[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29453-29467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13609]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#63253b20230d11004d040c15"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12544a51527c60713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 29454]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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'' (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cc8c6cbbecce2feefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3b7b9b4c1b39d8190dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 re-affirms 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 web-
accessible 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, Sec. 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 ``graphic-oriented'' 
documentary material, an ``electronic image'' (emphasis added) must be 
provided under Sec. 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 
Sec. 2.1003(a)(2) to clarify that a bibliographic header is required 
for graphic-oriented documentary material.
    DOE originally commented that proposed Sec. 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 ``graphic-oriented'' 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 29456]]

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 table-oriented 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-png-multi.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 image-
per-page to facilitate retrieval of no more than a single page, or 
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.
    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-per-document 
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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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, 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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

[[Page 29458]]

ML003722758 or from the LSN Administrator. Contact Dan Graser, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone 
(301) 415-7401, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b0beb3e694baa6b7fab3bba2">[email protected]</a>.
    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 Sec. 2.1003(a) and Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1003(a) requirement on when documentary material 
must be made available, the Commission had proposed a revision to 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> 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;

[[Page 29460]]

    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is also deleting from the final rule the provision 
in proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As specified in Sec. 2.1003, DOE and the other participants 
remain responsible for incorporating all their ``documentary 
material'' that meets the requirements of that definition in 
Sec. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The adopted change in the compliance certification dates 
creates the possibility that there could be a significant period 
between the time the 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 pre-
certification 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29461]]

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 Sec. 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, 
Sec. 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

[[Page 29462]]

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 web-accessible 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/REC-html40/];
    (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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 2.1011(c)(3)), or the integrity of 
documentary material (Sec. 2.1011(c)(4)). The LSN Administrator will 
also report these problems and recommended resolutions to the Pre-
License Application Presiding Officer provided for in Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1003(a) requirement 
on when documentary material must be made available, the Commission did 
propose a revision to Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1009.
    In addition, the Commission is adopting the following related 
amendments to the rule:
    (1) In Sec. 2.1001 the definition of ``Pre-License 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 Sec. 2.1009.
    (4) The definition of ``Bibliographic Header'' in Sec. 2.1001 has 
been revised to delete references to a ``full header.'' In addition, 
the definition of ``Full Header'' in Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1003(a)(2)(xv) to ``paragraph (b)(1)'' 
has been revised to read ``in this paragraph''. There is no paragraph 
(b)(1) in Sec. 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 government-unique 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.

[[Page 29464]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec. 2.1001, the definition of ``Full header'' is removed and 
the definitions of ``Bibliographic header'' and ``Pre-license 
application phase'' are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 high-level radioactive waste 
at a geologic repository operations area is docketed under 
Sec. 2.101(f)(3).
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 2.1003, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and 
(a)(2), and paragraph (a)(2)(xv) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 2.1003  Availability of material.

    (a) Subject to the exclusions in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1009(b)--
* * * * *
    (2) In electronic image format, subject to the claims of privilege 
in Sec. 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

[[Page 29466]]

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 Sec. 2.1009, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 2.1003. The responsible official for the DOE shall also update 
this certification at the time DOE submits the license application.

    5. In Sec. 2.1010, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 
Sec. 2.1009(b).
* * * * *

    6. In Sec. 2.1011, paragraphs (b), (c)(3), and (c)(4) are revised 
and paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) are added to read as follows:


Sec. 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-png-multi.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 image-per-page to facilitate 
retrieval of no more than a single page, or alternatively, images may 
be stored in an image-per-document 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/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]).
    (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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2.1012, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 29467]]

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>