart M 
    establishes an efficient and appropriate informal process for handling 
    hearing requests associated with transfer applications commensurate 
    with the nature of the issues involved and the rights of all parties.
        The basic requirement for an opportunity for a hearing on a license 
    transfer is found in Section 189.a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
    amended (AEA), which provides that:
    
        [I]n any proceeding under this Act, for the granting, 
    suspending, revoking, or amending of any license or construction 
    permit, or application to transfer control, * * * the Commission 
    shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest 
    may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person 
    as a party to such proceeding. (42 U.S.C. 2239(1).)
    
        The Commission believes that AEA sections 184 and 189 give the 
    Commission the flexibility to fashion procedures which provide for a 
    fair process to consider any issues raised concerning license transfers 
    while still proceeding in an expedited manner. In 1983, a reviewing 
    court held that Section 189.a of the Atomic Energy Act did not require 
    that a hearing on a materials license amendment be conducted ``on the 
    record.'' City of West Chicago v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    701 F.2d 632, 641-45 (7th Cir. 1983). There, the court declined to read 
    Section 189.a as requiring formal trial-type hearings, in the absence 
    of clear Congressional ``intent to trigger the formal on-the-record 
    hearing provisions of the APA.'' Id. at 641. The Commission has also 
    taken the position in court that Section 189.a does not require formal 
    hearings in reactor licensing proceedings. En Banc Brief for 
    Respondents dated August 30, 1991 (filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
    for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 89-1381, Nuclear Information 
    and Resource Service v. NRC, at pp. 32-38). However, the court did not 
    find it necessary to decide the question. Nuclear Information Resource 
    Services v. NRC, 969 F.2d 1169, 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
        To promote uniformity, the hearing procedures established in the 
    final rule apply to all license transfers which require prior NRC 
    approval. The Commission has added to the final rule, as appropriate, 
    additional language to make explicit that the new procedures apply to 
    transfers of licenses issued under 10 CFR Part 72 for independent 
    storage of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. The 
    procedures are designed to provide for public participation in the 
    event of requests for a hearing under these provisions, while at the 
    same time providing an efficient process that recognizes the time-
    sensitivity normally present in transfer cases.
    
    II. Comments and Commission Responses
    
        The Commission received sixteen letters of comment from interested 
    persons. Commenters included private corporations who hold or plan to 
    acquire NRC licenses for nuclear facilities, the Nuclear Energy 
    Institute, private counsel representing electric utilities and nuclear 
    plant operating companies, a licensed nuclear power plant operator 
    employed at a nuclear power station, the president of Local 369 of the 
    Utility Workers Union of America representing workers at a nuclear 
    power station, a citizens group, and an individual member of the 
    public. Twelve of the Commenters expressed strong support for the 
    proposed rule and provided specific comments and suggestions on 
    particular provisions. Two Commenters, the individual member of the 
    public and the citizens group, indicated strong but general opposition 
    to the proposed Subpart M hearing process.
        A review of the comments, not necessarily in the order received, 
    and the Commission's responses follows:
        Comments from individuals:
        Comment 1. Mr. Marvin Lewis, a member of the public, opposed the 
    adoption of informal procedures for hearings on license transfer 
    applications. Mr. Lewis's brief comment expressed concern that under 
    the proposed procedures there will be no record upon which findings of 
    fact and conclusions of law may rest and that ``general findings'' will 
    suffice to support a license transfer.
        Commission response. The Commission believes the commenter has not 
    fully understood the proposal. While the procedures do not allow 
    discovery as such, there will be an extensive record consisting of the 
    hearing transcript, exhibits, and all papers filed or issued in 
    connection with the hearing. See Sec. 2.1317. The Presiding Officer 
    will certify the completed hearing record to the Commission, which will 
    then issue its decision on the issues raised in the hearing or request 
    additional testimony and/or documentary evidence if it finds that 
    additional evidentiary presentations are needed for a decision on the 
    merits. See Sec. 2.1320. The Commission does not understand Mr. Lewis's 
    reference to ``general findings'' in the context of this rulemaking. 
    Before approving a license transfer the Commission must find that the 
    transfer is in accordance with the provisions of
    
    [[Page 66723]]
    
    the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2234). This finding will necessarily 
    address the specifics of the transfer in question. Nothing in the rule 
    alters the nature of the findings needed to support approval of a 
    license transfer.
        Comment 2. The Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (``OCRE'') 
    generally opposed the proposed rule. OCRE characterizes the Subpart M 
    informal procedures as ``a pro forma exercise'' that in OCRE's view 
    will not be adequate to deal with the complex inquiry that could arise 
    in a license transfer proceeding. OCRE also objects to shortened filing 
    times and to the requirement that common interests be represented by a 
    single party. OCRE sees such provisions as ``attempts to make life 
    difficult for intervenors.''
        Commission response. For the reasons given in the notice of 
    proposed rulemaking, the Commission believes that the Subpart M 
    procedures will be both efficient and effective in dealing with the 
    issues that license transfer application proceedings typically involve. 
    They are not ``pro forma'' but in fact provide ample opportunity for 
    the parties to raise appropriate issues and build a sound evidentiary 
    record for decision. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that 
    issues might arise that could require additional procedures. Therefore 
    the rule explicitly provides that the Commission may use additional 
    procedures or even convene a formal hearing ``on specific and 
    substantial disputes of fact necessary for the Commission's decision, 
    that cannot be resolved with sufficient accuracy except in a formal 
    hearing.'' See Sec. 2.1322(d). The rule thus provides sufficient 
    flexibility to cope with extraordinary or unusual cases. For typical 
    cases, however, a ``streamlined hearing process'' providing faster 
    decision-making without loss of quality is a desirable objective. The 
    shortened filing times and other provisions to which OCRE objects are 
    steps which make this streamlining possible. They are not selective 
    attempts to burden intervenors. The Commission believes that all 
    parties to a license transfer application proceeding will benefit from 
    the use of the Subpart M procedures.
        Comment 3. Mr. David Leonardi, a licensed reactor operator, 
    submitted a two-part comment ``directed more to what is missing in the 
    proposed rule rather than to what it contains.'' First, Mr. Leonardi 
    questioned the Commission's statement in the notice of proposed 
    rulemaking that license transfers in general ``do not involve . . . 
    significant changes in personnel of consequence to the continued 
    reasonable assurance of public health and safety.'' Mr. Leonardi called 
    this ``a dangerous assumption'' and expressed his view that 
    ``significant losses of critical personnel must be anticipated and 
    factored into the transfer decision.'' He suggested that the proposed 
    rule ``must require the applicant to submit a critical staff retention 
    plan.''
        Second, with regard to the placement in the Public Document Room of 
    documents pertaining to each license transfer application, Sec. 2.1303, 
    Mr. Leonardi commented that he finds the Public Document Room difficult 
    to use. He indicated his preference for ``a separate section on the NRC 
    web site for each proposed license transfer where all relevant 
    documents and correspondence may be accessed.''
        Commission response. Mr. Leonardi is correct that if a significant 
    loss and replacement of critical plant personnel can be anticipated as 
    the result of a particular license transfer this might well be a reason 
    not to approve the transfer or to condition the transfer on the 
    maintenance of adequate technical qualifications. However, the 
    Commission does not regard this observation as a reason for modifying 
    this proposed rule, which deals with hearing procedures rather than 
    with the substantive findings that must be made to support approval of 
    a license transfer application. The commenter does not assert that the 
    Subpart M procedures cannot deal adequately with the issue of technical 
    qualifications of the applicant for license transfer, and the 
    Commission perceives no potential inadequacy in this regard. The 
    Commission continues to believe that personnel retention issues and 
    technical qualifications of the applicant do not involve the type of 
    technical questions bearing on the actual operation of a facility that 
    may benefit from different hearing procedures. As for the commenter's 
    suggestion that the rule should incorporate a requirement for a 
    critical staff retention plan to be submitted by the applicant for the 
    license transfer, the Commission finds that Subpart M, which deals 
    primarily with hearing procedures, is not an appropriate place for such 
    a substantive requirement. If, in a particular license transfer case, a 
    need is identified for submission of a critical staff retention plan in 
    order to address the applicant's technical qualifications, this matter 
    can readily be addressed in the hearing process and can ultimately 
    result in a condition on license transfer approval.
        Turning to the matter of availability of license transfer 
    application documents on the NRC web site, the Commission notes that 
    the NRC is in the process of developing a new and comprehensive 
    Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (``ADAMS''). 
    Documents filed in a license transfer case after ADAMS becomes 
    operational, probably in the second half of 1999, will be placed in the 
    ADAMS public library. The public will be able to find relevant 
    documents by using general search criteria such as docket numbers, case 
    names, and subject topics. The details of how ADAMS will operate have 
    yet to be fully worked out, but the Commission believes that this 
    system will prove responsive to the commenter's concern. In the 
    meantime, the Commission notes that the NRC Public Document Room 
    licensing files have worked quite well in the past and been readily 
    available to members of the public who wish to obtain extensive 
    information on pending licensing actions.
        Comment 4. A comment by the president of Local 369, Utility Workers 
    Union of America, representing 197 workers at a nuclear power station, 
    acknowledged the need to streamline the hearing process but identified 
    what the commenter perceived as potential problems with the proposed 
    Subpart M procedures. In particular, the commenter was concerned about 
    the Commission's expectation that the procedures will result in the 
    issuance of a final Commission decision on a license transfer 
    application within about six to eight months of notice of receipt of 
    the application. The commenter said that ``a process that proceeds too 
    rapidly could compromise the Union's and the NRC's ability to obtain 
    critical information about the license transferee.'' The Commission of 
    course agrees that what the commenter calls ``a rush to approval'' 
    could fail to obtain adequate information about the transferee's 
    experience and ability to manage the plant safely. The Commission 
    notes, however, that the expectation of completing license transfer 
    proceedings in six to eight months applies to ``routine cases.'' (63 FR 
    48646, col. 2.) Subpart M itself does not specify or limit the 
    substantive questions which must be addressed in license transfer 
    proceedings. If difficult issues arise in unusual cases, they will be 
    dealt with as sound decisionmaking requires, even if this requires a 
    greater time commitment than routine cases. The Commission's aim in 
    adopting the Subpart M procedures is to provide an efficient and 
    effective hearing process and a structure for compiling a decision 
    record in a timely manner, not a hurried one.
        The commenter also expressed concern that the Union not be denied 
    the opportunity to participate in license transfer hearings. The new 
    Subpart M
    
    [[Page 66724]]
    
    does not alter the Commission's usual requirement for standing to 
    intervene in a proceeding that a person show an interest which may be 
    affected by the outcome of the proceeding. By showing an interest 
    (within the ``zone of interests'' of the relevant statutes) which may 
    be affected by the Commission's action on an application for license 
    transfer, any person or organization may participate as of right. See 
    Sec. 2.1306(a). Under current agency case law, the Commission may also 
    allow discretionary intervention to a person who does not meet standing 
    requirements, where there is reason to believe the person's 
    participation will make a valuable contribution to the proceeding and 
    where a consideration of the other criteria on discretionary 
    intervention shows that such intervention is warranted.
        Comments by or on behalf of members of the nuclear energy industry:
        Comment 5. The Nuclear Energy Institute (``NEI''), an organization 
    representing utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power 
    plants in the United States, nuclear materials licensees, and other 
    organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear industry, 
    submitted a comment on behalf of its members. NEI supports as a ``very 
    positive development'' the use of informal rather than formal trial-
    type procedures for consideration of license transfer applications. NEI 
    suggests the goals of the rule can be furthered by the following 
    proposed clarification: ``Where the proposed change only involves a 
    transfer of ownership of all or a portion of the facility, both NRC 
    staff review and the Subpart M proceeding should be limited solely to 
    the capability of the transferee to meet financial qualifications and 
    decommissioning funding requirements.'' Several comments by individual 
    members of the nuclear energy industry or their representatives 
    endorsed the comments of NEI.
        Commission response. The Commission does not accept NEI's proposed 
    clarification. The Commission observed in the Notice of Proposed 
    Rulemaking that ``typical staff review consists largely of assuring 
    that the ultimately licensed entity has the capability to meet 
    financial qualification and decommissioning funding aspects of NRC 
    regulations,'' (63 FR 48644, col. 3. (emphasis added)). But financial 
    qualification and decommissioning funding are not the sole issues that 
    may bear on a license transfer approval, even when the transfer will 
    change only the ownership of all or part of a facility and will not 
    directly affect management or operation. Section 103d of the Atomic 
    Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2133, for example, places certain restrictions on 
    foreign ownership, control, or domination of certain licenses. 
    Consideration of the question whether a proposed license transfer is 
    consistent with this provision of the Act would require a broader scope 
    for the proceeding than the limited one NEI recommends. Generally, the 
    Commission believes it is desirable to focus its Subpart M rulemaking 
    solely on procedures rather than attempting in this rulemaking to 
    describe and enumerate the substantive issues that license transfers 
    may involve.
        Comment 6. The Southern California Edison Company (``SCE'') stated 
    its strong support for the proposed rule. SCE supported the comments 
    submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which the Commission has 
    already addressed in the response to Comment 5, supra. SCE also offered 
    suggestions for ``minor enhancements'' to the proposed rule, which the 
    Commission addresses in its response to this comment.
        Commission response. Change (1) suggested by SCE is that the rule 
    should give the Presiding Officer, in addition to the power to ``strike 
    or reject duplicative or irrelevant presentations,'' Sec. 2.1320(a)(9), 
    the responsibility and power to strike or reject unreliable or 
    immaterial presentations. As the commenter points out, this change 
    would make Subpart M similar in this regard to 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart 
    L, Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and 
    Operator Licensing Proceedings, which gives the presiding officer the 
    power to strike portions of a presentation that are ``cumulative, 
    irrelevant, immaterial, or unreliable.'' (10 CFR 2.1233(e)). The 
    Commission agrees that unreliable and immaterial presentations detract 
    from the value of the record and should be subject to exclusion in the 
    sound discretion of the Presiding Officer. Therefore the Commission 
    accepts this suggestion and has revised Sec. 2.1320(a)(9) accordingly 
    in the final rule.
        Change (2) suggested by SCE deals with responses to papers served 
    by mail. SCE notes that proposed Sec. 2.1314(c) provides for three 
    additional days to respond to papers served pursuant to Sec. 2.1307 by 
    regular mail. SCE suggests that three additional days for mail service 
    should be allowed for all responses to service of a paper, not just 
    those made pursuant to Sec. 2.1307. The Commission accepts this 
    suggestion and has revised Sec. 2.1314(c) accordingly in the final 
    rule.
        Change (3) suggested by SCE is that proposed Sec. 2.1331(b) be 
    clarified to make plain that the Commission may consider other 
    information on the docket when it decides matters that were not 
    designated as issues for the hearing. The Commission agrees and has 
    adopted the language proposed by SCE for Sec. 2.1331(b) in the final 
    rule: ``The decision on issues designated for hearing pursuant to 
    Sec. 2.1308(d)(1) will be based on the record developed at the 
    hearing.''
        Comment 7. Florida Power & Light Company (``FPL'') submitted a 
    comment endorsing the comments of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which 
    the Commission has already addressed in the context of its response to 
    comment 5, supra. FPL concurred with the Commission's findings in 
    support of the proposed Subpart M and offered the following additional 
    suggestions:
        (1) FPL suggested that the Commission should extend the informal 
    hearing process to all NRC adjudicatory proceedings.
        Commission response. Although the suggestion goes well beyond the 
    scope of the proposed rule, the Commission notes elsewhere in this 
    notice that it has argued in court that section 189a of the Atomic 
    Energy Act does not require formal hearings, and the Commission has 
    directed the staff to seek legislation that supports greater use of 
    informal procedures. The Commission has also asked the staff to advise 
    the Commission on ways to enhance the Commission's ability to use 
    informal procedures in any proceeding in which formal procedures are 
    currently used.
        (2) FPL supported close Commission oversight of the Presiding 
    Officer but believed that the Commissioners should not personally be 
    involved, as the proposed Subpart M envisions, in developing the 
    evidentiary record in license transfer application proceedings.
        Commission response. Under the proposed rule the Commission ``will 
    ordinarily be the Presiding Officer at a hearing,'' but the Commission 
    ``may provide * * * that one or more Commissioners, or any other person 
    permitted by law, may preside.'' See Sec. 2.1319. The Commission 
    believes this language provides sufficient flexibility to deal with the 
    commenter's concerns, should the Commission perceive that its direct 
    involvement in Subpart M hearings is in some cases unduly burdensome or 
    impractical for the Commission.
        (3) FPL stated its belief that allowing all parties to make oral 
    presentations in every license transfer proceeding ``could defeat the 
    underlying purpose of the proposed rule: to streamline license transfer 
    proceedings.'' Comments by several other members of the nuclear
    
    [[Page 66725]]
    
    energy industry or their representatives questioned the proposed rule's 
    provision that hearings shall be oral unless all parties agree to a 
    hearing on written submissions. These Commenters recognized the 
    Commission's intention to avoid delays caused by a need to consider a 
    party's request that a hearing be oral; that is, the Commission intends 
    to avoid needless nonsubstantive ``litigation'' over the form (oral or 
    written) of the litigation on the merits-- but noted that there are 
    alternative ways to avoid these delays. Two Commenters suggested that 
    the Commission could provide that hearings will be on written 
    submissions unless any party requests an oral hearing.
        Commission response. Under the proposed Subpart M oral hearings are 
    the ``default choice'' in that it provides for oral presentations 
    unless all parties agree to a written hearing. Under the proposed 
    scheme if the parties take no action the hearing will be oral, and only 
    unanimous action of the parties in favor of a written hearing will 
    cause oral procedures to be supplanted. The Commenters' suggested 
    alternative that the hearing be written unless a party requests an oral 
    hearing would turn this around and make a written hearing the default 
    choice. The Commission prefers to retain the approach taken in the 
    proposed rule. The Commission believes that oral presentations with the 
    structure established by Subpart M may allow for the compilation of a 
    better record because the Presiding Officer can more readily ask 
    follow-up or clarifying questions. A strictly written hearing is likely 
    to prove more cumbersome in this regard. Furthermore, members of the 
    public attending oral proceedings will be able to follow the hearing 
    more readily than by combing through extensive written materials in the 
    Public Document Room as they would be required to do in a written 
    hearing context. Accordingly, the Commission does not accept the 
    commenter's proposed alternative.
        (4) FPL noted its support of Commission action to ensure timely 
    completion of license transfer proceedings but recommended ``that the 
    final rule specifically require automatic Commission review in the 
    event that any of the schedular ``milestones'' are exceeded by a 
    Presiding Officer.''
        Commission response. Although the Commission intends to monitor 
    these proceedings carefully and will be fully prepared to step in to 
    address schedular problems when necessary, the Commission is not 
    prepared to require by regulation, and bind itself to, a review of 
    every instance in which a Presiding Officer exercises discretion to 
    enlarge the time provided in the rule for filings or other actions. In 
    view of the Commission's recent Policy Statement on Conduct of 
    Adjudicatory Proceedings, 48 NRC 18 (1998), (63 FR 41872; August 5, 
    1998), the Commission is confident that persons serving as Presiding 
    Officers will be highly sensitive to the need for expeditious 
    completion of adjudicatory proceedings, consistent with considerations 
    of fairness and the production of an adequate record, and will 
    countenance delays only for compelling reasons. The Commission of 
    course retains discretion to take such action in individual proceedings 
    as it deems necessary to assure timeliness and adherence to all other 
    Commission requirements that govern the hearing process.
        Comment 8. Texas Utilities Electric Company (``TU Electric'') 
    expressed support for the proposed rule. TU Electric also offered many 
    of the suggestions put forward in the comments already described. In 
    addition, TU Electric expressed concern that the reference in proposed 
    Sec. 2.1330(b) to 10 CFR 2.790, which is in Subpart G, might convey an 
    implication that other Subpart G procedures also apply in Subpart M 
    proceedings.
        Commission response. To allay the commenter's concern, the 
    Commission has modified Sec. 2.1330(b) in the final rule by replacing 
    the language ``under 10 CFR 2.790'' with the language ``in accordance 
    with law and policy as reflected in 10 CFR 2.790 . . .'' The intent of 
    this modification is to remove any possible implication that Subpart G 
    is intended to apply to license transfer actions.
        Comment 9. AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (``AmerGen'') commented that 
    it favored the proposed rule and urged its prompt adoption. AmerGen 
    also suggested that the Commission should apply the proposed Subpart M 
    procedures, at the request of an applicant, in any license transfer 
    application proceedings that may be undertaken before the final Subpart 
    M becomes effective. In AmerGen's opinion, the NRC has authority under 
    the Atomic Energy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to use the 
    Subpart M procedures on a case-by-case basis, prior to finalization of 
    the rule, so long as the Commission provides fair notice to the 
    potential parties.
        Commission response. For reasons discussed elsewhere in this 
    notice, the Commission is making this rule effective upon publication, 
    pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act for 
    immediate effectiveness. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and 553(d)(3). Any 
    applications received but not yet noticed as of the effective date of 
    this rule will be subject to Subpart M procedures. In the case of 
    license transfer applications, if any, that have been noticed and for 
    which proceedings are pending as of the date of this notice of final 
    rulemaking, affected applicants or parties to such proceedings who wish 
    to avail themselves of the new procedures may file motions with the 
    Presiding Officer in those proceedings, requesting that Subpart M 
    procedures be applied as appropriate to the remainder of the pending 
    proceeding.
        Comment 10. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, a private law firm commenting 
    on behalf of Alliant Utilities--IES Utilities and STP Nuclear Operating 
    Company, endorsed the comments of NEI (see Comment 5, supra) in support 
    of the rule. The commenter also made several suggestions for changes.
        Commission response. The changes suggested by this commenter are 
    similar to suggestions made in other comments described and responded 
    to in the preceding discussion.
        Comment 11. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge (``Shaw Pittman''), a 
    private law firm commenting on behalf of itself and several utilities, 
    strongly supported the proposed rule. Shaw Pittman believed, however, 
    that several aspects of the rule require ``clarification and 
    refinement.'' These aspects, together with the Commission's response, 
    are as follows:
        (1) Shaw Pittman expressed concern ``that the rule does not 
    identify the circumstances that would permit the NRC Staff to delay the 
    approval or denial of a license transfer request pending any requested 
    hearing.'' The commenter noted that proposed Sec. 2.1316(a) says that 
    during the pendency of a hearing under Subpart M ``the staff is 
    expected to promptly issue approval or denial of license transfer 
    requests.'' The commenter believed that the final rule or its statement 
    of consideration ``should describe the circumstances or the factors 
    that the NRC Staff are to consider in deciding whether to postpone 
    approval or denial of a transfer pending a requested hearing.''
        Commission response. The Commission does not accept this 
    suggestion. As noted previously (see response to Comment 5), the scope 
    and focus of the Subpart M rulemaking are on procedures for the conduct 
    of hearings, rather than the substantive questions involved in approval 
    of license transfer applications. The Commission is confident that the 
    present language of Sec. 2.1316(a) adequately conveys to the NRC staff 
    that staff action on license transfer requests
    
    [[Page 66726]]
    
    should not be delayed except for sound reasons. The Commission relies 
    on the staff, subject to Commission oversight, to exercise good 
    judgment in this regard. As the rule indicates, the Commission believes 
    that staff approval or denial can usually be issued promptly, but it 
    would be unwise for the Commission at this point to attempt to 
    anticipate all the circumstances that might warrant delay in the 
    staff's review or action on the application.
        (2) Shaw Pittman commented that the Commission ``should clarify the 
    evidentiary value of written position statements and oral presentations 
    allowed under the present rule.'' The commenter would have the rule 
    specify that the Commission cannot base a decision on ``written 
    position statements and oral presentations, in and of themselves.'' The 
    commenter would require parties to document and support their positions 
    by written testimony with supporting affidavits.
        Commission response. The Commission does not believe that extensive 
    clarification is necessary. Setting out evidentiary requirements in 
    more detail could be at variance with the Commission's intention to 
    move away from time-consuming formality in its hearing processes. In 
    making a decision based on the record produced in a Subpart M 
    proceeding, the Commission will of course take proper account of the 
    evidentiary value of the record material. Written statements of 
    position and oral arguments will be treated as such statements and 
    arguments are treated in the NRC's formal adjudications under Subpart G 
    and informal proceedings under Subpart L, i.e. as arguments and 
    positions of the parties but not as facts. Factual assertions 
    unsupported by affidavits, expert testimony, or other appropriate 
    evidentiary submissions are less likely to carry weight than assertions 
    with proper evidentiary support.
        (3) Shaw Pittman urged the Commission to revise the proposed rule 
    expressly to allow parties to submit proposed questions to the 
    Presiding Officer within seven days of the filing of rebuttal 
    testimony. The commenter noted that under the proposed rule, rebuttal 
    testimony and proposed questions for the Presiding officer to ask 
    witnesses in the Presiding Officer's examination are to be filed at the 
    same time. See Sec. 2.1321(b) and Sec. 2.1322(a)(2). Thus, there is no 
    explicit provision for proposing questions directed to the rebuttal 
    testimony itself, although the Presiding Officer has the discretion to 
    provide for such questions. The commenter believed that the timeframe 
    of the rule would reasonably allow for this additional filing without 
    extending the date for commencement of the oral hearing beyond 65 days 
    after the date of the Commission's notice granting a hearing.
        Commission response. The Commission finds the commenter's point 
    well-taken and has placed language in the final rule to authorize 
    proposed questions directed to rebuttal testimony to be filed within 
    seven days of the filing of the rebuttal testimony.
        (4) Shaw Pittman finds confusing the language of proposed 10 CFR 
    2.1323(a) that ``[a]ll direct testimony in an oral hearing shall be 
    filed no later than 15 days before the hearing.* * *'' The commenter 
    believes this language ``could arguably be read to allow the filing of 
    direct testimony subsequent to the 30 day deadline provided for by 
    proposed 10 CFR 2.1322(a)(1).''
        Commission response. The Commission does not see any reason for 
    confusion. To be timely the filings in question must be made within 30 
    days after the date of the Commission's notice granting a hearing 
    [Sec. 2.1322(a)] but in any event no later than 15 days before the 
    hearing [Sec. 2.1323(a)]. There is no potential contradiction between 
    the two provisions. Rather than being an unnecessary provision, as the 
    commenter asserts, Sec. 2.1323(a) assures that parties will receive 
    filings in adequate time to prepare for the oral hearing.
        (5) Shaw-Pittman asked that the Commission clarify in its 
    promulgation of the final rule the extent to which license transfer 
    applications filed before the effective date of the rule will be 
    subject to the new Subpart M procedures. The commenter favored making 
    the new rule immediately effective and applying the Subpart M 
    procedures to pending applications.
    
    Commission response. See the Commission's response to Comment 9.
    
        Comment 12. GPU Nuclear stated its strong support for the rule and 
    recommended that the new procedures be applied as soon as possible.
    
    Commission response. See the Commission's response to Comment 9.
    
        Comment 13. Duke Energy Company (``Duke''), represented by Winston 
    & Strawn, supported the proposed rule but expressed concern about the 
    elimination of cross-examination by parties under Subpart M. Duke 
    stated that ``the final rule should retain provisions allowing the 
    parties to present recommended questions to the presiding officer.'' 
    Duke commented that the final rule ``should define with greater 
    precision the types of issues appropriate for review * * * '' and 
    suggested limiting the proceedings to issues associated with financial 
    qualifications and decommissioning funding. Duke also commented that 
    the final rule should explicitly grant parties to a contested license 
    transfer hearing the right to appeal an adverse decision by the 
    Commission. Duke suggested that the informal, legislative-style hearing 
    process should be extended to other NRC adjudicatory proceedings.
        Commission response. The proposed Subpart M rule provides for 
    parties to submit proposed questions to the Presiding Officer. This 
    will allow the parties to suggest what they believe to be appropriate 
    questions for the witnesses but will allow the Presiding Officer better 
    control of the examination of witnesses. This provision should 
    effectively eliminate the need for objections and interruptions during 
    witness examination. For these reasons the Commission has retained the 
    proposed procedure in the final rule. The Commission rejects the 
    commenter's suggestion that the rule should define and limit the issues 
    appropriate for review, for reasons already discussed in previous 
    responses to similar comments. The Commission also sees no point in 
    addressing statutory appeal rights in the final rule. A party's right 
    to judicial review of an adverse decision is set out in Section 189b. 
    of the Atomic Energy Act in conjunction with Chapter 158 of title 28, 
    United States Code, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Extension of 
    the proposed procedures for license transfer applications to other 
    types of NRC proceedings is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but, 
    as noted in more detail in response to an earlier comment, the 
    Commission is taking steps to expand the use of similar procedures in 
    other proceedings.
        Comment 14. PECO Nuclear noted its view that the proposed rule is 
    ``a positive step.'' The commenter suggested several minor changes in 
    words and punctuation needed to clarify the text of the rule.
        Commission response. The Commission has incorporated in the final 
    rule the commenter's suggested minor changes, which do not affect the 
    substance of the rule.
        Comment 15. Wisconsin Electric Power Company supported the 
    Commission's proposed rule and suggested certain ``clarifications and 
    refinements.''
        Commission response. The commenter's suggestions do not differ in 
    substance from suggestions made by other commenters that the Commission 
    has responded to above.
        Other Comments.
    
    [[Page 66727]]
    
        Members of the NRC staff in Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 
    Safeguards submitted a comment asking that it be made clear that the 
    proposed Subpart M applies to license transfers under 10 CFR Part 72 
    and that applications for transfers under Part 72 be noticed in the 
    Federal Register pursuant to Sec. 2.1301(b).
        Commission response. The proposed rules were intended to apply to 
    all license transfer applications, including those filed under Part 72. 
    To make this clear, the Commission has included explicit references to 
    Part 72 in this statement of consideration for the final rule. The 
    Commission has also modified Sec. 2.1301(b) to list transfer 
    applications under Part 72 as one of the class of applications that 
    will be noticed in the Federal Register.
    
    III. Description of Final Rule
    
        The procedures adopted in this rulemaking cover any direct or 
    indirect license transfer for which NRC approval is required pursuant 
    to the regulatory provisions under which the license was issued. NRC 
    regulations and the Atomic Energy Act require approval of any transfer 
    of control of a license. See AEA, Sec. 184, 42 U.S.C. 2234. This 
    includes those transfers that require license amendments and those that 
    do not. It should be recognized that not all license transfers will 
    require license amendments. For example, the total acquisition of a 
    licensee, without a change in the name of the licensee, (e.g., through 
    the creation of a holding company which acquires the existing licensee 
    but which, beyond ownership of the licensee, does not otherwise affect 
    activities for which a license is required), would require NRC 
    approval, but would not necessarily require any changes in the NRC 
    license for the facilities owned by the licensee.
        These procedures do not expand or change the circumstances under 
    which NRC approval of a transfer is necessary nor do they change the 
    circumstances under which a license amendment would be required to 
    reflect an approved transfer. Amendments to licenses are required only 
    to the extent that ownership or operating authority of a licensee, as 
    reflected in the license itself, is changed by a transfer. A discussion 
    of the process for issuing amendments associated with an approved 
    transfer, when necessary, is provided below.
        The procedures, similar to those used by the Commission in cases 
    involving export licensing hearings under 10 CFR Part 110, provide for 
    an informal type hearing for license transfers. These procedures 
    provide opportunities for meaningful public participation while 
    minimizing areas where a formal adjudicatory process could introduce 
    delays without any commensurate benefit to the substance of the 
    Commission's decisionmaking.
        The Commission will either elect to develop an evidentiary record 
    and render a final decision itself, or will appoint a Presiding Officer 
    who will be responsible for collecting evidence and developing a record 
    for submission to the Commission. For such proceedings, the Commission 
    may appoint a Presiding Officer from the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
    Board Panel (ASLBP), although the proposed regulations do not restrict 
    the sources from which the Commission may select.
        It should be noted that the regulations do not require the NRC 
    staff to participate in the proceedings as a formal party unless the 
    Commission directs the use of Subpart G procedures or otherwise directs 
    the staff to participate as a party. The Commission expects, 
    nevertheless, that, in most cases, the NRC staff will participate to 
    the extent that it will offer into evidence staff's Safety Evaluation 
    Report that supports its conclusions on whether to initially grant or 
    deny the requested license transfer and provide one or more appropriate 
    sponsoring witnesses. Greater NRC staff involvement may be directed by 
    the Commission on its own initiative or at the staff's choosing, as 
    circumstances warrant.
        One aspect of the rule designed to improve efficiency is the 
    decision to require oral hearings on all transfers where a hearing is 
    to be held under Subpart M, with very limited exceptions. It has been 
    the Commission's experience in Subpart L proceedings that intervenors 
    are particularly interested in having the opportunity to make oral 
    presentations or arguments for inclusion in the record. Even though 
    such requests are rarely granted,1 intervenors can and do 
    introduce the issue of whether to have oral presentations in individual 
    proceedings. Rather than have the issue of oral presentations become a 
    point of contention in individual proceedings (which could introduce 
    unnecessary delays in completing the record) the rule resolves this 
    concern by ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present 
    oral testimony. The question of whether cross examination of witnesses 
    should be allowed has also led to arguments in Subpart L 
    proceedings.2 The Commission has addressed this area of 
    potential dispute by providing in Subpart M for questioning of 
    witnesses only by the Presiding Officer. Although only the Presiding 
    Officer may question witnesses, the rule specifically provides parties 
    the opportunity to present recommended questions to the Presiding 
    Officer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Curators of the University of Missouri, CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71 
    120 (1995).
        \2\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Another aspect of the rule intended to improve the efficiency of 
    the adjudicatory process is that, while it does not provide for any 
    separate discovery, it does require that a Hearing Docket containing 
    all relevant documents and correspondence be established and be made 
    available at the Commission's Public Document Room. This approach is in 
    keeping with establishment of a case file as described in the 
    Commission's recent Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory 
    Proceedings, CLI-98-12 (63 FR 41872; August 5, 1998).
        Finally, to improve the efficiency of the adjudicatory process the 
    rule imposes schedular milestones for the filing of testimony and 
    responses and for the commencement of oral hearings. Subject to the 
    Presiding Officer's scheduling adjustments in particular proceedings, 
    the procedures require initial testimony, statements of position on the 
    issues, and responsive testimony to be filed within 50 days of the 
    Commission's decision to grant a request for a hearing. The hearing 
    will commence in just over two months from the Commission's decision to 
    hold a hearing. Assuming that the NRC staff is able to complete its 
    technical review and take initial action on the transfer application 
    within three to four months of its notice of receipt of the 
    application, these procedures are expected to result in the issuance of 
    a final Commission decision on the license transfer within about six to 
    eight months of the notice of receipt of the application in routine 
    cases. Complex cases requiring more extensive review or the use of 
    different hearing procedures may take more time.
    
    Administrative License Amendments Associated With License Transfers
    
        As discussed above, not all license transfers require license 
    amendments. Only when the license specifically has references to 
    entities or persons that no longer are accurate following the approved 
    transfer will a situation exist that requires amendments to the 
    license. Such amendments are essentially administrative in nature. That 
    is, in determining whether to approve such amendments, the only issue 
    is whether the license amendment accurately reflects the approved 
    transfer. Substantive issues regarding requests for a hearing on the 
    appropriateness of the
    
    [[Page 66728]]
    
    transfer itself may only be considered using the procedures in this 
    rule. The Commission has previously noted that issuance of such an 
    administrative amendment, following the review and approval of the 
    transfer itself, ``presents no safety questions and clearly involves no 
    significant hazards considerations.'' Long Island Lighting Company, 
    supra, 35 NRC at 77, n.6.
        Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) prepared in connection with 
    previous license transfers confirm that such transfers do not, as a 
    general matter, have significant impacts on the public health and 
    safety. Accordingly, the new regulations provide that conforming 
    amendments to the license may be issued by the NRC staff at any time 
    after the staff has reviewed and approved the proposed transfer, 
    notwithstanding the pendency of any hearing under the proposed Subpart 
    M. As is done currently, NRC staff approval of a transfer application 
    will take the form of an order. Such order will also identify any 
    license amendment issued.
        The Commission, through this rulemaking, is making a generic 
    finding that, for purposes of 10 CFR 50.58(b)(5), 50.91 and 50.92, and 
    72.46 and 72.50, administrative amendments which do no more than 
    reflect an approved transfer and do not directly affect actual 
    operating methods and actual operation of the facility do not involve a 
    ``significant hazards consideration'' or a ``genuine issue 
    consideration,'' respectively, and do not require that a hearing 
    opportunity be provided prior to issuance. It must be emphasized that 
    any post-effectiveness hearing on such administrative amendments will 
    be limited to the question of whether the amendment accurately reflects 
    the approved transfer. The Commission does note, however, that it 
    retains the authority, as a matter of discretion, to direct completion 
    of hearings prior to issuance of the transfer approval and any required 
    amendments in individual cases and to direct the use of other hearing 
    procedures, if the Commission believes it is in the interest of public 
    health and safety to do so.
    
    Environmental Issues
    
        The NRC staff has completed many Environmental Assessments related 
    to license transfers. These assessments have uniformly demonstrated 
    that there are no significant environmental effects from license 
    transfers. Indeed, as the Commission has noted previously, amendments 
    effectuating an approved transfer present no safety questions and 
    involve no significant hazards considerations.3 Accordingly, 
    the Commission has determined that a new categorical exclusion should 
    be added to 10 CFR Part 51 which will obviate the need for the NRC 
    staff to continue to conduct individual Environmental Assessments in 
    each transfer case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ Long Island Lighting Company, supra, 35 NRC at 77, n. 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Limitation to License Transfers
    
        The Commission wishes to emphasize that the proposed rules address 
    only license transfers and associated administrative amendments to 
    reflect transfers. Requests for license amendments that involve changes 
    in actual operations or requirements directly involving health and 
    safety-related activities will continue to be subject to the amendment 
    processes currently in use in Parts 50 and 72, including the 
    requirement for individualized findings under 10 CFR 50.58, 50.91 and 
    50.92 that address the necessity for pre-effectiveness hearings.
    
    Basis for Immediate Effectiveness
    
        The Commission has determined that this rule should become 
    immediately effective upon publication. The Administrative Procedure 
    Act relieves the agency of the requirement that publication of a 
    substantive rule be made not less than thirty days before its effective 
    date in the case of ``a substantive rule which...relieves a 
    restriction'' or ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause 
    found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and 553(d)(3). 
    The purpose of the thirty-day waiting period ``is to give affected 
    parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final 
    rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F. 3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 
    1996). The rule deals primarily with procedures that will be used in 
    future hearings on applications for license transfers. The rule adds no 
    burden to the conduct of activities regulated by the NRC. Thus there is 
    no need for NRC licensees or anyone else ``to adjust their behavior'' 
    to achieve compliance with the rule. Moreover, comments by persons most 
    likely to be affected by the rule (potential applicants) appear to 
    favor the rule and its prompt implementation. The Commission therefore 
    finds there is good cause to make this rule immediately effective. 
    Alternatively, the Commission notes that the rule in effect ``relieves 
    a restriction'' in that the hearing process established by Subpart M 
    should be less burdensome for parties to license transfer proceedings 
    than the procedures which the Commission has previously by practice 
    applied. Thus the Commission's decision to dispense with the thirty day 
    waiting period is also supported by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) .
    
    Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact and Categorical 
    Exclusion
    
        The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations 
    in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule falls within the 
    categorical exclusion appearing at 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(1) for which 
    neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact 
    Statement is required.
        Further, under its procedures for implementing NEPA, the Commission 
    may exclude from preparation of an environmental impact statement, or 
    an environmental assessment, a category of actions which do not 
    individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
    environment and which have been found to have no such effect in NRC 
    proceedings. In this rulemaking, the Commission finds that the approval 
    of a direct or indirect license transfer, as well as any required 
    administrative license amendments to reflect the approved transfer, 
    comprises a category of actions which do not individually or 
    cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. 
    Actions in this category are similar in that, under the AEA and 
    Commission regulations, transfers of licenses (and associated 
    administrative amendments to licenses) will not in and of themselves 
    permit the licensee to operate the facility in any manner different 
    from that which has previously been permitted under the existing 
    license. Thus, the transfer will usually not raise issues of 
    environmental impact that differ from those considered in initial 
    licensing of a facility. In addition, the denial of a transfer would 
    also have in and of itself no impact on the environment, since the 
    licensee would still be authorized to operate the facility in 
    accordance with the existing license.
        Environment assessments that have been conducted regarding numerous 
    license transfers under existing regulations have not demonstrated the 
    existence of a major federal action significantly affecting the 
    environment. Further, the final rule does not apply to any request for 
    an amendment that would directly affect the actual operation of a 
    facility. Amendments that directly affect the actual operation of a 
    facility would be subject to consideration pursuant to the existing 
    license amendment processes, including the requirements in 10 CFR Part 
    2,
    
    [[Page 66729]]
    
    Subpart G or L as appropriate and applicable environmental review 
    requirements of 10 CFR Part 51.
    
    Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
    
        The final rule does not contain a new or amended information 
    collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
    (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.). Existing requirements for 10 CFR Part 51 
    were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 
    3150-0021.
    
    Public Protection Notification
    
        If an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB 
    control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
    required to respond to, the information collection.
    
    Regulatory Analysis
    
        To determine whether the amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 contained in 
    this final rule were appropriate, the Commission considered the 
    following options:
    1. The No-Action Alternative
        This alternative was not deemed acceptable for the following 
    reasons. First, this option would leave reactor transfers subject to 
    past practice which generally involved hearings using multi-member, 
    multi-disciplined licensing boards, even though such transfers do not 
    involve the type of complex technical questions for which multi-member 
    boards of diverse background may provide a useful technical pool of 
    experience.
        Second, the formal adjudicatory hearing process would needlessly 
    add formality and resource burdens to the development of a record for 
    reaching a decision on applications for transfer approval without any 
    commensurate benefit to the public health and safety or the common 
    defense and security.
        Third, the current process for materials licensees under 10 CFR 
    Part 2, Subpart L, while not utilizing the multi-member licensing 
    boards, does not necessarily result in uniform treatment of all license 
    transfer requests, and provides at least the potential for more formal 
    hearings. Even if the requests for more formal procedures are not 
    granted in typical materials cases, the process of receiving motions 
    for more formal procedures, allowing responses from all parties to 
    those requests, and the need for parties' responses to those requests, 
    and the need for the Presiding Officer to consider and rule on such 
    requests introduces issues and litigation on matters not involving the 
    merits of the particular application and thus introduces the potential 
    for delays in materials license transfer proceedings, without clear 
    benefit to the public health and safety or the common defense and 
    security.
    2. Use 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G for All License Transfers
        While assuring uniformity for all license transfer requests, this 
    option would not result in an expeditious process that would avoid the 
    use of multi-member licensing boards, which is unnecessary given the 
    nature of typical transfer applications. It would also result in added 
    formality and resources being devoted to materials license transfers on 
    the part of all parties to the hearing, without any resulting benefit 
    to public health and safety.
    3. Use of 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L for All License Transfers
        This option was considered as viable to achieve uniformity and to 
    avoid the need for multi-member licensing boards for conducting 
    requested hearings. Subpart L provides for paper hearings unless oral 
    presentations are ordered by the Presiding Officer. Further, Subpart L 
    allows the Presiding Officer the option of recommending to the 
    Commission that more formal procedures be used. Even though such 
    requests are rarely granted, as a practical matter there are delays in 
    the proceeding while parties petition the Presiding Officer and/or the 
    Commission to have oral hearings and to use additional procedures, such 
    as cross-examination and formal discovery. Such discretion in 
    structuring individual hearings is appropriate where the breadth of 
    potential actions and licensees (covering essentially all amendments 
    for a wide variety of materials licensees) is governed by a single 
    hearing process. This flexibility, however, inevitably leads to delays 
    as each party to the hearings proposes and presents arguments to the 
    Presiding Officer concerning how the hearing should be structured.
    4. Use of a New Subpart M for all License Transfers
        In the case of license transfer applications the Commission is 
    concerned with only one type of approval, so the Commission has the 
    ability to resolve through rulemaking many of these procedural points 
    concerning the conduct of the hearing. The resolution of these issues 
    will allow the parties in license transfer proceedings to move 
    expeditiously to examination of the substantive issues in the 
    proceeding. The Subpart M process, similar to a legislative-type 
    hearing, will also result in the record promptly reaching the 
    Commission, where a final agency determination can be made. The rule 
    dictates that oral hearings be held on each application for which a 
    hearing request is granted unless the parties unanimously agree to 
    forgo the oral hearing. This will remove the potential for a delay 
    while parties petition the Presiding Officer for an oral hearing. 
    Further, the rule provides that the Presiding Officer will conduct all 
    questioning of witnesses, and there are no provisions for formal 
    discovery, although docket files with relevant materials will be 
    publicly available. The rule resolves several areas of frequent dispute 
    in subpart L proceedings and was seen, therefore, as being more 
    appropriate for license transfer proceedings where a timely decision is 
    important to the public interest. These efficiencies can be achieved 
    without any negative effect on substantive decisonmaking or the rights 
    of all parties to present relevant witnesses, written testimony, and 
    oral arguments, which should result in a high quality record on 
    substantive issues for use by the Commission in reaching a decision on 
    contested issues.
    5. Conclusion.
        Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission has decided 
    to adopt Subpart M and the attendant conforming amendments to provide 
    the procedures for actions on license transfer applications. This 
    constitutes the NRC's regulatory analysis.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    
        In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 
    605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    This rule does not change any requirements for submittal of license 
    transfer requests to NRC, rather, the procedures designate how NRC will 
    handle requests for hearings on applications for license transfers. 
    Most requested hearings on license transfer applications involve 
    reactor licensees which are large organizations which do not fall 
    within the definition of a small business found in section 3 of the 
    Small Business Action, 15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business 
    Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121 or in the size standards adopted 
    by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). Based on the historically low number of 
    requests for hearings involving materials licensees, it is not expected 
    that this rule will have any significant economic impact on a 
    substantial number of small businesses.
    
    [[Page 66730]]
    
    Backfit Analysis
    
        The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109 and 
    72.62, does not apply to this proposed rule and a backfit analysis is 
    not required, because these amendments do not involve any provisions 
    that would impose backfits as defined in either 10 CFR 50.109 or 72.62. 
    The rule does not constitute a backfit under either of these sections 
    because it does not propose a change to or additions to requirements 
    for existing structures, systems, components, procedures, organizations 
    or designs associated with the construction or operation of a facility 
    under Part 50 or 72.
    
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    
        In accordance with the Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
    the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has 
    verified this determination with the Office of Information and 
    Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
    
    List of Subjects
    
    10 CFR Part 2
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct 
    material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear 
    materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex 
    discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste 
    treatment and disposal.
    
    10 CFR Part 51
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact 
    statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, 
    Reporting and record keeping requirements.
    
        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 Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR 
    Parts 2 and 51:
    
    PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS
    
        1. The authority citation for Part 2 is revised to read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 
    U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 
    409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
    5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.
        Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 
    105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 
    U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f); Pub. 
    L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)); sec. 102, 
    Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 
    88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Section 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 
    2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 
    Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 
    2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-
    415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also 
    issued under secs. 161 b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 
    955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236, 
    2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Sections 2.205(j) 
    also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 
    section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 
    note). Section 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
    190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Section 2.700a, 
    2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 
    2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued 
    under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 
    10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 
    936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 
    and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, Section 2.809 also issued 
    under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as 
    amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 
    Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 
    (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 
    955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 
    U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A 
    also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 
    2135).
    
        2. In Sec. 2.101, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 2.101  Filing of application.
    
        (a)(1) An application for a license, a license transfer, or an 
    amendment to a license shall be filed with the Director of the Office 
    of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of the Office of Nuclear 
    Material Safety and Safeguards, as prescribed by the applicable 
    provisions of this chapter. A prospective applicant may confer 
    informally with the NRC staff prior to the filing of an application.
    * * * * *
        3. In Sec. 2.1103, after the final sentence the following sentence 
    is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 2.1103  Scope.
    
        * * * This subpart shall not apply to proceedings on applications 
    for transfer of a license issued under Part 72 of this chapter. Subpart 
    M of this part applies to license transfer proceedings.
        4. In Sec. 2.1201, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 2.1201  Scope of subpart.
    
        (a) * * *
        (1) The grant, renewal or licensee-initiated amendment of a 
    materials license subject to parts 30, 32 through 35, 39, 40, or 70 of 
    this chapter, with the exception of a license amendment related to an 
    application to transfer a license; or
    * * * * *
        5. In Sec. 2.1205, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 2.1205  Request for a hearing: petition for leave to intervene.
    
        (a) Any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding for 
    the grant, renewal, or licensee-initiated amendment of a license 
    subject to this subpart may file a request for a hearing.
        (b) An applicant for a license, a license amendment, or a license 
    renewal who is issued a notice of proposed denial or a notice of denial 
    and who desires a hearing shall file the request for the hearing within 
    the time specified in Sec. 2.103 in all cases. An applicant may include 
    in the request for hearing a request that the presiding officer 
    recommend to the Commission that procedures other than those authorized 
    under this subpart be used in the proceeding, provided that the 
    applicant identifies the special factual circumstances or issues which 
    support the use of other procedures.
    * * * * *
        6. In Part 2, a new Subpart M is added to read as follows:
    
    Subpart M--Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, 
    Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer 
    Applications.
    
    Sec.
    2.1300  Scope of subpart M.
    2.1301  Public notice of receipt of a license transfer application.
    2.1302  Notice of withdrawal of an application.
    2.1303  Availability of documents in the Public Document Room.
    2.1304  Hearing procedures.
    2.1305  Written comments.
    2.1306  Hearing request or intervention petition.
    2.1307  Answers and replies.
    2.1308  Commission action on a hearing request or intervention 
    petition.
    2.1309  Notice of oral hearing.
    2.1310  Notice of hearing consisting of written comments.
    2.1311  Conditions in a notice or order.
    2.1312  Authority of the Secretary.
    2.1313  Filing and service.
    2.1314  Computation of time.
    2.1315  Generic determination regarding license amendments to 
    reflect transfers.
    2.1316  Authority and role of NRC staff.
    2.1317  Hearing docket.
    2.1318  Acceptance of hearing documents.
    2.1319  Presiding Officer.
    2.1320  Responsibility and power of the Presiding Officer in an oral 
    hearing.
    
    [[Page 66731]]
    
    2.1321  Participation and schedule for submissions in a hearing 
    consisting of written comments.
    2.1322  Participation and schedule for submissions in an oral 
    hearing.
    2.1323  Presentation of testimony in an oral hearing.
    2.1324  Appearance in an oral hearing.
    2.1325  Motions and requests.
    2.1326  Burden of proof.
    2.1327  Application for a stay of the effectiveness of NRC staff 
    action on license transfer.
    2.1328  Default.
    2.1329  Waiver of a rule or regulation.
    2.1330  Reporter and transcript for an oral hearing.
    2.1331  Commission action.
    
    Subpart M--Public Notification, Availability of Documents and 
    Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License 
    Transfer Applications.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1300  Scope of subpart M.
    
        This subpart governs requests for, and procedures for conducting, 
    hearings on any application for the direct or indirect transfer of 
    control of an NRC license which transfer requires prior approval of the 
    NRC under the Commission's regulations, governing statutes, or pursuant 
    to a license condition. This subpart is to provide the only mechanism 
    for requesting hearings on license transfer requests, unless contrary 
    case specific orders are issued by the Commission.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1301  Public notice of receipt of a license transfer 
    application.
    
        (a) The Commission will notice the receipt of each application for 
    direct or indirect transfer of a specific NRC license by placing a copy 
    of the application in the NRC Public Document Room.
        (b) The Commission will also publish in the Federal Register a 
    notice of receipt of an application for approval of a license transfer 
    involving 10 CFR part 50 and part 52 licenses, major fuel cycle 
    facility licenses issued under part 70, or part 72 licenses. This 
    notice constitutes the notice required by Sec. 2.105 with respect to 
    all matters related to the application requiring NRC approval.
        (c) Periodic lists of applications received may be obtained upon 
    request addressed to the Public Document Room, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1302  Notice of withdrawal of an application.
    
        The Commission will notice the withdrawal of an application by 
    publishing the notice of withdrawal in the same manner as the notice of 
    receipt of the application was published under Sec. 2.1301.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1303  Availability of documents in the Public Document Room.
    
        Unless exempt from disclosure under part 9 of this chapter, the 
    following documents pertaining to each application for a license 
    transfer requiring Commission approval will be placed in the Public 
    Document Room when available:
        (a) The license transfer application and any associated requests;
        (b) Commission correspondence with the applicant or licensee 
    related to the application;
        (c) Federal Register notices;
        (d) The NRC staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
        (e) Any NRC staff order which acts on the license transfer 
    application; and
        (f) If a hearing is held, the hearing record and decision.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1304  Hearing procedures.
    
        The procedures in this subpart will constitute the exclusive basis 
    for hearings on license transfer applications for all NRC specific 
    licenses.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1305  Written comments.
    
        (a) As an alternative to requests for hearings and petitions to 
    intervene, persons may submit written comments regarding license 
    transfer applications. The Commission will consider and, if 
    appropriate, respond to these comments, but these comments do not 
    otherwise constitute part of the decisional record.
        (b) These comments should be submitted within 30 days after public 
    notice of receipt of the application and addressed to the Secretary, 
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
    Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
        (c) The Commission will provide the applicant with a copy of the 
    comments. Any response the applicant chooses to make to the comments 
    must be submitted within 10 days of service of the comments on the 
    applicant. Such responses do not constitute part of the decisional 
    record.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1306  Hearing request or intervention petition.
    
        (a) Any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's 
    action on the application may request a hearing or petition for leave 
    to intervene on a license application for approval of a direct or 
    indirect transfer of a specific license.
        (b) Hearing requests and intervention petitions must--
        (1) State the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor 
    or petitioner;
        (2) Set forth the issues sought to be raised and
        (i) Demonstrate that such issues are within the scope of the 
    proceeding on the license transfer application,
        (ii) Demonstrate that such issues are relevant to the findings the 
    NRC must make to grant the application for license transfer,
        (iii) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
    opinions which support the petitioner's position on the issues and on 
    which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with 
    references to the specific sources and documents on which the 
    petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issues, and
        (iv) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute 
    exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact;
        (3) Specify both the facts pertaining to the petitioner's interest 
    and how the interest may be affected, with particular reference to the 
    factors in Sec. 2.1308(a);
        (4) Be served on both the applicant and the NRC Office of the 
    Secretary by any of the methods for service specified in Sec. 2.1313.
        (c) Hearing requests and intervention petitions will be considered 
    timely only if filed not later than:
        (1) 20 days after notice of receipt is published in the Federal 
    Register, for those applications published in the Federal Register;
        (2) 45 days after notice of receipt is placed in the Public 
    Document Room for all other applications; or
        (3) Such other time as may be provided by the Commission.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1307  Answers and replies.
    
        (a) Unless otherwise specified by the Commission, an answer to a 
    hearing request or intervention petition may be filed within 10 days 
    after the request or petition has been served.
        (b) Unless otherwise specified by the Commission, a reply to an 
    answer may be filed within 5 days after service of that answer.
        (c) Answers and replies should address the factors in Sec. 2.1308.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1308  Commission action on a hearing request or intervention 
    petition.
    
        (a) In considering a hearing request or intervention petition on an 
    application for a transfer of an NRC license, the Commission will 
    consider:
        (1) The nature of the Petitioner's alleged interest;
        (2) Whether that interest will be affected by an approval or denial 
    of the application for transfer;
    
    [[Page 66732]]
    
        (3) The possible effect of an order granting the request for 
    license transfer on that interest, including whether the relief 
    requested is within the Commission's authority, and, if so, whether 
    granting the relief requested would redress the alleged injury; and
        (4) Whether the issues sought to be litigated are--
        (i) Within the scope of the proceeding;
        (ii) Relevant to the findings the Commission must make to act on 
    the application for license transfer;
        (iii) Appropriate for litigation in the proceeding; and
        (iv) Adequately supported by the statements, allegations, and 
    documentation required by Sec. 2.1306(b)(2) (iii) and (iv).
        (b) Untimely hearing requests or intervention petitions may be 
    denied unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In 
    reviewing untimely requests or petitions, the Commission will also 
    consider:
        (1) The availability of other means by which the requestor's or 
    petitioner's interest will be protected or represented by other 
    participants in a hearing; and
        (2) The extent to which the issues will be broadened or final 
    action on the application delayed.
        (c) The Commission will deny a request or petition to the extent it 
    pertains solely to matters outside its jurisdiction.
        (d)(1) After consideration of the factors covered by paragraphs (a) 
    through (c) of this section, the Commission will issue a notice or 
    order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, 
    designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and 
    designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be 
    published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the 
    hearing.
        (2) Hearings under this subpart will be oral hearings, unless, 
    within 15 days of the service of the notice or order granting a 
    hearing, the parties unanimously agree and file a joint motion 
    requesting a hearing consisting of written comments. No motion to hold 
    a hearing consisting of written comments will be entertained absent 
    unanimous consent of all parties.
        (3) A denial of a request for hearing and a denial of any petition 
    to intervene will set forth the reasons for the denial.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1309  Notice of oral hearing.
    
        (a) A notice of oral hearing will--
        (1) State the time, place, and issues to be considered;
        (2) Provide names and addresses of participants,
        (3) Specify the time limit for participants and others to indicate 
    whether they wish to present views;
        (4) Specify the schedule for the filing of written testimony, 
    statements of position, proposed questions for the Presiding Officer to 
    consider, and rebuttal testimony consistent with the schedule 
    provisions of Sec. 2.1321.
        (5) Specify that the oral hearing shall commence within 15 days of 
    the date for submittal of rebuttal testimony unless otherwise ordered;
        (6) State any other instructions the Commission deems appropriate;
        (7) If so determined by the NRC staff or otherwise directed by the 
    Commission, direct that the staff participate as a party with respect 
    to some or all issues.
        (b) If the Commission is not the Presiding Officer, the notice of 
    oral hearing will also state:
        (1) When the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer commences and 
    terminates;
        (2) The powers of the Presiding Officer;
        (3) Instructions to the Presiding Officer to certify promptly the 
    completed hearing record to the Commission without a recommended or 
    preliminary decision.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1310  Notice of hearing consisting of written comments.
    
        A notice of hearing consisting of written comments will:
        (a) State the issues to be considered;
        (b) Provide the names and addresses of participants;
        (c) Specify the schedule for the filing of written testimony, 
    statements of position, proposed questions for the Presiding Officer to 
    consider for submission to the other parties, and rebuttal testimony, 
    consistent with the schedule provisions of Sec. 2.1321.
        (d) State any other instructions the Commission deems appropriate.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1311  Conditions in a notice or order.
    
        (a) A notice or order granting a hearing or permitting intervention 
    shall--
        (1) Restrict irrelevant or duplicative testimony; and
        (2) Require common interests to be represented by a single 
    participant.
        (b) If a participant's interests do not extend to all the issues in 
    the hearing, the notice or order may limit her/his participation 
    accordingly.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1312  Authority of the Secretary.
    
        The Secretary or the Assistant Secretary may rule on procedural 
    matters relating to proceedings conducted by the Commission itself 
    under this subpart to the same extent they can do so under Sec. 2.772 
    for proceedings under subpart G.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1313  Filing and service.
    
        (a) Hearing requests, intervention petitions, answers, replies and 
    accompanying documents must be served as described in paragraph (b) of 
    this section by delivery, facsimile transmission, e-mail or other means 
    that will ensure receipt by close of business on the due date for 
    filing. Any participant filing hearing requests, intervention 
    petitions, replies and accompanying documents should include 
    information on mail and delivery addresses, e-mail addresses, and 
    facsimile numbers in their initial filings which may be used by the 
    Commission, Presiding Officer and other parties for serving documents 
    on the participant.
        (b) All filings must be served upon the applicant; the General 
    Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
    the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555-0001; and participants if any. If service to the 
    Secretary is by delivery or by mail the filings should be addressed to 
    the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
    20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail 
    filings may be sent to the Secretary at the following e-mail address: 
    [email protected] Facsimile transmission filings may be filed with the 
    Secretary using the following number: 301-415-1101.
        (c) Service is completed by:
        (1) Delivering the paper to the person; or leaving it in her or his 
    office with someone in charge; or, if there is no one in charge, 
    leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or, if the recipient 
    has no office or it is closed, leaving it at her or his usual place of 
    residence with some occupant of suitable age and discretion;
        (2) Depositing it in the United States mail, properly stamped and 
    addressed; or
        (3) Any other manner authorized by law, when service cannot be made 
    as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
        (4) For facsimile transmission, sending copies to the facsimile 
    machine of the person being served;
        (5) For e-mail, sending the filing in electronic form attached to 
    an e-mail message directed to the person being served.
        (d) Proof of service, stating the name and address of the person 
    served and the manner and date of service, shall be shown, and may be 
    made by--
        (1) Written acknowledgment of the person served or an authorized 
    representative; or
    
    [[Page 66733]]
    
        (2) The certificate or affidavit of the person making the service.
        (e) The Commission may make special provisions for service when 
    circumstances warrant.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1314  Computation of time.
    
        (a) In computing time, the first day of a designated time period is 
    not included and the last day is included. If the last day is a 
    Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday at the place where the required 
    action is to be accomplished, the time period will end on the next day 
    which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
        (b) In time periods of 7 days or less, Saturdays, Sundays and 
    holidays are not counted.
        (c) Whenever an action is required within a prescribed period 
    following service of a paper, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed 
    period if service is by regular mail.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1315  Generic determination regarding license amendments to 
    reflect transfers.
    
        (a) Unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a 
    specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment 
    to the license of a utilization facility or the license of an 
    Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation which does no more than 
    conform the license to reflect the transfer action, involves 
    respectively, ``no significant hazards consideration'' or ``no generic 
    issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be 
    significantly affected.''
        (b) Where administrative license amendments are necessary to 
    reflect an approved transfer, such amendments will be included in the 
    order that approves the transfer. Any challenge to the administrative 
    license amendment is limited to the question of whether the license 
    amendment accurately reflects the approved transfer.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1316  Authority and role of NRC staff.
    
        (a) During the pendency of any hearing under this subpart, 
    consistent with the NRC staff's findings in its Safety Evaluation 
    Report (SER), the staff is expected to promptly issue approval or 
    denial of license transfer requests. Notice of such action shall be 
    promptly transmitted to the Presiding Officer and parties to the 
    proceeding.
        (b) Except as otherwise directed in accordance with 
    Sec. 2.1309(a)(7), the NRC staff is not required to be a party to 
    proceedings under this subpart but will offer into evidence its SER 
    associated with the transfer application and provide one or more 
    sponsoring witnesses.
        (c) If the NRC staff desires to participate as a party, the staff 
    shall notify the Presiding Officer and the parties and shall thereupon 
    be deemed to be a party with all the rights and responsibilities of a 
    party.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1317  Hearing docket.
    
        For each hearing, the Secretary will maintain a docket which will 
    include the hearing transcript, exhibits and all papers filed or issued 
    in connection with the hearing. This file will be made available to all 
    parties in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 2.1303 and will 
    constitute the only discovery in proceedings under this subpart.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1318  Acceptance of hearing documents.
    
        (a) Each document filed or issued must be clearly legible and bear 
    the docket number, license application number, and hearing title.
        (b) Each document shall be filed in one original and signed by the 
    participant or its authorized representative, with the address and date 
    of signature indicated. The signature is a representation that the 
    document is submitted with full authority, the person signing knows its 
    contents and that, to the best of their knowledge, the statements made 
    in it are true.
        (c) A document not meeting the requirements of this section may be 
    returned with an explanation for nonacceptance and, if so, will not be 
    docketed.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1319  Presiding Officer.
    
        (a) The Commission will ordinarily be the Presiding Officer at a 
    hearing under this part. However, the Commission may provide in a 
    hearing notice that one or more Commissioners, or any other person 
    permitted by law, will preside.
        (b) A participant may submit a written motion for the 
    disqualification of any person presiding. The motion shall be supported 
    by an affidavit setting forth the alleged grounds for disqualification. 
    If the Presiding Officer does not grant the motion or the person does 
    not disqualify himself and the Presiding Officer or such other person 
    is not the Commission or a Commissioner, the Commission will decide the 
    matter.
        (c) If any person presiding deems himself or herself disqualified, 
    he or she shall withdraw by notice on the record after notifying the 
    Commission.
        (d) If a Presiding Officer becomes unavailable, the Commission will 
    designate a replacement.
        (e) Any motion concerning the designation of a replacement 
    Presiding Officer shall be made within 5 days after the designation.
        (f) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the jurisdiction of 
    a Presiding Officer other than the Commission commences as designated 
    in the hearing notice and terminates upon certification of the hearing 
    record to the Commission, or when the Presiding Officer is 
    disqualified.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1320  Responsibility and power of the Presiding Officer in an 
    oral hearing.
    
        (a) The Presiding Officer in any oral hearing shall conduct a fair 
    hearing, develop a record that will contribute to informed 
    decisionmaking, and, within the framework of the Commission's orders, 
    have the power necessary to achieve these ends, including the power to:
        (1) Take action to avoid unnecessary delay and maintain order;
        (2) Dispose of procedural requests;
        (3) Question participants and witnesses, and entertain suggestions 
    as to questions which may be asked of participants and witnesses.
        (4) Order consolidation of participants;
        (5) Establish the order of presentation;
        (6) Hold conferences before or during the hearing;
        (7) Establish time limits;
        (8) Limit the number of witnesses; and
        (9) Strike or reject duplicative, unreliable, immaterial, or 
    irrelevant presentations.
        (b) Where the Commission itself does not preside:
        (1) The Presiding Officer may certify questions or refer rulings to 
    the Commission for decision;
        (2) Any hearing order may be modified by the Commission; and
        (3) The Presiding Officer will certify the completed hearing record 
    to the Commission, which may then issue its decision on the hearing or 
    provide that additional testimony be presented.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1321  Participation and schedule for submission in a hearing 
    consisting of written comments.
    
        Unless otherwise limited by this subpart or by the Commission, 
    participants in a hearing consisting of written comments may submit:
        (a) Initial written statements of position and written testimony 
    with supporting affidavits on the issues. These materials shall be 
    filed within 30 days of the date of the Commission's Notice granting a 
    hearing pursuant to Sec. 2.1308(d)(1), unless the Commission or 
    Presiding Officer directs otherwise.
        (b) Written responses, rebuttal testimony with supporting 
    affidavits directed to the initial statements and testimony of other 
    participants, and proposed written questions for the Presiding Officer 
    to consider for
    
    [[Page 66734]]
    
    submittal to persons sponsoring testimony submitted under paragraph (a) 
    of this section. These materials shall to filed within 20 days of the 
    filing of the materials submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, 
    unless the Commission or Presiding Officer directs otherwise. Proposed 
    written questions directed to rebuttal testimony for the Presiding 
    Officer to consider for submittal to persons offering such testimony 
    shall be filed within 7 days of the filing of the rebuttal testimony.
        (c) Written concluding statements of position on the issues. These 
    materials shall be filed within 20 days of the filing of the materials 
    submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, unless the Commission or 
    the Presiding Officer directs otherwise.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1322  Participation and schedule for submissions in an oral 
    hearing.
    
        (a) Unless otherwise limited by this subpart or by the Commission, 
    participants in an oral hearing may submit and sponsor in the hearings:
        (1) Initial written statements of position and written testimony 
    with supporting affidavits on the issues. These materials shall be 
    filed within 30 days of the date of the Commission's notice granting a 
    hearing pursuant to Sec. 2.1308(d)(1), unless the Commission or 
    Presiding Officer directs otherwise.
        (2)(i) Written responses and rebuttal testimony with supporting 
    affidavits directed to the initial statements and testimony of other 
    participants;
        (ii) Proposed questions for the Presiding Officer to consider for 
    propounding to persons sponsoring testimony.
        (3) These materials must be filed within 20 days of the filing of 
    the materials submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, unless 
    the Commission or Presiding Officer directs otherwise.
        (4) Proposed questions directed to rebuttal testimony for the 
    Presiding Officer to consider for propounding to persons offering such 
    testimony shall be filed within 7 days of the filing of the rebuttal 
    testimony.
        (b) The oral hearing should commence within 65 days of the date of 
    the Commission's notice granting a hearing unless the Commission or 
    Presiding Officer directs otherwise. Ordinarily, questioning in the 
    oral hearing will be conducted by the Presiding Officer, using either 
    the Presiding Officer's questions or questions submitted by the 
    participants or a combination of both.
        (c) Written post-hearing statements of position on the issues 
    addressed in the oral hearing may be submitted within 20 days of the 
    close of the oral hearing.
        (d) The Commission, on its own motion, or in response to a request 
    from a Presiding Officer other than the Commission, may use additional 
    procedures, such as direct and cross-examination, or may convene a 
    formal hearing under subpart G of this part on specific and substantial 
    disputes of fact, necessary for the Commission's decision, that cannot 
    be resolved with sufficient accuracy except in a formal hearing. The 
    staff will be a party in any such formal hearing. Neither the 
    Commission nor the Presiding Officer will entertain motions from the 
    parties that request such special procedures or formal hearings.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1323  Presentation of testimony in an oral hearing.
    
        (a) All direct testimony in an oral hearing shall be filed no later 
    than 15 days before the hearing or as otherwise ordered or allowed 
    pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2.1322.
        (b) Written testimony will be received into evidence in exhibit 
    form.
        (c) Participants may designate and present their own witnesses to 
    the Presiding Officer.
        (d) Testimony for the NRC staff will be presented only by persons 
    designated by the Executive Director for Operations for that purpose.
        (e) Participants and witnesses will be questioned orally or in 
    writing and only by the Presiding Officer. Questions may be addressed 
    to individuals or to panels of participants or witnesses.
        (f) The Presiding Officer may accept written testimony from a 
    person unable to appear at the hearing, and may request him or her to 
    respond to questions.
        (g) No subpoenas will be granted at the request of participants for 
    attendance and testimony of participants or witnesses or the production 
    of evidence.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1324  Appearance in an oral hearing.
    
        (a) A participant may appear in a hearing on her or his own behalf 
    or be represented by an authorized representative.
        (b) A person appearing shall file a written notice stating her or 
    his name, address and telephone number, and if an authorized 
    representative, the basis of her or his eligibility and the name and 
    address of the participant on whose behalf she or he appears.
        (c) A person may be excluded from a hearing for disorderly, 
    dilatory or contemptuous conduct, provided he or she is informed of the 
    grounds and given an opportunity to respond.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1325  Motions and requests.
    
        (a) Motions and requests shall be addressed to the Presiding 
    Officer, and, if written, also filed with the Secretary and served on 
    other participants.
        (b) Other participants may respond to the motion or request. 
    Responses to written motions or requests shall be filed within 5 days 
    after service unless the Commission or Presiding Officer directs 
    otherwise.
        (c) The Presiding Officer may entertain motions for extension of 
    time and changes in schedule in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) 
    of this section.
        (d) When the Commission does not preside, in response to a motion 
    or request, the Presiding Officer may refer a ruling or certify a 
    question to the Commission for decision and notify the participants.
        (e) Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, a motion or 
    request, or the certification of a question or referral of a ruling, 
    shall not stay or extend any aspect of the hearing.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1326  Burden of proof.
    
        The applicant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1327  Application for a stay of the effectiveness of NRC staff 
    action on license transfer.
    
        (a) Any application for a stay of the effectiveness of the NRC 
    staff's order on the license transfer application shall be filed with 
    the Commission within 5 days of the issuance of the notice of staff 
    action pursuant to Sec. 2.1316(a).
        (b) An application for a stay must be no longer than 10 pages, 
    exclusive of affidavits, and must contain:
        (1) A concise summary of the action which is requested to be 
    stayed; and
        (2) A concise statement of the grounds for a stay, with reference 
    to the factors specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
        (c) Within 10 days after service of an application for a stay under 
    this section, any participant may file an answer supporting or opposing 
    the granting of a stay. Answers must be no longer than 10 pages, 
    exclusive of affidavits, and should concisely address the matters in 
    paragraph (b) of this section, as appropriate. No further replies to 
    answers will be entertained.
        (d) In determining whether to grant or deny an application for a 
    stay, the Commission will consider:
        (1) Whether the requestor will be irreparably injured unless a stay 
    is granted;
        (2) Whether the requestor has made a strong showing that it is 
    likely to prevail on the merits;
    
    [[Page 66735]]
    
        (3) Whether the granting of a stay would harm other participants; 
    and
        (4) Where the public interest lies.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1328  Default.
    
        When a participant fails to act within a specified time, the 
    Presiding Officer may consider that participant in default, issue an 
    appropriate ruling and proceed without further notice to the defaulting 
    participant.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1329  Waiver of a rule or regulation.
    
        (a) A participant may petition that a Commission rule or regulation 
    be waived with respect to the license transfer application under 
    consideration.
        (b) The sole ground for a waiver shall be that, because of special 
    circumstances concerning the subject of the hearing, application of a 
    rule or regulation would not serve the purposes for which it was 
    adopted.
        (c) Waiver petitions shall specify why application of the rule or 
    regulation would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted and 
    shall be supported by affidavits to the extent applicable.
        (d) Other participants may, within 10 days, file a response to a 
    waiver petition.
        (e) When the Commission does not preside, the Presiding Officer 
    will certify the waiver petition to the Commission, which, in response, 
    will grant or deny the waiver or direct any further proceedings.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1330  Reporter and transcript for an oral hearing.
    
        (a) A reporter designated by the Commission will record an oral 
    hearing and prepare the official hearing transcript.
        (b) Except for any portions that must be protected from disclosure 
    in accordance with law and policy as reflected in 10 CFR 2.790, 
    transcripts will be placed in the Public Document Room, and copies may 
    be purchased from the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555.
        (c) Corrections of the official transcript may be made only as 
    specified by the Secretary.
    
    
    Sec. 2.1331  Commission action.
    
        (a) Upon completion of a hearing, the Commission will issue a 
    written opinion including its decision on the license transfer 
    application and the reasons for the decision.
        (b) The decision on issues designated for hearing pursuant to 
    Sec. 2.1308 will be based on the record developed at hearing.
    
    PART 51--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC 
    LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
    
        7. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 
    Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as 
    amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 
    5842).
        Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 
    1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
    4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; 
    and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). 
    Section 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80, and 51.97 also issued under 
    secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, 
    Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). 
    Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended 
    by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Section 51.43, 51.67, and 
    51.109 also under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec 114(f), 96 
    Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134).
    
        8. In Sec. 51.22, a new paragraph (c)(21) is added to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 51.22  Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of 
    licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or 
    otherwise not requiring environmental review.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) * * *
        (21) Approvals of direct or indirect transfers of any license 
    issued by NRC and any associated amendments of license required to 
    reflect the approval of a direct or indirect transfer of an NRC 
    license.
    * * * * *
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of November 1998.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John C. Hoyle,
    Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 98-32211 Filed 12-2-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
12/3/1998
Published:
12/03/1998
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
98-32211
Dates:
December 3, 1998.
Pages:
66721-66735 (15 pages)
RINs:
3150-AG09: Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/3150-AG09/streamlined-hearing-process-for-nrc-approval-of-license-transfers
PDF File:
98-32211.pdf
CFR: (38)
10 CFR 2.1309(a)(7)
10 CFR 2.101
10 CFR 2.1103
10 CFR 2.1201
10 CFR 2.1205
More ...