This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

29243

Vol. 66, No. 104

Wednesday, May 30, 2001

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 30, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 50,

70, 72, and 76

[Docket No. PRM–30–63]

Natural Resources Defense Council;

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is denying a petition

for rulemaking submitted by the Natural

Resources Defense Council (PRM–30–

63). The petitioner requested that the

Commission’s regulations be amended

to require that no license be issued to,

or retained by, any individual or

organization whose principal owner,

officer, or senior manager: (1) Fails to

report engaging in, or having knowledge

or evidence of, bribery of, or extortion

by, Federal, State, or other regulatory

officials; or, (2) has acted in any manner

that flagrantly undermines the integrity

of the regulatory process of NRC or that

of an Agreement State. NRC is denying

the petition because the petitioner has

neither identified a statutory

requirement for promulgating the

regulation nor identified a need for such

regulation since NRC already has the

authority to take the actions requested

by the petitioner, and because the NRC

believes that imposition of these types

of actions should be considered on a

case-by-case basis.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for

rulemaking, the public comments

received, and the NRC’s letter to the

petitioner are available for public

inspection or copying in the NRC Public

Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland. These same

documents are also available on the

NRC’s rulemaking website at http://

ruleforum.llnl.gov. For information

about the interactive rulemaking

website, contact Carol Gallagher, (301)

415–5905 (e-mail: CAG@nrc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

W. Lubinski, Office of Enforcement,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington DC 20555–0001,

Telephone: (301) 415–2740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

On June 30, 2000 (65 FR 40548), NRC

published a notice of receipt of a

petition for rulemaking filed by the

Natural Resources Defense Council. The

petitioner requested that no license be

issued to, or retained by, any individual

or organization whose principal owner,

officer, or senior manager: (1) Fails to

report engaging in, or having knowledge

or evidence of, bribery of, or extortion

by, Federal, State, or other regulatory

officials; or, (2) has acted in any manner

that flagrantly undermines the integrity

of the regulatory process of NRC or that

of an Agreement State.

Public Comments on the Petition

The notice of receipt of petition for

rulemaking invited interested persons to

submit comments. NRC received two

comment letters: one from a law firm

and one from an organization of the

nuclear energy and technologies

industry. The comments focused on the

main elements of the petition. Both

commenters recommended that NRC

deny the petition. The following

comments were provided and were

reviewed and considered in NRC’s

decision:

1. Both commenters stated that NRC

already has the authority to consider

character and integrity of applicants and

licensees when making licensing

decisions. The commenters included

citations from the Atomic Energy Act

(AEA) and past statements by the

Commission to support their position.

NRC agrees that it currently has such

authority and has used such authority in

making licensing decisions or taking

enforcement actions based on the

character and integrity of an applicant

or licensee.

2. One commenter stated that the

petition does not identify a regulatory

‘‘gap’’ that needs to be filled. The

commenter goes on to state that in such

cases NRC has routinely denied

rulemaking petitions. NRC agrees that

the petitioner did not identify a

regulatory ‘‘gap,’’ and does not believe

that such a ‘‘gap’’ exists. As already

discussed, NRC has the authority to take

the actions identified by the petitioner.

3. Both commenters stated that NRC

has the essential ability and flexibility

to consider all relevant circumstances,

both positive and negative, in making

enforcement decisions. The commenters

believe that NRC should continue to

make enforcement decisions on a caseby-case basis using appropriate

discretion and judgment. One of the

commenters goes on to state that

singling out certain specific acts (which

are neither exhaustive nor

comprehensive of actions relevant for

determining character) that trigger

denial or revocation of a license without

regard to the particular circumstances

would be inconsistent with past

Commission policy. NRC agrees with

the commenters that making such a

change would narrow the Commission’s

discretion by eliminating its ability to

make character determinations on the

basis of all relevant circumstances.

4. Both commenters stated that certain

language in the petition, specifically,

‘‘flagrantly undermining the integrity of

the regulatory process of NRC or that of

an Agreement State,’’ is too vague. The

commenters believe this wording would

raise serious questions regarding

adequate notice and due process and

would not withstand judicial scrutiny.

NRC does not agree with the

commenters on this issue. Specifically,

the Commission derives its authority to

evaluate character and integrity from the

AEA. Promulgation of specific rule

language would further clarify the

criteria used in performing such

evaluations. Therefore, while NRC

believes that specific rule language on

this issue is not warranted, NRC does

not agree with the commenters that the

proposal by the petitioner should be

denied based on the fact that the

language is too vague.

5. Both commenters stated that the

proposed regulation does not take into

account NRC actions against licensees

versus individuals. Specifically, the

proposed regulation would require

denial or revocation of a license based

on the acts of one individual. Instead,

the commenters believe that NRC

should continue to consider on a caseby-case basis whether the acts of an

individual should be imputed to the

licensee. NRC agrees that the petitioner

has not provided sufficient justification

29244 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

to change the NRC’s current practice of

considering on a case-by-case basis

whether the acts of an individual should

be imputed to the licensee.

6. One commenter stated that any

attempt to apply such a regulation based

on past conduct of a licensee, such as

acts prior to promulgation of the

regulation, would violate the

prohibition against retroactive

rulemaking. NRC does not agree that

approval of the petition would represent

retroactive rulemaking. Specifically, as

already discussed, NRC already has

authority to consider character and

integrity of applicants and licensees

when making licensing decisions. As

such, evaluations of character and

integrity are not limited to acts that

occur after promulgation of a rule or

requirement that provides greater detail

with respect to the matter of character

and integrity. However, as part of using

discretion and judgement in

determining appropriate actions, NRC

may consider the age of the actions in

question.

Reasons for Denial

NRC is denying the petition for the

following reasons:

1. The petitioner has not identified a

statutory requirement for promulgating

the regulation requested in the petition.

In addition, the petitioner did not

identify a need for such regulation nor

a gap in the current regulatory process.

Specifically, NRC already has authority

under the AEA to deny or revoke a

license, or ban an individual from

licensed activities, if adequate

protection of public health and safety is

not provided. NRC currently considers

the integrity and character of

individuals in determining adequate

protection. Section 182a of the AEA

states, in part, that license applications

shall specifically state the information

that NRC determines is necessary to

evaluate the character of the applicant.

The information must enable NRC to

find that the licensed activities will

provide adequate protection of health

and safety. Further, after filing the

original application and before

expiration of a license, NRC may require

additional information in order to

determine whether the license should

be modified or revoked. In considering

the integrity and character of an

applicant or licensee, NRC would

consider engaging in bribery or

extortion or acts that undermine the

integrity of the regulatory process.

Therefore, if NRC determines that it

does not have reasonable assurance of

adequate protection of health and safety

based upon, in part, the character of an

applicant or licensee, NRC may deny or

revoke a license. Promulgation of

specific rule language is, therefore, not

necessary.

2. NRC does not agree with the

petitioner that the regulations should

specify the actions that NRC would take

against an applicant or licensee that has

engaged in bribery of, or extortion by,

any Federal, State or other regulator or

has acted in any manner that flagrantly

undermines the integrity of the

regulatory process of NRC or that of an

Agreement State. Specifically, NRC

believes that all enforcement actions,

including those involving situations

identified by the petitioner, should be

reviewed on a case-by-case basis and

dispositioned according to the merits of

the specific case using appropriate

discretion and judgment. In addition,

the current Enforcement Policy,

NUREG–1600, states that in deciding

whether to issue an enforcement action

to an unlicensed person as well as to the

licensee based on the willful acts of an

individual, NRC recognizes that

judgments will have to be made on a

case-by-case basis. The policy includes

factors that will be considered in

making such decisions. NRC does not

believe that the petitioner has provided

sufficient information nor justification

for NRC to consider changing its

practice of deciding enforcement actions

based on case-by-case consideration of

these factors.

For these reasons, NRC does not

believe that the rulemaking requested by

the Petitioner should be promulgated

and; therefore, NRC denies the petition.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of May, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William D. Travers,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 01–13493 Filed 5–29–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

RIN 3150–AG52

Decommissioning Trust Provisions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is proposing to

amend its regulations relating to

decommissioning trust provisions for

nuclear power plants. The NRC

proposes to require that

decommissioning trust agreements be in

a form acceptable to the NRC in order

to increase assurance that an adequate

amount of decommissioning funds will

be available for their intended purpose.

Until recently, direct NRC oversight of

the terms and conditions of the

decommissioning trusts was not

necessary because rate regulators

typically exercised such authority. With

deregulation, this oversight may cease

and the NRC may need to take a more

active oversight role.

DATES: Submit comments on the

proposed rule and accompanying

regulatory guide August 13, 2001.

Comments received after this date will

be considered if it is practical to do so,

but the Commission is able to ensure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to:

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. ATTN. : Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30

a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

You may also provide comments via

the NRC’s interactive rulemaking

website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

This site provides the capability to

upload comments as files (any format),

if your web browser supports that

function. For information about the

interactive rulemaking website, contact

Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415–5905 (email: CAG@nrc.gov).

Certain documents related to this

rulemaking, including comments

received, the draft regulatory analysis

and the draft Regulatory Guide, DG–

1106, ‘‘Proposed Revision 1 of

Regulatory Guide 1.159, Assuring the

Availability of Funds for

Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors,’’

may be examined, and/or copied for a

fee, at the NRC’s Public Document

Room, One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. These same documents also

may be viewed and downloaded

electronically via the interactive

rulemaking website established by NRC

for this rulemaking.

Documents created or received at the

NRC after November 1, 1999, are also

available electronically at the NRC’s

Public Electronic Reading Room on the

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the

public can gain entry into the NRC’s

Agency wide Document Access and

Management System (ADAMS), which

provides text and image files of NRC’s

public documents. For more

information, contact the NRC Public

Document Room (PDR) Reference staff