Proposed Rule2026-01066
Worker Safety and Health Requirements To Support Reform of Nuclear Reactor Testing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 21, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) proposes to amend its regulations for worker safety and health to expedite the review, approval, and deployment of advanced reactors under DOE's jurisdiction including qualified test reactors in DOE's reactor pilot program, consistent with a recent Executive order. The revisions would ensure that DOE's worker safety and health program continues to protect workers, while incorporating lessons learned from decades of operating experience and fostering nuclear innovation and technologies to the benefit of the United States. Additionally, the proposed rule would make minor updates to these regulations to improve clarity.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2498-2504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-01066]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2498]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 851
[DOE-HQ-2025-0243]
RIN 1901-AB74
Worker Safety and Health Requirements To Support Reform of
Nuclear Reactor Testing
AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) proposes to
amend its regulations for worker safety and health to expedite the
review, approval, and deployment of advanced reactors under DOE's
jurisdiction including qualified test reactors in DOE's reactor pilot
program, consistent with a recent Executive order. The revisions would
ensure that DOE's worker safety and health program continues to protect
workers, while incorporating lessons learned from decades of operating
experience and fostering nuclear innovation and technologies to the
benefit of the United States. Additionally, the proposed rule would
make minor updates to these regulations to improve clarity.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposal received no later than February 20, 2026. See section IV,
``Public Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket
number DOE-HQ-2025-0243.
Please follow the instructions for submitting comments in section
IV.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daryn Moorman, U.S. Department of
Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 N Freemont Avenue, Idaho Falls,
ID 83415, Telephone: (208) 526-0111, Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4fcf1f5a7aba9a9a1aab0b784ada0eaa0aba1eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c04090d5f5351515952484f7c555812585359125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background/Authority
President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14301, Reforming
Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, on May 23, 2025
(90 FR 22591). E.O. 14301 acknowledges the historical leadership of the
United States in developing civilian nuclear power, including
establishment of the National Reactor Testing Station (now known as
Idaho National Laboratory (INL)). Nonetheless, in Section 1, the E.O.
recognizes that this leadership has not been maintained, due in part to
``overregulated complacency,'' and concludes that the United States
must ``foster nuclear innovation and bring advanced nuclear
technologies into domestic production as soon as possible.''
To support this policy, section 4(b) of E.O. 14301 states that
``[w]ithin 90 days of the date of the order, the Secretary [of Energy]
shall take appropriate action to revise the regulations, guidance, and
procedures and practices of the Department, the National Laboratories,
and any other entity under the Department's jurisdiction to
significantly expedite the review, approval, and deployment of advanced
reactors under the Department's jurisdiction.'' That section of the
E.O. also directs the Secretary to ``ensure that the Department's
expedited procedures enable qualified test reactors to be safely
operational at Department-owned or Department-controlled facilities
within 2 years following the submission of a substantially complete
application.''
Section 5 of E.O. 14301 identifies related actions to establish a
reactor pilot program to support projects outside National
Laboratories. Section 5(a) directs the Secretary to create a pilot
program for reactor construction and operation outside the National
Laboratories, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act's authorization of
reactors under the Department's sufficient control, including reactors
``under contract with and for the account of'' the Department, in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2140. The Secretary is also directed to
approve at least three reactors pursuant to this pilot program with the
goal of achieving criticality in each of the three reactors by July 4,
2026.
Consistent with this direction from the Administration, DOE has
reviewed and identified changes to regulations, guidance, and
procedures and practices to expedite the deployment of advanced
reactors under DOE's jurisdiction and to support E.O. 14301's goals for
qualified test reactors and reactor pilot program projects. For the
purposes of this proposed rulemaking, DOE has identified several
proposed changes to 10 CFR part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program.
In general, the proposed changes to part 851 discussed in Section II
update the worker safety and health program for facilities and
activities under the responsibility of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy
by incorporating decades of operational experience at DOE nuclear
facilities and affording DOE contractors the flexibility to utilize
widely-accepted industry or government standards.
DOE has broad authority to regulate worker safety and health with
respect to its nuclear and nonnuclear functions pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), 42 U.S.C. 5801-5911; and the
Department of Energy Organization Act (DOEOA), 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Specifically, the AEA authorized and directed the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) to protect health and promote safety during the
performance of activities under the AEA. See Sec. 31(a)(5) of AEA, 42
U.S.C. 2051(a)(5); Sec. 161(b) of AEA, 42 U.S.C 2201(b); Sec. 161(i)(3)
of AEA, 42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3); and Sec. 161(p) of AEA, 42 U.S.C.
2201(p). The ERA abolished the AEC and replaced it with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), which became responsible for licensing and
related regulatory functions concerning commercial nuclear activities,
and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which
became responsible for all other functions of the AEC under the AEA, as
well as several nonnuclear functions. The ERA authorized ERDA to use
the regulatory authority under the AEA to carry out its nuclear and
nonnuclear function, including those functions that might become vested
in ERDA in the future. See ERA, sec. 105(a) (codified at 42 U.S.C.
5815(a)); and ERA, sec. 107 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 5817). The DOEOA
transferred the functions and authorities of ERDA to DOE. See DOEOA,
sec. 301(a) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7151(a)); DOEOA, sec. 641 (codified
at 42 U.S.C. 7251); and
[[Page 2499]]
DOEOA, sec. 644 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7254).
In December 2002, Congress directed DOE to promulgate regulations
on worker safety and health to cover contractors with Price-Anderson
indemnification agreements in their contracts. Specifically, section
3173 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003 amended the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to add section 234C
(codified as 42 U.S.C. 2282c), which requires DOE to promulgate worker
safety and health regulations that ``provide a level of protection for
workers at such facilities that is substantially equivalent to the
level of protection currently provided to such workers at such
facilities.'' See Public Law 107-314 (December 2, 2002). These
regulations are to include flexibility to tailor implementation to
reflect activities and hazards associated with a particular work
environment; to take into account special circumstances for facilities
permanently closed or demolished, or for which title is expected to be
transferred; and to achieve national security missions in an efficient
and timely manner (42 U.S.C. 2282c(a)(3)).
Section 234C also subjects a DOE contractor with such an
indemnification agreement that violates these regulations to civil
penalties similar to the authority Congress granted to DOE in 1988 with
respect to civil penalties for violations of nuclear safety regulations
(42 U.S.C. 2282c(b)). Section 234C further directs DOE to insert in
such contracts a clause providing for reducing contractor fees and
other payments if the contractor or a contractor employee violates any
regulation promulgated under section 234C, while specifying that both
sanctions may not be used for the same violation (42 U.S.C. 2282c(c)).
As directed by section 234C, DOE issued the regulations at 10 CFR
part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, to implement DOE's worker
safety and health program in 2006 (71 FR 6858 (Feb. 9, 2006). This
program establishes the framework for a worker protection program that
will reduce or prevent occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidental
losses by requiring DOE contractors to provide their employees with
safe and healthful workplaces (10 CFR 851.1(b)(1). Also, the program
establishes procedures for investigating whether a requirement has been
violated, for determining the nature and extent of such violation, and
for imposing an appropriate remedy (10 CFR 851.1(b)(2). DOE has also
provided a summary of this rule at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
II. Discussion of Proposal
DOE has reviewed part 851 to identify changes to meet the direction
provided in E.O. 14301, while ensuring the continued protection of
worker health and safety at a level substantially equivalent to what
DOE has previously provided. In general, the proposed changes to Part
851 aim to streamline the regulatory framework for DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy contractors which will, in turn, enhance worker health
and safety. These changes include the removal of several sections and
requirements, such as appendix A, specific items of Sec. 851.23, and
subpart D, among others. These changes also modify approval
requirements and enforcement actions, allowing for quicker decision-
making and reduced administrative burdens.
The benefits of these changes include increased flexibility,
streamlined processes, cost savings, enhanced agility, and improved
worker engagement. These changes align with the goals of efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, leading to better outcomes for DOE contractors and
their workers.
DOE proposes the following specific changes:
DOE proposes to revise the definitions in Sec. 851.3(a) to make
editorial corrections and to revise the definition of ``DOE site'' to
clarify that part 851 worker safety and health requirements apply to
any operations authorized by DOE, even if an activity is not located on
DOE-owned or -leased areas, when those operations are performed in
furtherance of a DOE mission. As one example, the construction and
operation of a DOE-authorized advanced nuclear reactor on private land
by a reactor developer with a contract with DOE would be subject to the
requirements under part 851. In this example, if the reactor developer
conducts other activities (e.g., for Federal agencies other than DOE,
other non-DOE contracts, etc.) besides those authorized by DOE, that
part 851 only applies to the portion of the site with the DOE-
authorized activities. The proposed revision to the definition of ``DOE
site'' would currently apply only to one site, Idaho National
Laboratory, and are envisioned to apply to future sites where reactor
developers are operating, pursuant to E.O. 14301, under contract with
and for the account of DOE through the Office of Nuclear Energy.
DOE proposes to clarify the current definition for the term
``Worker'' to note that it refers to an employee of a DOE contractor
who performs work in furtherance of a DOE mission at a covered
workplace.
DOE proposes to revise Sec. 851.24(b) to clarify that in
implementing the structured approach to a worker safety and health
program as required by Sec. 851.24(a), contractors subject to the new
Sec. 851.46 may choose to use appendix A (Worker Safety and Health
Functional Areas) as guidance, but are not required to comply with
appendix A. This is because, once the proposed revisions take effect,
appendix A will be mandatory only for those contractors that are not
operating under the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear Energy. A
conforming change is also proposed to the introduction paragraph of
appendix A to account for this revision. Any other statements in
appendix A, such as a contractor ``must'' take an action, are to be
read in context with these changes to Sec. 851.24(b) and the
introduction paragraph of appendix A. Contractors subject to the new
Sec. 851.46 may propose alternative approaches as long as the approach
addresses the worker safety and health program functional areas
required by Sec. 851.24(a).
As mentioned previously, DOE proposes to add a new Sec. 851.46
that will provide direction to contractors operating under DOE's Office
of Nuclear Energy responsibility. This section would apply to
activities related to the construction and operation of a nuclear
facility, including an advanced nuclear reactor or a nuclear fuel cycle
facility, by a DOE contractor when that facility is authorized by DOE,
regardless of the location of the facility. It also would apply to all
activities at INL undertaken by the management and operation contractor
because INL is under the responsibility of the Office of Nuclear
Energy.
As proposed, for contractors subject to Sec. 851.46, this new
section states that certain requirements, which would otherwise apply
under part 851, are not required. In particular, Sec. 851.46 would
remove overly-prescriptive, individualized approval requirements in
Sec. 851.11 concerning worker safety and health programs and updates
in favor of more streamlined and efficient control by DOE of those
programs and updates through DOE's normal oversight authorities and
processes.
Section 851.46 also would exclude the following standards: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH[supreg]),
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and
Biological Exposure Indices (2016); American National Standards
Institute (ANSI/ASSE) Z88.2, ``American National Standard Practices for
Respiratory Protection'' (2015); ANSI Z49.1, ``Safety
[[Page 2500]]
in Welding, Cutting and Allied Processes,'' sections 4.3 and E4.3
(2012); the requirement in Sec. 851.24 for a structured approach for
worker safety and health program functional areas; and materials
incorporated by reference in Sec. 851.27. DOE makes this proposal
because those standards are overly conservative, as compared to
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements
(e.g., 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926), and impose unnecessary
administrative and operational burdens to contractors. The Threshold
Limit Values (TLVs) referenced previously lead contractors to take
excessive precautions or require personal protective equipment (PPE)
when doing so would not be required for industry. For example, TLVs for
cold stress require that special protection of the hands be used if
fine work is to be performed with bare hands for more than 10 to 20
minutes in an environment below 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Special
protection includes warm air jets, radiant heaters, or contact warm
plates. However, the temperatures requiring controls noted in the TLV
are common working, almost everyday, temperatures at Idaho National
Laboratory and local workers are acclimated to working in those
conditions. Thus, the required special protections are neither feasible
nor reasonable at INL. Consistent with other revisions, the new Sec.
851.46 provides that appendix A applies to Office of Nuclear Energy
contractors only as non-binding guidance and not as mandatory
requirements. Operational experience has demonstrated that appendix A
creates confusion by, for example, requiring contractors to develop
sections of a worker safety and health program that are not applicable
to their scope of their work. Additionally, some sections include
standard or codes that have been revised or updated, which contractors
are not able to utilize because specific revision numbers are
referenced. Furthermore, any contractor-requested variances to any
requirement under part 851 may be submitted directly to, and may be
approved by, the cognizant Head of DOE Field Element or DOE employee
with authority to approve the relevant safety basis, as applicable,
rather than following the existing variance process in subpart D.
Finally, any enforcement action taken under part 851 for activities
falling within the scope of the new Sec. 851.46 must be performed
after consultation with the cognizant Head of DOE Field Element or DOE
employee with authority to approve the relevant safety basis, as
applicable. To clarify the applicability of the variance process in new
Sec. 851.46, Sec. 851.30(a) will also be revised to reflect that,
except as outlined in Sec. 851.46, the process in subpart D will
apply. In addition, Sec. 851.30 will be revised to specify that
variances ``may'' be granted, as opposed to ``shall'' be granted, by
the Under Secretary, which simply clarifies that the Under Secretary
retains the discretion to grant or deny variances in appropriate cases.
These proposed changes to part 851 present significant advantages
that can enhance operational efficiency and safety for DOE contractors.
These benefits include:
<bullet> Increased Flexibility: The revision of certain regulatory
requirements would provide contractors with the ability to customize
their safety and health programs to better align with their specific
operational contexts. This flexibility allows contractors to implement
tailored programs that can lead to the implementation of more effective
and relevant measures that enhance overall safety.
<bullet> Streamlined Processes: By removing redundant compliance
steps, the proposed changes are intended to reduce administrative
burdens on contractors. This streamlining enables a greater focus on
core operational activities, resulting in enhanced efficiency and
productivity because contractors will only need to comply with the
relevant compliance requirements. These streamlined processes also
enhance overall safety by shifting focus away from bureaucratic
compliance and towards safety-significant activities.
<bullet> Cost Savings: The reduction in compliance-related
activities would likely increase cost savings, allowing contractors to
reallocate resources previously devoted to paperwork and approvals
toward strengthening safety programs, training initiatives, and other
critical areas.
<bullet> Enhanced Agility: The diminished bureaucratic hurdles,
such as the allowance in Sec. 851.46(c)(2) for the cognizant Head of
DOE Field Element or DOE employee with authority to approve the
relevant safety basis to approve variances, would allow contractors to
respond more swiftly to changes in project scope, emerging safety
concerns, or advancements in technology. This agility could help
maintain project timelines and minimize potential delays.
<bullet> Encouragement of Best Practices: The guidance model
proposed through the new Sec. 851.46 encourages contractors to explore
and implement industry best practices that are most relevant to their
operations. For example, removing requirements to meet specific
editions of consensus standards, which may become quickly outdated,
enables contractors to continually be aware of, and incorporate,
industry best practices. This focus on continuous improvement is
intended to lead to innovative safety protocols and enhanced worker
protection.
<bullet> Promotion of Collaboration: The proposed flexible approach
in new Sec. 851.46 that removes overly-prescriptive requirements would
foster collaboration between DOE and contractors, facilitating the
sharing of knowledge and experiences and contributing to the
enhancement of safety practices across the DOE network. In particular,
this approach incentivizes Office of Nuclear Energy contractors to seek
new best practices from industry that increase efficiency while
maintaining safety; once implemented, the Office of Nuclear Energy can
share those practices with its other contractors.
<bullet> Focus on Risk Management: The shift toward non-binding
guidance rather than overly-prescriptive requirements for contractors
operating under Office of Nuclear Energy responsibility would enable
contractors to prioritize risk management tailored to their unique
operational hazards. Allowing for this risk-based approach could lead
to more effective hazard identification, assessment, and control.
<bullet> Improved Worker Engagement: By removing overly-
prescriptive requirements, the proposed changes will empower
contractors to develop safety practices, based on industry and OHSA
standards and informed by their own operational experience, rather than
relying on DOE to dictate exactly which practices to use. Because many
of those practices will be developed by the contractors' employees, the
proposed changes would also foster a sense of ownership among those
employees. Increased worker involvement in safety protocol development
could enhance engagement and accountability, which DOE believes is a
necessary component for the successful operation of these facilities.
<bullet> Alignment with Industry Standards: The proposed changes
would facilitate better alignment with evolving industry safety
standards and best practices, allowing contractors to adapt more
readily to advancements in safety technology and methodologies.
Currently, Sec. 851.27 incorporates references with specific revision
numbers, preventing contractors from utilizing the most recent standard
or code.
[[Page 2501]]
The proposed changes to 10 CFR part 851 aim to create a more
efficient, innovative, and proactive safety environment for DOE
contractors. By minimizing bureaucratic constraints, these changes
position contractors to better manage risks, protect worker safety, and
enhance overall operational performance, thereby providing long-term
benefits to the DOE and its mission.
In summary, DOE has tentatively determined that these changes to
part 851 would help the review, approval, and deployment of advanced
reactors under DOE's jurisdiction and support a reactor pilot program,
consistent with E.O. 14301.
DOE seeks comments on all aspects of this proposal to amend 10 CFR
part 851.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1)
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this
proposed rule is consistent with these principles. One alternative
approach that DOE considered but rejected was to make the proposed
changes more broadly applicable to the Department as a whole rather
than only to Office of Nuclear Energy contractors. However, given that
the catalyst for the proposed changes, E.O. 14301, set forth an
expedited timeline and affected only Office of Nuclear Energy
contractors, the Department decided to focus these proposed changes on
Office of Nuclear Energy contractors and defer changes affecting other
DOE contractors for future consideration.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action
constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this proposed regulatory action was submitted
to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOE has examined this proposed rule and has tentatively determined
that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14154 ``Unleashing American Energy,'' E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' and Presidential Memorandum,
``Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating
the Cost-of-Living Crisis.'' This proposed rulemaking is an E.O. 14192
deregulatory action because it intends to reduce the burden to society
by streamlining the regulatory framework and improving efficiency for
Office of Nuclear Energy contractors. Fewer compliance steps will allow
contractors to focus on risk management and reallocate resources,
leading to faster decision-making and reduced administrative tasks and
significant savings in both time and resources. Empowering contractors
to develop their safety practices fosters a sense of ownership among
employees. Increased worker involvement in safety protocol development
may enhance engagement and accountability. Finally, the proposed
changes facilitate better alignment with evolving industry safety
standards and best practices, allowing contractors to adapt more
readily to advancements in safety technology and methodologies. Faster
decision-making and reduced administrative tasks can lead to
significant savings in both time and resources. Potential cost savings
for Office of Nuclear Energy contractors are estimated to be 1-3% of
the contract value per year. For INL, this would be on the order of
$20-60 million per year. This estimate includes savings, based on
contractor billing data, attributable to: (1) reduced expenditures on
unnecessary exhaust ventilation equipment (portable and stationary) and
excessive personal protective equipment (e.g., protective suits and
respirators); and (2) increased worker productivity and efficiency
resulting from the removal of overly-conservative work restrictions
(e.g., cold stress restrictions discussed previously).
C. Review Under Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that
the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR
53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process.
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel's website (<a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>).
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. The regulatory requirements at issue are internal-
facing and affect DOE operations and contractors as opposed to the
general economy. The proposed rule reduces administrative overhead,
allowing small entities to allocate resources more effectively.
Moreover, it empowers small entities to implement safety measures that
are directly relevant to their specific operational contexts, enhancing
both efficiency and worker safety. Therefore, DOE initially concludes
that the impacts of the proposed rule would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that
the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit this
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule imposes no new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and OMB clearance
is not required. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
[[Page 2502]]
E. Review Under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
DOE has analyzed this proposed regulatory action in accordance with
NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures and has tentatively
determined that it is excepted from NEPA review pursuant to appendix A
of 10 CFR part 1021.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has initiated the
required review and tentatively determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
<a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf</a>.
DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement
of policy and tentatively determined that the proposed rule does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
tentatively concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment because proposed regulatory action would not
have any financial impact on families nor any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result
in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines">www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines</a>. DOE has reviewed
this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has tentatively
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA
at OMB, a
[[Page 2503]]
Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a proposed
rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This proposed regulatory action would update DOE's regulations in
10 CFR part 851 for worker safety and health to expedite the review,
approval, and deployment of advanced reactors under DOE's jurisdiction,
including under its reactor pilot program.
This action would not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
IV. Public Participation
Submission of Comments. DOE will accept all comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date
provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule.
Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 851
Federal buildings and facilities, Hazardous substances,
Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 12,
2026, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the
Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic
format for publication, as an official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2026.
Jennifer Hartzell,
Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is proposing to
amend part 851 of chapter III of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations
as set forth below:
PART 851--WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3), (p); 42 U.S.C. 2282c; 42 U.S.C.
5801 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.; 28
U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 851.3 by revising the definitions for ``Closure
facility,'' ``Cognizant Secretarial Officer,'' ``DOE site,'' and
``Worker'' to read as follows:
Sec. 851.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Closure facility means a facility that is non-operational and is,
or is expected to be, permanently closed and/or demolished, or title to
which is expected to be transferred to another entity for reuse.
* * * * *
Cognizant Secretarial Officer (CSO) means, with respect to a
particular situation, the Assistant Secretary, Deputy Administrator,
Program Office
[[Page 2504]]
Director, or equivalent DOE official who has primary line management
responsibility for a contractor, or any other official to whom the CSO
delegates in writing a particular function under this part.
* * * * *
DOE site means a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other
area or location controlled by DOE or with operations authorized by DOE
where activities and operations are performed at one or more facilities
or places by a contractor in furtherance of a DOE mission.
* * * * *
Worker means an employee of a DOE contractor who performs work in
furtherance of a DOE mission at a covered workplace.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec. 851.24 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 851.24 Functional areas.
* * * * *
(b) In implementing the structured approach required by paragraph
(a) of this section, except as stated in Sec. 851.46, contractors must
comply with the applicable standards and provisions in appendix A of
this part, entitled ``Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas.''
0
3. Amend Sec. 851.30 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 851.30 Consideration of variances.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 851.46, variances may be granted by
the Under Secretary after considering the recommendation of the EHSS
Director. The authority to grant a variance cannot be delegated.
* * * * *
0
4. Add a new Sec. 851.46 to read as follows:
Sec. 851.46 Direction to contractors operating under Office of
Nuclear Energy responsibility.
(a) This section applies only to DOE sites under DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy responsibility, including nuclear facilities authorized
by the Office of Nuclear Energy.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the following
provisions do not apply to facilities covered by paragraph (a) of this
section:
(1) Section 851.11(b) and any other requirements in Sec. 851.11(a)
and (c) of this part requiring approval by DOE of the contractor's
worker safety and health programs and updates;
(2) Section 851.23(a)(9), (10), and (12);
(3) Section 851.24;
(4) Section 851.27(b), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and
(5) Subpart D.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the following
provisions apply to facilities covered by paragraph (a) of this
section:
(1) Appendix A to this part is applicable only as guidance, not as
a requirement;
(2) Variances to any requirement of this part are to be submitted
to, and require the approval of, the cognizant Head of DOE Field
Element or DOE employee with authority to approve the relevant safety
basis, as applicable; and
(3) Any enforcement action taken under this part must be performed
after consultation with the cognizant Head of DOE Field Element or DOE
employee with authority to approve the relevant safety basis, as
applicable.
0
5. Revise the introductory paragraph of appendix A to part 851 to read
as follows:
Appendix A to Part 851--Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas
Except as stated in Sec. 851.46, this appendix establishes the
mandatory requirements for implementing the applicable functional
areas required by Sec. 851.24.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-01066 Filed 1-20-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 21, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.