41872 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

videos, and sound recordings;

recreational films and videos; and

library sound recordings.

These items are nonrecord. The aerial

photographs (GRS 17/2a and b) are

described as ‘‘unannotated duplicate

(s)’’ and ‘‘unannotated prints when

original film negatives exist.’’

Architectural models are threedimensional objects not normally

considered documentary records. The

audiovisual materials are described as

‘‘duplicate items in excess of record

elements required for and films and

videos ‘‘acquired from outside sources

for personnel entertainment and

recreation,’’ and ‘‘library sound

recordings.’’ As such they do not meet

the definition of Federal records, and

therefore should be removed from the

GRS. The disposition of the materials

described by these GRS items should be

provided in guidance, not records

schedules. In order to preserve the

numbering of the remaining items in

these schedules, these items should be

reserved.

Dated: July 31, 1998.

Geraldine N. Phillips,

Acting Assistant Archivist for Records

Services—Washington, DC.

[FR Doc. 98–21023 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

Notice of Changes in Subject of

Meeting

The National Credit Union

Administration Board determined that

its business required the deletion of the

following item form the previously

announced closed meeting (Federal

Register, Vol. 63, No. 144, Pages 70320–

40321, Tuesday, July 28, 1998)

scheduled for Thursday, July 30, 1998.

8. One (1) Personnel Action. Closed

pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6).

The Board voted unanimously that

agency business required that this item

be deleted from the closed agenda and

that no earlier announcement of this

change was possible.

The National Credit Union

Administration Board also determined

that its business required the addition of

the following item to the closed agenda.

9. Human Resources Automated

System. Closed pursuant to exemptions

(2), (4), and (9) (B).

The Board voted unanimously that

agency business required that this item

be considered with less than the usual

seven days notice, that it be closed to

the public, and that no earlier

announcement of this change was

possible.

The previously announced items

were:

1. Administrative Action under

Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal

Credit Union Act and Part 708 of

NCUA’s Rules & Regulations. Closed

pursuant to exemption (8).

2. Administrative Action under

Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union

Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (4),

(7), (8), (9)(A)(ii) and (9)(B).

3. Administrative Action under

Section 206 of the FCU Act. Closed

pursuant to exemptions (2) and (8).

4. Administrative Action under Part

704 of NCUA’s Rules and Regulations.

Closed pursuant to exemption (8).

5. Corporate Examiner Review Task

Force Recommendations. Closed

pursuant to exemption (2).

6. Appeal from a Federal Credit Union

of the Regional Director’s Denial of a

Community Charter. Closed pursuant to

exemption (8).

7. Three (3) Administrative Actions

under Part 745 of NCUA’s Rules and

Regulations. Closed pursuant to

exemption (6).

8. Seven (7) Personnel Actions.

Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and

(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,

Telephone (703) 518–6304.

Becky Baker,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 98–21006 Filed 8–3–98; 10:31am]

BILLING CODE 7535–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National

Science Foundation, National Science

Board.

DATE AND TIME: August 13, 1998, 1:00

p.m., Closed Session; August 13, 1998,

2:15 p.m., Open Session.

PLACE: National Science Foundation,

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1225,

Arlington, VA 22230.

STATUS: Part of this meeting will be

open to the public. Part of this meeting

will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Thursday, August 13, 1998

Closed Session (1:00 p.m.–2:15 p.m.)

—Minutes, May 1998

—Personnel

—Awards and Agreements

—NSF Budget & Long Range Planning

Thursday, August 13, 1998

Open Session (2:15 p.m.–5:30 p.m.)

—Swearing in of NSF Director

—Minutes, May 1998

—Closed Session Items for November

1998

—Chair’s Report

—Director’s Report

—Briefing—PCAST Environment Report

—Break

—Science and Engineering Indicators

(SEI) Plan

—Presentation on International Issues

—Strategies for Human Resource

Development

—NSB Strategic Plan

—Report from Committees

—Other Business

—Adjourn

Marta Cehelsky,

Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–21005 Filed 8–3–98; 10:31 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Policy on Conduct Of Adjudicatory

Proceedings; Policy Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Policy statement: update.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (Commission) has

reassessed and updated its policy on the

conduct of adjudicatory proceedings in

view of the potential institution of a

number of proceedings in the next few

years to consider applications to renew

reactor operating licenses, to reflect

restructuring in the electric utility

industry, and to license waste storage

facilities.

DATES: This policy statement is effective

on August 5, 1998, while comments are

being received. Comments are due on or

before October 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

The Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, ATTN:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,

between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal

workdays. Copies of comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Weisman, Litigation Attorney,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415–1696.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41873

Statement of Policy on Conduct of

Adjudicatory Proceedings

[CLI–98–12]

I. Introduction

As part of broader efforts to improve

the effectiveness of the agency’s

programs and processes, the

Commission has critically reassessed its

practices and procedures for conducting

adjudicatory proceedings within the

framework of its existing Rules of

Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, primarily

Subpart G. With the potential institution

of a number of proceedings in the next

few years to consider applications to

renew reactor operating licenses, to

reflect restructuring in the electric

utility industry, and to license waste

storage facilities, such assessment is

particularly appropriate to ensure that

agency proceedings are conducted

efficiently and focus on issues germane

to the proposed actions under

consideration. In its review, the

Commission has considered its existing

policies and rules governing

adjudicatory proceedings, recent

experience and criticism of agency

proceedings, and innovative techniques

used by our own hearing boards and

presiding officers and by other

tribunals. Although current rules and

policies provide means to achieve a

prompt and fair resolution of

proceedings, the Commission is

directing its hearing boards and

presiding officers to employ certain

measures described in this policy

statement to ensure the efficient

conduct of proceedings.

The Commission continues to endorse

the guidance in its current policy,

issued in 1981, on the conduct of

adjudicatory proceedings. Statement of

Policy on Conduct of Licensing

Proceedings, CLI–81–8,13 NRC 452

(May 20, 1981); 46 FR 28533 (May 27,

1981). The 1981 policy statement

provided guidance to the Atomic Safety

and Licensing Boards (licensing boards)

on the use of tools, such as the

establishment and adherence to

reasonable schedules and discovery

management, intended to reduce the

time for completing licensing

proceedings while ensuring that

hearings were fair and produced

adequate records. Now, as then, the

Commission’s objectives are to provide

a fair hearing process, to avoid

unnecessary delays in the NRC’s review

and hearing processes, and to produce

an informed adjudicatory record that

supports agency decision making on

matters related to the NRC’s

responsibilities for protecting public

health and safety, the common defense

and security, and the environment. In

this context, the opportunity for hearing

should be a meaningful one that focuses

on genuine issues and real disputes

regarding agency actions subject to

adjudication. By the same token,

however, applicants for a license are

also entitled to a prompt resolution of

disputes concerning their applications.

The Commission emphasizes its

expectation that the boards will enforce

adherence to the hearing procedures set

forth in the Commission’s Rules of

Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, as interpreted

by the Commission. In addition, the

Commission has identified certain

specific approaches for its boards to

consider implementing in individual

proceedings, if appropriate, to reduce

the time for completing licensing and

other proceedings. The measures

suggested in this policy statement can

be accomplished within the framework

of the Commission’s existing Rules of

Practice. The Commission may consider

further changes to the Rules of Practice

as appropriate to enable additional

improvements to the adjudicatory

process.

II. Specific Guidance

Current adjudicatory procedures and

policies provide a latitude to the

Commission, its licensing boards and

presiding officers to instill discipline in

the hearing process and ensure a prompt

yet fair resolution of contested issues in

adjudicatory proceedings. In the 1981

policy statement, the Commission

encouraged licensing boards to use a

number of techniques for effective case

management including: setting

reasonable schedules for proceedings;

consolidating parties; encouraging

negotiation and settlement conferences;

carefully managing and supervising

discovery; issuing timely rulings on

prehearing matters; requiring trial briefs,

pre-filed testimony, and crossexamination plans; and issuing initial

decisions as soon as practicable after the

parties file proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Licensing boards

and presiding officers in current NRC

adjudications use many of these

techniques, and should continue to do

so.

As set forth below, the Commission

has identified several of these

techniques, as applied in the context of

the current Rules of Practice in 10 CFR

Part 2, as well as variations in procedure

permitted under the current Rules of

Practice that licensing boards should

apply to proceedings. The Commission

also intends to exercise its inherent

supervisory authority, including its

power to assume part or all of the

functions of the presiding officer in a

given adjudication, as appropriate in the

context of a particular proceeding. See,

e.g., Public Service Co. of New

Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1

and 2), CLI–90–3, 31 NRC 219, 229

(1990). The Commission intends to

promptly respond to adjudicatory

matters placed before it, and such

matters should ordinarily take priority

over other actions before the

Commissioners.

1. Hearing Schedules

The Commission expects licensing

boards to establish schedules for

promptly deciding the issues before

them, with due regard to the complexity

of the contested issues and the interests

of the parties. The Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.718 provide

licensing boards all powers necessary to

regulate the course of proceedings,

including the authority to set schedules,

resolve discovery disputes, and take

other action appropriate to avoid delay.

Powers granted under § 2.718 are

sufficient for licensing boards to control

the supplementation of petitions for

leave to intervene or requests for

hearing, the filing of contentions,

discovery, dispositive motions,

hearings, and the submission of findings

of fact and conclusions of law.

Many provisions in Part 2 establish

schedules for various filings, which can

be varied ‘‘as otherwise ordered by the

presiding officer.’’ Boards should

exercise their authority under these

options and 10 CFR 2.718 to shorten the

filing and response times set forth in the

regulations to the extent practical in a

specific proceeding. In addition, where

such latitude is not explicitly afforded,

as well as in instances in which

sequential (rather than simultaneous)

filings are provided for, boards should

explore with the parties all reasonable

approaches to reduce response times

and to provide for simultaneous filing of

documents.

Although current regulations do not

specifically address service by

electronic means, licensing boards, as

they have in other proceedings, should

establish procedures for electronic filing

with appropriate filing deadlines, unless

doing so would significantly deprive a

party of an opportunity to participate

meaningfully in the proceeding. Other

expedited forms of service of documents

in proceedings may also be appropriate.

The Commission encourages the

licensing boards to consider the use of

new technologies to expedite

proceedings as those technologies

become available.

Boards should forego the use of

motions for summary disposition,

except upon a written finding that such
41874 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

1 ‘‘[A]t the contention filing stage[,] the factual

support necessary to show that a genuine dispute

exists need not be in affidavit or formal evidentiary

form and need not be of the quality necessary to

withstand a summary disposition motion.’’ Rules of

Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings—

Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, Final

Rule, 54 FR 33168, 33171 (Aug. 11, 1989).

a motion will likely substantially reduce

the number of issues to be decided, or

otherwise expedite the proceeding. In

addition, any evidentiary hearing

should not commence before

completion of the staff’s Safety

Evaluation Report (SER) or Final

Environmental Statement (FES)

regarding an application, unless the

presiding officer finds that beginning

earlier, e.g., by starting the hearing with

respect to safety issues prior to issuance

of the SER, will indeed expedite the

proceeding, taking into account the

effect of going forward on the staff’s

ability to complete its evaluations in a

timely manner. Boards are strongly

encouraged to expedite the issuance of

interlocutory rulings. The Commission

further strongly encourages presiding

officers to issue decisions within 60

days after the parties file the last

pleadings permitted by the board’s

schedule for the proceeding.

Appointment of additional presiding

officers or licensing boards to preside

over discrete issues simultaneously in a

proceeding has the potential to expedite

the process, and the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel

(ASLBP) should consider this measure

under appropriate circumstances. In

doing so, however, the Commission

expects the Chief Administrative Judge

to exercise the authority to establish

multiple boards only if: (1) the

proceeding involves discrete and

severable issues; (2) the issues can be

more expeditiously handled by multiple

boards than by a single board; and (3)

the multiple boards can conduct the

proceeding in a manner that will not

unduly burden the parties. Private Fuel

Storage, L.L.C. (Private Fuel Storage

Facility), CLI–98–7, 47 NRC ll (1998).

The Commission itself may set

milestones for the completion of

proceedings. If the Commission sets

milestones in a particular proceeding

and the board determines that any

single milestone could be missed by

more than 30 days, the licensing board

must promptly so inform the

Commission in writing. The board

should explain why the milestone

cannot be met and what measures the

board will take insofar as is possible to

restore the proceeding to the overall

schedule.

2. Parties’ Obligations

Although the Commission expects its

licensing boards to set and adhere to

reasonable schedules for the various

steps in the hearing process, the

Commission recognizes that the boards

will be unable to achieve the objectives

of this policy statement unless the

parties satisfy their obligations. The

parties to a proceeding, therefore, are

expected to adhere to the time frames

specified in the Rules of Practice in 10

CFR Part 2 for filing and the scheduling

orders in the proceeding. As set forth in

the 1981 policy statement, the licensing

boards are expected to take appropriate

actions to enforce compliance with

these schedules. The Commission, of

course, recognizes that the boards may

grant extensions of time under some

circumstances, but this should be done

only when warranted by unavoidable

and extreme circumstances.

Parties are also obligated in their

filings before the 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, in a party

being dismissed.

3. Contentions

Currently, in proceedings governed by

the provisions of Subpart G, 10 CFR

2.714(b)(2)(iii) requires that a petitioner

for intervention shall provide sufficient

information to show that a genuine

dispute exists with the applicant on a

material issue of law or fact. 1 The

Commission has stated that a board may

appropriately view a petitioner’s

support for its contention in a light that

is favorable to the petitioner, but the

board cannot do so by ignoring the

requirements set forth in § 2.714(b)(2).

Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde

Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,

and 3), CLI–91–12, 34 NRC 149, 155

(1991). The Commission re-emphasizes

that licensing boards should continue to

require adherence to § 2.714(b)(2), and

that the burden of coming forward with

admissible contentions is on their

proponent. A contention’s proponent,

not the licensing board, is responsible

for formulating the contention and

providing the necessary information to

satisfy the basis requirement for the

admission of contentions in 10 CFR

2.714(b)(2). The scope of a proceeding,

and, as a consequence, the scope of

contentions that may be admitted, is

limited by the nature of the application

and pertinent Commission regulations.

For example, with respect to license

renewal, under the governing

regulations in 10 CFR Part 54, the

review of license renewal applications

is confined to matters relevant to the

extended period of operation requested

by the applicant. The safety review is

limited to the plant systems, structures,

and components (as delineated in 10

CFR 54.4) that will require an aging

management review for the period of

extended operation or are subject to an

evaluation of time-limited aging

analyses. See 10 CFR 54.21(a) and (c),

54.29, and 54.30. In addition, the review

of environmental issues is limited by

rule by the generic findings in NUREG–

1427, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants.’’ See 10 CFR 55.71(d)

and 51.95(c).

Under the Commission’s Rules of

Practice, a licensing board may consider

matters on its motion only where it

finds that a serious safety,

environmental, or common defense and

security matter exists. 10 CFR 2.760a.

Such authority is to be exercised only in

extraordinary circumstances. If a board

decides to raise matters on its own

initiative, a copy of its ruling, setting

forth in general terms its reasons, must

be transmitted to the Commission and

the General Counsel. Texas Utilities

Generating Co. (Comanche Peak Steam

Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI–81–

24, 14 NRC 614 (1981). The board may

not proceed further with sua sponte

issues absent the Commission’s

approval. The scope of a particular

proceeding is limited to the scope of the

admitted contentions and any issues the

Commission authorizes the board to

raise sua sponte.

Currently, 10 CFR 2.714a allows a

party to appeal a ruling on contentions

only if (a) the order wholly denies a

petition for leave to intervene (i.e., the

order denies the petitioner’s standing or

the admission of all of a petitioner’s

contentions) or (b) a party other than the

petitioner alleges that a petition for

leave to intervene or a request for a

hearing should have been wholly

denied. Although the regulation reflects

the Commission’s general policy to

minimize interlocutory review, under

this practice, some novel issues that

could benefit from early Commission

review will not be presented to the

Commission. For example, matters of

first impression involving interpretation

of 10 CFR Part 54 may arise as the staff

and licensing board begin considering

applications for renewal of power

reactor operating licenses. Accordingly,

the Commission encourages the

licensing boards to refer rulings or

certify questions on proposed

contentions involving novel issues to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41875

the Commission in accordance with 10

CFR 2.730(f) early in the proceeding. In

addition, boards are encouraged to

certify novel legal or policy questions

related to admitted issues to the

Commission as early as possible in the

proceeding. The Commission may also

exercise its authority to direct

certification of such particular questions

under 10 CFR 2.718(i). The

Commission, however, will evaluate any

matter put before it to ensure that

interlocutory review is warranted.

4. Discovery Management

Efficient management of the pre-trial

discovery process is critical to the

overall progress of a proceeding.

Because a great deal of information on

a particular application is routinely

placed in the agency’s public document

rooms, Commission regulations already

limit discovery against the staff. See,

e.g.,10 CFR 2.720(h), 2.744. Under the

existing practice, however, the staff

frequently agrees to discovery without

waiving its rights to object to discovery

under the rules, and refers any

discovery requests it finds objectionable

to the board for resolution. This practice

remains acceptable.

Application in a particular case of

procedures similar to provisions in the

1993 amendments to Rule 26 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or

informal discovery can improve the

efficiency of the discovery process

among other parties. The 1993

amendments to Rule 26 provide, in part,

that a party shall provide certain

information to other parties without

waiting for a discovery request. This

information includes the names and

addresses, if known, of individuals

likely to have discoverable information

relevant to disputed facts and copies or

descriptions, including location, of all

documents or tangible things in the

possession or control of the party that

are relevant to the disputed facts. The

Commission expects the licensing

boards to order similar disclosure (and

pertinent updates) if appropriate in the

circumstances of individual

proceedings. With regard to the staff,

such orders shall provide only that the

staff identify the witnesses whose

testimony the staff intends to present at

hearing. The licensing boards should

also consider requiring the parties to

specify the issues for which discovery is

necessary, if this may narrow the issues

requiring discovery.

Upon the board’s completion of

rulings on contentions, the staff will

establish a case file containing the

application and any amendments to it,

and, as relevant to the application, any

NRC report and any correspondence

between the applicant and the NRC.

Such a case file should be treated in the

same manner as a hearing file

established pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1231.

Accordingly, the staff should make the

case file available to all parties and

should periodically update it.

Except for establishment of the case

file, generally the licensing board

should suspend discovery against the

staff until the staff issues its review

documents regarding the application.

Unless the presiding officer has found

that starting discovery against the staff

before the staff’s review documents are

issued will expedite the hearing,

discovery against the staff on safety

issues may commence upon issuance of

the SER, and discovery on

environmental issues upon issuance of

the FES. Upon issuance of an SER or

FES regarding an application, and

consistent with such limitations as may

be appropriate to protect proprietary or

other properly withheld information,

the staff should update the case file to

include the SER and FES and any

supporting documents relied upon in

the SER or FES not already included in

the file.

The foregoing procedures should

allow the boards to set reasonable

bounds and schedules for any remaining

discovery, e.g., by limiting the number

of rounds of interrogatories or

depositions or the time for completion

of discovery, and thereby reduce the

time spent in the prehearing stage of the

hearing process. In particular, the board

should allow only a single round of

discovery regarding admitted

contentions related to the SER or the

FES, and the discovery respective to

each document should commence

shortly after its issuance.

III. Conclusion

The Commission reiterates its longstanding commitment to the expeditious

completion of adjudicatory proceedings

while still ensuring that hearings are fair

and produce an adequate record for

decision. The Commission intends to

monitor its proceedings to ensure that

they are being concluded in a fair and

timely fashion. The Commission will

take action in individual proceedings, as

appropriate, to provide guidance to the

boards and parties and to decide issues

in the interest of a prompt and effective

resolution of the matters set for

adjudication.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–20781 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Documents Containing Reporting or

Recordkeeping Requirements: Office

of Management and Budget Review

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of the Office of

Management and Budget review of

information collection and solicitation

of public comment.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has recently

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review the

following proposals for the collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. Chapter 35).

1. Type of submission, new, revision,

or extension: Revision.

2. Title of the information collection:

Proposed Rule, Conformance to

National Policies for Access to and

Protection of Classified Information, 10

CFR Parts 10, 11, 25, and 95.

3. The form number if applicable: Not

applicable.

4. How often the collection is

required: On occasion.

5. Who will be required or asked to

report: NRC regulated facilities and

other organizations requiring access to

NRC classified information or special

nuclear material.

6. An estimate of the number of

responses:

10 CFR Part 10—0

10 CFR Part 11—0

10 CFR Part 25—0

10 CFR Part 95—14

NRC Form 237—(12)

7. The estimated number of annual

respondents:

10 CFR Part 10—0

10 CFR Part 11—0

10 CFR Part 25—0

10 CFR Part 95—8

NRC Form 237—4

8. An estimate of the total number of

hours needed to complete the

requirement or request:

10 CFR Part 10—0

10 CFR Part 11—0

10 CFR Part 25—0

10 CFR Part 95—144

NRC Form 237—(2.4)