Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1819 

within the reporting period, including 

patents. 

Comment: 26 Federal, four university, 

and two association commenters 

questioned the distinction between the 

mandatory and optional sections of the 

form. 

Response: Only the 

‘‘Accomplishments’’ component of the 

RPPR format is mandatory, while the 

other components are for optional use at 

the discretion of the agencies. The 

Federal awarding agency determines 

which categories are mandatory or 

optional for the award recipient to 

complete. This should be determined as 

early as possible, preferably at the time 

the funding opportunity is issued. As 

information required can vary between 

agencies and programs, the combination 

of mandatory and optional sections 

provides agencies the maximum 

flexibility to collect only the 

information they specifically require. 

Comment: One Federal commenter 

asked whether the RPPR would be 

required in addition to the PHS 2590. 

Response: The RPPR would replace 

the PHS 2590. Information not collected 

as part of the RPPR could be requested 

through the optional agency-specific 

categories. 

Comment: Three Federal commenters 

asked for a clear definition of research— 

which programs are considered research 

or research-related programs? 

Response: It is up to the agencies to 

determine which programs are research 

or research-related programs. 

Comment: Four Federal and one 

university commenters requested 

language stating that the RPPR should 

not be used as the vehicle for seeking 

prior approvals and/or fulfilling 

invention reporting requirements. 

Response: Agree. Appropriate 

language was added to the RPPR. 

Comment: 25 Federal, five university, 

and one association commenters offered 

suggestions regarding the development 

of a Final Report format. 

Response: These comments will be 

considered after the development and 

implementation of the RPPR has been 

completed. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act 

In furtherance of the goals of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council’s Research Business Models 

Subcommittee, this proposed format 

aims to reduce the burden on recipients 

currently expending time and effort on 

a variety of agency-specific forms. 

Under the PRA, OMB assigns a control 

number to each ‘‘collection of 

information’’ that it reviews and 

approves for use by an agency. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB Control Number. The PRA 

also requires agencies to estimate the 

burden for each collection of 

information. It should be noted that 

burden estimates associated with forms 

currently in use range from a minimum 

of 2 hours to a maximum of 16 hours, 

depending on the type of research 

project being supported. 

The following table provides the 

estimated numbers of annual progress 

reports, hours per report, and total 

annual burden hours by agency: 

Department/agency name 

Number of 

annual 

progress 

reports 

Number of 

annual burden 

hours 

Total annual 

burden hours 

DHHS (including NIH) ................................................................................................................ 37,900 14 .862 563,275 

DHS ........................................................................................................................................... 411 12 4,932 

DoC/NIST ................................................................................................................................... 100 4 400 

DoC/NOAA ................................................................................................................................. 1,105 2 2,210 

DoD ............................................................................................................................................ 11,000 6 66,000 

DoE ............................................................................................................................................ 16,000 5 80,000 

DoEd/IES ................................................................................................................................... 500 16 8,000 

EPA ............................................................................................................................................ 150 4 600 

NASA ......................................................................................................................................... 4,000 4 16,000 

NEH ........................................................................................................................................... 55 2 1,100 

NSF ............................................................................................................................................ 28,030 5 140,150 

USDA/NIFA ................................................................................................................................ 12,658 2 .7 34,177 

Totals .................................................................................................................................. 116,404 6 .6 916,844 

IV. Final Administrative Requirements 

and Future Steps 

The final version of the uniform 

Research Performance Progress Report 

format that incorporates the changes 

discussed in the preceding Sections I 

and II of Supplementary Information, 

may be viewed at: http://www.nsf.gov/ 

bfa/dias/policy/rppr/index.jsp. 

Each Federal research agency that 

supports research and research-related 

activities must post their policy or an 

implementation plan on the NSF and 

RBM Web sites within nine months after 

issuance of OSTP/OMB policy 

direction. Each implementation plan 

will address whether the agency plans 

to implement the RPPR in paper or 

electronic format, and include an 

anticipated implementation date. 

Dated: January 8, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–469 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–7016; CLI–10–04] 

GE-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

LLC; (GLE Commercial Facility); Notice 

of Receipt of Application for License; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

License; Notice of Hearing and 

Commission Order; and Order 

Imposing Procedures for Access to 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Safeguards 

Information for Contention Preparation 

Commissioners: Gregory B. Jaczko, Chairman; 

Dale E. Klein; Kristine L. Svinicki. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

I. Receipt of Application and 

Availability of Documents 

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 

or the Commission) received on June 26, 

2009, an application from GE-Hitachi 

Global Laser Enrichment LLC (GLE), for 

a license to possess and use source, 

byproduct, and special nuclear material 

and to enrich natural uranium to a 

maximum of 8 percent U–235 by a laserbased enrichment process. The plant, to 

be known as the GLE Commercial 

Facility (GLE–CF), would be located 

approximately six miles north of the 

City of Wilmington in New Hanover 

County, North Carolina and would have 

a nominal capacity of six million 

separative work units (SWU) per year. 

GLE is a Delaware limited liability 

company and is a subsidiary of majority 

owner and Delaware limited liability 

company GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy 

Americas LLC (GEH), which is a wholly 

owned subsidiary of GE-Hitachi Nuclear 

Energy Holdings LLC (GEH-Holdings). 

GEH-Holdings is a subsidiary of 

majority owner GENE Holding LLC 

(GENE) and minority owner Hitachi 

America, Ltd. GENE, also a Delaware 

limited liability company, is wholly 

owned by General Electric Company 

(GE), a United States corporation 

incorporated in New York. Hitachi 

America is a wholly owned subsidiary 

of Hitachi Ltd., a Japanese corporation. 

GLE also has two minority owners, 

GENE and Cameco Enrichment 

Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company wholly owned by 

Cameco US Holdings, Inc., a Nevada 

corporation, which is in turn wholly 

owned by Cameco Corporation, a 

Canadian corporation. GE, through its 

wholly owned and majority owned 

subsidiaries, has a 51% indirect interest 

in GLE. GLE’s minority owners Hitachi 

and Cameco have indirect interests of 

25% and 24%, respectively. 

On January 13, 2009, GLE was granted 

an exemption to file its environmental 

report in advance of its license 

application. GLE submitted its 

environmental report on January 30, 

2009; and on July 13, 2009, GLE 

submitted a supplement to its 

environment report, GLE Environmental 

Report Supplement 1—Early 

Construction. On April 9, 2009, the NRC 

published notice of its intent to prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) on the proposed action and the 

opportunity for public comment on the 

appropriate scope of issues to be 

considered in the EIS. See 74 FR 16237 

(April 9, 2009). By notice published in 

the Federal Register on July 24, 2009, 

the NRC extended the public comment 

period to allow members of the public 

to review the publicly available portions 

of the license application filed after June 

26, 2009. See 74 FR 36781 (July 24, 

2009). On August 6, 2009, the NRC staff 

notified GLE by letter that staff had 

completed its acceptance review and 

had determined that the application was 

acceptable for formal review. 

Copies of GLE’s application, safety 

analysis report, environmental report 

and supplement to its environmental 

report (except for portions subject to 

withholding from public inspection in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, 

Availability of Public Records) are 

available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

(PDR) at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. These documents are also 

available for review and copying using 

any of the following methods: (1) Enter 

the NRC’s GE Laser Enrichment Facility 

Licensing Web site at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ 

laser.html#2a; (2) enter the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html, where the accession 

number for GLE’s Environmental Report 

is ML090910573; accession number for 

the license application is ML091871003, 

and the accession number for 

Supplement 1 to the Environmental 

Report is ML092100577; (3) contact the 

PDR by calling (800) 397–4209, faxing a 

request to (301) 415–3548, or sending a 

request by electronic mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. Hard copies of the 

documents are available from the PDR 

for a fee. 

As indicated above, GLE’s initial 

application has been accepted for 

docketing and formal review (ADAMS 

accession number ML091960561) and, 

accordingly, the Commission is 

providing this notice of hearing and 

notice of opportunity to intervene in 

GLE’s application for a license to 

construct and operate a laser 

enrichment facility. Pursuant to the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(AEA), the NRC staff will prepare a 

safety evaluation report (SER) after 

reviewing the application and make 

findings concerning the public health 

and safety and common defense and 

security. In addition, pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and the Commission’s 

regulations in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC 

staff will complete an environmental 

evaluation and prepare an EIS before the 

hearing on the issuance of a license is 

completed. See Notice of Intent to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed General 

Electric-Hitachi Global Laser 

Enrichment Uranium Enrichment 

Facility, 74 FR 16237 (April 9, 2009); 

and Extension of Public Scoping Period 

for the Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Proposed General ElectricHitachi Global Laser Enrichment 

Facility, 74 FR 36781 (July 24, 2009). 

When available, the NRC staff’s SER 

and EIS (except for portions subject to 

withholding from public inspection in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.390) will also 

be placed in the PDR and in ADAMS. 

Copies of correspondence between the 

NRC and GLE, and transcripts of 

prehearing conferences and hearings 

(except for portions subject to 

withholding from public inspection in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.390) similarly 

will be made available to the public. 

If, following the hearing, the 

Commission is satisfied that GLE has 

complied with the Commission’s 

regulations and the requirements of this 

Notice and Commission Order and the 

Commission finds that the application 

satisfies the applicable standards set 

forth in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, a 

single license will be issued 

authorizing: (1) The construction and 

operation of the GLE–CF; and (2) the 

receipt, possession, use, delivery, and 

transfer of byproduct (e.g., calibration 

sources), source and special nuclear 

material at the GLE–CF. If the GLE–CF 

is licensed, prior to commencement of 

operations the NRC will verify through 

an inspection conducted in accordance 

with section 193(c) of the AEA and 10 

CFR 70.32(k) that the facility meets the 

construction and operation 

requirements of the license. The 

inspection findings will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

II. Notice of Hearing 

A. Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.23a and 

Section 193 of the AEA, as amended by 

the Solar, Wind, Waste, and Geothermal 

Power Production Incentives Act of 

1990 Public Law 101–575, § 5, 104 Stat. 

2834, 2835–36 (codified as amended at 

42 U.S.C. 2243), a hearing will be 

conducted according to the rules of 

practice in 10 CFR part 2, subparts A, 

C, G, and to the extent that classified 

information becomes involved, Subpart 

I. The hearing will be held under the 

authority of sections 53, 63, 189, 191, 

and 193 of the AEA. The applicant and 

the NRC staff shall be parties to the 

proceeding. 

B. Pursuant to 10 CFR part 2, Subparts 

C and G, a contested hearing shall be 

conducted by an Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (Licensing Board) 

appointed by the Chief Administrative 

Judge of the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel. Notice as to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1821 

membership of the Licensing Board will 

be published in the Federal Register at 

a later date. 

C. The matters of fact and law to be 

considered are whether the application 

satisfies the standards set forth in this 

Notice and Commission Order and the 

applicable standards in 10 CFR parts 30, 

40, and 70, and whether the 

requirements of NEPA and the NRC’s 

implementing regulations in 10 CFR 

part 51 have been met. 

D. If this proceeding is not a contested 

proceeding, as defined by 10 CFR 2.4, 

the Licensing Board will determine the 

following without conducting a de novo 

evaluation of the application: (1) 

Whether the application and record of 

the proceeding contain sufficient 

information to support license issuance 

and whether the NRC staff’s review of 

the application has been adequate to 

support findings to be made by the 

Director of the Office of Nuclear 

Materials Safety and Safeguards with 

respect to the matters set forth in 

paragraph C of this section; and (2) 

whether the review conducted by the 

NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR part 51 

has been adequate. 

E. Regardless of whether the 

proceeding is contested or uncontested, 

the Licensing Board will, in the initial 

decision, in accordance with Subpart A 

of 10 CFR part 51: Determine whether 

the requirements of sections 102(2)(A), 

(C), and (E) of NEPA and subpart A of 

10 CFR part 51 have been complied 

with in the proceeding; independently 

consider the final balance among 

conflicting factors contained in the 

record of the proceeding with a view to 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken; and determine, after weighing the 

environmental, economic, technical, 

and other benefits against the 

environmental and other costs, and 

considering reasonable alternatives, 

whether a license should be issued, 

denied, or appropriately conditioned to 

protect environmental values. 

F. If the proceeding becomes a 

contested proceeding, the Licensing 

Board shall make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on admitted 

contentions. With respect to matters set 

forth in paragraph C of this section, but 

not covered by admitted contentions, 

the Licensing Board will make the 

determinations set forth in paragraph D 

without conducting a de novo 

evaluation of the application. 

III. Intervention 

A. By March 15, 2010, any person 

whose interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written petition for leave to 

intervene. Petitions for leave to 

intervene shall be filed in accordance 

with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.309. 

Interested persons should consult 10 

CFR part 2, section 2.309, which is 

available at the NRC’s PDR, located at 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD (or call 

the PDR at (800) 397–4209 or (301) 415– 

4737). NRC regulations are also 

accessible electronically from the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a 

petition for leave to intervene shall set 

forth with particularity the interest of 

the petitioner in the proceeding and 

how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition 

must provide the name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner and 

specifically explain the reasons why 

intervention should be permitted with 

particular reference to the following 

factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner’s 

right under the AEA to be made a party 

to the proceeding; (2) the nature and 

extent of the petitioner’s property, 

financial, or other interest in the 

proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of 

any order that may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

A petition for leave to intervene must 

also include a specification of the 

contentions that the petitioner seeks to 

have litigated in the hearing. For each 

contention, the petitioner must provide 

a specific statement of the issue of law 

or fact to be raised or controverted, as 

well as a brief explanation of the basis 

for the contention. Additionally, the 

petitioner must demonstrate that the 

issue raised by each contention is 

within the scope of the proceeding and 

is material to the findings the NRC must 

make to support the granting of a license 

in response to GLE’s application. The 

petition must also include a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinions which support the position of 

the petitioner 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. Finally, the 

petition must provide sufficient 

information to show that a genuine 

dispute exists with the applicant on a 

material issue of law or fact, including 

references to specific portions of the 

application that the petitioner disputes 

and the supporting reasons for each 

dispute, or, if the petitioner believes 

that the application fails to contain 

information on a relevant matter as 

required by law, the identification of 

each failure and the supporting reasons 

for the petitioner’s belief. Each 

contention must be one that, if proven, 

would entitle the petitioner to relief. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that person’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination 

of witnesses, consistent with NRC 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

The Licensing Board will set the time 

and place for any prehearing 

conferences and evidentiary hearings, 

and the appropriate notices will be 

provided. 

Non-timely petitions for leave to 

intervene and contentions, amended 

petitions, and supplemental petitions 

will not be entertained absent a 

determination by the Commission, the 

Licensing Board or a Presiding Officer 

that the petition should be granted 

and/or the contentions should be 

admitted based upon a balancing of the 

factors specified in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). 

B. A State, county, municipality, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agencies thereof, may submit a petition 

to the Commission to participate as a 

party under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The 

petition should state the nature and 

extent of the petitioner’s interest in the 

proceeding. The petition should be 

submitted to the Commission by March 

15, 2010. The petition must be filed in 

accordance with the filing instructions 

in section IV, and should meet the 

requirements for petitions for leave to 

intervene set forth in section III.A, 

except that State and Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes do not need to 

address the standing requirements in 10 

CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is located 

within its boundaries. The entities listed 

above could also seek to participate in 

a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 10 

CFR 2.315(c). 

C. Any person who does not wish, or 

is not qualified, to become a party to 

this proceeding may request permission 

to make a limited appearance pursuant 

to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A 

person making a limited appearance 

may make an oral or written statement 

of position on the issues, but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to such 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the Licensing Board. 

Persons desiring to make a limited 

appearance are requested to inform the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

Secretary of the Commission by March 

15, 2010. 

IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

petition for leave to intervene and 

proffered contentions, any motion or 

other document filed in the proceeding 

prior to the submission of a petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities 

participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 

must be filed in accordance with the 

NRC E-Filing rule. The E-Filing process 

requires participants to submit and 

serve all adjudicatory documents over 

the Internet or, in some cases, to mail 

copies on electronic storage media. 

Participants may not submit paper 

copies of their filings unless they seek 

a waiver in accordance with the 

procedures described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 

(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the 

petitioner must contact the Office of the 

Secretary by e-mail at Hearing. 

Docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415– 

1677, to request: (1) A digital ID 

certificate, which allows the participant 

(or its counsel or representative) to 

digitally sign documents and access the 

E–Submittal server for any proceeding 

in which it is participating; and/or (2) 

creation of an electronic docket for the 

proceeding (even in instances in which 

the petitioner (or its counsel or 

representative) already holds an NRC 

issued digital ID certificate). Each 

petitioner will need to download the 

Workplace Forms ViewerTM to access 

the Electronic Information Exchange 

(EIE), a component of the E-Filing 

system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM

is free and is available at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/ 

install-viewer.html. Information about 

applying for a digital ID certificate is 

available on NRC’s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals/apply-certificates.html. 

Once a petitioner has obtained a 

digital ID certificate, had a docket 

created, and downloaded the EIE 

viewer, it can then submit a petition for 

leave to intervene including proffered 

contentions. Submissions should be in 

Portable Document Format (PDF) in 

accordance with NRC guidance 

available on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered 

complete at the time the filer submits its 

documents through EIE. To be timely, 

an electronic filing must be submitted to 

the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 

receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing 

system time-stamps the document and 

sends the submitter an e-mail notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

EIE system also distributes an e-mail 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the documents on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before a petition to intervene 

is filed so that they can obtain access to 

the document via the E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the agency’s adjudicatory E-filing 

system may seek assistance through the 

‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the 

NRC electronic filing Help Desk, which 

is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. The 

toll-free help line number is (866) 672– 

7640. A person filing electronically may 

also seek assistance by sending an email to the NRC electronic filing Help 

Desk at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), file an 

exemption request with their initial 

paper filing requesting authorization to 

continue to submit documents in paper 

format. Such filings must be submitted 

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 

Office of the Secretary of the 

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, 

express mail, or expedited delivery 

service to the Office of the Secretary, 

Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville 

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 

and Adjudications Staff. Participants 

filing a document in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at http:// 

ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, 

unless excluded pursuant to an order of 

the Commission, the Licensing Board, or 

a Presiding Officer. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

home phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. With respect to 

copyrighted works, except for limited 

excerpts that serve the purpose of the 

adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

V. Commission Guidance 

A. Licensing Board Determination of 

Contentions 

The Licensing Board shall issue a 

decision on the admissibility of 

contentions no later than June 14, 2010. 

B. Novel Legal Issues 

If rulings on petitions, contention 

admissibility, or admitted contentions, 

raise novel legal or policy questions, the 

Commission will provide early guidance 

and direction on the treatment and 

resolution of such issues. Accordingly, 

the Commission directs the Licensing 

Board to promptly certify to the 

Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.319(l) and 2.323(f) all novel legal or 

policy issues that would benefit from 

early Commission consideration should 

such issues arise in this proceeding. 

C. Discovery Management 

(1) All parties, except the NRC staff, 

shall make the mandatory disclosures 

required by 10 CFR 2.704(a) and (b) 

within forty-five (45) days of the 

issuance of the Licensing Board order 

admitting contentions. 

(2) The Licensing Board, consistent 

with fairness to all parties, should 

narrow the issues requiring discovery 

and limit discovery to no more than one 

round for admitted contentions. 

(3) All discovery against the NRC staff 

shall be governed by 10 CFR 2.336(b) 

and 2.709. The NRC staff shall comply 

with 10 CFR 2.336(b) no later than 30 

days after the Licensing Board order 

admitting contentions and shall update 

the information at the same time as the 

issuance of the SER or the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

and, subsequent to the publication of 

the SER and FEIS, as otherwise required 

by the Commission’s regulations. 

Discovery under 10 CFR 2.709 shall not 

commence until the issuance of the 

particular document, i.e., SER or EIS, 

unless the Licensing Board, in its 

discretion, finds that commencing 

discovery against the NRC staff on safety 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1823 

1The Commission believes that, in the 

appropriate circumstances, allowing discovery or 

an evidentiary hearing with respect to safety-related 

issues to proceed before the final SER is issued will 

serve to further the Commission’s objective, as 

reflected in the Statement of Policy on Conduct of 

Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI–98–12, supra, to 

ensure a fair, prompt, and efficient resolution of 

contested issues. For example, it may be 

appropriate for the Board to permit discovery 

against the staff and/or the commencement of an 

evidentiary hearing with respect to safety issues 

prior to the issuance of the final SER in cases where 

the applicant has responded to the Staff’s ‘‘open 

items’’ and there is an appreciable lag time until the 

issuance of the final SER, or in cases where the 

initial SER identifies only a few open items. 

2This schedule assumes that the SER and FEIS 

are issued essentially at the same time. If these 

documents are not to be issued very close in time, 

the Board should adopt separate schedules but 

concurrently running for the safety and 

environmental reviews consistent with the 

timeframes herein for each document. 

issues before the SER is issued, or on 

environmental issues before the FEIS is 

issued will expedite the hearing without 

adversely affecting the Staff’s ability to 

complete its evaluation in a timely 

manner. 

(4) No later than 30 days before the 

commencement of the hearing at which 

an issue is to be presented, all parties 

other than the NRC staff shall make the 

pretrial disclosures required by 10 CFR 

2.704(c). 

D. Hearing Schedule 

In the interest of providing a fair 

hearing, avoiding unnecessary delays in 

NRC’s review and hearing process, and 

producing an informed adjudicatory 

record that supports the licensing 

determination to be made in this 

proceeding, the Commission expects 

that both the Licensing Board and NRC 

staff, as well as the applicant and other 

parties to this proceeding, will follow 

the applicable requirements contained 

in 10 CFR part 2 and guidance in the 

Commission’s Statement of Policy on 

Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, 

CLI–98–12, 48 NRC 18 (1998) (63 FR 

41872 (August 5, 1998)) to the extent 

that such guidance is not inconsistent 

with specific guidance in this Order. 

The guidance in the Statement of Policy 

on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings 

is intended to improve the management 

and the timely completion of the 

proceeding and addresses hearing 

schedules, parties’ obligations, 

contentions and discovery management. 

In addition, the Commission is 

providing the following direction for 

this proceeding: 

(1) The Commission directs the 

Licensing Board to set a schedule for the 

hearing in this proceeding consistent 

with this Order that establishes, as a 

goal, the issuance of a final Commission 

decision on the pending application 

within two-and-one-half years (30 

months) from the date of this Order. 

Accordingly, the Licensing Board 

should issue its decision on either the 

contested or mandatory hearing, or both, 

held in this matter no later than 281⁄2

months (855 days) from the date of this 

Order. Formal discovery against the 

Staff shall be suspended until after the 

Staff completes its final SER and EIS in 

accordance with the direction provided 

in paragraph C(3) above. 

(2) The evidentiary hearing with 

respect to issues should commence 

promptly after completion of the final 

Staff documents (SER or EIS) unless the 

Licensing Board, in its discretion, finds 

that starting the hearing with respect to 

one or more safety issues prior to 

issuance of the final SER1 (or one or 

more environmental contentions 

directed to the applicant’s 

Environmental Report) will expedite the 

proceeding without adversely impacting 

the Staff’s ability to complete its 

evaluations in a timely manner. 

(3) The Commission also believes that 

issuing a decision on the pending 

application within about two-and-onehalf years may be reasonably achieved 

under the rules of practice contained in 

10 CFR part 2 and the enhancements 

directed by this Order. We do not expect 

the Licensing Board to sacrifice fairness 

and sound decision-making to expedite 

any hearing granted on this application. 

We do expect the Licensing Board to use 

the applicable techniques specified in: 

this Order; 10 CFR 2.332, 2.333 and 

2.334; and the Commission’s policy 

statement on the conduct of 

adjudicatory proceedings (CLI–98–12, 

supra) to ensure prompt and efficient 

resolution of contested issues. See also 

Statement of Policy on Conduct of 

Licensing Proceedings, CLI–81–8, 13 

NRC 452 (1981). 

(4) If this is a contested proceeding, 

the Licensing Board should adopt the 

following milestones, in developing a 

schedule, for conclusion of significant 

steps in the adjudicatory proceeding.2

Within March 15, 2010 ............................................................................. Deadline for Requests for Hearing; Petitions to Intervene and Contentions; and Requests for Limited Participation. 

Within April 13, 2010 ................................................................................ Answers to Requests for Hearing; Petitions to Intervene and Request 

for Limited Participation. 

Within April 23, 2010 ................................................................................ Replies to Answers regarding Requests for Hearing; Petitions to Intervene and Request for Limited Participation. 

Within May 13, 2010 ................................................................................ Licensing Board holds Pre-hearing Conference to hear arguments on 

petitions to intervene and contention admissibility. 

Within 30 days of pre-hearing conference ............................................... Licensing Board issues order determining intervention. 

Discovery commences, except against the Staff. 

Within 10 days of the Licensing Board order determining intervention: Persons admitted or entities participating under 10 CFR 2.309(d) may 

submit a motion for reconsideration (see below, at Section VI.B).* 

Within 20 days of the Licensing Board order determining intervention: Persons admitted or entities participating under 10 CFR 2.309(d) may 

respond to any motion for reconsideration. 

Within 30 days of the Licensing Board decision determining intervention: Staff prepares hearing file. 

Date of issuance of final SER/EIS Staff updates hearing file. 

Discovery commences against the Staff. 

Within 20 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Motions to amend contentions; motions for late-filed contentions. 

Within 40 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: 

Completion of answers and replies to motions for amended and latefiled contentions. 

Completion of discovery on original contentions. 

Deadline for summary disposition motions on original contentions.** 

Within 50 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Licensing Board decision on admissibility of late-filed contentions.** 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

Within 55 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Licensing Board determination as to whether resolution of any motion 

for summary disposition will serve to expedite the proceedings. 

Within 65 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Answers to motions for summary disposition identified by Licensing 

Board. 

Within 75 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Replies to answers to motions for summary disposition. 

Within 80 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Completion of discovery on late-filed contentions. 

Within 105 days of the issuance of the final SER/EIS: Licensing Board decision on summary disposition motions on original 

contentions. 

Within 115 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Direct testimony filed on original contentions and any amended or admitted late-filed contentions. 

Within 125 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Cross-examination plans filed on original contentions and any amended or admitted late-filed contentions. 

Within 135 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Evidentiary hearing begins on original contentions and any amended or 

admitted late-filed contentions. 

Within 160 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Completion of evidentiary hearing on remaining contentions and any 

amended or admitted late-filed contentions. 

Within 205 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Completion of findings and replies. 

Within 245 days of the issuance of final SER/EIS: Licensing Board’s initial decision.*** 

* Motions for reconsideration do not stay this schedule. 

** No summary disposition motions on late-filed contentions are contemplated. 

*** The Licensing Board’s initial decision with respect to either a contested adjudicatory hearing or an uncontested, mandatory hearing should 

be issued no later than 281⁄2 months from the date of this Order. 

To avoid unnecessary delays in the 

proceeding, the Licensing Board should 

not routinely grant requests for 

extensions of time and should manage 

the schedule such that the overall 

hearing process is completed within 

281⁄2 months. Although summary 

disposition motions are included in the 

schedule above, the Licensing Board 

shall not entertain motions for summary 

disposition under 10 CFR 2.710, unless 

the Licensing Board finds that such 

motions, if granted, are likely to 

expedite the proceeding. Unless 

otherwise justified, the Licensing Board 

shall provide for the simultaneous filing 

of answers to proposed contentions, 

responsive pleadings, proposed findings 

of fact, and other similar submittals. 

(5) Parties are obligated to comply 

with applicable requirements in 10 CFR 

part 2, unless directed otherwise by this 

Order or the Licensing Board. They are 

also obligated in their filings before the 

Licensing Board and the Commission to 

ensure that their arguments and 

assertions are supported by appropriate 

and accurate references to legal 

authority and factual basis, including, as 

appropriate, citation to the record. 

Failure to do so may result in material 

being stricken from the record or, in 

extreme circumstances, a party being 

dismissed from the proceeding. 

(6) The Commission directs the 

Licensing Board to inform the 

Commission promptly, in writing, if the 

Licensing Board determines that any 

single milestone could be missed by 

more than 30 days. The Licensing Board 

must include an explanation of why the 

milestone cannot be met and the 

measures the Licensing Board will take 

to mitigate the failure to achieve the 

milestone and restore the proceeding to 

the overall schedule. 

E. Commission Oversight 

As in any proceeding, the 

Commission retains its inherent 

supervisory authority over the 

proceeding to provide additional 

guidance to the Licensing Board and 

participants and to resolve any matter in 

controversy itself. 

VI. Applicable Requirements 

A. Licensing 

The Commission will license and 

regulate byproduct, source, and special 

nuclear material at the GLE–CF in 

accordance with the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended. Section 274c.(1) of 

the AEA was amended by Public Law 

102–486 (October 24, 1992) to require 

the Commission to retain authority and 

responsibility for the regulation of 

uranium enrichment facilities. 

Therefore, in compliance with law, the 

Commission will be the sole licensing 

and regulatory authority with respect to 

byproduct, source, and special nuclear 

material for the GLE–CF and with 

respect to the control and use of any 

equipment or device in connection 

therewith. 

Many rules and regulations in 10 CFR 

Chapter I are applicable to the licensing 

of a person to receive, possess, use, 

transfer, deliver, or process byproduct, 

source or special nuclear material in the 

quantities that would be possessed at 

the GLE–CF. These include 10 CFR 

parts 19, 20, 21, 25, 30, 40, 51, 70, 71, 

73, 74, 95, 140, 170, and 171 for the 

licensing and regulation of byproduct, 

source, and special nuclear material, 

including requirements for notices to 

workers, reporting of defects, radiation 

protection, waste disposal, 

decommissioning funding, and 

insurance. 

With respect to these regulations, the 

Commission notes that this is the fifth 

proceeding involving the licensing of an 

enrichment facility. The Commission 

issued a number of decisions in earlier 

proceedings regarding proposed sites in 

Homer, Louisiana (Claiborne 

Enrichment Center); Eunice, New 

Mexico (National Enrichment Facility); 

and Piketon, Ohio (American Centrifuge 

Plant). These final decisions—Louisiana 

Energy Services (Claiborne Enrichment 

Center), CLI–92–7, 35 NRC 93 (1992); 

Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne 

Enrichment Center), CLI–97–15, 46 NRC 

294 (1997); Louisiana Energy Services 

(Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI–98– 

3, 47 NRC 77 (1998); Louisiana Energy 

Services (National Enrichment Facility), 

CLI–05–05, 61 NRC 22, 36 (2005); 

Louisiana Energy Services (National 

Enrichment Facility), et al., CLI–05–17, 

62 NRC 5 (2005); USEC, Inc. (American 

Centrifuge Plant), CLI–07–05, 65 NRC 

109 (2007)—resolve a number of issues 

concerning uranium enrichment 

licensing and may be relied upon as 

precedent. 

Consistent with the AEA, and the 

Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission is providing the following 

direction for licensing uranium 

enrichment facilities: 

1. Environmental Issues 

(a) General: 10 CFR part 51 governs 

the preparation of an environmental 

report and an EIS for a materials license. 

GLE’s environmental report and the 

NRC staff’s associated EIS are to include 

a statement on the alternatives to the 

proposed action, including a discussion 

of the no-action alternative. 

(b) Treatment of depleted uranium 

hexafluoride tails: As to the treatment of 

the disposition of depleted uranium 

hexafluoride tails (depleted tails) in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1825 

these environmental documents, unless 

GLE demonstrates a use for uranium in 

the depleted tails as a potential 

resource, the depleted tails will be 

considered waste. The Commission has 

previously concluded that depleted 

uranium from an enrichment facility is 

appropriately classified as low-level 

radioactive waste. See Louisiana Energy 

Services (National Enrichment Facility), 

CLI–05–05, 61 NRC 22, 36 (2005). An 

approach for disposition of tails that is 

consistent with the USEC Privatization 

Act, such as transfer to DOE for 

disposal, constitutes a ‘‘plausible 

strategy’’ for disposition of the GLE 

depleted tails. Id. The NRC staff may 

consider the Department of Energy’s 

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Alternative 

Strategies for the Long-Term 

Management and Use of Depleted 

Uranium Hexaflouride (DOE/EIS–0269), 

64 FR 43358 (Aug. 10, 1999), in 

preparing the staff’s EIS. Alternatives for 

the disposition of depleted uranium 

tails will need to be addressed in these 

documents. As part of the licensing 

process, GLE must also address the 

health, safety, and security issues 

associated with the on-site storage of 

depleted uranium tails pending removal 

of the tails from the site for disposal or 

DOE disposition. 

2. Financial Qualifications 

Review of financial qualifications for 

enrichment facility license applications 

is governed by 10 CFR part 70. In 

Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne 

Enrichment Center), CLI–97–15, 46 NRC 

294, 309 (1997), the Commission held 

that the 10 CFR part 70 financial 

criteria, 10 CFR 70.22(a)(8) and 

70.23(a)(5), could be met by 

conditioning the LES license to require 

funding commitments to be in place 

prior to construction and operation. The 

specific license condition imposed— 

providing one way to satisfy the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 70— 

required LES to have in place prior to 

commencement of construction or 

operation: a minimum equity 

contribution of 30% of project costs 

from the parents and affiliates of LES 

partners prior to construction of the 

associated capacity; firm funding 

commitments for the remaining project 

costs; and long term enrichment 

contracts with prices sufficient to cover 

both construction and operating costs, 

including a return on investment, for 

the entire term of the contracts. 

3. Antitrust Review 

Section 105 of the AEA conferred on 

the NRC certain antitrust 

responsibilities with respect to 

applications for section 103 or 104b. 

licenses to construct or operate 

utilization or production facilities filed 

prior to August 8, 2005. The GLE 

enrichment facility, the application for 

which was filed after August 8, 2005, is 

subject to sections 53 and 63 of the AEA 

and is not a production or utilization 

facility within the meaning of section 

105. Consequently, the NRC does not 

have antitrust responsibilities for GLE. 

The NRC will not entertain or consider 

antitrust issues in connection with the 

GLE application in this proceeding. 

4. Foreign Ownership 

The GLE application is governed by 

sections 53 and 63 of the AEA, and, 

consequently, issues of foreign 

involvement shall be determined 

pursuant to sections 57 and 69, not 

sections 103, 104 or 193(f). Sections 57 

and 69 of the AEA require, among other 

things, an affirmative finding by the 

Commission that issuance of a license 

for the GLE–CF will not be ‘‘inimical to 

the common defense and security.’’ The 

requirements of sections 57 and 69 are 

incorporated in 10 CFR 70.31 and 10 

CFR 40.32, respectively. 

5. Creditor Requirements 

Pursuant to section 184 of the AEA, 

the creditor regulations in 10 CFR 50.81 

shall apply to the creation of creditor 

interests in equipment, devices, or 

important parts thereof, capable of 

separating the isotopes of uranium or 

enriching uranium in the isotope U– 

235. In addition, the creditor regulations 

in 10 CFR 70.44 shall apply to the 

creation of creditor interests in special 

nuclear material. These creditor 

regulations may be augmented by 

license conditions as necessary to allow 

ownership arrangements (such as sale 

and leaseback) not covered by 10 CFR 

50.81, provided it can be found that 

such arrangements are not inimical to 

the common defense and security of the 

United States. 

6. Classified Information 

All matters of classification of 

information related to the design, 

construction, operation, and 

safeguarding of the GLE–CF shall be 

governed by classification guidance in 

‘‘DOE Classification Guide for Isotope 

Separation by the Gas Centrifuge 

Process,’’ (June 2002); Change 1 (Sept. 

2005); Change 2 (May 2007) (CG–ICG– 

1); ‘‘Joint NRC/DOE Classification Guide 

for Louisiana Energy Services Gas 

Centrifuge Plant (U),’’ Confidential RD 

(Jan 2008) (CG–LCP–3A); and ‘‘Joint 

NRC/DOE Class. Guide for Louisiana 

Energy Services Gas Centrifuge Plant 

Safeguards & Security (U),’’ OUO (Jan 

2008) (CG–LCP–3B), and any later 

versions thereof. Any person producing 

such information must adhere to the 

criteria in CG–IGC–1, CG–LCP–3A and 

CG–LCP–3B. All decisions on questions 

of classification or declassification of 

information shall be made by 

appropriate classification officials in the 

NRC and are not subject to de novo 

review in this proceeding. 

7. Access to Classified Information 

Portions of GLE’s application for a 

license are classified Restricted Data or 

National Security Information. Persons 

needing access to those portions of the 

application will be required to have the 

appropriate security clearance for the 

level of classified information to which 

access is required. Access requirements 

apply equally to intervenors, their 

witnesses and counsel, employees of the 

applicant, its witnesses and counsel, 

NRC personnel, and others. Any person 

who believes that he or she will have a 

need for access to classified information 

for the purpose of this licensing 

proceeding, including the hearing, 

should immediately contact the NRC, 

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 

Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555, for 

information on the clearance process. 

Telephone calls may be made to 

Timothy C. Johnson, Senior Project 

Manager, Uranium Enrichment Branch, 

Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 

Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards. Telephone: (301) 

492–3121. 

8. Obtaining NRC Security Facility 

Approval for Safeguarding Classified 

Information Received or Developed 

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 95 

Any person who requires possession 

of classified information in connection 

with the licensing proceeding may 

process, store, reproduce, transmit, or 

handle classified information only in a 

location for which facility security 

approval has been obtained from the 

NRC’s Division of Security Operations 

(NSIR), Washington, DC 20555. 

Telephone calls may be made to A. 

Lynn Silvious, Chief, Information 

Security Branch. Telephone: (301) 415– 

2214. 

B. Reconsideration 

The above guidance does not 

foreclose the applicant, any person 

admitted as a party to the hearing, or an 

entity participating under 10 CFR 

2.315(c) from litigating material factual 

issues necessary for resolution of 

contentions in this proceeding. Persons 

permitted to intervene and entities 

participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c) as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

3While a request for hearing or petition to 

intervene in this proceeding must comply with the 

filing requirements of the NRC’s ‘‘E-Filing Rule,’’ the 

initial request to access SUNSI and/or SGI under 

these procedures should be submitted as described 

in this paragraph. 

4Broad SGI requests under these procedures are 

unlikely to meet the standard for need to know; 

furthermore, staff redaction of information from 

requested documents before their release may be 

appropriate to comport with this requirement. 

These procedures do not authorize unrestricted 

disclosure or less scrutiny of a requester’s need to 

know than ordinarily would be applied in 

connection with an already-admitted contention or 

non-adjudicatory access to SGI. 

5The requester will be asked to provide his or her 

full name, Social Security number, date and place 

of birth, telephone number, and e-mail address. 

After providing this information, the requester 

usually should be able to obtain access to the online 

form within one business day. 

of the date of the order on intervention 

may also move the Commission to 

reconsider any portion of section VI of 

this Notice and Commission Order 

where there is no clear Commission 

precedent or unambiguously governing 

statutes or regulations. Any motion to 

reconsider must be filed within 10 days 

after the order on intervention. The 

motion must contain all technical or 

other arguments to support the motion. 

Other persons granted intervention and 

entities participating under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), including the applicant and 

the NRC staff, may respond to motions 

for reconsideration within 20 days of 

the order on intervention. Motions will 

be ruled upon by the Commission. A 

motion for reconsideration does not stay 

the schedule set out above in section 

V.D.(4). However, if the Commission 

grants a motion for reconsideration, it 

will, as necessary, provide direction on 

adjusting the hearing schedule. 

VII. Notice of Intent Regarding 

Classified Information 

As noted above, a hearing on this 

application will be governed by 10 CFR 

part 2, Subparts A, C, G, and to the 

extent classified material becomes 

involved, subpart I. Subpart I requires in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.907 that the 

NRC staff file a notice of intent if, at the 

time of publication of Notice of Hearing, 

it appears that it will be impracticable 

for the staff to avoid the introduction of 

Restricted Data or National Security 

Information into a proceeding. The 

applicant has submitted portions of its 

application that are classified. The 

Commission notes that, since the entire 

application may become part of the 

record of the proceeding, the NRC staff 

has found it impracticable for it to avoid 

the introduction of Restricted Data or 

National Security Information into the 

proceeding. 

VIII. Order Imposing Procedures for 

Access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information and Safeguards 

Information for Contention Preparation 

A. This Order contains instructions 

regarding how potential parties to this 

proceeding may request access to 

documents containing sensitive 

unclassified information (including 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information (SUNSI) and Safeguards 

Information (SGI)). Requirements for 

access to SGI are primarily set forth in 

10 CFR Parts 2 and 73. Nothing in this 

Order is intended to conflict with the 

SGI regulations. 

B. Within 10 days after publication of 

this notice of hearing and opportunity to 

petition for leave to intervene, any 

potential party who believes access to 

SUNSI or SGI is necessary to respond to 

this notice may request access to SUNSI 

or SGI. A ‘‘potential party’’ is any person 

who intends to participate as a party by 

demonstrating standing and filing an 

admissible contention under 10 CFR 

2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI or 

SGI submitted later than 10 days after 

publication will not be considered 

absent a showing of good cause for the 

late filing, addressing why the request 

could not have been filed earlier. 

C. The requester shall submit a letter 

requesting permission to access SUNSI, 

SGI, or both to the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 

Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy 

to the Associate General Counsel for 

Hearings, Enforcement and 

Administration, Office of the General 

Counsel, Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

The expedited delivery or courier mail 

address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. The e-mail address for the Office 

of the Secretary and the Office of the 

General Counsel are 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and 

OGCmailcenter@nrc.gov, respectively.3

The request must include the following 

information: 

(1) A description of the licensing 

action with a citation to this Federal 

Register notice; 

(2) The name and address of the 

potential party and a description of the 

potential party’s particularized interest 

that could be harmed by the action 

identified in C.(1); 

(3) If the request is for SUNSI, the 

identity of the individual or entity 

requesting access to SUNSI and the 

requester’s basis for the need for the 

information in order to meaningfully 

participate in this adjudicatory 

proceeding. In particular, the request 

must explain why publicly-available 

versions of the information requested 

would not be sufficient to provide the 

basis and specificity for a proffered 

contention; 

(4) If the request is for SGI, the 

identity of each individual who would 

have access to SGI if the request is 

granted, including the identity of any 

expert, consultant, or assistant who will 

aid the requester in evaluating the SGI. 

In addition, the request must contain 

the following information: 

(a) A statement that explains each 

individual’s ‘‘need to know’’ the SGI, as 

required by 10 CFR 73.2 and 10 CFR 

73.22(b)(1). Consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘need to know’’ as stated in 

10 CFR 73.2, the statement must 

explain: 

(i) Specifically why the requester 

believes that the information is 

necessary to enable the requester to 

proffer and/or adjudicate a specific 

contention in this proceeding; 4 and 

(ii) The technical competence 

(demonstrable knowledge, skill, training 

or education) of the requester to 

effectively utilize the requested SGI to 

provide the basis and specificity for a 

proffered contention. The technical 

competence of a potential party or its 

counsel may be shown by reliance on a 

qualified expert, consultant, or assistant 

who satisfies these criteria. 

(b) A completed Form SF–85, 

‘‘Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive 

Positions’’ for each individual who 

would have access to SGI. The 

completed Form SF–85 will be used by 

the Office of Administration to conduct 

the background check required for 

access to SGI, as required by 10 CFR 

part 2, subpart G and 10 CFR 

73.22(b)(2), to determine the requester’s 

trustworthiness and reliability. For 

security reasons, Form SF–85 can only 

be submitted electronically through the 

electronic questionnaire for 

investigations processing (e-QIP) Web 

site, a secure Web site that is owned and 

operated by the Office of Personnel 

Management. To obtain online access to 

the form, the requester should contact 

the NRC’s Office of Administration at 

(301) 492–3524.5

(c) A completed Form FD–258 

(fingerprint card), signed in original ink, 

and submitted in accordance with 10 

CFR 73.57(d). Copies of Form FD–258 

may be obtained by writing the Office of 

Information Services, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001, by calling (301) 415– 

7232 or (301) 492–7311, or by e-mail to 

Forms.Resource@nrc.gov. The 

fingerprint card will be used to satisfy 

the requirements of 10 CFR part 2, 10 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1827 

6This fee is subject to change pursuant to the 

Office of Personnel Management’s adjustable billing 

rates. 

7Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SUNSI must 

be filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 30 days of the deadline 

for the receipt of the written access request. 

8Any motion for Protective Order or draft NonDisclosure Affidavit or Agreement for SGI must be 

filed with the presiding officer or the Chief 

Administrative Judge if the presiding officer has not 

yet been designated, within 180 days of the 

deadline for the receipt of the written access 

request. 

CFR 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

which mandates that all persons with 

access to SGI must be fingerprinted for 

an FBI identification and criminal 

history records check; 

(d) A check or money order payable 

in the amount of $ 200.00 6 to the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 

each individual for whom the request 

for access has been submitted, and 

(e) If the requester or any individual 

who will have access to SGI believes 

they belong to one or more of the 

categories of individuals that are exempt 

from the criminal history records check 

and background check requirements in 

10 CFR 73.59, the requester should also 

provide a statement identifying which 

exemption the requester is invoking and 

explaining the requester’s basis for 

believing that the exemption applies. 

While processing the request, the Office 

of Administration, Personnel Security 

Branch, will make a final determination 

whether the claimed exemption applies. 

Alternatively, the requester may contact 

the Office of Administration for an 

evaluation of their exemption status 

prior to submitting their request. 

Persons who are exempt from the 

background check are not required to 

complete the SF–85 or Form FD–258; 

however, all other requirements for 

access to SGI, including the need to 

know, are still applicable. 

Note: Copies of documents and materials 

required by paragraphs C.(4)(b), (c), and (d) 

of this Order must be sent to the following 

address: Office of Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Personnel 

Security Branch, Mail Stop TWB–05–B32M, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

These documents and materials 

should not be included with the request 

letter to the Office of the Secretary, but 

the request letter should state that the 

forms and fees have been submitted as 

required above. 

D. To avoid delays in processing 

requests for access to SGI, the requester 

should review all submitted materials 

for completeness and accuracy 

(including legibility) before submitting 

them to the NRC. The NRC will return 

incomplete packages to the sender 

without processing. 

E. Based on an evaluation of the 

information submitted under paragraphs 

C.(3) or C.(4) above, as applicable, the 

NRC staff will determine within 10 days 

of receipt of the request whether: 

(1) There is a reasonable basis to 

believe the petitioner is likely to 

establish standing to participate in this 

NRC proceeding; and 

(2) The requester has established a 

legitimate need for access to SUNSI or 

need to know the SGI requested. 

F. For requests for access to SUNSI, if 

the NRC staff determines that the 

requester satisfies both E.(1) and E.(2) 

above, the NRC staff will notify the 

requester in writing that access to 

SUNSI has been granted. The written 

notification will contain instructions on 

how the requester may obtain copies of 

the requested documents, and any other 

conditions that may apply to access to 

those documents. These conditions may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order7 setting 

forth terms and conditions to prevent 

the unauthorized or inadvertent 

disclosure of SUNSI by each individual 

who will be granted access to SUNSI. 

G. For requests for access to SGI, if the 

NRC staff determines that the requester 

has satisfied both E.(1) and E.(2) above, 

the Office of Administration will then 

determine, based upon completion of 

the background check, whether the 

proposed recipient is trustworthy and 

reliable, as required for access to SGI by 

10 CFR 73.22(b). If the Office of 

Administration determines that the 

individual or individuals are 

trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will 

promptly notify the requester in writing. 

The notification will provide the names 

of approved individuals as well as the 

conditions under which the SGI will be 

provided. Those conditions may 

include, but not be limited to, the 

signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement 

or Affidavit, or Protective Order8 by 

each individual who will be granted 

access to SGI. 

H. Release and Storage of SGI. Prior 

to providing SGI to the requester, the 

NRC staff will conduct (as necessary) an 

inspection to confirm that the 

recipient’s information protection 

system is sufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of 10 CFR 73.22. 

Alternatively, recipients may opt to 

view SGI at an approved SGI storage 

location rather than establish their own 

SGI protection program to meet SGI 

protection requirements. 

I. Filing of Contentions. Any 

contentions in these proceedings that 

are based upon the information received 

as a result of the request made for 

SUNSI or SGI must be filed by the 

requestor no later than 25 days after the 

requestor is granted access to that 

information. However, if more than 25 

days remain between the date the 

petitioner is granted access to the 

information and the deadline for filing 

all other contentions (as established in 

the notice of hearing or opportunity for 

hearing), the petitioner may file its 

SUNSI or SGI contentions by that later 

deadline. 

J. Review of Denials of Access. 

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI 

or SGI is denied by the NRC staff either 

after a determination on standing and 

requisite need, or after a determination 

on trustworthiness and reliability, the 

NRC staff shall immediately notify the 

requestor in writing, briefly stating the 

reason or reasons for the denial. 

(2) Before the Office of 

Administration makes an adverse 

determination regarding the proposed 

recipient(s) trustworthiness and 

reliability for access to SGI, the Office 

of Administration, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iii), must provide the 

proposed recipient(s) any records that 

were considered in the trustworthiness 

and reliability determination, including 

those required to be provided under 10 

CFR 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed 

recipient(s) have an opportunity to 

correct or explain the record. 

(3) The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s adverse determination with 

respect to access to SUNSI by filing a 

challenge within 5 days of receipt of 

that determination with: (a) The 

presiding officer designated in this 

proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer 

has been appointed, the Chief 

Administrative Judge, or if he or she is 

unavailable, another administrative 

judge, or an administrative law judge 

with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has 

been designated to rule on information 

access issues, with that officer. 

(4) The requester may challenge the 

NRC staff’s or Office of Administration’s 

adverse determination with respect to 

access to SGI by filing a request for 

review in accordance with 10 CFR 

2.705(c)(3)(iv). Further appeals of 

decisions under this paragraph must be 

made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311. 

K. Review of Grants of Access. A party 

other than the requester may challenge 

an NRC staff determination granting 

access to SUNSI or SGI whose release 

would harm that party’s interest 

independent of the proceeding. Such a 

challenge must be filed with the Chief 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

9Requesters should note that the filing 

requirements of the NRC’s E-Filing Rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007) apply to appeals of NRC 

staff determinations (because they must be served 

on a presiding officer or the Commission, as 

applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI/SGI request 

submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures. 

Administrative Judge within 5 days of 

the notification by the NRC staff of its 

grant of access. 

If challenges to the NRC staff 

determinations are filed, these 

procedures give way to the normal 

process for litigating disputes 

concerning access to information. The 

availability of interlocutory review by 

the Commission of orders ruling on 

such NRC staff determinations (whether 

granting or denying access) is governed 

by 10 CFR 2.311.9

L. The Commission expects that the 

NRC staff and presiding officers (and 

any other reviewing officers) will 

consider and resolve requests for access 

to SUNSI or SGI, and motions for 

protective orders, in a timely fashion in 

order to minimize any unnecessary 

delays in identifying those petitioners 

who have standing and who have 

propounded contentions meeting the 

specificity and basis requirements in 10 

CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order 

summarizes the general target schedule 

for processing and resolving requests 

under these procedures. 

It is so ordered. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of January 2010. 

For the Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko, Offering a 

Separate Statement 

I support issuance of this notice and 

order in part. As I explained in my 

separate statement for the Areva notice, 

I welcome the opportunity for interested 

members of the public to participate in 

our hearing process and to have their 

concerns about the proposed facility 

heard. I have, however, the same 

concerns with this hearing notice as I 

expressed with regard to the Areva 

notice. 

First, I am troubled by establishing a 

tight schedule that depends on superior 

applicant performance and therefore 

may turn out to be unrealistic. For 

example, the schedule reduces the time 

normally allowed for applicant 

responses to staff requests for additional 

information despite the fact that the 

agency has no control over the 

timeliness or quality of applicant 

submittals. Establishing timelines which 

may not be met, even through no fault 

of the staff, may result in unfounded 

claims that the agency’s process is 

inefficient and decrease confidence in 

our licensing process. 

I also believe that the numerous 

milestones set forth in the order are 

unnecessary and overly prescriptive. 

With the milestones and deadlines 

already provided in our regulations, the 

agency has the structure in place to 

ensure an efficient and effective hearing 

process. Importantly, those regulations 

allow the Boards flexibility in adapting 

the hearing schedule to accommodate 

the complexity of the issues and the 

circumstances unique to each 

adjudicatory proceeding. I believe this 

flexibility is important and should be 

retained for enrichment applications. 

Recent developments highlight my 

concerns. Staff has informed the 

Commission that issuance of the final 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) 

will be delayed at least seven months in 

light of information only recently 

submitted by Areva concerning the need 

to construct additional transmission 

lines. Staff explained that its aggressive 

review schedule is predicated upon the 

submittal of complete information by 

Areva. Therefore, any deficiency in 

Areva’s submittals, like this one, can 

delay the staff’s review and, 

consequently, the hearing schedule. 

Events which can impact schedule are 

inevitable and unpredictable given the 

complexity and length of these 

adjudications. The schedule 

adjustments necessitated by these 

events are best handled by the Boards 

responsible for the hearings without 

rigid Commission deadlines which may 

compromise the fairness or 

thoroughness of the hearing process. 

In addition, as I stated in regard to the 

Areva notice, I believe the order should 

state that the Commission, rather than 

the licensing board, should preside over 

the mandatory hearing. Gaining 

experience in this mandatory 

proceeding will aid the Commission in 

handling mandatory hearings on new 

reactor applications. 

Unlike the Areva notice, this notice is 

silent on the question of whether the 

NEPA review should address terrorism. 

I believe that the Commission should 

direct the staff to consider terrorism in 

its environmental review, as we did in 

the Areva notice. I believe that the 

Commission should have a consistent, 

nationwide approach to NEPA and 

should discontinue the practice of 

addressing terrorism only for facilities 

within the jurisdiction of the Ninth 

Circuit. This practice creates a disparity 

in the public information we provide 

concerning the potential impacts of a 

terrorist attack on our nuclear facilities 

based on the arbitrary criteria of 

geographic location. This disparity is 

highlighted when, as here, the agency 

simultaneously conducts NEPA reviews 

for similar facilities within and outside 

the geographical boundaries of the 

Ninth Circuit. I believe the public is 

disserved when they are selectively and 

arbitrarily denied information on a 

matter of this importance to health and 

safety. As a policy matter, I believe that 

the Commission’s commitment to 

transparency should no longer be 

compromised, particularly now that we 

know that the environmental impacts of 

terrorism can be analyzed and disclosed 

meaningfully to the public, while 

appropriately protecting classified 

information. 

Lastly, I am troubled by a matter 

which is related to both the Areva and 

GE–Hitachi applications—the prospect 

of allowing applicants to conduct 

construction activities prohibited by our 

regulations through issuance of 

exemptions. In my view, the appropriate 

process for allowing construction 

activities before licensing is the one we 

used for reactor licensees—our 

rulemaking process. This process, 

which allows stakeholder input and, 

therefore, offers transparency in our 

decision-making process, should not be 

circumvented by the use of exemptions 

which I believe should be reserved for 

circumstances unique to a specific 

facility. 

Commissioners Dale E. Klein and 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Offering a Further 

Statement 

We support issuance of this order, in 

its entirety, as we did the AREVA notice 

of hearing. Areva Enrichment Services, 

LLC (Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility), 

CLI–09–15 (July 23, 2009). The U.S. 

NRC Strategic Plan recognizes that 

initiatives such as the Government 

Performance and Results Act challenge 

Federal agencies to become more 

effective and efficient and to justify 

their budget requests with demonstrated 

program results. The NRC must strive to 

become more effective and efficient in 

light of the increasing licensing 

workload and the drive to improve 

performance in government. With this 

in mind, the NRC has formally adopted 

strategic goals in the area of 

organizational excellence, including the 

following: ‘‘NRC actions are high 

quality, efficient, timely, and realistic, 

to enable the safe and beneficial use of 

radioactive materials.’’ 

The NRC has recognized, in setting its 

strategic goals and through its 

performance and accountability 

reporting, that the efficiency of the 

agency’s regulatory processes is 

important to the regulated community 

and other stakeholders, including 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 1829 

1See, e.g., AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station, CLI–07–8, 65 

NRC 124 (2007), aff’d N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. 

NRC, 561 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2009). 

2We have complied with the Ninth Circuit’s 

ruling for facilities within the Ninth Circuit, as we 

are required to do. That experience, however, is 

very limited, and does not demonstrate that 

conducting environmental analyses of terrorist 

scenarios for the licensing of all major facilities 

would be practicable or lead to meaningful 

additional information. 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal 

authorities and the public. The NRC has 

committed itself to improving the 

timeliness of its application reviews 

without compromising safety and 

security, and acknowledges that this is 

possible provided industry submits 

complete, high-quality applications. 

Quoting again from the NRC Strategic 

Plan: ‘‘While the NRC will never 

compromise safety and security for 

increased efficiency, the agency works 

to improve the efficiency of its 

regulatory processes wherever possible.’’ 

High quality—on both the agency’s 

and the applicant’s parts—should be, 

and is, the NRC’s goal. The proceeding 

at issue here is no exception. We believe 

that the schedule laid out in the order— 

while demanding the requisite quality 

in licensee submittals—has been 

demonstrated for similar applications, is 

achievable with no compromise to the 

agency’s safety and security missions, 

and is representative of the performance 

expectations the NRC should set for 

itself. Our judgment is not altered by the 

Chairman’s reliance on the recentlyannounced events in an entirely 

separate proceeding—the AREVA Eagle 

Rock enrichment facility application. 

There, NRC Staff announced a delay in 

issuing the final EIS as a result of 

AREVA’s recent submission on the need 

to construct additional transmission 

lines. This is thin support at best for the 

Chairman’s unwarranted conclusion 

that the Commission’s deadlines ‘‘may 

compromise the fairness or 

thoroughness of the hearing process.’’ A 

later date for the scheduled issuance of 

the final EIS may delay completion of 

the hearing, but it does not necessitate 

any change in the milestones since the 

milestones that follow the issuance of 

the final EIS are measured from the date 

of its issuance. 

Further, we are not persuaded by the 

Chairman’s argument regarding 

consideration of terrorism under NEPA. 

We have considered this issue in many 

proceedings,1 and are not prepared to 

abandon our carefully-considered 

decisions without sufficient 

justification. Fundamentally, we cannot 

agree with the Chairman’s assertion that 

our approach is at odds with the 

agency’s commitment to transparency. 

At bottom, this ruling reflects our 

consistent position on the requirements 

of NEPA and their application.2

Moreover, there is no dispute that the 

agency has devoted enormous resources 

and effort to ensure the adequate 

protection of public health and safety 

from the risks of terrorism after the 

events of September 11, 2001. Our 

differences with Chairman Jaczko on 

this issue should not obscure this fact. 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION AND SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING

Day Event/activity 

0 ......................... Publication of Federal Register notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, including order with instructions for access requests. 

10 ....................... Deadline for submitting requests for access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) and/or Safeguards Information (SGI) with information: supporting the standing of a potential party identified by name and address; describing the need for the information in order for the potential party to participate meaningfully in an adjudicatory proceeding; demonstrating that access should be granted (e.g., showing technical competence for access to SGI); and, for 

SGI, including application fee for fingerprint/background check. 

60 ....................... Deadline for submitting petition for intervention containing: (i) Demonstration of standing; (ii) all contentions whose formulation does not require access to SUNSI and/or SGI (+25 Answers to petition for intervention; +7 petitioner/requestor reply). 

20 ....................... Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff informs the requester of the staff’s determination whether the request for access 

provides a reasonable basis to believe standing can be established and shows (1) need for SUNSI or (2) need to know for 

SGI. (For SUNSI, NRC staff also informs any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would 

be harmed by the release of the information.) If NRC staff makes the finding of need for SUNSI and likelihood of standing, 

NRC staff begins document processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents). If NRC staff makes 

the finding of need to know for SGI and likelihood of standing, NRC staff begins background check (including fingerprinting 

for a criminal history records check), information processing (preparation of redactions or review of redacted documents), 

and readiness inspections. 

25 ....................... If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need,’’ no ‘‘need to know,’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for petitioner/requester to file a 

motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the 

presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for 

SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by 

the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. 

30 ....................... Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). 

40 ....................... (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and 

file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure 

Agreement for SUNSI. 

190 ..................... (Receipt +180) If NRC staff finds standing, need to know for SGI, and trustworthiness and reliability, deadline for NRC staff 

to file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-disclosure Affidavit (or to make a determination that the proposed recipient 

of SGI is not trustworthy or reliable). Note: Before the Office of Administration makes an adverse determination regarding 

access to SGI, the proposed recipient must be provided an opportunity to correct or explain information. 

205 ..................... Deadline for petitioner to seek reversal of a final adverse NRC staff trustworthiness or reliability determination either before 

the presiding officer or another designated officer under 10 CFR 2.705(c)(3)(iv). 

A ........................ If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access 

to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a 

final adverse determination by the NRC staff. 

A + 3 .................. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI and/or SGI consistent with decision issuing 

the protective order. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2010 / Notices 

ATTACHMENT 1—GENERAL TARGET SCHEDULE FOR PROCESSING AND RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

UNCLASSIFIED NON-SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION AND SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING—Continued 

Day Event/activity 

A + 28 ................ Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. However, if more 

than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other 

contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI or SGI 

contentions by that later deadline. 

A + 53 ................ (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI and/or SGI. 

A + 60 ................ (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. 

>A + 60 .............. Decision on contention admission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–485 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0009] 

Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, 

Availability 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance and 

Availability of Regulatory Guide (RG) 

5.71, ‘‘Cyber Security Programs for 

Nuclear Facilities.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

J. Sturzebecher, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 251–7494 or email Karl.Sturzebecher@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

issuing a new guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public information such 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the agency’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

RG 5.71, ‘‘Cyber Security Programs for 

Nuclear Facilities,’’ was issued with a 

temporary identification as Draft 

Regulatory Guide, DG–5022. This 

regulatory guide provides guidance to 

applicants and licensees on satisfying 

the requirements of 10 CFR 73.54. The 

information contained within this guide 

represents the results of research 

conducted by the NRC Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research concerning cyber 

security program development and the 

collective body of knowledge and 

experience that has been developed 

through all of the actions identified 

above. In addition, this guide embodies 

the findings by standards organizations 

and agencies, such as the International 

Society of Automation, the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and 

the National Institute of Standard and 

Technology, as well as guidance from 

the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. 

RG 5.71 provides a framework to aid 

in the identification of those digital 

assets that must be protected from cyber 

attacks. These identified digital assets 

are referred to as critical digital assets 

(CDAs). Licensees should address the 

potential cyber security risks of CDAs 

by applying the defensive architecture 

and the collection of security controls 

identified in this regulatory guide. 

The RG 5.71 framework offers 

licensees and applicants the ability to 

address the specific needs of an existing 

or new system. The goal of this 

regulatory guide is to harmonize the 

well-known and well-understood set of 

security controls (based on NIST cyber 

security standards) that address 

potential cyber risks to CDAs to provide 

a flexible programmatic approach in 

which the licensee or applicant can 

establish, maintain, and successfully 

integrate these security controls into a 

site-specific cyber security program. 

II. Further Information 

The Agency released DG–5022, which 

contained safeguards information, 

directly to stakeholders, who provided 

comments on July 18, 2008, December 

12, 2008, and January 14, 2009. The 

responses to stakeholder’s comments are 

located in the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System under Accession Number 

ML090340185. Electronic copies of RG 

5.71 are available through the NRC’s 

public Web site under ‘‘Regulatory 

Guides’’ at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) located at 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. The PDR’s mailing address is 

USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. The PDR can also be reached by 

telephone at (301) 415–4737 or (800) 

397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–3548, and 

by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and Commission approval 

is not required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of January, 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Andrea D. Valentin, 

Chief, Regulatory Guide Development Branch, 

Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2010–488 Filed 1–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS), Planning and 

Procedures Subcommittee Meeting; 

Notice of Meeting 

The ACRS Planning and Procedures 

Subcommittee will hold a meeting on 

February 3, 2010, Room T2–B1, 11545 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to 

public attendance, with the exception of 

a portion that may be closed pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6) to discuss 

organizational and personnel matters 

that relate solely to the internal 

personnel rules and practices of the 

ACRS, and information the release of 

which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy. 

The agenda for the subject meeting 

shall be as follows: 

Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 12 

p.m.–1 p.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss 

proposed ACRS activities and related 

matters. The Subcommittee will gather 

information, analyze relevant issues and 

facts, and formulate proposed positions 

and actions, as appropriate, for 

deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to 

provide oral statements and/or written 

comments should notify the Designated 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES