Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29453

1The Commission interprets the requirement in

Section 114(d) of the NWPA that the Commission

‘‘shall issue a final decision approving or

disapproving the issuance of a construction

authorization not later than three years after the

date of submission’’ (emphasis added) of the license

application, as three years from the docketing of the

application. This interpretation is consistent with

the Commission’s general practice since its

establishment in 1975 to tie hearing schedules to

the docketing of a license application rather than

the tendering of the application by the applicant,

for the obvious reason that a license application

may be substantially deficient in some material

respect and must be returned to the applicant. This

practice is reflected in the HLW repository hearing

schedule contained in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part

2. However, the Commission would note that for

purposes of DOE’s obligation, under Section 114(b)

of the NWPA, to ‘‘submit’’ the license application

not later than ninety days after the date on which

the recommendation of site designation is effective,

the term ‘‘submit’’ would be interpreted as

‘‘tender’’, i.e., as in DOE’s obligation to ‘‘tender’’ the

license application to the NRC.

adjustment is pending at a district

office, Form I–601 must be filed with

the district director having jurisdiction

over the application. If the application

for adjustment is pending before the

immigration court, Form I–601 must be

filed with the immigration judge having

jurisdiction, or with the Board of

Immigration Appeals if the appeal is

pending before the Board.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) An alien present in the United

States who is subject to a final order of

exclusion, deportation, or removal and

has been denied adjustment of status

under section 902 of HRIFA by the

Immigration Court or the Board, or who

never applied for adjustment of status

with the Service, an Immigration Court,

or the Board on or before March 31,

2000, and who was made eligible for

HRIFA benefits under the Legal

Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000

(LIFE Act) and LIFE amendments,

Public Law 106–553 and Public Law

106–554, respectively, may file a motion

to reopen with either the Immigration

Court or the Board, whichever had

jurisdiction last. As provided by the

LIFE Act, motions to reopen must be

filed on or before June 19, 2001.

* * * * *

(r) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) An alien made eligible for

adjustment of status under HRIFA by

the LIFE Act amendments and whose

case has not been referred to EOIR

under paragraphs (r)(2) or (r)(3) of this

section, may file a motion to reopen

with the Service.

* * * * *

(4)(i) An alien whose case has been

referred to the Immigration Court under

paragraphs (r)(2) or (r)(3) of this section,

or who filed an appeal with the Board

after his or her application for

adjustment of status under section 902

of HRIFA was denied, and whose

proceedings are pending, and who is

now eligible for adjustment of status

under HRIFA as amended by section

1505(b) of the LIFE Act and its

amendments, may renew the

application for adjustment of status with

either the Immigration Court or the

Board, whichever has jurisdiction. The

application will be adjudicated in

accordance with section 1505(b) of the

LIFE Act and its amendments.

(ii) An alien present in the United

States who is subject to a final order of

exclusion, deportation or removal after

his or her HRIFA adjustment

application was denied by an

Immigration Court or the Board, but

who was made eligible for HRIFA

adjustment as a result of section 1505(b)

of the LIFE Act and its amendments,

may file a motion to reopen with either

the Immigration Court or the Board,

whichever had jurisdiction last. Such

motion to reopen must be filed on or

before June 19, 2001.

(s) * * *

(4) * * *

(iii) Upon a motion to reopen filed not

later than June 19, 2001, by an alien

present in the United States who

became eligible for adjustment of status

under HRIFA, as amended by section

1505, of Public Law 106–554.

* * * * *

Dated: May 24, 2001.

Larry D. Thompson,

Acting Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 01–13642 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 2

RIN 3150–AG44

Licensing Proceedings for the Receipt

of High-Level Radioactive Waste at a

Geologic Repository: Licensing

Support Network, Design Standards

for Participating Websites

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

Rules of Practice applicable to the use

of the Licensing Support Network (LSN)

for the licensing proceeding on the

disposal of high-level waste (HLW) at a

geologic repository. The amendments

will establish the basic data structure

and transfer standards (‘‘design

standards’’) that participant LSN

websites must use to make documentary

material available. The amendments

will also clarify the authority of the LSN

Administrator (LSNA) to establish

guidance for LSN participants on how

best to meet the design standards and to

review participant designs for

compliance with the standards. Finally,

the amendments will clarify the timing

of participant compliance certifications.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francis X. Cameron, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–1642,

e-mail FXC@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR part 2, Subpart J, provide for the

use of an electronic information

management system in the HLW

repository licensing proceeding.

Originally issued on April 14, 1989 (54

FR 14925), the information management

system currently required by Subpart J

is to have the following functions:

(1) To provide a Licensing Support

Network (LSN) that allows full text

search and retrieval access to the

relevant documents of all parties and

potential parties to the HLW repository

licensing proceeding beginning in the

time period before the Department of

Energy (DOE) submits its license

application for the repository;

(2) To provide for electronic

submission of filings by the parties, as

well as the orders and decisions of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

during the proceeding; and

(3) To provide access to an electronic

version of the HLW repository licensing

proceeding docket for use during the

hearing.

The creation of the LSN—originally

called the ‘‘Licensing Support System’’

(LSS)—was stimulated by the

requirements of Section 114(d)(2) of the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

(NWPA). This provision requires the

Commission to issue a final decision

approving or disapproving issuance of

the construction authorization for a

geologic repository for HLW within

three years of the ‘‘submission’’ (i.e.,

docketing) of the DOE license

application.1 The Commission

anticipated that the HLW proceeding

would involve a substantial number of

documents created by well-informed

parties regarding numerous, complex

issues. The Commission believed that

29454 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the LSS could facilitate the timely NRC

technical review, and the timely

petitioner ‘‘discovery-type’’ review, of

DOE’s license application by providing

for electronic access to relevant

documents before DOE submits its

license application, as well as supplant

the need for the traditional discovery

process used in NRC proceedings

involving the physical production of

these documents after the license

application is docketed. In addition, the

Commission believed that early

provision of these documents in an

easily searchable form would allow for

a thorough, comprehensive technical

review of the license application by all

parties and potential parties to the HLW

licensing proceeding, resulting in better

focused contentions in the proceeding.

It was also contemplated that the LSS

would facilitate agency responses to

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

requests by providing the public with

electronic access to relevant documents.

Originally, the LSS was conceived of

as a large centralized information

management system administered by

what was then called the Licensing

Support System Administrator. To take

advantage of the advances in technology

that occurred since the issuance of the

original rule, the Commission revised

the rule (63 FR 71729; December 30,

1998) to create the LSN that would use

the Internet to link geographically

dispersed sites rather than relying on a

complex and expensive centralized

system. The current provisions of the

LSN rule require DOE and NRC to make

their documentary material available in

electronic form beginning thirty days

after DOE’s submission of its site

recommendation to the President of the

United States. All other participants

must make their documents available in

electronic form no later than thirty days

after the date that the repository site

selection decision becomes final after

review by Congress.

Although the Supplementary

Information accompanying the 1998

revised rule noted that the availability

of the Internet to link geographically

dispersed sites appears to have the

potential to satisfy the requirements and

objectives of Subpart J, no specific

design for the LSN was set forth in that

final rule nor were any specific

performance requirements established

except to specify that the overall design

must be ‘‘effective and efficient.’’ To

establish these specific design

standards, on August 22, 2000 (65 FR

50937), the Commission issued a

proposed revision to its rules applicable

to the LSN.

The proposed amendments would:

• Establish certain minimum design

standards for data structure and data

transfer (‘‘design standards’’) for

individual participant websites that are

necessary to ensure the LSN meets its

objectives and functions;

• Supplement the existing

responsibilities of the LSN

Administrator by making it clear that

the Administrator has the authority to

review participant website designs to

verify compliance with the basic design

standards, including the authority to

allow variances from those standards. In

addition, it would make clear that the

LSN Administrator has the authority to

issue guidance to the LSN participants

on how they might best meet the design

standards; and

• Clarify the timing of the participant

compliance certifications.

II. Comments on the Proposed Rule

The Commission received six

comments on the proposed rule, as well

as one supplemental comment from

DOE clarifying some of its initial

comments. Copies of those letters are

available for public inspection and

copying at the NRC Public Document

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O–

1F12, Rockville, MD, on the NRC

website at www.NRC.GOV., and in

ADAMS. The comments fall into the

following categories:

1. Comments on the proposed LSN

design standards;

2. Comments on the proposed

revisions to the responsibilities and

authority of the LSN Administrator;

3. Comments on the design of the LSN

site and the Regulatory Analysis; and

4. Comments on the timing of

participant compliance certifications.

The Commission also received several

comments on the Level One and Level

Two Functional Requirements for the

LSN. The Level One Functional

Requirements identify all of the specific

functions that the LSN must perform to

achieve the requirements of the rule.

The Level Two Functional

Requirements provide more detailed

information on how these functions will

be performed. The functional

requirements will eventually be issued

by the LSN Administrator as guidance

on the design standards. However, they

were not part of the proposed

rulemaking but were circulated to the

LSN Advisory Review Panel (LSNARP)

for preliminary review. The LSNARP is

an NRC advisory committee composed

of potential LSN users, chartered under

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5

U.S.C. App. 2, to provide advice to the

LSN Administrator and the Commission

on technical and policy issues

concerning the LSN. LSNARP

comments will be addressed directly by

the LSN Administrator. Copies of the

functional requirements can be obtained

from Dan Graser, LSN Administrator,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington D.C. 20555–0001 or by

email at DJG2@nrc.gov.

1. Comments on the Proposed LSN

Design Standards

There were a number of general

comments on the proposed design

standards. Nye County, Nevada, the host

county and situs jurisdiction for the

potential high-level nuclear waste

repository at Yucca Mountain, agreed

with the need for the NRC to establish

certain minimum design standards for

individual participant LSN websites to

avoid confusion and promote

confidence in the process and the

integrity of documents and data.

Furthermore, the County stated that the

design standards ‘‘will help us in

ensuring that our site will meet the

required standards.’’ However, the

County’s support for the design

standards is conditioned on the

Commission’s stated intent to provide

flexibility for a participant to deviate

from any guidance developed by the

LSN Administrator regarding the

standards to take into account

individual needs and differences, at

least so long as the fundamental design

requirements are met. In response to the

County’s concern, the Commission reaffirms its willingness to provide this

type of flexibility. However, the

Commission notes that the reference in

the Supplementary Information to

‘‘flexibility’’ was made in the context of

any guidance developed to implement

the design standards. Regarding the

standards themselves, the proposed rule

would give the LSN Administrator the

authority to allow variances from the

standards to accommodate changes in

technology or problems identified

during initial operational testing of the

individual participant LSN websites or

the central LSN site. This authority has

been carried forward into the final rule

at § 2.1011(c)(6).

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

noted that the proposed amendments

represented a valuable tool for use in

the repository licensing process and

endorsed NRC’s selection of the design

standards. However, NEI also stated that

guidance on implementation of the

standards will be necessary. In

response, the Commission notes that

this guidance will be developed by the

LSN Administrator.

DOE also was highly supportive of the

proposed use of new information

management technologies to make

information available to interested

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29455

parties. DOE stated its intent to use and

continue to use web-based technology to

make its publications and supporting

documents promptly available. DOE

also recommended clarifying the term

‘‘participant website’’ to read

‘‘participant LSN website,’’ because a

participant may have websites that are

not related to the LSN. The Commission

agrees that this is a necessary

clarification and will use the

recommended term through out the

rule. DOE also recommends revising the

term ‘‘LSN site’’, which refers to the

LSN Administrator’s portal site, to

‘‘central LSN site’’. The Commission

agrees. The Commission also notes that

the term ‘‘LSN’’ refers to the totality of

the ‘‘central LSN site’’ and the various

participant LSN websites.

The following comments were

submitted on the individual design

standards:

Section 2.1011(b)(2)(i). The

participants must make textual (or,

where non-text, image) versions of their

documents available on a webaccessible server. Web indexing

software (also known as a robot, a

spider, or a crawler) must be able to

canvass data files and server log files on

the participant server.

Several comments were received on

this standard. Some of these comments

raised general issues concerning the

basic document submission

requirements of the LSN rule regarding

‘‘textual’’ material and ‘‘images,’’ rather

than specific issues about the design

standard itself. To ensure that these

basic requirements are fully understood,

the Commission believes it would be

helpful to restate those requirements at

this point. To provide full text search

capability for relevant documents,

§ 2.1003(a)(1) of the current regulations

requires NRC, DOE, potential parties,

parties, and interested governmental

participants to provide an ‘‘electronic

file’’ (emphasis added) for all

documentary material. For ‘‘graphicoriented’’ documentary material, an

‘‘electronic image’’ (emphasis added)

must be provided under § 2.1003(a)(2)

in lieu of the text file. Graphic-oriented

material consists of such items as raw

data, field notes, maps, and

photographs. Any text that is embedded

within this type of documentary

material does not need to be separately

entered in searchable full text, i.e., as an

‘‘electronic file.’’ Graphic-oriented

material will be retrievable from the

bibliographic header material submitted

by the participant. The Commission has

revised § 2.1003(a)(2) to clarify that a

bibliographic header is required for

graphic-oriented documentary material.

DOE originally commented that

proposed § 2.1011(b)(2)(i) should be

revised to state that ‘‘[t]he participants

shall make textual and/or image

versions of their documents available

*** ’’ This suggestion was based on

the rationale that DOE has images of all

documents but not the full text for any

page in the document that was marked

‘‘image only.’’ In addition, ‘‘some

participants may have native files (Word

or Word Perfect), so they may not have

images of textual documents. Requiring

absolutely one or the other would be a

problem if interpreted literally.’’ As

noted, the current regulations require an

electronic file for text documentary

material and an electronic image for

‘‘graphic-oriented’’ documentary

material. Therefore, the option of

providing images only for textual

material would be contrary to the

Commission’s requirements and to the

objective of providing full text search

capability. In comments submitted by

DOE as a supplement to its initial

comments, DOE clarified that it now has

a clearer understanding of when an

electronic image is to be provided

(consistent with the Commission’s

explanation). However, DOE also stated

its intent to provide online electronic

images, as well as electronic ‘‘files,’’ of

all its documents, not just for ‘‘graphicoriented’’ documentary material. The

Commission has no objection to this

enhancement but emphasizes that it is

not a requirement under the

Commission’s regulations.

Both DOE and NEI commented on

some explanatory material in the

Supplementary Information to the

proposed rule on the requirements of

§ 2.1011(b)(2)(i). In the Supplementary

Information (see 65 FR 50939), the

Commission stated that this proposed

standard does not affect the ability of

parties or potential parties to correct or

revise documents already made

available on their websites, as long as:

(1) A corrected or updated document

is noted as superseding a previously

provided document;

(2) The previous version is not

removed; and

(3) Other parties or potential parties

are notified of the change.

DOE recommended deletion of this

notice requirement, or at least

clarification that it is acceptable to post

any changes in a ‘‘notice’’ section of the

participant’s LSN website, because DOE

will not have the ability to know all

potential parties in order to notify them

of changes. Likewise, NEI commented

that this requirement needs clarification

in terms of how it will be accomplished:

‘‘Will there be a central way of notifying

the other parties? Will participants

know whom all of the participating

parties are? * * * should each

participant be responsible for assuring

that it is using the latest information

from other participants sites?’’

Although not cited in the

Supplementary Information, the

statements of concern are based on

§ 2.1004 of the current regulations

which provides for amendments or

additions to documents. In view of the

DOE and NEI comments, the

Commission is providing the following

explanation of the process for amending

or adding documents that should

alleviate the commentors’ concerns.

This provision, as explained in the

Supplementary Information to the

original rulemaking on the Licensing

Support System (54 FR 14935; April 14,

1989), was to accomplish two

objectives. The first was to address the

correction of any errors discovered in

the previous entry of a document. In

these cases, the incorrect document

would remain on the system with its

own bibliographic header, and the

corrected version of the document

would be entered as a separate

document with its own bibliographic

header. The bibliographic headers for

each document would include

references to the other document. The

second objective was to provide for the

entry of updated pages to a document

that was already on the system but was

not being issued as a new, revised

‘‘stand-alone’’ document. In this case,

the updated pages must be entered as a

separate document with a separate

bibliographic header. The bibliographic

header of the original document and the

bibliographic header of the updated

pages must reference the other

document. In the case of revisions that

are new ‘‘stand-alone’’ revisions (e.g., a

‘‘Rev. 1’’ document), the revised

document is entered as a separate

document with its own bibliographic

header that notes that it is a revision of

another document that is on the system.

There is no need to amend the header

of the original document to indicate the

existence of the new ‘‘stand-alone’’

revision because it is anticipated that

the revision will be found through the

routine full text search process. With

any of these changes, the participant is

not required to notify all of the other

parties or potential parties individually.

Rather, as suggested by DOE, notice may

be posted on the participant’s LSN

website if that site is accessible;

however, at a minimum the participant

must notify the LSN Administrator, and

the central LSN site will notify users of

the updated information through a

notice on the central LSN site’s

29456 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

webpage. The notice on the central LSN

site will contain listings of changes, if

any, to each participant’s collection,

identified by LSN accession number,

with a description of what the change

was, the date of the change, and why it

was necessary.

Section 2.1011(b)(2)(ii). Participants

would be required to make structured

data available in the context of (or,

under the control of) an accessible SQL

(Standard Query Language)-compliant

database management system (DBMS).

Alternatively, the structured data may

be made available in a standard

database readable (e.g., comma

delimited) file.

DOE recommends that the

Commission explain the function of a

‘‘comma delimited’’ file. The

Commission agrees and has revised the

corresponding section of the

Supplementary Information to explain

that a ‘‘comma delimited file’’ or a

‘‘comma separated value (.csv) file’’ are

ways to identify where the column

values for each row in a particular data

file begin and end so that it can be

conveyed as input to another tableoriented application such as a database

or spreadsheet application.

To ensure that this standard is clear,

the Commission has revised this

standard to substitute the term

‘‘bibliographic header’’ for the term

‘‘structured data.’’ The revised standard

will read ‘‘Participants would be

required to make bibliographic data

available in the context of (or under the

control of) an accessible SQL (Standard

Query Language)-compliant database

management system (DBMS).

Alternatively, the structured data

containing the bibliographic header

information may be made available in a

standard database readable (e.g., XML

(Extensible Markup Language http://

www.w3.org/xml/), comma delimited, or

comma separated value (.csv) file.

Section 2.1011(b)(2)(iii). This section

would require that textual material be

formatted to comply with the

US.ISO_8859–1 character set and be in

one of the following acceptable formats:

native word processing (Word,

WordPerfect), PDF (Portable Document

Format) Normal, or HTML (Hypertext

Markup Language).

DOE initially recommended inserting

‘‘plain text’’ in front of ‘‘native word’’

when discussing the acceptable text

format. Upon further reflection, DOE

clarified that it was recommending the

insertion of ‘‘ASCII’’ rather than ‘‘plain

text.’’ The Commission agrees and the

standard has been revised to read

‘‘textual material be formatted to

comply with the ISO/IEC 8859–1

character set and be in one of the

following acceptable formats: ASCII,

native word processing (Word,

WordPerfect), PDF Normal, or HTML.’’

Note that the Commission has

substituted ‘‘ISO/IEC’’ as the updated

reference for this standard rather than

‘‘US.ISO’’.

Section 2.1011(b)(2)(iv). This section

would require that image files be

formatted as TIFF (Tag Image File

Format) CCITT G4 for bi-tonal images or

PNG (Portable Network Graphics) per

[http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-pngmulti.html]) format for grey-scale or

color images, or PDF (Portable

Document Format—Image). TIFF images

are to be stored at 300 dpi (dots per

inch), grey scale images at 150 dpi with

eight bits of tonal depth, and color

images at 150 dpi with 24 bits of color

depth. Images found on participant

machines will be stored as single imageper-page to facilitate retrieval of no

more than a single page, or alternatively,

images may be stored in a page-perdocument format if software is

incorporated in the web server that

allows single-page representation and

delivery.

DOE recommended that the

Commission modify the proposed rule

as follows (changes underlined): ‘‘TIFF

images will be stored at 300 dpi (dots

per inch) or greater, gray scale images at

150 dpi or greater with eight bits of

tonal depth, and color images at 150 dpi

or greater with 24 bits of color depth.’’

This would, in effect, establish

minimum standards but allow the

participants to incorporate features

beyond the minimum standards. The

Commission agrees with these changes

and has revised the final rule

accordingly.

DOE also noted that image formats

can be used for textual material as well

as for ‘‘non textual document materials’’

and recommended that the broader

phrase ‘‘document materials’’ be

substituted for the phrase ‘‘non textual

document materials.’’ As noted

previously, the current rule only

requires an electronic image for

‘‘graphic-oriented’’ documentary

material. However, nothing precludes a

participant, as in fact DOE has

indicated, from making its TIFF images

available in addition to the searchable

text file; however, a TIFF is not

acceptable in lieu of a searchable text

file.

In addition, DOE commented that the

phrase ‘‘alternatively, images may be

stored in a page-per-document format if

software is incorporated in the web

server that allows single-page

representation and delivery’’ is

inconsistent with the preceding phrase

in the sentence that ‘‘images be stored

as single image-per-page to facilitate

retrieval of no more than a single page.’’

DOE recommends that the second

phrase be revised to read ‘‘alternatively,

images may be stored in an image-perdocument format if software is

incorporated in the webserver that

allows image-per-page representation

and delivery.’’ The Commission agrees

that this correction should be made.

NEI questioned whether the standard

of storing images on participant servers

as single-image-per-page means that all

multi-page documents need to be

broken up into individual documents by

page with a tracking number. If so, NEI

believes this would be unduly

burdensome.

In response, the Commission notes

that the images in question are only for

non-textual documentary information,

such as maps, presentation slides/

overheads, etc., so the following

discussion does not apply to every

textual document a participant may

make available. In addition, TIFF

images may be stored as a single image

in a single file or with multiple images

enveloped into a single file. Software

utility programs are available to either

select a group of single image files and

wrap them into an envelope, or

conversely, to take an existing envelope,

open it, and pull out individual page

images. Additionally, participants may

use document management software

that stores in multi-image format but is

able to deliver single page images on

request. The Commission would

encourage the use of this type of

software. The Commission’s concern

with the ability to select single image

files of a page is that this capability is

necessary to avoid the time and expense

of a participant having to send a large

number of images simply to deliver an

image of one particular page. For

example, consider the case of a

participant searching a text file and

finding a desired chart on page 237 of

a 500 page document. All the user needs

is one page. If the participant ‘‘owner’’

of that document has to send the user

the entire multi-page TIFF envelope

through a 14.4 bps user modem, that

image file will take a substantial amount

of time to load. Also, if the user is

paying a long-distance remote

connection charge, it will be very

expensive as well as time consuming.

The Commission would like to avoid

imposing unnecessary burdens on the

general public or on participants who

do not have current state-of-technology

machines and bandwidth.

The LSN Administrator, in concert

with the LSNARP, will continue to

examine the most effective way to

resolve this issue and accommodate

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29457

participants’ existing systems while

ensuring that image file delivery is

efficient and effective. However, for the

time being, the Commission is retaining

the proposed standard in the final rule.

The Commission is revising this

standard to clarify that in addition to

TIFF images, it also applies to PDF

(Portable Document Format) and PNG

(Portable Network Graphics) images.

Section 2.1011 (b)(2)(v): This section

would require that the parties

programmatically link the bibliographic

header record with the text or image file

it represents. Each participant’s system

must afford the LSN software enough

information to allow a text or image file

to be identified to the bibliographic data

which describes it.

NEI requested the Commission to

provide an actual example of this

header with the final rulemaking. The

LSN Administrator has included an

example of header field structure, with

descriptions, in the March 2001 release

of the Functional Requirements.

DOE recommended that the

Commission adopt the following

language (changes underlined): ‘‘The

participants shall programmatically link

the bibliographic header record with the

text and/or image files it represents. The

bibliographic header record must

contain fielded data identifying its

associated objects (text and/or image)

file names and directory locations.’’

The Commission reiterates its

previous statement that online

availability of a bibliographic header

and its associated electronic image are

only required for ‘‘graphic-oriented’’

documentary material. In addition, the

Commission is concerned that under the

DOE approach, there could be multiple

text and/or image files all associated

with a single document and using a

single bibliographic header, but

logically stored under a number of file

names and in multiple directory

locations. Having multiple files with the

same unique identifier assigned via the

bibliographic header would not be

acceptable. There may well be both an

image and a text file associated with a

given document but in those cases, there

is usually an underlying Electronic

Document Management System (EDMS)

that controls the linkage between those

associated files. The Commission

believes that requiring the file name and

directory locations to be placed in a

bibliographic header field, as the only

technically acceptable approach,

restricts flexibility of the participants in

designing their websites and is therefore

easing that constraint; nonetheless, it is

retaining the requirement that either a

hyperlink in the header file to the web

published document (preferably) or

some other programmatic mechanism

must be provided by the participants’

software, procedures, or system

configuration to link headers with text

or image files.

Section 2.1011(b)(2)(vi). To facilitate

data exchange, paragraph (b)(2)(vi)

would require that participants adhere

to hardware and software standards,

including the following:

(A) Network access must be HTTP/1.1

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html]

over TCP (Transmission Control

Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol,

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]);

(B) Associating server names with IP

addresses must follow the DNS (Domain

Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/

rfcs/rfc1034.html] and [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html];

(C) Web page construction must be

HTML version 4.0 [http://www.w3.org/

TR/REC-html40/];

(D) Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange

between e-mail servers must be SMTP

(Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http:/

/www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html]); and

(E) Format of an electronic mail

message must be per [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html]

optionally extended by MIME

(Multimedia Internet Mail Extensions)

per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc2045.html]) to accommodate

multimedia e-mail.

No comments were received on this

standard. However, the Commission has

eliminated the reference in

§ 2.1011(b)(2)(vi)(C) to version 4.0 of

HTML. To avoid having to change the

rule text as new versions of HTML

become available and acceptable,

‘‘HTML’’ alone is being specified. The

LSN Administrator will notify

participants of the acceptability of a

particular version. In addition,

§ 2.1011(b)(2)(vi)(E) has been revised to

note that ‘‘MIME’’ is Multipurpose

Internet Media Mail Extensions rather

than Multimedia Internet Mail

Extensions.

2. Comments on the Role of the LSN

Administrator

Nye County, Nevada, supported the

added responsibilities being given to the

LSN Administrator, particularly the

authority to grant variances from the

design standards and to issue guidance

to participants on how best to meet

those standards.

DOE commented on the authority of

the LSN Administrator in proposed

§ 2.1011(c)(4) to identify any problems

regarding the integrity of documentary

material certified by a participant. In its

initial comments, DOE stated that the

word ‘‘fidelity’’ should be used rather

than ‘‘integrity’’ because it believed that

the intent of this provision is related to

the documentary material being

accurately represented in the LSN, not

to the content or completeness of the

documentary material. However, in its

supplemental comments, DOE noted

that ‘‘[o]n further review, the DOE has

a clearer understanding that the purpose

of this section * * * is to * * * ensure

that information provided to the LSN is

not removed or modified. The DOE

agrees that the LSNA should have the

authority to ensure the integrity of the

document set provided to the LSN.’’

In its initial comments, DOE also

noted that the Supplementary

Information to the proposed rule stated

that ‘‘[a]ll disputes over the LSN

Administrator’s recommendations as to

documentary material or data

availability and integrity will be referred

to the Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer’’ (See 65 FR 50941). However,

according to DOE, proposed

§ 2.1011(c)(3) only refers to ‘‘LSN

availability’’ and not to ‘‘documentary

material or data availability.’’ Section

2.1003 of the current regulations uses

the term ‘‘availability’’ in the context of

the obligation of participants to identify

and make available documentary

material. Thus ‘‘availability’’ not only

refers to the functioning of a participant

website but also to whether the requisite

material has been made available. The

Commission notes that proposed

§ 2.1011(c)(3), although referring to

‘‘LSN availability,’’ also includes

references to ‘‘the availability of

individual participant’s data.’’

Nevertheless, the Commission has

revised § 2.1011(c)(3) to be more explicit

on the nature of ‘‘LSN availability.’’

3. Comments on the Regulatory Analysis

and the Design of the Central LSN Site

NEI commented on a portion of the

Regulatory Analysis in which the NRC

states that the recommended design

needs to be ‘‘based on a proven

technical solution that has been

successfully implemented.’’ NEI

requested that examples of such

implementation should be provided.

Examples of successful portal

implementations for document

management applications were

provided at the February 23, 2000, LSN

Advisory Review Panel meeting, as well

as in documentation that was provided

at that meeting. They included: http://

tis.eh.doe.gov/portal/home.htm; http://

www.osti.gov/EnergyFiles/ and http://

igm.nlm.nih.gov/. In addition, website

locations (URLs) were included in the

NRC’s Business Case Analysis for the

LSN, which is available via the NRC

website in ADAMS at accession number

29458 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ML003722758 or from the LSN

Administrator. Contact Dan Graser, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington DC 20555–0001, telephone

(301) 415–7401, email djg2@nrc.gov.

DOE commented that the discussion

for LSN design Alternative 3 should be

revised, otherwise it ‘‘could be

interpreted to mean that the participant

sites should be able to function

independently to serve the documents

to the public if the LSN site is

unavailable.’’ The narrative that DOE

was referring to stated that participant

servers’ versions of the document would

serve as backup copies should the LSN

site become inoperative (see 65 FR

50943). DOE recommended that the

language be revised to read

‘‘participants servers’’ versions of the

documents serve as backup copies by

being available to the LSN

Administrator to facilitate recovery of

the central LSN site should the central

LSN site become inoperative.’’ The

Commission does not agree with this

recommendation. The referenced design

does not levy a requirement on

participant servers for search and

retrieval software capabilities to be

made available. However, if participants

elect to have search and retrieval

capabilities at their websites, those

capabilities could, indeed, be used in

lieu of the LSN interface should the

participants choose to make their

external collections accessible to others

besides the LSN crawler software. In

both cases, the documents maintained

by the participants as the source

collection, whether on a server or on a

transfer tape, could serve as the backup

copy of the document.

NEI asked several questions regarding

the portal architecture referred to in the

Regulatory Analysis: ‘‘Has NRC made

specific decisions with regard to the

portal software (i.e.: Which one? Who

makes it? What does it cost? Is it

proprietary?, etc.) Does NRC intend to

make such decisions in consultation

with the LSNARP?’’

NRC decisions on portal architecture

were made in consultation with the

LSNARP, as documented in the

LSNARP meeting materials of October

13, 1999 and February 23, 2000. The

decision on the specific products used

was made based on government

procurement practices used for

competitive procurement to deliver an

operational system meeting stated

requirements. The suite of products

proposed by the design contract

awardee include: NT SQL Server

(RDBMS); Autonomy Portal Software

(text search); WhatsUpGold and

WebTrends (remote monitoring). All

products are subject to government

approval for use in operational

development contingent upon the

outcome of a formal design review

session. Additional information is

available by contacting the LSN

Administrator. Also see Section III infra,

on the LSN Site Design.

4. Comments on the Timing of

Participant Compliance

There were several comments on

those aspects of the proposed rule

relating to the timing of participant

compliance, i.e., when is a participant

required to make its documentary

material available and when does a

participant need to certify that it has

done so. All of the comments

recommended tying the date of

participant compliance to the DOE

license application rather than to the

DOE site recommendation to the

President as is currently required, and

as was proposed in the proposed rule.

Under § 2.1003(a) and § 2.1001 of the

current regulations, DOE and NRC are

required to make their documentary

material available beginning thirty days

after DOE’s submission of its site

recommendation to the President; other

participants no later than thirty days

after the date that the repository site

selection decision becomes final after

review by Congress. In addition,

§ 2.1009 of the current regulations

requires each potential party, interested

governmental participant, or party to

certify to the Pre-License Application

Presiding Officer that the documentary

material specified in § 2.1003 has been

identified and made electronically

available. However, the current

regulations do not specify when the

initial certification must be made.

Although the Commission did not

propose a change to the § 2.1003(a)

requirement on when documentary

material must be made available, the

Commission had proposed a revision to

§ 2.1009 to clarify that the initial

participant certification of compliance

(‘‘initial certification’’) must be made at

the time that each participant’s

documentary material must be made

available under § 2.1003 of the rule.

The State of Nevada noted that the

LSN is not related to the DOE site

recommendation. Therefore, the date of

availability of documentary material,

and the accompanying certification,

should not be tied to it. Rather, it should

be tied to the DOE license application.

In addition, Nevada pointed out that

there is a good possibility that

significant new or revised information

will be developed by DOE during the

period between the submission of the

site recommendation and the license

application. Therefore, it would be more

efficient to delay certification until a

time that would include the initial

capture of this information. This could

reduce the need for DOE and others to

capture documents that might be

‘‘obsolete, invalid, or irrelevant to the

license application review and hearing.’’

Therefore, Nevada recommended that

certification be tied to some fixed period

of time before the license application

(e.g., six months). According to Nevada,

this would ease the burden of

compliance for all known and potential

parties, eliminate the possibility of

expending resources on unnecessary

review of documents that might be

superseded by the time of license

application, and provide the LSN

Administrator and his staff additional

time to ensure that the system is

properly designed and implemented

using the most up-to-date technology

available. Finally, Nevada

recommended that the date for NRC

compliance be set at the same time as

DOE compliance and that all other

participants must comply after DOE and

NRC compliance (e.g., sixty or ninety

days later).

NEI also disagreed with the

Commission’s proposed revisions

relative to certification, and by

implication, the date of initial

availability of documentary material.

Similar to the Nevada comments, NEI

noted that the purpose of the LSN is to

facilitate review of the DOE license

application, not the DOE Site

Recommendation. NEI recommended

that the timing of initial certification for

DOE be specified as ‘‘no later than six

months in advance of the DOE license

application.’’ Furthermore, NEI asserted

that this time period would be

‘‘consistent with the original

compliance expectation established for

the LSS in 1989.’’ NEI recommended

that NRC compliance be set at the same

time as DOE compliance, and for others

after DOE and NRC compliance. In

summary, NEI stated that ‘‘[o]ther

participants would also not be

encumbered to comply before

compliance would be needed. This

would make the network less likely to

be cluttered with irrelevant information

if DOE were to need to make

adjustments to its repository design for

licensing as a result of comments

received during or conditions placed

upon it by the site recommendation

process. It would also assure that

participants do not confuse the site

recommendation with a licensing

action.’’

DOE submitted comments similar to

those of Nevada and NEI on this issue.

While DOE stated its support for early

access to information, DOE believed that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29459

there is a better way to facilitate focused

contentions for the licensing proceeding

and to ensure an efficient licensing

process than tying DOE’s certification of

its documentary material to the Site

Recommendation. DOE recommended

that the initial certification of

compliance be linked to its submission

of the license application. Furthermore,

DOE noted that it is ‘‘committed to

ensuring that interested members of the

public have a full six months in advance

of its submission of the license

application to review the Department’s

documentary material.’’

DOE’s rationale for its

recommendation was threefold. First, its

recommendation would link the initial

certification to the License Application.

According to DOE, this is consistent

with the basic purpose of the LSN,

which is to support the NRC’s licensing

process rather than the DOE’s Site

Recommendation process. Second, if

certification were tied to the Site

Recommendation, as it is in the

proposed rule, it would be ‘‘virtually

impossible’’ to predict how much time

would be available for review of the

documentary material before the license

application is submitted. In contrast,

tying the certification to the license

application would ensure a defined

period of time for review. In addition,

DOE noted that it may wish to adjust or

otherwise modify its license application

in response to comments resulting from

the Presidential or Congressional review

of the site recommendation or to

incorporate the results of additional

scientific work that will likely take

place during this period. Third, the

approach will provide the necessary and

appropriate flexibility for DOE to

process the documentary material that

will be required to be entered into the

LSN, and to make it more likely that the

material entered will be more fully

developed and current. Accordingly,

DOE recommended revising various

provisions in the rule to require that the

availability of documentary material,

and the accompanying certification,

should occur no later than six months

before DOE’s submission of the license

application. In no event should the

Commission receive the license

application before six months from

when DOE actually made the

certification. DOE’s recommendation

would have NRC and other participant

document availability and certification

occur sixty days after DOE’s

certification.

In response to these comments, the

Commission agrees that a balance needs

to be drawn between the need to

provide an adequate amount of time for

participants to review the documentary

material in advance of the license

application and the need to be as

efficient as practicable in providing this

information. This latter need includes

avoiding the unnecessary expense and

time to DOE and other participants that

may result from making documentary

material available before there is some

certainty that a license application will

become a reality, as well as avoiding the

unnecessary expense and time that may

result from the provision and review of

a significant number of documents that

may later become irrelevant or obsolete.

In terms of the consideration of an

adequate amount of time for

participants to review the documentary

material, the Commission identified

early participant access to the LSN

documentary material as a desirable

objective and this continues to be an

important component of efforts to meet

the mandated three-year timetable for

conducting the NRC’s licensing review,

including any adjudicatory proceeding,

regarding the DOE application because

of the system’s capacity to provide

early, equitable document discovery and

contention formulation for the

participants. The NRC and other

participants have already made

substantial financial and staff resource

commitments to have their document

collections available, as well as the LSN

website ready for the 2001 LSN

operational date which was based on

DOE’s announced schedule. These

commitments were based on the

requirements for document text

availability that have been a regulatory

requirement since 1989.

With these considerations in mind,

and before setting forth its approach on

this issue, in the final rule, the

Commission addresses two of the

several points made by the commentors.

First, in light of the many statements on

‘‘tying’’ the certification to the DOE site

recommendation, the Commission notes

that its initial selection of the

submission of the site recommendation

as the point for DOE and NRC to make

their documentary material available

was to pick a specific event to trigger

the document availability requirements

that would allow sufficient time for

participants to review the material

before DOE submitted the license

application. The time period provided

in the Commission’s current regulations

for the review of documentary material

is based on the DOE site

recommendation to the President

because the approximately eight months

of time between that event and the date

specified for DOE to submit the license

application under the then extant DOE

schedule for the repository, was viewed

by the Commission as an appropriate

amount of time for pre-application

review of pertinent documents. By so

providing, the Commission did not

intend to imply that the focus of the

LSN was the review of the site

recommendation. Second, as noted by

several commentors, the original NRC

rule on the ‘‘Licensing Support System’’

or ‘‘LSS’’ required DOE certification that

it had complied with the document

availability requirements no less than

six months before DOE submitted the

license application.

The Commission agrees that tying

availability and certification to the date

DOE submits (tenders) the license

application is a relatively simple and

straightforward approach to this issue.

The Commission does not entirely agree

with the comments made by Nevada,

NEI, and DOE on the need to eliminate

the expense and time associated with

making documents available when the

certainty of an actual repository license

application may be speculative. The

NRC would not be acting prudently if it

did not begin serious preparations for

the review of a possible DOE license

application. Thus substantial staff and

financial resources have already been

committed in preparing to process such

an application. The Commission

likewise believes that the parties and

potential parties need to prepare for a

possible proceeding. The Commission is

mindful of the fact that there may be

revisions to the DOE site design

resulting from the Presidential and

Congressional review process or new

scientific information gathered during

that period before any DOE application.

However, the Commission is also aware

that the development of the DOE license

application and supporting materials is

an ongoing process that, given the

statutory schedules and the potential

complexity and scope of those

materials, requires that some effort be

expended before it is finally known

whether an application will be received.

The Commission believes that providing

for a six-month period of DOE

documentary material availability before

DOE submits (tenders) the license

application reflects an appropriate

amount of pre-license application

review time for participants to prepare

for the licensing proceeding. The

Commission thus has established the

following framework on this issue in the

final rule:

• DOE is required to make its

documentary material available, and to

provide an initial certification of

compliance, no later than six months

before DOE submits (tenders) the license

application;

29460 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2The Commission’s expectation is that DOE will

comply with both the Commission’s requirements

on initial certification and the requirement in

Section 114(b) of the NWPA that DOE submit

(tender) the license application not later than ninety

days after the date on which the recommendation

of site designation is effective. However, the

Commission would also note that this does not

mean that the Commission has any role in ensuring

DOE compliance with the Section 114(b)

requirement.

3As specified in § 2.1003, DOE and the other

participants remain responsible for incorporating

all their ‘‘documentary material’’ that meets the

requirements of that definition in § 2.1001,

including material that is relevant to, but does not

support, DOE positions in the high-level waste

repository proceeding, and any reports or studies

relevant to the license application or the Topical

Guideline issues in Regulatory Guide 3.69,

regardless of whether they are cited and/or relied

upon by a party. Because the LSN will be populated

during the pre-application phase of the proceeding

before there are any party ‘‘contentions’’ defining

the matters in controversy, whether this section

2.1001 ‘‘documentary material’’ is ‘‘relevant’’ must

necessarily be defined in terms of whether it (1) has

any possible bearing on a party’s supporting

information or a party’s position for which the party

intends to provide supporting information; or (2) is

a report or study that has a bearing on the license

application any of the Regulatory Guide 3.69

Topical Guideline issues. See Commonwealth

Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB–

196, 7 AEC 457, 462 (1974).

4The adopted change in the compliance

certification dates creates the possibility that there

could be a significant period between the time the

• NRC is required to make its

documentary material available, and to

provide an initial certification of

compliance, thirty days after the DOE

certification. Although the current

regulations require NRC compliance at

the same time as DOE compliance,

under the ‘‘six months before DOE

submits the license application’’

approach in the final rule, the NRC, like

other participants, will have no

certainty as to when the DOE

certification will be made until it

actually happens. Therefore, to

eliminate unnecessary coordination

effort, the NRC will be permitted to

certify thirty days after the DOE

certification. As explained in the next

paragraph, other participants will have

ninety days after the DOE certification

before being required to make their

documents available. Due to the fact

that the NRC will have a substantial

amount of documentary material, the

Commission wants to ensure that the

NRC material will be available as soon

as practicable (i.e., thirty days) after the

DOE certification;

• The other participants will be

required to make their documentary

material available, and to provide an

initial certification of compliance,

ninety days after the DOE certification;

• NRC will not accept the DOE

license application for docketing until at

least six months have passed since the

DOE certification of compliance.

Regarding this requirement, the

Commission notes that the pendency of

a dispute contesting some aspect of the

DOE initial certification would not be a

reason to delay the NRC acceptance of

the DOE license application.

Delaying docketing until the requisite

six-months have passed since DOE’s

certification of the availability of the

DOE documents will mitigate the need,

as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for the proposed rule, for

the Commission to report to the

Secretary of Energy and the Congress,

pursuant to section 114(e)(2) of the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that it could

not meet the three-year review required

under section 114(d) of the Act because

DOE was unable to comply with the

LSN rule. As noted in Footnote 1, the

Commission interprets the requirement

in Section 114(d) of the NWPA that the

Commission ‘‘shall issue a final

decision approving or disapproving the

issuance of a construction authorization

not later than three years after the date

of submission’’ of the license

application, as three years from the

docketing of the license application.2

The Commission is also deleting from

the final rule the provision in proposed

§ 2.1009(c) that would have required

DOE to report to the Pre-License

Application Presiding Officer in the

event that it could not make the initial

certification when required. Under the

framework in the proposed rule, there

was a possibility that a delay in the

initial certification by DOE could

substantially affect the time provided

for advance review of the documentary

material. Reporting to the Presiding

Officer on the status of the initial

certification would have been necessary

and appropriate under such

circumstances. In addition, under the

framework in the final rule, if DOE fails

to make its initial certification pursuant

to Section 2.1009(b) in a timely manner,

at least six months prior to tendering its

application, the Commission will not

docket the application until six months

after initial certification. Not permitting

earlier docketing will provide the six

months of access to DOE documents

that was intended under the provision

of Section 2.1009(b). Finally, the

Commission is eliminating the

provision in § 2.1009(b) of the current

regulations that requires the responsible

official for a participant to update at

twelve month intervals the intial

certification that the documentary

material specified in § 2.1003 has been

made available. Based on the framework

in the final rule, as well as the

repository schedule in the NWPA, it is

unlikely that there will be a need for a

twelve month update.

The Commission believes that it

would be useful to emphasize two

points regarding the availability of

documentary material:

(1) What constitutes ‘‘documentary

material?’’; and

(2) When are documents created after

the initial certification of compliance

required to be made available?

The definition of documentary

material in the current regulations

includes three separate classes of

material, and is guided by the Topical

Guidelines in NRC Regulatory Guide

3.69. The three classes of documentary

material are:

(1) Any information on which a party,

potential party, or interested

governmental participant intends to rely

and/or cite in support of its position in

the HLW proceeding;

(2) Any information that is known to,

and in the possession of, or developed

by the party that is relevant to, but does

not support, that information noted in

item 1 or that party’s position; and

(3) All reports and studies prepared

by or on behalf of the potential party,

interested governmental participant, or

party, including all related ‘‘circulated

drafts’’ relevant to the license

application and the issues set forth in

the Topical Guidelines regardless of

whether they will be relied upon or

cited by a party.

Material in any of the three classes

must be made available in the LSN. The

three classes encompass a broad scope

of material, as appropriate for an

electronic information management

system that was intended to provide

document discovery rights similar to

that normally available in NRC licensing

proceedings.3

Documentary material created after

the initial certification of compliance is

expected to be made available

reasonably contemporaneous with its

creation, rather than stored for entry as

a group at some point during the

remaining time before DOE submits the

license application. This concept has

been part of the regulatory framework

since the original LSS rule was issued

in 1989 (April 14, 1989; 54 FR 14925 at

14934) and is based on the need to

provide participants with early and

useful access to documentary material

before DOE submits the license

application. As DOE noted in its

comments on the proposed rule, new

information will continue to be

produced during the period before it

submits the license application.

Participants must have timely access to

this material in order to prepare for the

licensing proceeding.4

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29461

LSN central site becomes operational and the dates

upon which DOE and other potential parties must

provide certifications that their existing section

2.1003 documentary material is accessible. The

required certification dates notwithstanding, the

Commission strongly recommends that all those

who are parties or potential parties to the HLW

repository proceeding make every effort to provide

access to as much of their existing section 2.1003

documentary material as soon as possible after the

LSN central site is operational. Providing such precertification access can only inure to the benefit of

both the LSN central site’s operator and users in

terms of maximizing the LSN’s efficiency and

effectiveness.

III. The LSN Site Design

As was described in the proposed

rule, the Commission intends to

implement a design for the ‘‘central LSN

site’’ that will ensure that the totality of

the individual websites operate in an

‘‘efficient and effective’’ manner. The

final design standards for individual

participant LSN websites are fully

consistent and supportive of the design

for the central LSN site. To evaluate the

alternative designs for the central LSN

site, the Technical Working Group of

the LSNARP identified and

characterized five design alternatives for

review by the full Advisory Panel.

These alternatives were then reviewed

by the full LSNARP. The LSN

Administrator then evaluated the

recommendations of the Advisory

Review Panel in preparing a Capital

Planning and Investment Control (CPIC)

Business Case Analysis for review by

the NRC Information Technology

Business Council. Two of the

alternatives identified by the Technical

Working Group, Alternatives 2 and 4,

were not included in this analysis

because no members of the LSNARP

supported these alternatives. The CPIC

and the recommendations of the

Information Technology Business

Council were then reviewed by the

former NRC Executive Council.

In the Business Case Analysis, the

LSN Administrator recommended the

selection of the alternative originally

identified as ‘‘Alternative 3’’ (Design

Option 2 in the Regulatory Analysis) in

the report of the LSNARP Technical

Working Group. The Administrator’s

recommendation was supported by the

Information Technology Business

Council and the former NRC Executive

Council. A summary comparison of the

alternative designs is included in the

Regulatory Analysis for this rule. The

entire Business Case Analysis (with

budgetary data redacted) is available via

the NRC website in ADAMS at

accession number ML003722758 or,

from the LSN Administrator as

indicated above in this notice.

The recommended design is an LSN

home page/website based on portal

software technology. Web portals

include hardware and software capable

of: Indexing all bibliographic data and

text documents on a web server;

establishing a baseline; and then

routinely revisiting those servers to

compare new findings against the

previous baseline. The single LSN web

page standardizes search and retrieval

across all collections by providing a

common user search interface, rather

than requiring users to learn the search

and retrieval commands from each

different site.

Each participant website acts as a file

server to deliver the text documents

responsive to a query found through a

search at the LSN web site. The LSN

identifies the contents of each server

and stores this information in its own

database, which is then used to respond

to searches. Users are presented lists of

candidate documents that are

responsive to their search. When the

user wants to view a document, the LSN

directs the participant server to deliver

the file back to the user.

In addition to the search and retrieval,

the LSN keeps track of how data was

stored in the participant servers.

Software assigns a unique identifying

number to each file found on a server.

The LSN software uses its baseline

information about documents to identify

when the participants have updated

data on their servers. It also gathers

information about the performance of

the participants’ servers including

availability, number of text or image

files delivered, and their response times.

Finally, the central LSN site will be

used to post announcements about the

overall LSN program and items of

interest (hours of availability, scheduled

outages, etc.) for the participant sites.

The Commission believes that the

recommended design represents the

least cost to both NRC and the

individual parties to the HLW licensing

proceeding, while at the same time

providing high value to the users.

Because it is based on a proven

technical solution that has been

successfully implemented, the

recommended design will provide a

document discovery system that will

facilitate the NRC’s ability to comply

with the schedule for decision on the

repository construction authorization;

provide an electronic environment that

facilitates a thorough technical review

of relevant documentary material;

ensure equitable access to the

information for the parties to the HLW

licensing proceeding; ensure that

document integrity has been maintained

for the duration of the licensing

proceeding; most consistently provide

the information tools needed to organize

and access large participant collections;

feature adequately scaled and adaptable

hardware and software; and include

comprehensive security, backup, and

recovery capabilities.

IV. The Final Rule

To clarify the scope of this

rulemaking, the Commission

emphasizes that the requirements in the

final rule are solely directed at the

participants’ obligations to make

documentary material available during

the pre-license application phase and

are not directly related to the

procedures for use of the adjudicatory

docket for the hearing on the DOE

license application. Regarding the

adjudicatory docket, the current

regulations in § 2.1013(b) require that,

absent good cause, all exhibits tendered

during the hearing must have been

made available to the parties in

electronic form before the

commencement of that portion of the

hearing in which the exhibit will be

offered. In addition, § 2.1013(c)(1)

requires that all filings in the

adjudicatory proceeding on the license

application shall be transmitted

electronically by the submitter

according to established format

requirements. Although care has been

taken in the development of this final

rule to not unnecessarily foreclose any

format options for filings in the

adjudicatory proceeding, the specific

requirements for the format of these

filings will be addressed in a separate

rulemaking or order.

1. Design Standards

The successful implementation of a

system to connect diverse collections of

documents stored by the participants on

a wide range of hardware and software

platforms depends on the use of data

structure and transfer standards and

protocols. Adherence to these standards

ensures usability and exchangeability to

the users and verifiability of data

integrity to the LSN Administrator.

These design standards are generally

accepted data structure and transfer

protocols currently in use in the Internet

environment and reflect a ‘‘lowest

common denominator’’ for participant

websites while allowing the participants

the flexibility to select the specific

technologies (hardware and software)

for their websites. The Commission is

implementing a design for the ‘‘central

LSN site’’ that will ensure that the

totality of the individual websites

operate in an ‘‘effective and efficient’’

manner. This ‘‘central LSN site’’ design

complements the capabilities of, and

relies on compatibility with, the design

standards for individual participant

29462 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

LSN websites. A new paragraph (b)(2) is

added to Section 2.1011 containing the

following design standards:

(i) The participants must make textual

(or, where non-text, image) versions of

their documents available on a webaccessible server. The NRC’s LSN web

indexing software (also known as a

robot, a spider, or a crawler) must be

able to canvass data files and server log

files on the participant server. This

provision establishes a baseline of data

and documents placed on participant

systems and a means to revisit those

servers routinely to identify any changes

to documents. This revision is

consistent with the Administrator’s

responsibility under 10 CFR 2.1011(c)(4)

to resolve problems regarding the

integrity of LSN documentary material.

This revision does not affect the ability

of parties or potential parties to correct

or revise documents already made

available on their websites. Changes to

documents previously entered are

permitted if:

(1) A corrected or updated document

is noted as superseding a previously

provided document;

(2) The previous version is not

removed; and,

(3) Other parties or potential parties

are notified of the change either on the

participant’s LSN website or on the

central LSN site.

As noted previously, notice may be

posted on the participant’s LSN website,

and if access to participant LSN

websites is through the central LSN site

portal, as now contemplated, the

participant must notify the LSN

Administrator, and the central LSN site

will notify users of the updated

information through a notice on the

central LSN site’s webpage. The notice

on the central LSN site will contain

listings of changes, if any, to each

participant’s collection, identified by

LSN accession number, with a

description of what the change was and

why it was necessary.

(ii) The participants must make

bibliographic header data available in

an HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol)

accessible, ODBC (Open Database

Connectivity) and SQL (Structured

Query Language)-compliant (ANSI

IX3.135–1992/ISO 9075–1992) database

management system (DBMS).

Alternatively, the structured data

containing the bibilographic header may

be made available in a standard

database readable (e.g., XML (Extensible

Markup Language http://www.w3.org/

xml/), comma delimited, or comma

separated value (.csv)) file.

These criteria provide acceptable

electronic formats for parties to provide

bibliographical information on a

document or the full text of a document

on their individual web pages in a form

that can be searched by the central LSN

web site. This amendment identifies

multiple ways by which parties or

potential parties can make a

bibliographic header available for use by

the LSN. ODBC and SQL-compliant

identifies a broad range of widely used

database products with proven data

exchange capability. SQL is a standard

interactive and programming language

for accessing and updating a database.

The option for providing readable files

establishes a low system cost threshold

for participants in that it does not

require investment in a DBMS, yet still

provides for data formatting so that

import routines can be easily developed.

XML is a flexible way to create common

information formats and share both the

format and the data on the world wide

web, intranets, and elsewhere. A

‘‘comma delimited’’ file is a way to

identify where a particular relational

database file begins and ends. A

‘‘comma delimited file’’ or a ‘‘comma

separated value (.csv) file’’ are ways to

identify where the column values for

each row in a particular data file begin

and end so that it can be conveyed as

input to another table-oriented

application such as a database or

spreadsheet application.

(iii) Textual material must be

formatted to comply with the ISO/IEC

8859–1 character set and be in one of

the following acceptable formats: ASCII,

native word processing (Word,

WordPerfect), PDF (Portable Document

Format) Normal, or HTML. This

revision simplifies data exchange by

standardizing on the standard Latin

alphabet. It also identifies a broad range

of widely used text file formats (which

the LSN participants can designate) for

text documents that are viewable with

current browser/viewer software and

can be recognized by state-of-technology

indexing software.

(iv) Image files must be formatted as

TIFF (Tag Image File Format) CCITT G4

for bi-tonal images or PNG (Portable

Network Graphics) per [http://

www.w3.org/TR/REC-png-multi.html]

format for grey-scale or color images, or

PDF (Portable Document Format—

Image). TIFF, PNG, or PDF images will

be stored at 300 dpi (dots per inch) or

greater, grey scale images at 150 dpi or

greater with eight bits of tonal depth,

and color images at 150 dpi or greater

with 24 bits of color depth. Participants

should store images on their servers as

single image-per-page to facilitate

retrieval of no more than a single page.

Alternatively, images may be stored in

an image-per-document format if

software is incorporated in the web

server that allows image-page

representation and delivery. A ‘‘Tag

Image File Format’’ or ‘‘TIFF’’ is a

common format for exchanging faster

(bitmapped) images between application

programs. This revision establishes

three standard formats, usable by the

LSN, that parties or potential parties can

use to make non-textual documentary

materials viewable with current

browser/viewer software. These

standards all use predictable algorithms

for compression and uncompression of

files to help ensure compatibility and

usability. Additionally, all these

standard formats have attributes that

can be used to verify that an image file

has not been revised since initially

being placed on a participant’s server.

(v) The parties or potential parties

must programmatically link, preferably

via hyperlink or some other automated

process, the bibliographic header record

with the text or image file (or both if

provided by the participant) it

represents to provide for file delivery

and display from participant machines

via the LSN system. This revision

establishes basic information

management controls to clearly and

systematically link the bibliographic

record entry with the document it

describes. Each participant’s system

must afford the LSN software enough

information to allow a text or image file

to be identified to the bibliographic data

which describes it.

(vi) To facilitate data exchange,

participants must follow hardware and

software standards, including, but not

limited to:

(1) Network access must be HTTP/1.1

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html]

over TCP (Transmission Control

Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]);

(2) Associating server names with IP

addresses must follow the DNS (Domain

Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/

rfcs/rfc1034.html] and [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html];

(3) Web page construction must be

HTML [http://www.w3.org/TR/REChtml40/];

(4) Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange

between e-mail servers must be SMTP

(Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http:/

/www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html]; and

(5) Format of an electronic mail

message must be per [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html]

optionally extended by MIME

(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)

per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc2045.html] to accommodate

multipurpose e-mail.

This revision identifies standard data

exchange protocols commonly used in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29463

the Internet environment to help ensure

data exchange and usability.

2. The Role of the LSN Administrator

The role of the LSN Administrator

under the current regulations is to

coordinate access to, and the

functioning of, the LSN, as well as to

coordinate the resolution of problems

regarding the availability and integrity

of documentary material and data. As a

necessary supplement to the

specification of the design standards set

forth in this rule, the Commission

believes that the LSN Administrator

should have additional responsibilities.

Section 2.1011(c)(6) of the final rule

gives the LSN Administrator the

responsibility to review all participant

website designs to ensure that they meet

the design standards and to allow

variances from the design standards to

accommodate changes in technology or

problems identified during initial

operability testing of the individual

participant LSN websites or the ‘‘central

LSN site.’’ Section 2.1011(c)(7) gives the

Administrator the authority to develop

and issue guidance for LSN participants

on how best to incorporate the LSN

standards in their system. Any disputes

related to the Administrator’s evaluation

of participant compliance with the

design standards would be referred to

the Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer under the authority of § 2.1010

of the current regulations.

Sections 2.1011(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the

current regulations gives the

Administrator the responsibility to

‘‘coordinate the resolution of problems’’

regarding ‘‘LSN availability’’ and the

‘‘integrity of documentary material’’,

respectively. To be more explicit

regarding the Administrator’s

responsibilities, the Commission is

amending these sections to authorize

the Administrator to identify problems,

notify the participant(s) of the nature of

these problems, and recommend a

course of action to the participant(s) to

resolve the problem concerning LSN

availability (§ 2.1011(c)(3)), or the

integrity of documentary material

(§ 2.1011(c)(4)). The LSN Administrator

will also report these problems and

recommended resolutions to the PreLicense Application Presiding Officer

provided for in § 2.1010 of the final rule.

All disputes over the LSN

Administrator’s recommendations as to

documentary material or data

availability and integrity will be referred

to the Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer.

3. The Timing of Participant

Compliance Determinations

Under § 2.1003(a) of the current

regulations, DOE and NRC are required

to make their documentary material

available beginning thirty days after

DOE’s submission of its site

recommendation to the President; other

participants no later than thirty days

after the date that the repository site

selection decision becomes final after

review by Congress. In addition,

§ 2.1009 of the current regulations

requires each potential party, interested

governmental participant, or party to

certify to the Pre-License Application

Presiding Officer that the documentary

material specified in § 2.1003 has been

identified and made electronically

available. However, the current

regulations do not specify when the

initial certification must be made.

Although the Commission did not

propose a change to the § 2.1003(a)

requirement on when documentary

material must be made available, the

Commission did propose a revision to

§ 2.1009 to clarify that the initial

participant certification of compliance

(‘‘initial certification’’) must be made at

the time that each participant’s

documentary material is made available

under § 2.1003.

Based on an evaluation of the

comments submitted on this issue in

response to the proposed rule, the

Commission is adopting the following

amendments to the documentary

availability and certification

requirements of the rule:

(1) Section 2.1003(a) is amended to

require DOE to make its documentary

material available at least six months

before it submits (tenders) the license

application for the HLW repository.

NRC shall make its documentary

material available thirty days after the

DOE initial certification of compliance

under § 2.1009. Each other potential

party, interested governmental

participant or party shall make its

documentary material available ninety

days after the DOE initial certification of

compliance under § 2.1009.

(2) Section 2.1009 is amended to

clarify that the initial participant

certification of compliance (‘‘initial

certification’’) must be made at the time

that each participant’s documentary

material is made available under

§ 2.1003.

Section 2.1012(a) has been amended

to specify that the Director of the NRC’s

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards may determine that the

license application is not acceptable for

docketing until a period of six months

has elapsed since the DOE initial

certification under § 2.1009.

In addition, the Commission is

adopting the following related

amendments to the rule:

(1) In § 2.1001 the definition of ‘‘PreLicense Application Phase’’ has been

revised to note that the pre-license

application phase is the period of time

before the license application for the

HLW repository is docketed.

(2) Section 2.1003(a)(2) has been

amended to clarify that a bibliographic

header is required for graphic-oriented

material.

(3) Section 2.1010(b) has been

amended to specify that the Pre-License

Application Presiding Officer may be

designated at any point in time during

the pre-license application phase that

the Commission finds appropriate, but

in any event no later than fifteen days

after the date of the DOE initial

certification under § 2.1009.

(4) The definition of ‘‘Bibliographic

Header’’ in § 2.1001 has been revised to

delete references to a ‘‘full header.’’ In

addition, the definition of ‘‘Full

Header’’ in § 2.1001 has been deleted.

The ‘‘full header’’ concept was

originally part of the implementation

framework for the original LSS rule but

no longer has any viability under the

present framework.

(5) The reference in § 2.1003(a)(2)(xv)

to ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)’’ has been revised to

read ‘‘in this paragraph’’. There is no

paragraph (b)(1) in § 2.1003.

Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L.

104–113, requires that Federal agencies

use technical standards that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies unless

using such a standard is inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. This final rule establishes

basic design standards that participant

LSN websites must use to participate in

the LSN. The standards in the final rule

are based on World Wide Web

Consortium (W3) standards, and/or the

International Standards Organization

(ISO) standards and are not governmentunique standards.

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

regulation is the type of action

described in categorical exclusion 10

CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared.

29464 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The final rule does not contain

information collection requirements and

therefore is not subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

Public Protection Notification

If a means used to impose an

information collection does not display

a currently valid OMB control number,

the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,

and a person is not required to respond

to, the information collection.

Regulatory Analysis

The following regulatory analysis

identifies several alternatives

(‘‘regulatory options’’) to the

Commission’s required design standards

for the design of individual participant

websites. It also provides information

on the LSN Administrator’s evaluation

of alternatives for the ‘‘LSN site’’

(‘‘design options’’).

Regulatory Options. Option 1 would

retain the status quo of the existing rule

consisting of requirements for

participants to provide their

documentary material in electronic

form. This material would be supplied

on individual participant websites. No

requirements would be established to

ensure that the information on the

participant websites was readily

available to other participants in a

timely manner. Option 2 would provide

for the development of suggested design

standards by the LSN Administrator in

consultation with the LSNARP.

Individual participants would be free to

adopt or reject these suggested

standards. Option 3 is reflected in the

final rule. This Option establishes basic

design standards for individual websites

but also provides for flexibility in the

implementation of the standards.

Regarding Option 1, the Commission

believes that the role of the LSN for

providing a document discovery system

to minimize delay in the HLW licensing

proceeding, as well as for facilitating the

effective review and use of relevant

licensing information by all parties, is

too important not to provide contextual

guidance to the parties and potential

parties in the design of individual

websites. Individual participant

judgments on the costs and benefits of

providing data without a contextual

framework of what is necessary to

provide for effective data availability

may compromise effective design.

Without this guidance, the funds that

have been spent on the design and

development of the LSN could be

compromised by poor implementation.

Option 2 would attempt to provide

suggested standards through the LSN

Administrator and the LSN Advisory

Review Panel. Unfortunately, there is no

assurance of consensus on the

standards, or that any consensus

standards would be followed even if

they were developed. As with Option 1,

the Commission believes that the role of

the LSN in the HLW licensing

proceeding is too important not to

establish minimal standards to ensure

effective operation. Therefore, the

Commission has adopted Option 3

which is reflected in the final rule.

Central LSN Site Design Options. To

evaluate the alternative designs for the

‘‘LSN site’’, the Technical Working

Group of the LSNARP identified and

characterized five design alternatives for

review by the full Advisory Panel.

These alternatives were then reviewed

by the full LSNARP. Two of the

alternatives that were identified by the

Technical Working Group, Alternatives

2 and 4, were not included in this

analysis because no members of the LSN

Advisory Review Panel supported these

alternatives. Therefore, the Commission

ultimately considered three options for

the design architecture of the central

LSN site and its interaction with

participant document collection

websites: Design Option 1 (TWG

Alternative 1); Design Option 2 (TWG

Alternative 3); and Design Option 3

(TWG Alternative 5).

Design Option 1 is characterized by

an LSN homepage/website that points

end-users to the web accessible

documentary collections of each of the

participants. The LSN homepage/

website adds no value to the inherent

information management capabilities

found at any of the participant sites. The

‘‘central LSN site’’ simply serves as a

pointer to other home pages. This

option provides no search and retrieval

or file delivery processes to any user.

The participant website provides the

sole search and retrieval tools to access

its text documents. Participants may use

any software to provide text search and

retrieval, and those packages may

represent a wide range of capabilities

from minimal to fully featured.

The recommended design, Design

Option 2, is characterized by a central

LSN homepage/website developed using

portal software technology. Web portals

represent a fully featured hardware and

software environment capable of

‘‘crawling’’ participant documentary

collection websites, characterizing (to

the byte level) all structured and

unstructured data located at that site,

establishing a snapshot at defined

points-in-time as baselines, and then

routinely ‘‘recrawling’’ those sites and

comparing new findings against the

previous baseline. Portal software adds

significant value to the inherent

information management capabilities

found at any of the participant sites.

Each participant website acts as a file

server to deliver to Internet users the

text documents responsive to a query

found through a search at the central

LSN website.

Under a portal architecture, the LSN

would organize and identify the

contents of participant collections in its

own underlying database environment

for structured data and would index

unstructured data located at a

‘‘crawled’’ location. The portal software

uses these underlying databases to

respond to search queries with lists of

candidate documents that are

responsive to a user’s request. When the

user seeks to retrieve the file, the portal

software directs the request back to the

original source (participant) collection

server that directly delivers the file back

to the user. Portal software provides a

single user search interface rather than

requiring users to learn the search and

retrieval commands from each different

site. Portal software also assigns a

unique identifying number to each file

regardless of file location.

Design Option 3 is identical to Design

Option 2 except that (1) when the user

seeks to retrieve the file, the portal

software delivers the document to a user

from the copy maintained on a very

large storage unit that would be

maintained by the LSN Administrator;

and (2) the storage cache is provided

with high-capacity bandwidth under the

control of the Administrator.

The Commission believes that Design

Option 1 is of low benefit in terms of

delivering efficient or effective access to

users and shifts the cost burden to

individual participants. This Option

creates a significant risk that system

implementation and operation issues

may result in disputes whose resolution

could have a negative impact on the

NRC’s ability to meet its three-year

schedule for making a decision on

repository construction authorization.

The Commission would also note that

the LSNARP Technical Working Group

did not believe that Design Option 1

provided the functionality necessary for

the system to be effective.

Although Design Option 3 adds value

over and above the design in Design

Option 2, it has the highest cost of all

alternatives. Design Option 3, while it

offers more assurance of performance

and document delivery, has initial costs

to NRC almost double those of Design

Option 2, which fulfills the same

number of functional requirements as

Design Option 3. Design Option 3 may

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29465

also present a potential difficulty for the

LSN Administrator, who would be in a

position of being accountable for the

availability, accuracy, integrity, and

custodial chain of participant materials.

The Commission believes that the

recommended design represents the

least cost to both NRC and the

individual parties to the HLW licensing

proceeding, while at the same time

providing high value to the users. It is

based on a proven technical solution

that has been successfully implemented;

it will provide a document discovery

system that will facilitate the NRC’s

ability to comply with the schedule for

decision on the repository construction

authorization; it provides an electronic

environment that facilitates a thorough

technical review of relevant

documentary material; it ensures

equitable access to the information for

the parties to the HLW licensing

proceeding; and it ensures that

document integrity is maintained for the

duration of the licensing proceeding.

Design Option 2 most consistently

provides the information tools needed

to organize and access large participant

collections. It features adequately scaled

and adaptable hardware and software

and includes comprehensive security,

backup, and recovery capabilities.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the

Commission has evaluated the impact of

the final rule on small entities. The NRC

has established standards for

determining who qualifies as small

entities (10 CFR 2.810). The

Commission certifies that this final rule

does not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities. The amendments modify the

NRC’s rules of practice and procedure

regarding the HLW licensing

proceeding. Participants will be

required to make their documentary

material available electronically on a

website that complies with the basic

design standards established in the final

rule. Some of the participants affected

by the final rule, for example, DOE,

NRC, the State of Nevada, would not fall

within the definition of ‘‘small entity’’

under the NRC’s size standards. Other

parties and potential parties may qualify

as ‘‘small entities’’ under these size

standards. However, the required

standards reflect standard business

practice for making material

electronically available. In addition, the

requirements provide flexibility to

participants in how these standards are

implemented. No comments were

submitted on this issue in response to

the proposed rule.

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that a

backfit analysis is not required for this

final rule because these amendments

would not include any provisions that

require backfits as defined in 10 CFR

Chapter I.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has

determined that this action is not a

major rule and verified this

determination with the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct

material, Classified information,

Environmental protection, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination,

Source material, Special nuclear

material, Waste treatment and disposal.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553;

the NRC is adopting the following

amendments to 10 CFR part 2.

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS

1. The authority citation for Part 2

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948,

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec.

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552.

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53,

62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932,

933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42

U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134,

2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat.

2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)); sec.

102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104,

2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103,

104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133,

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234,

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (i), (o), 2236,

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).

Sections 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. L.

101–410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by

section 31001(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat.

1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections

2.600–2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub.

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42

U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754,

2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C.

557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs.

135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241

(42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also

issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552.

Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under

5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under

5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–256, 71

Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).

Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat.

955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97–

425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart

L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42

U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under

sec. 6, Pub. L. 91–560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42

U.S.C. 2135).

2. In § 2.1001, the definition of ‘‘Full

header’’ is removed and the definitions

of ‘‘Bibliographic header’’ and ‘‘Prelicense application phase’’ are revised to

read as follows:

§ 2.1001 Definitions.

Bibliographic header means the

minimum series of descriptive fields

that a potential party, interested

governmental participant, or party must

submit with a document or other

material.

* * * * *

Pre-license application phase means

the time period before the license

application to receive and possess highlevel radioactive waste at a geologic

repository operations area is docketed

under § 2.101(f)(3).

* * * * *

3. In § 2.1003, the introductory text of

paragraphs (a) and (a)(2), and paragraph

(a)(2)(xv) are revised to read as follows:

§ 2.1003 Availability of material.

(a) Subject to the exclusions in

§ 2.1005 and paragraphs (b) and (c) of

this section, DOE shall make available,

no later than six months in advance of

submitting its license application to

receive and possess high-level

radioactive waste at a geologic

repository operations area, the NRC

shall make available no later than thirty

days after the DOE certification of

compliance under § 2.1009(b), and each

other potential party, interested

governmental participant or party shall

make available no later than ninety days

after the DOE certification of

compliance under § 2.1009(b)—

* * * * *

(2) In electronic image format, subject

to the claims of privilege in § 2.1006,

graphic-oriented documentary material

that includes raw data, computer runs,

computer programs and codes, field

notes, laboratory notes, maps, diagrams

and photographs, which have been

29466 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

printed, scripted, or hand written. Text

embedded within these documents need

not be separately entered in searchable

full text. A bibliographic header must be

provided for all graphic-oriented

documentary material. Graphic-oriented

documents may include—

* * * * *

(xv) Descriptive material related to the

information identified in this paragraph.

* * * * *

4. In § 2.1009, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 2.1009 Procedures.

* * * * *

(b) The responsible official designated

under paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall certify to the Pre-License

Application Presiding Officer that the

procedures specified in paragraph (a)(2)

of this section have been implemented,

and that to the best of his or her

knowledge, the documentary material

specified in § 2.1003 has been identified

and made electronically available. The

initial certification must be made at the

time the participant is required to

comply with § 2.1003. The responsible

official for the DOE shall also update

this certification at the time DOE

submits the license application.

5. In § 2.1010, paragraph (a)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 2.1010 Pre-License Application Presiding

Officer.

(a) * * *

(2) The Pre-License Application

Presiding Officer shall be designated at

such time during the pre-license

application phase as the Commission

finds it appropriate, but in any event no

later than fifteen days after the DOE

certification of initial compliance under

§ 2.1009(b).

* * * * *

6. In § 2.1011, paragraphs (b), (c)(3),

and (c)(4) are revised and paragraphs

(c)(6) and (c)(7) are added to read as

follows:

§ 2.1011 Management of electronic

information.

* * * * *

(b)(1) The NRC, DOE, parties, and

potential parties participating in

accordance with the provision of this

subpart shall be responsible for

obtaining the computer system

necessary to comply with the

requirements for electronic document

production and service.

(2) The NRC, DOE, parties, and

potential parties participating in

accordance with the provision of this

subpart shall comply with the following

standards in the design of the computer

systems necessary to comply with the

requirements for electronic document

production and service:

(i) The participants shall make textual

(or, where non-text, image) versions of

their documents available on a web

accessible server which is able to be

canvassed by web indexing software

(i.e., a ‘‘robot’’, ‘‘spider’’, ‘‘crawler’’) and

the participant system must make both

data files and log files accessible to this

software.

(ii) The participants shall make

bibliographic header data available in

an HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol)

accessible, ODBC (Open Database

Connectivity) and SQL (Structured

Query Language)-compliant (ANSI

IX3.135–1992/ISO 9075–1992) database

management system (DBMS).

Alternatively, the structured data

containing the bibliographic header may

be made available in a standard

database readable (e.g., XML (Extensible

Markup Language http://www.w3.org/

xml/), comma delimited, or comma

separated value (.csv)) file.

(iii) Textual material must be

formatted to comply with the ISO/IEC

8859–1 character set and be in one of

the following acceptable formats: ASCII,

native word processing (Word,

WordPerfect), PDF Normal, or HTML.

(iv) Image files must be formatted as

TIFF CCITT G4 for bi-tonal images or

PNG (Portable Network Graphics) per

[http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-pngmulti.html]) format for grey-scale or

color images, or PDF (Portable

Document Format—Image). TIFF, PDF,

or PNG images will be stored at 300 dpi

(dots per inch) or greater, grey scale

images at 150 dpi or greater with eight

bits of tonal depth, and color images at

150 dpi or greater with 24 bits of color

depth. Images found on participant

machines will be stored as single imageper-page to facilitate retrieval of no

more than a single page, or alternatively,

images may be stored in an image-perdocument format if software is

incorporated in the web server that

allows image-per-page representation

and delivery.

(v) The participants shall

programmatically link, preferably via

hyperlink or some other automated

process, the bibliographic header record

with the text or image file it represents.

Each participant’s system must afford

the LSN software enough information to

allow a text or image file to be identified

to the bibliographic data that describes

it.

(vi) To facilitate data exchange,

participants shall adhere to hardware

and software standards, including, but

not limited to:

(A) Network access must be HTTP/1.1

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2068.html]

over TCP (Transmission Control

Protocol, [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc793.html]) over IP (Internet Protocol,

[http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc791.html]).

(B) Associating server names with IP

addresses must follow the DNS (Domain

Name System), [http://www.faqs.org/

rfcs/rfc1034.html] and [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html].

(C) Web page construction must be

HTML [http://www.w3.org/TR/REChtml40/].

(D) Electronic mail (e-mail) exchange

between e-mail servers must be SMTP

(Simple Mail Transport Protocol, [http:/

/www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html]).

(E) Format of an electronic mail

message must be per [http://

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html]

optionally extended by MIME

(Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)

per [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

rfc2045.html]) to accommodate

multipurpose e-mail.

(c) * * *

(3) Identify any problems experienced

by participants regarding LSN

availability, including the availability of

individual participant’s data, and

provide a recommendation to resolve

any such problems to the participant(s)

and the Pre-License Application

Presiding Officer relative to the

resolution of any disputes regarding

LSN availability, including disputes on

the availability of an individual

participant’s data;

(4) Identify any problems regarding

the integrity of documentary material

certified in accordance with § 2.1009(b)

by the participants to be in the LSN, and

provide a recommendation to resolve

any such problems to the participant(s)

and the Pre-License Application

Presiding Officer relative to the

resolution of any disputes regarding the

integrity of documentary material;

* * * * *

(6) Evaluate LSN participant

compliance with the basic design

standards in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section, and provide for individual

variances from the design standards to

accommodate changes in technology or

problems identified during initial

operability testing of the individual

documentary collection websites or the

‘‘central LSN site’’.

(7) Issue guidance for LSN

participants on how best to comply with

the design standards in paragraph (b)(2)

of this section.

* * * * *

7. In § 2.1012, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29467

§ 2.1012 Compliance.

(a) If the Department of Energy fails to

make its initial certification at least six

months prior to tendering the

application, upon receipt of the

tendered application, notwithstanding

the provisions of § 2.101(f)(3), the

Director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards will not

docket the application until at least six

months have elapsed from the time of

certification. The Director may

determine that the tendered application

is not acceptable for docketing under

this subpart if the application is not

accompanied by an updated

certification pursuant to § 2.1009(b), or

if the Secretary of the Commission

determines that the application cannot

be effectively accessed through the

Commission’s electronic docket system.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette Vietti-Cook,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–13609 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2000–NE–58–AD; Amendment

39–12239; AD 2001–10–13]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Britax Sell

Gmbh & Co. OHG Water Boilers,

Coffee Makers, and Beverage Makers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Britax Sell Gmbh &

Co. OHG water boilers, coffee makers,

and beverage makers. This action

requires inspecting the wiring for

indications of overheating or electrical

arcing, and if indications are found,

replacing the wiring. This amendment is

prompted by reports of discolored and

partially melted wires. The actions

specified in this amendment are

intended to prevent a fire in the galley

compartment due to inadequate

crimping of the electrical terminal

contact pins, which could result in

smoke in the cockpit and cabin and loss

of control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective June 15, 2001. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the regulations is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of June 15, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000–NE–

58–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: ‘‘9-aneadcomment@faa.gov.’’ Comments sent

via the Internet must contain the docket

number in the subject line.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Britax

Sell GmbH & Co. OHG, MPL Mr. H.D.

Poggensee, P.O. Box 1161, 35721

Herborn Germany, telephone

international code 49–2772–707–0; fax

international code 49–2772–707–141.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, New England Region, Office of

the Regional Counsel, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Fahr, Aerospace Engineer, Boston

Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12

New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299; telephone

781–238–7155; fax 781–238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is

the airworthiness authority for

Germany, recently notified the FAA that

an unsafe condition may exist on certain

Britax Sell Gmbh & Co. OHG coffee

makers, water boilers, and beverage

makers. The LBA advises that there

have been 10 reports of discolored wires

and two reports of partially melted

wires. The crimping of the presently

installed Faston Terminals part number

(P/N) 3–520133–2 with blue nylon

insulation may be insufficient for

carrying the full electrical current

flowing through that terminal. The

insufficient crimping could cause an

increased contact resistance in the

terminal. The increased contact

resistance could result in an increased

terminal temperature, discoloration of

the insulation, and a melting of the

terminal insulation.

Manufacturer’s Service Information

Britax Sell Gmbh & Co. OHG has

issued service bulletins (SB’s) E33–4–

007SB, Revision 2, dated December 4,

2000; E33–4–009SB, dated October 24,

2000; E33–4–010SB, dated October 20,

2000; E33–4–011SB, dated October 21,

2000; E33–4–012SB, dated October 24,

2000; E33–4–013SB, dated October 23,

2000; E33–4–014SB, Revision 1, dated

November 6, 2000; E33–4–015SB, dated

October 23, 2000; and E33–4–016SB,

Revision 1, dated November 6, 2000;

that specify procedures for replacing the

wires on temperature limiters installed

on certain P/N water boilers, coffee

makers, and beverage makers. The LBA

classified these service bulletins as

mandatory and issued AD 2000–379 in

order to assure the airworthiness of

these products in Germany.

Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement

These appliances are manufactured in

Germany and are used on airplanes that

are type certificated for operation in the

United States under the provisions of

§ 21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the LBA has

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the LBA,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

used on airplanes certificated for

operation in the United States.

Requirements of This AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other appliances that are

used on aircraft registered in the United

States, this AD is being issued to

prevent a fire in the galley compartment

due to inadequate crimping of the

electrical terminal contact pins, which

could result in smoke in the cockpit and

cabin and loss of control of the airplane.

This AD requires an inspection for

discoloration or melting of the wires,

and if discolored or melted, the

replacement of wires on the temperature

limiters installed on certain water

boilers, coffee makers, and beverage

makers with P/N’s that are listed in this

AD. The replacements must be done in

accordance with the service bulletins

described previously.

Immediate Adoption

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.